On Dec 1, 2007 2:19 PM, Lars Luthman <lars.luthman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 14:13 +0200, Chuckk Hubbard wrote: > > Agreed. It is also capable of completely customizable microtuning, > > which, despite what some of you may have heard, is not possible on any > > hard synth. They may say it is- but you are limited by the number of > > keys on the hardware, which is not the case with Csound. > > I used to harp about the difficulty of using Csound with any fluency, > > but this is a difference of degree, not of kind: It is hard to learn, > > but I believe someone very experienced with Csound can work as > > efficiently as someone very experienced with simpler interfaces, doing > > the same tasks. > > But if you're going to play it like an instrument you'll still need some > sort of hardware, which will typically have a finite number of keys. > Writing .sco files isn't all that fun. I definitely agree with that; but there are other ways to send frequency info than physical keys. I made my own sequencer, others use algorithms or other text-based score languages (e.g. Scala) that may be a bit simpler than Csound's. And again, writing .sco files is a skill that, if one is motivated enough, becomes easier with practice. A text editor like emacs can do a lot of the work. -Chuckk -- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
