Is Max/MSP for me?
Hi,
I've been looking at a bunch of different music software packages, primarily for designing my own synthesizers. I've heard a lot of great things about Max/MSP, but I'm wondering if it's the _best_ solution for my particular needs.
I know Max/MSP is pretty much capable of anything, but is it the best solution for someone who isn't working with video, weird midi controllers, or academic electro-acoustic type stuff? I'm pretty mainstream as far as music goes (Rock, electronic dance stuff, etc), and I just want the ability to have incredibly complex modulations going on (things that you wouldn't necessarily be able to do with your average soft synth).
Explain what "incredibly complex modulations" mean to you.
Effects?
Max/MSP is great for a lot of things, but it's not an upgrade in complexity from other music-production software (although it can seem that way at first, or upon first view), I would think of it as definitely more flexible, though.
By incredibly complex modulations, I mean being able to have as many oscillators, LFOs, etc. being able to modulate anything with anything else. But still basically staying within the framework of subtractive synthesis. I.e., I'm not a genius or a computer programmer, I'm a musician and a pretty good synthesizer programmer. I'd love to learn about granular synthesis and FM, but that's really secondary.
I guess I just want to know if Max is TOO open-ended for someone like me if I'm not going to use Max to control a lighting system or my margarita blender or whatever(sorry, I know that's silly).
But how hard would it be to just dig in and build a simple subtractive synth and a pattern-based sequencer to drive it with? Does the open-ended nature of Max make it harder to do purely music-related tasks such as what I'm looking to do?
From what you've said so far, I imagine MaxMSP is exactly what you want. Note that it has a free 30-day fully functional demo. This means you can install it, read through some of the MSP tutorials, and look at some of the examples others have made before committing anything.
Best,
Andrew B.
I know about the 30 day demo, I actually downloaded it over a month ago! Having said that, I didn't realize they had to be consecutive days (I only ever opened it up three or four times since downloading it), and never really was able to sit down and properly try to figure it out, so I'm hoping to find out as much info as I can before buying it blind, so to speak.
I am assuming you downloaded max 5? I think they still have max4.6.6 up.
Maybe they still have a 30 day for that? for you i would suggest going
through some tutorials for making a simple synth. There is a great one out
there....it's in Articles(on cycling74.com) someplace. If you think
following those is too much then I would say go with Reactor or whatever it
is called. The thing with Max/MSP is that you are going to building EVERY
part of the synth. And making that thing be stable is gona be even more fun
:) But if you follow a good tutorial through, and love it, then I'd say max
is for you ( just so you know all you need is Max/MSP. no need to get
Jitter, since you say you have no interest in graphics)
-joel
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Steven leBeau wrote:
>
> I know about the 30 day demo, I actually downloaded it over a month ago!
> Having said that, I didn't realize they had to be consecutive days (I only
> ever opened it up three or four times since downloading it), and never
> really was able to sit down and properly try to figure it out, so I'm hoping
> to find out as much info as I can before buying it blind, so to speak.
>
>
From what you describe, I would suggest Reaktor rather than max
don't get me wrong, i like very much max, and almost never use
reaktor - but reaktor seems just about what you want..
this saidyou can do "everything" you do in reaktor, in max, so max is
not a "bad" choice.
well the best would be reaktor as a plug-in in max
which leads to another possibility - to start with max as a host for
plug-ins, adding all kind of modulations (made and controlled in/by
max) to the plug-ins parameters
best
kasper
--
Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer
http://www.sleazeArt.com
how many OSC are you wanting anyway? I mean there is a point where you don't
hear much of a difference or you hear the same thing that you would have
gotten with just 2 OSC. Aren't there a few synths out there with like 6 or 8
osc? Take the DX7, i know it's an FM synth but it illustrates my point. The
DX7 have 6 (i think) operators and it costs around 400$ to get one today.
the DX1 had 12 operators and costs you about 1500-5000$ (if you can find
one.....and you cannot) i know that is prolly due to the fact that there
arn't many in existence, but the fact that there aren't many in existence is
due to the fact that there is not enough bang for your buck. It costs too
much to make something more complex when the complexity doesn't add much in
the way of perceptual quality.
