Jean-Michel Darremont

I'm preparing an ensemble of patches for live performance in a 

I'm wondering what is the best way to organize this in order to 

1_One patch including all the procedures in subpatches

2_Several patches sending~ audio in one centralized dac~

3_Several totally independant patches, with one dac~ in each one.

The output will be on four to six channels.

Any advice from live performers is very welcome.

"Les choses n'ont pas de signification : elles ont une existence.

I'm preparing an ensemble of patches for live performance in a  
largely improvised procedure.

I'm wondering what is the best way to organize this in order to  
optimize both cpu load and flexibility:

1_One patch including all the procedures in subpatches
2_Several patches sending~ audio in one centralized dac~
3_Several totally independant patches, with one dac~ in each one.

----------------------------------
Jean-Michel DARREMONT

"Les choses n'ont pas de signification : elles ont une existence.
[Fernando Pessoa]

live-electronics

I use patches for both composition and impro, even if i shopuld point 

it is mainly for compositions - the "impro" patches are most often 

results of "composition" ones, and my impros are usually "prepared" - 

not so much that i ever rehearse them (!!) but I build a patch 

according to what I want to play (It is very close as to choose on 

I will say the exact opposite of what Roald said there - in my 

composisions there is NO short moment of silence that would be 

harmless: in patches using different ways of muting sub patches (to 

avoid CPU overload) I usually makes those mutable sub-patches "small" 

enough so that at least 2 (usually more) of them can be played at the 

same time - this way I can mute some - sound still playing - and 

as for the original question (one or many patches/sub patches) in 

both cases (compo/impro) I belive ONE patch is way better (everything 

is in front of you) - this one can have sub patchers (and often has 

to, of course) but i try to leave at least the main controls for each 

on the main patch, at least its master volume or the most important 

control/feature. This is the opposite of most of the patches I have 

seen at Ircam - where each process has its own sub patch - but I 

>I would say the solution could be different if you're improvising or 

>playing a composition. In the latter case, you would probably find a 

>moment where a short silence would be harmless. But when improvising 

>I guess you should have some CPU margin so to allow you to choose 

>another preset even when not at a silent moment.

I use patches for both composition and impro, even if i shopuld point 
it is mainly for compositions - the "impro" patches are most often 
results of "composition" ones, and my impros are usually "prepared" - 
not so much that i ever rehearse them (!!) but I build a patch 
according to what I want to play (It is very close as to choose on 
what instrument I want/will improvise)

I will say the exact opposite of what Roald said there - in my 
composisions there is NO short moment of silence that would be 
harmless: in patches using different ways of muting sub patches (to 
avoid CPU overload) I usually makes those mutable sub-patches "small" 
enough so that at least 2 (usually more) of them can be played at the 
same time - this way I can mute some - sound still playing - and 
unmute some other.

as for the original question (one or many patches/sub patches) in 
both cases (compo/impro) I belive ONE patch is way better (everything 
is in front of you) - this one can have sub patchers (and often has 
to, of course) but i try to leave at least the main controls for each 
on the main patch, at least its master volume or the most important 
control/feature. This is the opposite of most of the patches I have 
seen at Ircam - where each process has its own sub patch - but I 
found it much easier to actually play.

>
>
>I would say the solution could be different if you're improvising or 
>playing a composition. In the latter case, you would probably find a 
>moment where a short silence would be harmless. But when improvising 
>I guess you should have some CPU margin so to allow you to choose 
>another preset even when not at a silent moment.
>

-- 
  Kasper T. Toeplitz
noise, composition, bass, computer
http://www.sleazeArt.com

>If you have dual CPUs you have to have multiple patches and run one in Max runtime to get full efficiency out of it.

is it not possible to install 2 instances of Max MSP and run them both?

Yes, on Mac OS you can do this. Windows I don't think it works, and you 

have to use runtime for one of the patches.

It's not like you are going to want to do much editing in performance 

anyway. Or at least _I_ don't really live code so much with Max...

>> If you have dual CPUs you have to have multiple patches and run one in Max runtime to get full efficiency out of it.

> is it not possible to install 2 instances of Max MSP and run them both?

barry threw :: sound | (if you would see the stars clearly,

 | look hard at the surrounding darkness)

Yes, on Mac OS you can do this.  Windows I don't think it works, and you 
have to use runtime for one of the patches.

It's not like you are going to want to do much editing in performance 
anyway.  Or at least _I_ don't really live code so much with Max...

bin ray wrote:
>> If you have dual CPUs you have to have multiple patches and run one in Max runtime to get full efficiency out of it.
>
> is it not possible to install 2 instances of Max MSP and run them both?
> --
> www.myspace.com/binray
>

-- 
barry threw :: sound      |   (if you would see the stars clearly,
http://www.barrythrew.com |   look hard at the surrounding darkness)
bthrew(at)gmail(dot)com   |                       -Ooka Makoto
857-544-3967              |


Live electronics