Thijs Koerselman

I'm about to design some sequencers. My last one was scheduler based, and I

wasn't too pleased with the timing so now I'm looking into audiorate

sequencing. The output of the sequencers will mostly drive standalone

hardware or jitter. Before I start wasting a lot of time... is it even

useful to have a sequencer at audiorate if the final output is not also

audio, but rather midi or some other scheduler based control?

I'm about to design some sequencers. My last one was scheduler based, and I
wasn't too pleased with the timing so now I'm looking into audiorate
sequencing. The output of the sequencers will mostly drive standalone
hardware or jitter. Before I start wasting a lot of time... is it even
useful to have a sequencer at audiorate if the final output is not also
audio, but rather midi or some other scheduler based control?

sequencing-midi-at-audiorate

On 20-Jul-2006, at 22:17, Thijs Koerselman wrote:

> is it even useful to have a sequencer at audiorate if the final 

> output is not also audio, but rather midi or some other scheduler 

In my experience: the tightest in Max is 

audioaudioaudioaudioaudioaudio. As soon as you hang an edge~ or 

something in there and start generating bangs, you're no longer 

sample-accurate and with OS X or XP you've got different threads 

contending for CPU and you're switching between 'em. In some cases 

I've even found MSP control of Max timing to be less satisfactory 

than an all-Max scheduler approach (although this will have a lot to 

do with various performance options, and you can reverse results if 

Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

Interface Building for |home | chez nous|

Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|

On 20-Jul-2006, at 22:17, Thijs Koerselman wrote:
> is it even useful to have a sequencer at audiorate if the final  
> output is not also audio, but rather midi or some other scheduler  
> based control?

In my experience: the tightest in Max is  
audioaudioaudioaudioaudioaudio. As soon as you hang an edge~ or  
something in there and start generating bangs, you're no longer  
sample-accurate and with OS X or XP you've got different threads  
contending for CPU and you're switching between 'em. In some cases  
I've even found MSP control of Max timing to be less satisfactory  
than an all-Max scheduler approach (although this will have a lot to  
do with various performance options, and you can reverse results if  
you tweak enough).

--------------    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

I was hoping for a different answer of course... I'll see if audio is still

useful to me. If the timing is not improving it might still be good for

syncing purposes. I'll probably go with seq~ because of its flexibility.

Speaking of sequencing.... hows the iCE port to windows going? ;-)

> On 20-Jul-2006, at 22:17, Thijs Koerselman wrote:

> > is it even useful to have a sequencer at audiorate if the final

> > output is not also audio, but rather midi or some other scheduler

> In my experience: the tightest in Max is

> audioaudioaudioaudioaudioaudio. As soon as you hang an edge~ or

> something in there and start generating bangs, you're no longer

> sample-accurate and with OS X or XP you've got different threads

> contending for CPU and you're switching between 'em. In some cases

> I've even found MSP control of Max timing to be less satisfactory

> than an all-Max scheduler approach (although this will have a lot to

> do with various performance options, and you can reverse results if

> Peter Castine +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

> Interface Building for |home | chez nous|

> Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|

I was hoping for a different answer of course... I'll see if audio is still
useful to me. If the timing is not improving it might still be good for
syncing purposes. I'll probably go with seq~ because of its flexibility.
Speaking of sequencing.... hows the iCE port to windows going? ;-)

On 7/21/06, Peter Castine  wrote:
>
> On 20-Jul-2006, at 22:17, Thijs Koerselman wrote:
> > is it even useful to have a sequencer at audiorate if the final
> > output is not also audio, but rather midi or some other scheduler
> > based control?
>
> In my experience: the tightest in Max is
> audioaudioaudioaudioaudioaudio. As soon as you hang an edge~ or
> something in there and start generating bangs, you're no longer
> sample-accurate and with OS X or XP you've got different threads
> contending for CPU and you're switching between 'em. In some cases
> I've even found MSP control of Max timing to be less satisfactory
> than an all-Max scheduler approach (although this will have a lot to
> do with various performance options, and you can reverse results if
> you tweak enough).
>
> Good luck anyway,
> Peter
>
> --------------    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
>
>
>


sequencing midi at audiorate