All this to say, you might be thinking you are going to get something with
an infinite number of OSC that, in reality, will either sound like noise, or
just like a repeat of what you would have gotten with the average number of
OSC. ( Anyone feel free to correct anything i've said)
All that being said, https://cycling74.com/story/2007/8/20/111019/403 is
the tutorial i was talking about.
And yes you can get a demo of max 4.6 :) so you will have somthing to do the
tutorial with.
We all hope you will chose max. It's super fun :)
-joel
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Joel Swensen wrote:
> I am assuming you downloaded max 5? I think they still have max4.6.6 up.
> Maybe they still have a 30 day for that? for you i would suggest going
> through some tutorials for making a simple synth. There is a great one out
> there....it's in Articles(on cycling74.com) someplace. If you think
> following those is too much then I would say go with Reactor or whatever it
> is called. The thing with Max/MSP is that you are going to building EVERY
> part of the synth. And making that thing be stable is gona be even more fun
> :) But if you follow a good tutorial through, and love it, then I'd say max
> is for you ( just so you know all you need is Max/MSP. no need to get
> Jitter, since you say you have no interest in graphics)
>
> -joel
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Steven leBeau wrote:
>
>>
>> I know about the 30 day demo, I actually downloaded it over a month ago!
>> Having said that, I didn't realize they had to be consecutive days (I only
>> ever opened it up three or four times since downloading it), and never
>> really was able to sit down and properly try to figure it out, so I'm hoping
>> to find out as much info as I can before buying it blind, so to speak.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>All this to say, you might be thinking you are going to get
>something with an infinite number of OSC that, in reality, will
>either sound like noise, or just like a repeat of what you would
>have gotten with the average number of OSC. ( Anyone feel free to
>correct anything i've said)
well, i have a piece based on 666 oscillators, and it sure sounds
different from noise! (done in Csound)
but I belive he wanted to have oscillators (or LFO's) to modulate
different parameters - one oscillator by parameter - and willing to
modulate/operate 10 or 20 params is not uncommon
best
kasper
--
Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer
http://www.sleazeArt.com
A lot of cool stuff can be done with racks in Live and combinators in Reason.
I very rarely ,if ever, hear electronic music where the synthesizer sounds can not be achieved with vst`s racked in Live.
cheers
Kasper that sounds interesting. Might you have an mp3 i could hear?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Kasper T Toeplitz
wrote:
>
>> All this to say, you might be thinking you are going to get something with
>> an infinite number of OSC that, in reality, will either sound like noise, or
>> just like a repeat of what you would have gotten with the average number of
>> OSC. ( Anyone feel free to correct anything i've said)
>>
>
>
> well, i have a piece based on 666 oscillators, and it sure sounds different
> from noise! (done in Csound)
>
> but I belive he wanted to have oscillators (or LFO's) to modulate different
> parameters - one oscillator by parameter - and willing to modulate/operate
> 10 or 20 params is not uncommon
>
> best
>
> kasper
> --
> Kasper T. Toeplitz
> noise, composition, bass, computer
> http://www.sleazeArt.com
>
> http://www.myspace.com/sleazeart
>
>
I was just about to suggest Csound instead of max. It's much easier
to build a synth in csound than in max if you ask me. Also it's free
so why not give it a go? 666 oscillators is a matter of copy and
paste in csound. Initially it seems more hard core but actually I
learnt csound in no time as opposed to max that took me a while to
grasp, with wires going everywhere! Sequencing in csound is also made
easy with the front-end time-line called Blue. Blue even has a
pattern editor. That said both max and csound, and probably reaktor
(unless you use the ready made patches only) will take you at least a
couple of months to learn (not to master!).
There is also Bidule out there that is like a more higher level and
approachable version of max. You can get a demo version of that that
runs for a couple of month or so. Bidule is very cheap to buy also.
