loadbang #1


    Sep 17 2006 | 1:44 pm
    hi
    when in an abstraction i want to use a value as argument, i use a message box [#1], and to have this value output (when opening the patch) I use a loadbang.
    but if i change the argument once the patch is opened (and in edit mode) how to have the sub-patch in abstraction "see" the new value?? (other than banging from the top level)
    thanks
    kasper
    #P outlet 390 123 15 0; #P window setfont "Sans Serif" 9.; #P window linecount 1; #P message 390 100 21 196617 $1; #P newex 390 74 48 196617 loadbang; #P connect 1 0 2 0; #P connect 0 0 1 0; #P window clipboard copycount 3; -- Kasper T. Toeplitz noise, composition, bass, computer http://www.sleazeArt.com

    • Sep 17 2006 | 5:40 pm
      hopefully i got you right.
      typing a new argument into an objectbox reloads the abstraction and therefore reloadbangs the [# i] inside.
      hm?
      -110
    • Sep 17 2006 | 5:59 pm
      >hopefully i got you right. > >typing a new argument into an objectbox reloads the abstraction >and therefore reloadbangs the [# i] inside.
      yes, actually... which means i have another problem.....
      if i save the enclosed patch as an abstraction ( I called it loadtest but could be anything) when i load it, or when i change the argument, the "print" inside of it reports the change..... meaning you are right.
      but a "print" at the outlet of the abstraction does not "see" anything....
      I am really puzzled there.....
      thanks
      kasper -- Kasper T. Toeplitz noise, composition, bass, computer http://www.sleazeArt.com
    • Sep 17 2006 | 6:01 pm
      > > >>hopefully i got you right. >> >>typing a new argument into an objectbox reloads the abstraction >>and therefore reloadbangs the [# i] inside. > > >yes, actually... which means i have another problem..... > >if i save the enclosed patch as an abstraction ( I called it >loadtest but could be anything) when i load it, or when i change the >argument, the "print" inside of it reports the change..... meaning >you are right. > >but a "print" at the outlet of the abstraction does not "see" anything.... > >I am really puzzled there..... > >thanks > >kasper
      humm, if i forget to paste the patch i guess i will stay puzzled even longer..
      here it is
    • Sep 18 2006 | 12:13 am
      deferlow is the answer....
      --=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=------=--=----
    • Sep 18 2006 | 12:16 am
      for me, i've noticed hundreds of times that deferlow was the answer to these sorts of problems where the situation seems like it would logically work yet for no reason other than being stubborn they don't. Now, why that's the case I may never know, but I've just come to accept it as some sort of Max essential wisdom.
      Jihadly yours,
      Dr_Sbaitso
    • Sep 18 2006 | 2:45 am
      > the "print" inside of it reports the change..... meaning you are > right. > > but a "print" at the outlet of the abstraction does not "see" anything.... > > I am really puzzled there.....
      this seems to be reproducable on the magic 110 computer.
      a [pipe 0] helps - or a delay 0 behind the loadbang.
      i am used to do this from bpatchers (in conjuntion with plug-in initialisation) but i am surprised i never noticed it with abstractions before.
      now lets find an explanation for this ... hm.
      ah yes, maybe ... i think the outer print _does_not_ know_that_it_is_connected_ to the abstraction, when you click in the main patch to release the object box of the subpatch, the loadbang comes first, then the outlets are connected to the upper level.
      -110
    • Sep 18 2006 | 2:47 am
      those who do not search for wisdom have little hope to find some.
      konfuzius 110
    • Sep 18 2006 | 3:32 am
      knofunctuous?
    • Sep 18 2006 | 11:30 am
      Roman Thilenius wrote: > a [pipe 0] helps - or a delay 0 behind the loadbang.
      a deferlow instead of pipe will save you some grey hairs. As far as I know the pipe problems haven't been resolved yet, and it would work with any kind of message, not only numbers and for sure is a million times more CPU saving...
      > now lets find an explanation for this ... hm. > > ah yes, maybe ... i think the outer print _does_not_ > know_that_it_is_connected_ to the abstraction, when you > click in the main patch to release the object box > of the subpatch, the loadbang comes first, then the > outlets are connected to the upper level.
      There was a thread about the order of execution of loadbangs, and as far as I remember its an isuue on the to-do lists of cycling...
      It also explains why deferlow works...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Sep 18 2006 | 11:31 am
      James Aldridge wrote: > knofunctuous?
      No, Konfusionzius...
