[chuck-users] heads up for 220.127.116.11
signal.automatique at gmail.com
Mon Sep 11 15:48:34 EDT 2006
On 9/11/06, David Powers <cyborgk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. I'm interested in sending ChucK's audio output into VST's, so MIDI
> would not be a solution. MIDI would only work if ChucK wasn't
> generating any audio, but what I want to do is be able to process some
> of the things that I'm already generating in ChucK.
This is completely valid. I was still in my "using ChucK to sequence" mode
and thinking of synths, not effects. I simply overlooked this and now feel
2. Relying on MIDI means that one loses a great deal of resolution as
> far as parameters go, being stuck with 0-127. Furthermore, not every
> host makes it easy to address a particular parameter of a plugin
> through MIDI.
True, but it's my opinion that hosts should feature solid support for
I guess, a good solution would be if ChucK could be extended with a
> "Plugin" UGen, that would support both LAPSDA and VST (and maybe the
> Mac format too), thereby allowing it to be crossplatform. Of course, I
> have no idea how difficult this sort of thing is.
It would certainly be noble; I'm sure this would be extremely popular but I
suspect that if it were easy to make a host that ran on all three OS's and
suported all those types of plugins it would already have been done.
It's true, as far as the DestroyFX stuff, someone could probably build
> similar things using the buffer UGen. Though to get that
> functionality, I guess we need to create user defined UGen's?!
For that exact functionality you'd be bussy for quite a while but the
general gist of those and similar plugins isn't that hard to get with some
tactfull SndBuf manipulation. You just periodically set the buffer position
to some known value and the world is you oister for IDM/drill&bass style
stuttering. I suppose you could get yet closer by using one of the delays
but I didn't quite get into those yet.
Personally I think it's a bit of a shame that new plugins in that sort of
style have such a big influence on the IDM world. Plugin support would be
nice in general but I think that building your own micro-looper/buffer-abuse
tool is far more interesting then the quest for the latest greatest plugin.
No personal attack intended, of cource; Destroyfx is great fun as well.
It's not that I realy disagree, I just think advantages and hardships need
to be considered. "this plugin on that host" style discussions are quite
common on fora like the Ableton one which made me suspect this feature would
lead to a whole lot of extra questions.
If it were all up to me I'd like real OSC support in the major hosts and
something like Jack for Windows. That should take care of the whole thing
and on some days I wonder why those things aren't here already.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users