Surely it's possible to get endless number of modulations going with
plugins and side chaining in a DAW (look at pluggo for instance,
which is actually made with max). If you're on windows there are lots
of unconventional free vst plugins available (you can also run
csoundVST on windows in a programme like cubase).
Best
Peiman
On 21 Dec 2008, at 12:35, Kasper T Toeplitz wrote:
>>
>> All this to say, you might be thinking you are going to get
>> something with an infinite number of OSC that, in reality, will
>> either sound like noise, or just like a repeat of what you would
>> have gotten with the average number of OSC. ( Anyone feel free to
>> correct anything i've said)
>
>
> well, i have a piece based on 666 oscillators, and it sure sounds
> different from noise! (done in Csound)
>
> but I belive he wanted to have oscillators (or LFO's) to modulate
> different parameters - one oscillator by parameter - and willing to
> modulate/operate 10 or 20 params is not uncommon
>
> best
>
> kasper
> --
> Kasper T. Toeplitz
> noise, composition, bass, computer
> http://www.sleazeArt.com
>
> http://www.myspace.com/sleazeart
>
Wow, thank you for everyone who's posted your comments thus far.
Thanks for the suggestion about downloading Max 4, that'll probably give me a good taste.
As Kasper said, it's not just the ability to have 100 detuned saw waveforms going at once or anything like that. It's more to be able to do weird/unconventional routings.
Since my E-mu died and the K2600 got sold, I currently do use Reason and Thor, as well as Tassman. They're both pretty cool, allow the mixing of audio and control signals, etc, but with both of those programs you're definitely locked into the "Virtual Analog" realm. Sometimes you don't want your oscillators to drift, and in fact sometimes you want them to be phase locked (at least I do when I do stuff with Amplitude Modulation).
Also, there's one pet project I think Max might work for: Creating an emulation of a string synth that emulates divide-down oscillators, which is the one area where all the string synth emulations fail. It's why playing octaves on one of those old string synths sound so distinct. I know how to simulate divide-down oscillators (put a square wave osc through a flip-flop to lower the octave; repeat as necessary), but there are some limitations that prevent this to be implemented properly in Tassman (which allows monophonic or polyphonic operation, but not the sort of in-between-ness required for this kind of a thing).
As far as Csound is concerned: I first tried to learn it in 1997 (as a high school student), then again every couple of years. Never really got into it for some reason. I guess I need more of a visual environment.
Regarding your demo, please send an email to support at cycling74 dot com, and someone can probably help you out with a little extra time to make your decision.
Best,
Andrew B.
While I truly love MAX/MSP, In your case, I would also suggest Reaktor as that it comes with a huge number of pre-made modules which can easily be strung together to create what you're describing. Max/MSP requires more work to get to that destination, but can be almost completely customized.
For example, one reason I switched over from Reaktor was to be able to completely control how my synths store information, something for which Reaktor has but a single option within which you will be constricted. This doesn't actually pose a problem for %99.99999 of Reaktor users but was quite a big deal to me.
Good luck in your pursuits!
Alex Aliferis skrev:
> While I truly love MAX/MSP, In your case, I would also suggest Reaktor as that it comes with a huge number of pre-made modules which can easily be strung together to create what you're describing. Max/MSP requires more work to get to that destination, but can be almost completely customized.
>
I'd like to offer a different opinion there:
I started in Reaktor, largely due to the prevaling hypothesis that
"MaxMSP is difficult" - became massively frustrated with Reaktor, only
to find out that doing synthesis... anything! in MaxMSP was actually a
lot easier for me.
Even the whole patching experience was better, although Reaktor had all
those smooth ed-out corners ;)
Just the sheer frustration of not being able to send out midi, to
struggle with OSC in there (a maximum of 8 members to an incoming OSC
message, if you can believe that) and on and on and on. MaxMSP certainly
helped me get out of that rut.
Andreas.