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Sep 18 2006 | 5:25 pm
      > James Aldridge wrote: > > knofunctuous? > > No, Konfusionzius... > > Stefan
      stefan, what has this french food done to you!
      when we type a new argument into a messagebox we do not need to watch out for "CPU saving" unless it is a french patch.
      i am sorry about all those problems on OS X but on my OS 9 machine the [delay] object does _not have any problems. :)
    • Sep 18 2006 | 10:28 pm
      I'd like to take this opportunity to mention the [loadmess] object for those that don't know it. (writing [loadmess #1] would save the use of one message box!!!)
      Pete
      On 9/18/06, Roman Thilenius wrote: > > > > > James Aldridge wrote: > > > knofunctuous? > > > > No, Konfusionzius... > > > > Stefan > > > > stefan, what has this french food done to you! > > when we type a new argument into a messagebox > we do not need to watch out for "CPU saving" > unless it is a french patch. > > i am sorry about all those problems on OS X but > on my OS 9 machine the [delay] object does _not > have any problems. :) > > > > > > -- > "Volume is Always Green, Pan is Always the Same Knob." >
    • Sep 19 2006 | 6:44 am
      Quote: peterreidlists wrote on Mon, 18 September 2006 15:28 ---------------------------------------------------- > I'd like to take this opportunity to mention the [loadmess] object
      It's a doozie!! ;)
    • Sep 19 2006 | 7:46 am
      loadmess is cute, but don't forget that it was first introduced in 4.5.5 or so.
      If you share patches with people who are still using pre-OS X hardware, loadmess is going to be one of those things that you will want to avoid or write an abstraction to emulate.
      On 19-Sep-2006, at 0:28, Peter Reid wrote:
      > I'd like to take this opportunity to mention the [loadmess] object > for those that don't know it. (writing [loadmess #1] would save > the use of one message box!!!)
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ------------- Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter Universal Binaries on the way iCE: Sequencing, Recording & Interface Building for |home | chez nous| Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri| http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de
    • Sep 19 2006 | 8:22 am
      Er, bleah. If one refrains from using all post-Max 4.1 features, out of concern for those still using OS9 versions of Max, that rules out an amazing mess of stuff. But hey, if you want to reproduce pattrstorage using Max 4.0 objects, go crazy.
      I'm sympathetic to those using old versions of the software, and if I were doing a particular project for such a person, I would certainly keep those limitations in mind (I'm sure Peter has an annotated list of new features and objects to be avoided for each point release since Max 3.5, updated quarterly). But to generally recommend that people avoid all new, dare I say >>useful<< features that have arisen in the past 5 years of Max development when doing general day-to-day patching is, IMHO, silly.
      Of course, Peter knew I would take the bait and has a wry reply waiting...
      jb
      Am 19.09.2006 um 09:46 schrieb Peter Castine:
      > loadmess is cute, but don't forget that it was first introduced in > 4.5.5 or so. > > If you share patches with people who are still using pre-OS X > hardware, loadmess is going to be one of those things that you will > want to avoid or write an abstraction to emulate.
    • Sep 19 2006 | 8:37 am
      Hear ye, hear ye! If need be, the Os9erZ can create a loadmess abstraction with ease!
      Peter is quite the wryly wryer I must say. If I wake up on the right side of the bed, some of his replies can be pretty funny so long as I haven't had my coffee yet!
      James
    • Sep 19 2006 | 8:41 am
      Why on earth would anyone these days want to keep running Max under OS9? I had to step down for an installation 2 years ago (because we needed to daisy chain several sound cards, something that was impossible at the time in OSX) and it was not a pleasant encounter: System freezes, USB problems, MIDI dying, crashes requiring reboots. It is the only installation I have done in the last three years that have behaved badly in terms of stability, and we needed someone to attend the installation continuously. The concept of the installation were dealing with system failures, crashes, glitches, etc., so it was sort of fitting, but still...
      The OSX system is so much more stable than OS9, and Max has also improved a lot over the last three years, not only in terms of new features added, but also stability. So unless one can't afford a newer computer (which is fair) I have problems understanding why anyone would want to stick with OS9. And I will be very surprised if anyone manage to convince me otherwise.
