max 5 new feature videos

I don't agree.
Pre-built very good quality effects such as reverbs, Eqs, compressors,
delays, and ordinary things like that could be a good way to learn faster
Max Msp.
Access to Max would be possible even to people who don't know anything
about dsp programming.
Moreover, as someone else has already said, Max Msp filters objects are not
very good, and some externals made by other people are better than those
included with max.
Many people don't use Max because they don't know nothing about all these
free third party externals made by people who really use max to work on
their music.
-------
In conclusion, although I like the new UI (the Presentation Mode is really a
great thing), I would like to see Cycling74 working more on improving and
enhancing their externals and GUI objects (like putting reference grids and
numbers on the Filtergraph, with an active cursor also; spline curves for
the envelope editor, etc..), making Max Msp a more versatile and powerful
tool, instead of concentrating on making the UI prettier.
Best,

Carlo Laurenzi

----- Original Message -----
From: "joshua goldberg"
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [maxmsp] Re: Re: max 5 new feature videos

>i think that that's the last thing the program needs, actually. there are
>legions of people posting collections of patches and shortcuts and
>externals. i'd rather see cycling in the business of providing
>frameworks, instead of fully made solutions.
>
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>
>> one thing i was really hoping for in the update to max5 is more
>> 'prebuilt' type objects, like built in effect objects, although
>> externals do this, it would be nice to have an 'intermediate' step for
>> people coming from a plugin/reaktoresque background
>

I completely Agree!

Carlo Laurenzi
I'd like to see more varieties of filters, a vector delay unit for building things like spectral delays, as well as a few more options for delay-line interpolation. A really nice convolution reverb in Max would also be nice, but this might be a bit much...

I think that there are some things like multi-band compressor/limiters that are complex enough to be beyond the range of a lot of people's expertise (or even simply interests). Furthermore, it's nice to have things like gizmo~ and the omx library included in the distribution as it means that the object is supported by Cycling '74, and that it will most likely be compatible with future versions and will be documented in a standardized, centralized way. This is no knock against third-party developers, who have really made a lot of exceptionally cool objects, but just a reflection of how the system is. Objects like fiddle~, pitch~, bonk~, etc. are incredibly useful, and it would be very nice to have more of them included with Max.

One thing that I would really love to see is a solution to the old phasor~ and sah~ loop problem. (changing the speed of phasor once per cycle with sample accuracy) I know there are externals that do this, but it'd be nice to have one that's in the standard distribution.

my two cents.

Peter McCulloch

its the opposite, i dont want a glorified effect box, for that id just
use plugs/reaktor

but i dont want to get into a hugely complex thing, like making a nice
reverb, when thats only an aspect of a patch(that has nothing to do
with normal 'effect processing)

i think the question is how does maxmsp compare to csound, or
supercollider, or c++ or whatever, max is built around having objects
to do specific things for you, without needing to code

if people didnt want the prebuilt objects to handle tasks that they
would otherwise have to program themselves, maxmsp wouldnt exsist

granted, if i was a seasoned maxmsp veteran, id want more features
that appealed to that, but im not, im still learning, so id look for
features that appealed to me

and given teh amount of examples of those type of objects/externals
out there, its not like c74 would waste tons of man hours on this,

On 10/6/07, joshua goldberg wrote:
> ask yourself this:
>
> if this was really max's virtue, how would it stack up against
> reaktor? or jitter against isidora?
>
> not well. because those programs are specifically designed to do
> what you are asking for. max is something more.
>
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>
> > i think what makes max attractive is the object oriented nature of
> > the program, things are encapsulated, and done for you already, so
> > it makes it easier to build an end result without having to code,
> > or do needless building
>
>

At 7:29 PM +0100 10/6/07, Rodrigo Constanzo wrote:
>i didnt mean that max5 should be a reaktor type thing, but having more objects/examples of real world applications built in would help with the steep learning curve

Well, my opinion is that for most of the very complex stuff like reverb, the use VST~ with an appropriate plugin is a pretty good solution..

