FYI: I'm one who never took a signals course in college. I
have some basic idea of complex numbers, but really have no clue why they should
relate to sound / audio signals at all. So, digital filtering is difficult
for me to understand. I know conceptually how it works (i.e. analog equalizer),
but not sure how to work with filters etc digitally i.e. from
chuck.
I can understand the basics of chuck and how the timing model
works, and the unit generators are just objects, so I know how to use
those.
For me, chuck is low-level - about expressing synthesis
algorithms or some new weird effect.
A sound designer, in my opinion, would use pre-built
synthesizers, effects processors, etc to make a sound; individual synthesizers
or effects processors would look like black boxes. Want a new synthesizer
- just plug it in!
think the easiest way to architect this would be:
- build a way of binding chuck classes / objects to
gui
- define exactly what can be exposed and thus manipulated via
the gui (efrrably in code)
When writing the chuck classes corresponding to each synthesis
engine, effects processor, etc, mark each field to be gui-enabled.
Some magic would happen to bind each of the classes marked fields to a live
gui object like a textbox or listbox etc .
could add new low-level components (written in chuck or
any language really) to the pallet of objects.
The real key is how to do it and keep it accessible! I'm
not aware of any sound design / processing environment which is
accessible.
I'm sure all of this has been done before...
In fact, now that I think of it, there are plugin standards
like VST, etc which must do some of this stuff, but not sure exactly how they
work. When I use VST plugins in cakewalk (which has been made quite accessible
to those using the jaws screen reader on windows), the accessibility of each
plugin itself is completely independant of the accessibility of the host (i.e.
cakewalk).
-- Rich
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:33
PM
Subject: Re: [chuck-users] blind
user
Rob;
What attracted me to ChucK was the fact that it is NOT graphically
oriented.
Me too.
I often think graphical displays in music programs are distracting form
focussing on the sound itself, even.
All of that aside; we could go make jabs at MAX and the like or even go
into how many modern plugins have interfaces where no amount of vision will
help you figure out how you are supposed to use them. What really interests me
though is that something like ChucK could/should be a great tool for people
who can't see or can't see that well to make electronic music.
I suspect a lot of advances in interface design could be made there, not
just with support for screen-readers, but also things like interface and error
sonification that could help everyone, not just the blind. I think it's a good
thing that there's renewed interest in this.
Yours,
Kas.
_______________________________________________
chuck-users mailing
list
chuck-users@lists.cs.princeton.edu
https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-users