      Best, Trond
      Jeremy Bernstein wrote: > Er, bleah. If one refrains from using all post-Max 4.1 features, out > of concern for those still using OS9 versions of Max, that rules out > an amazing mess of stuff. But hey, if you want to reproduce > pattrstorage using Max 4.0 objects, go crazy. > > I'm sympathetic to those using old versions of the software, and if I > were doing a particular project for such a person, I would certainly > keep those limitations in mind (I'm sure Peter has an annotated list > of new features and objects to be avoided for each point release since > Max 3.5, updated quarterly). But to generally recommend that people > avoid all new, dare I say >>useful<< features that have arisen in the > past 5 years of Max development when doing general day-to-day patching > is, IMHO, silly. > > Of course, Peter knew I would take the bait and has a wry reply > waiting... > > jb > > Am 19.09.2006 um 09:46 schrieb Peter Castine: > >> loadmess is cute, but don't forget that it was first introduced in >> 4.5.5 or so. >> >> If you share patches with people who are still using pre-OS X >> hardware, loadmess is going to be one of those things that you will >> want to avoid or write an abstraction to emulate. > >
    • Sep 19 2006 | 9:04 am
      Hey,
      and for the record, loadmess have been introduced in 4.5 :-)
      Cheers, ej
    • Sep 19 2006 | 9:21 am
      On 19 sept. 06, at 10:41, Trond Lossius wrote:
      > Why on earth would anyone these days want to keep running Max under > OS9?
      I use on stage an old powerbook 145b to display informations for musicians (connected thru MIDI to another computer). It's an easy, _totally_ silent, stable, and cheap solution. And the Os is even system7. I build standalones for this laptop with my good old Max3 running on an old Mac clone under OS8.6.
      And as we don't have much money, we still use our old Mac8500s, under OS8.6. If we need small machines for installations running during monthes, they are just perfect.
      My copy of CW runs under OS8.6 and I was still using it to do externals for Max4.5 (with Max4.6, I have to use XCode!) not so long ago. I had no reason to pay for an upgrade.
      There are also people around me who didn't want to spend more money for Max and stopped buying updates (some of them use Max only a few hours a moonth, for small projects). If I have to do patches for them, then I have to avoid new objects, event if they are very handy.
      But when I work under OS Max4.5, then of course I'm very happy to use the newest objects.
      To answer your question, people still use Max under OS9 because of money! And I still drive a small old car for the very same reason.
      p
    • Sep 19 2006 | 1:45 pm
      Thanks for the info everyone.
      ...(I'm sure Peter has an annotated list > of new features and objects to be avoided for each point release > since Max 3.5, updated quarterly) ...
      ...
      > jb > > Seriously- is there a list like this anywhere?!
      Also, is it possible to get old versions of Max still? I have a few old boxes I'd love to resurrect.
      sorry to go so OT
      Pete
    • Sep 19 2006 | 3:16 pm
      On 19-Sep-2006, at 10:22, Jeremy Bernstein wrote: > I'm sure Peter has an annotated list of new features and objects to > be avoided for each point release since Max 3.5, updated quarterly).
      For better or worse I rely on my memory.
      You're all gonna miss me when I'm dead and gone.-
      > But to generally recommend that people avoid all new, dare I say > >>useful<< features that have arisen in the past 5 years of Max > development when doing general day-to-day patching is, IMHO, silly.
      Nothing wry or witty today, sorry.
      Nor would I recommend that people avoid useful features. Rather, I feel it's worth *balancing* utility and backwards compatibility. And on this front, while loadmess is nice, I wouldn't rate it super-high in utility level. Compared to loadbang -> messagebox it saves a grand total one object and one patch cord. That's not the same utility gain as, say pfft~ (remember patching fourfold overlapping Hanning windows with fft~/ifft~ ?).
      How high backwards compatibility weighs in the equation is something people have to answer for themselves. For people who only ever write patches for themselves and one Max installation, it's not an issue. The more your work is distributed over different machines and different clients, the more it is an issue.
      On 19-Sep-2006, at 10:37, James Aldridge wrote: > Hear ye, hear ye! If need be, the Os9erZ can create a loadmess > abstraction with ease!
      With ease, eh? Including anything from 1 to 255 arguments?
      We're waiting. (But, no, I'm not holding my breath.)
      On 19-Sep-2006, at 10:41, Trond Lossius wrote: > Why on earth would anyone these days want to keep running Max under > OS9?
      Wrong modal verb, Trond. I daresay (almost) everybody here *wants* to have a few 17" 2.16GHz MacBook Pros to work with.
      Are you offering to buy one, plus the next Max/MSP upgrade, plus OS 10.5 (whenever it comes) for everyone on the list?
      There are innumerable reasons why people *need* to run older hardware and software. Money is merely the most obvious reason, but it's hardly the only one. And in many cases the people programming Max are not the people who make the decisions about what hardware their patches will be run on, as I'm sure you're aware.
      > OSX system is so much more stable
      Red flag time.