Different programming languages are at different points on the atomic scale, low level high level. Low level languages make you roll your own everything (e.g. the original C language.) High level languages have more complete support for a particular worldview (e.g. Smalltalk.) One is not necessarily better than the other; each language will have benefits for some tasks, and drawbacks for some tasks.

Low level languages allow you to do anything, but you have to do everything yourself.

Higher level languages may allow you to code things faster, as long as the language supports what you're trying to do.

I would put Max somewhere in the middle of this continuum, with the ability to go lower and higher (writing externals in C, or using VSTs, respectively.)

-C

--
Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno

At 10:24 AM -0600 10/6/07, Nicholas C. Raftis III wrote:
>Whats up with externals though, is everything going to have to be updated again!? It just took 2 years to get all the universal updates and now what, do we have to wait another couple years?!

Non-GUI externals should just work as they worked in Max 4.

-C

--
Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno

I like the new look.

The main difference is that soon, my patches won't look as scary as
they do now. Old school, rectangular boxes and messy patchcords always
frighten non-max people. I think most of the users will get used to it
very quickly. OS9 to OSX is good comparison. It took me ages to
switch, but after I did it I didn't look back.

I must say that new hint/help pop-up windows look to messy to me,
mainly because they appear at different place on the screen every
time. I'd like to have a possibility to switch to something more
conservative, like pop-ups always at the bottom/top.

I hope scheduler/timing issues will get solved or at least improved.

Klif

There was a thread about this recently on the [dev] list. Max 4.6 and
Max 5 externals are binary compatible, although there are some API
changes. Most externs will work fine, although some (and all UI
objects) will need to be rewritten for the changes to the underlying
API. I'm going to ballpark that 85-90% of existing 4.6.x objects will
continue to work without any changes whatsoever.

jb

Am 06.10.2007 um 19:36 schrieb keith manlove:

> Maybe since the UB thing was such a rush, this time it will different;
> release sdk early or something.

So, I went to AES today and played very quickly with Max 5. I am not
an audio guy (more jitter nerd), but here are my initial thoughts,
and perhaps some "facts" from cycling who were kind enough to answer
some questions I posed. Im sure this is subject to change and is no
way official, and was just about 30 minutes of Q/A with Cycling.

The UI is really really really nice in person (I was a bit skeptical
myself), and Cycling has paid quite a bit of attention to detail, and
it shows. Every aspect is tweaked, seems easy to use and is well
thought out. I very much appreciate the changes. It does strike me as
much more approachable.

I asked about poly~ and its multithreading support, which *only*
applies to MSP~ audio objects. It does not run anything else in other
threads. So no, Jitter users, this is not an easy multithreading
workaround (yeah I thought there was hope).

BPatcher - issues with nested bpatchers and re-drawing glitches
ought to be gone. Bpatchers can apparently also have an alpha with
background color and be tinted, so that they can be overlayed over
other objects and tint background layers and their UI objects. This
sounds useful for UI cues based on color, etc.

Inspectors are totally updated and look quite nice.

The new browser looks quite nice, and I asked that It be an option to
embed in a patcher as an object. Apparently it is built in Max itself
(im not sure if that is correct however), and uses an SQLLite backend
for storing filepaths / objects it finds in the paths you set, so you
can apparently query this DB yourself.

it seemed quite nice and useful.

Now, the sad news seems to be:

The UI requires more horsepower due to the new compositing engine.

Regular objects that used to be skinnable with bitmaps, at least, at
this time are not customizable.

The scheduler remains the same, and no tweaks have been made to the
core engine. This seems like a UI/Facelift, but the internals are the
same.

This is nice for backwards compatibilty and ease of updating, but,
for some reason, it feels like bad news to me.

Anyway, Considering how huge of an update this is, I plan on
reserving any opinion on the shipped Max 5, but I thought some people
would be interested in this.

Thanks,

random question, is max 5 going to do away with the 1000 dollar license fee to sell an applet on windows?