Since you are focused on synthesis it may be easier to use software designed specifically for synthesis. Some people have already suggested Reaktor, if you are on Windows I have heard really good things about SynthMaker but it can only build plug-ins that run on Windows...
Depending on how "off the path" your ideas are for doing crazy modulations or whatever, you may run into some roadblocks using those other programs because they are so focused on a particular set of synthesis features, whereas Max is an open ended programming language so there are ultimately fewer obstacles although more work may be involved building things from scratch.
Anyway, only you can decide which is right for you. I think most of these programs have a trial version. Just keep in mind they all have a fairly serious learning curve so spend some quality time with them before deciding.
No program is great at everything, but in my experience Max comes really close. There are only a few things which have stumped me (actually gotten to the point where I know it's possible, but the complexity or time required was more than the end product would be worth). What you're talking about is very straightforward IMO. Just start thinking about sound and audio in a numbers-based way, dust off the math/logic neurons (if they're dusty :) and give it a go.
For example, building a simple mono synth with ring mod and FM, and controllable freq/amp/waveform for each takes all of about 2 minutes once you know what you're doing, and then it's all about copy/paste or encapsulation/copy/paste. Creating something you can use for file playback and mangling takes a bit more time, but the waveform~ object is on par with most other DAW waveform interfaces (again, IMO). What you do with that signal is completely up to you. The beauty of Max is then very apparent---there are innumerable ways you can control your parameters... line, mtr, preset, pattr, seq~, ctlin, etc. Definitely look into each of these. For grid-based sequencing look into the matrixctrl object, and though it takes a bit of time to get it going, you won't be disappointed---especially as you can totally customize it (as with most things in Max) for functionality and appearance, save settings, randomize it, even make a pseudo-Undo using presets, etc.
If Cycling can extend the demo, as mentioned, go for it! Also try out the 4.6.6 demo (though I like 5 much better for a lot of reasons, 4 is very functional too). You could also go the Pluggo route and create your weirdness patches in Max, then use them as plug-ins in your favorite DAW (assuming it's compatible). This gives you all the built-in functionality of the DAW with the little wacky part you made in Max.
To be fair, I don't know Csound or Reaktor at all, so I don't have a balanced view in that regard. But Max has been totally addictive and fascinating once I kind of "got it" about a month into messing with it. And it can do a heck of a lot more than music and MIDI---I'm currently working on math and physics education simulations for middle- and high-school students, and the only programming environment I can imagine doing this in is Max... all those ready-made functions and UI elements give you so much creative space.
--CJ
you know you sound like you already know a bit about synthesis. You might
actually like Max. If money is a big concern there is always Pure Data ( not
nearly as much support but looks and works about the sam as max). One thing
to keep in mind is that while some objects in PD share names in Max, many
don't and there will be a small cross over learning curve when you finally
want that sweet sweet max gui and all it's tasty wave forms :)
For me Max really is worth the money.
-joel
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Seejay James wrote:
>
> No program is great at everything, but in my experience Max comes really
> close. There are only a few things which have stumped me (actually gotten to
> the point where I know it's possible, but the complexity or time required
> was more than the end product would be worth). What you're talking about is
> very straightforward IMO. Just start thinking about sound and audio in a
> numbers-based way, dust off the math/logic neurons (if they're dusty :) and
> give it a go.
>
> For example, building a simple mono synth with ring mod and FM, and
> controllable freq/amp/waveform for each takes all of about 2 minutes once
> you know what you're doing, and then it's all about copy/paste or
> encapsulation/copy/paste. Creating something you can use for file playback
> and mangling takes a bit more time, but the waveform~ object is on par with
> most other DAW waveform interfaces (again, IMO). What you do with that
> signal is completely up to you. The beauty of Max is then very
> apparent---there are innumerable ways you can control your parameters...
> line, mtr, preset, pattr, seq~, ctlin, etc. Definitely look into each of
> these. For grid-based sequencing look into the matrixctrl object, and though
> it takes a bit of time to get it going, you won't be
> disappointed---especially as you can totally customize it (as with most
> things in Max) for functionality and appearance, save settings, randomize
> it, even make a pseudo-Undo using presets, etc.