      In general, yes, OS X is more stable. But I've had System 8.6 (not to mention System 6.0.7) machines that *in a specific configuration* were every bit as stable for particular tasks. Our backup server hasn't seen a crash for years (a claim I cannot make about any OS X machine here) and it's running System 8.6. Alas, AppleShare on OS 10.4 won't play nice with older AShare implementations, so I need to find a new backup solution.-(
      At least my Lombard never spontaneously combusted. Have you seen the videos of those burning SONY batteries?
      -------------- http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ------------- Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter Universal Binaries on the way iCE: Sequencing, Recording & Interface Building for |home | chez nous| Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri| http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de
    • Sep 19 2006 | 7:05 pm
      Roman Thilenius wrote: > stefan, what has this french food done to you!
      French food? I have to cook myself, french food is either only available for the upper 100 class or overpriced and bad (at least here in Paris). Fortunately I like to cook, its like making music...
      > i am sorry about all those problems on OS X but > on my OS 9 machine the [delay] object does _not > have any problems. :)
      I was reffering to pipe, not delay.
      If even Joshua acknowledges a problem... ( http://tinyurl.com/s8ezj )
      The advantage of deferlow over delay: it accepts any message. The advantage of deferlow over pipe: it does not need the overhead to remember possibly 1000 events (only numbers, no messages) and you only want to delay a single event... If you need several scheduler ticks to get something working (if you set pipe or delay to a value bigger than 0). Then its better to rethink the logic of the patch. Though I must admit some objects still miss a bang when loaded. vst~ for example (some plugs are really big...), that could force you to delay (but never to pipe)...
      pipe is fine for the original purpose, but bad for repairing things...
      And for really stable music making machines I can recommend an Atari with CLab software. (not to forget M and Jam which ran on those machines as well... ;-)
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Sep 19 2006 | 9:38 pm
      Patrick Delges wrote: > To answer your question, people still use Max under OS9 because of > money! And I still drive a small old car for the very same reason.
      In general I am very much into using gear as long as possible, and as long the old machine runs...
      But I would hesitate to get into old gear again. And I just use the newest stuff for whatever I pull out now...
      For paid efforts, its always cheaper to by a new machine than to adapt existing goodies to an old machine...
      And if update prices are a concern, then its better to switch to Pd. Linux will run well on pretty old x86 hardware too, but you can always run the newest Pd on it.
      Stefan
      -- Stefan Tiedje------------x------- --_____-----------|-------------- --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()------- -- _|_)----|-----()-------------- ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
    • Sep 20 2006 | 1:01 pm
      > I was reffering to pipe, not delay. > > If even Joshua acknowledges a problem... (
      right, [pipe] needs like a giaghertz or so and that probably makes it unusable for initialisation of live performance patches. ;)
      > The advantage of deferlow over delay: it accepts any message.
      the avantage of [delay] is that it is available for OS 9.
      > remember possibly 1000 events (only numbers, no messages) and
      normally there is only one loadbang in an abstraction, but i can see how speed would matter with 1000. (it is always good to learn new things about [pipe] but at the moment my main idea of this thread is [argueing with stefan~] )
      > Though I must admit some objects still miss a bang when loaded. vst~ for > example (some plugs are really big...)
      thats only a matter of order. unfortunately "plug-in has been finished loading" isnt part of the VST specs ... we could need that well for [vst~].
      >> pipe is fine for the original purpose, but bad for repairing things...
      i am good in braking things.
      -110
    • Sep 20 2006 | 1:17 pm
    • Sep 20 2006 | 1:24 pm
      Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Tue, 19 September 2006 13:05 ---------------------------------------------------- > Fortunately I like to cook, its like making music... > ----------------------------------------------------
      yes, very much so, but i like to keep the avant garde out a bit.
      btw cycling74 was very helpful when were getting 20 SE30's to make music together on system 7 this year. i patched on my osx pb and many patches worked without any modifications. i was barely born when those computers were in use, so that's quite a good legacy policy imo.
    • Sep 20 2006 | 4:06 pm
      i dare you to get max running on this:
    • Sep 20 2006 | 4:51 pm
      On 20-sept.-06, at 18:06, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:
      > i dare you to get max running on this: > > http://www.myoldmac.net/webse-e-flash.htm
      Mhhh. Where can I insert opcode Max' authorisation floppy disk?
      p
    • Sep 21 2006 | 10:17 am
      How about..... it doesn't matter if you upgrade or not, at least not until I break down the front door of your home, kick you over, stick a gun to your head, and force you to NOT upgrade. Hah.
      Seriously....
      Ok.
      From now on don't take the bait on discussions like these! It's so pointless. INSTEAD, pat yourself on the back, for, you're a big, fat, greasy intellectual. Now exuse me while I resume the consumption of my burger and tasty, refreshing beverage.
