Frank Barknecht <fbar@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hallo,
> Tim Blechmann hat gesagt: // Tim Blechmann wrote:
>
> > i heard that (on macs) supercollider computes much more efficient than
> > max/msp ... is that somehow compareable to linux / i686 / pd?
It definitely was true on macs in the past. AFAIK James McCartney
knows the apple architecture very well it has always been able to
squeeze the most out of it. SC allowed to build more complex
processes than max/msp before running into 100% cpu usage. But the
last time I checked (in Mac OS 8.6 or 9) SC was at version 2 and Max 3.5 /MSP 1. SC was
also way more stable then.
> I doubt, that the dsp calculations will really be faster on SC3 than
> in Pd. Pd actually can calculate things very fast and also is
> optimized for realtime work.
My guess is that SC is probably more efficient on Macs (esp. taking
into consideration the Altivec optimisations). And possibly it is
more efficient than PD on a Mac. Just guessing... In the intel world
there possibly isn't a big difference.
> Generally I'd say, that Pd and Supercollider are so different, that
> they cannot sensibly be compared. SC is a text based synthesis
> language that will be much better at certain things than Pd, whereas
> Pd offers a very hands-on approach to building software instruments
> and more (and has many third-party modules for graphics and the like).
That's true. Howver there was a thread recently on SC mailing list
about SC having a 'better sound' compared to Max. I think some of the
points could as well apply to SC vs Pd. I _think_ the mailing has an
archive somewhere but I don't have the link handy. Overall, James
McC's comment that was very interesting was the fact that SC's
architecture allows for creating/synthesizing more complex sounds more
easily.
BTW, SC's GUI is catching up on the linux version as well.
cheers,
--
_
__ __ (_)___ Michal Seta
/ \/ \ _/^ _|
/ V |_ \ @creazone.32k.org
(___/V\___|_|___/
http://www.[creazone]|[noonereceiving].32k.org