>
> If Cycling can extend the demo, as mentioned, go for it! Also try out the
> 4.6.6 demo (though I like 5 much better for a lot of reasons, 4 is very
> functional too). You could also go the Pluggo route and create your
> weirdness patches in Max, then use them as plug-ins in your favorite DAW
> (assuming it's compatible). This gives you all the built-in functionality of
> the DAW with the little wacky part you made in Max.
>
> To be fair, I don't know Csound or Reaktor at all, so I don't have a
> balanced view in that regard. But Max has been totally addictive and
> fascinating once I kind of "got it" about a month into messing with it. And
> it can do a heck of a lot more than music and MIDI---I'm currently working
> on math and physics education simulations for middle- and high-school
> students, and the only programming environment I can imagine doing this in
> is Max... all those ready-made functions and UI elements give you so much
> creative space.
>
> --CJ
> --
> Interactive Media :: Concepts | Creation | Learning
> http://www.third-space-mind.com/
>
yeah see if they will extend your max 5 demo given your circumstances, they seem a very understanding company
Quote: the_man361 wrote on Mon, 22 December 2008 11:35
----------------------------------------------------
> yeah see if they will extend your max 5 demo given your circumstances, they seem a very understanding company
----------------------------------------------------
I second that, they have been incredibly helpful to me, responding quickly with all the info I needed.
They've given me an auth code to try Max 5 a little longer. I'm just waiting for the response to the challenge code e-mail.
Thanks to everyone who chimed in. If I end up going the Max/MSP route I know there's an excellent user community to interact with!
-Steven
Steven I think that might be the best part of Max. The geniuses on this
forum (myself not included :P) that are soo soo willing to help.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Steven LeBeau wrote:
>
> They've given me an auth code to try Max 5 a little longer. I'm just
> waiting for the response to the challenge code e-mail.
>
> Thanks to everyone who chimed in. If I end up going the Max/MSP route I
> know there's an excellent user community to interact with!
>
> -Steven
>
What prestonandbully said: This forum is incredible.
And the responses are so fast, and sometimes you end up with seveal very clever alternatives.
I see the point with Thor/VA limits, but to do interesting stuff in Reason, the trick is to use audio made with stuff like cube, processed with soundhack etc.
cheers
Quote: Steven LeBeau wrote on Mon, 22 December 2008 15:51
> Thanks to everyone who chimed in. If I end up going the Max/MSP route I know there's an excellent user community to interact with!
>
> -Steven
----------------------------------------------------
Agreed!
Having started to learn Max/MSP I have to agree with those above that Rekator would be better for your particular needs. I am also interested in intermodulation and have built a number of synths with huge intermodulation matrices (most notably Marx and Lenin) which support something like 40 sources, >100 destinations, with >30 simulatanous intermodulations. If you want to see more, there is a screenshot and description on my website
Lenin is deeper and has a prettier interface, but Marx is easier to play. I am in the process of redesigning these instruments in compiled binaries, but it will take quite a while to complete.
Hi,
I need someone to modify some USB vendor IDs in a driver and create a new installer. Bay Area location a plus.
Please contact me offline:
keith@beamfoundation.org
Thanks
Keith McMillen
BEAM Foundation
http://www.beamfoundation.org/
510.502.5310
On 23 Dec 2008, at 19:24, Ernest wrote:
> Lenin is deeper and has a prettier interface, but Marx is easier to
> play.
I tried using Stalin, but it just deleted all my files.
-- N.
Nick Rothwell / Cassiel.com Limited
www.cassiel.com
www.myspace.com/cassieldotcom
www.last.fm/music/cassiel
www.reverbnation.com/cassiel
www.linkedin.com/in/cassiel
www.loadbang.net
Very witty, Mr Rothwell :-)
I corrected the link on the forum thread, but the email contains an incorrect url. The correct link is indeed
Currently it has Reaktor ensembles only.