    • Sep 21 2006 | 7:18 pm
      > and nobody wants you to upgrade actually. We need at least one expert > for old Max versions, they are getting rare. You only stay as an expert > if you keep using it. I almost forgot all difficulties and their > solutions I had with Max 3.6. Aaahhh those times...
      wait a few more years and i will be last person using OS 9 for audio. i will be really hip then, like mister tims atari world is hip today.
      > As soon cycling decides to release unprotected old Max versions, you are > the man...
      hah i am not sure if it is getting cooler when it is free. (is SC 2.2.16 cool? if yes than maybe i should start using it again. well, now when i think about it, sonicworx production bundle is definetly cooler than peak 5. of course when i need melodyne as VST or the waves pitcher i have to boot into X ... ahhh. i need everything. i wish i still had the atari here it had the best waldorf microwave editor of all times.)
      > being happy is a matter of listening to Bobby McFerrin. As far as I know > he doesn't use Max...
      who the puck is bobby mcferrin?
      offtopicly yours
      -110
    • Sep 21 2006 | 8:20 pm
      Quote: Roman Thilenius wrote on Thu, 21 September 2006 15:18 ---------------------------------------------------- > who the puck is bobby mcferrin? ----------------------------------------------------
      "dont worry... be happy"
    • Sep 22 2006 | 6:53 am
      On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:18:37 -0600, Roman Thilenius wrote:
      >ahhh. i need everything. i wish i still had the atari here >it had the best waldorf microwave editor of all times.)
      you need Steem http://steem.atari.st/
      hth Simon
    • Sep 22 2006 | 9:16 am
      Quote: Simon Kunath wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 00:53 ---------------------------------------------------- > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:18:37 -0600, Roman Thilenius > wrote: > > >ahhh. i need everything. i wish i still had the atari here > >it had the best waldorf microwave editor of all times.) > > you need Steem > http://steem.atari.st/ > > hth > Simon > > ---------------------------------------------------- stay in maxland http://interactive.usc.edu/members/will/archives/006084.php
    • Sep 22 2006 | 10:01 am
      wooow, junior this link kicks ass. I'll try that right away. by the way, hoe gaat het met jouw?
      //yac
    • Sep 22 2006 | 10:11 am
      Quote: yacine@collectifs.net wrote on Fri, 22 September 2006 04:01 ---------------------------------------------------- > > stay in maxland > > http://interactive.usc.edu/members/will/archives/006084.php > > wooow, junior this link kicks ass. > I'll try that right away. > by the way, hoe gaat het met jouw? > > //yac > ----------------------------------------------------
      goedgoed,druk bezig met allerlei dingen, zoals okno en mijn artbot mai. et toi?
    • Sep 22 2006 | 7:26 pm
      > >ahhh. i need everything. i wish i still had the atari here > >it had the best waldorf microwave editor of all times.) > > you need Steem > http://steem.atari.st/
      if you have an MAC OS classic (or OSX) atari emulator for me which supports midi through steinbgerg interfaces via OMS and allows me to run the geerdes floppy copy protection in addition let me know ;)
    • Sep 22 2006 | 8:11 pm
      Have you checked out NoSTalgia ( http://users.skynet.be/sky39147/ ) I've not fired it up for a few years, but I still have a copy of NoSTalgia v. 0.62, which was doing a sterling job of editing my Evolution EVS1 via MIDI/OMS last time I checked. It's the only reason I still have a Classic partition (OK, there's Alchemy and SonicWorx too...) Development seems to have stopped a couple of years ago, and the later versions only supported midi out, which is a bit of a retrograde step, but I'm pretty sure version 0.62 does midi in and out. And there's Dust, which makes Mac-readable disc images of Atari disks... Cheers Roger
      On 22/9/06 20:26, "Roman Thilenius" wrote:
      > >>> ahhh. i need everything. i wish i still had the atari here >>> it had the best waldorf microwave editor of all times.) >> >> you need Steem >> http://steem.atari.st/ > > > if you have an MAC OS classic (or OSX) atari emulator > for me which supports midi through steinbgerg interfaces > via OMS and allows me to run the geerdes floppy copy > protection in addition let me know ;) > > -- > "Volume is Always Green, Pan is Always the Same Knob."
    • Sep 24 2006 | 8:35 am
      Hi, by the way, little OT:
      Is somebody interested in buying an (old) version of Max 3.0 (Never used, box as new, 3 Installation disks) ? Write me privately.
      reinhold
      > Also, > is it possible to get old versions of Max still? I have a few old > boxes I'd love to resurrect. > > sorry to go so OT > > Pete