[chuck-users] How to get better-sounding instruments?

[Tambet]

On 11 September 2010 15:48, Hans Aberg <haberg-1 at telia.com> wrote:

> On 11 Sep 2010, at 01:13, Tambet wrote:
>
>  also... what do you mean by 'natural sounds' ?
>>>
>>
>> Natural sound would be the one, which does not sound like if it was
>> obviously generated by some digital device.
>>
>
> There has been discussed here on the list to write ones own UGen, and
> recompile ChucK.
>
> If ChucK could load dynamic libraries, then no recompilation of ChucK would
> be needed, but I do not think ChucK can do that.


Yes, but I have yet to go several steps for that.

My current tests of ChucK:

   - http://picosong.com/qbV/ - this is using STK and some UGens to get some
   ambient sound. It's mixed with Audacity.
   - http://picosong.com/qAa/ - this uses several oscillators and
   Math.sin(...) to create something like mix of cat marriage and air alarm.
   Despite of it's utter ugliness it's even somewhat addictive somehow :) But
   there should be some health-care warning on it.

On 11 September 2010 16:10, Thomas Girod <girodt at gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe I'm missing the point, but it sound like what you want to do is

composing music, rather than experimenting with sounds. If you want

instruments that sounds realistic, maybe you should search for some good

VSTi and soundfonts, and pilot all this from a sequencer.


> that way, you could quickly sketch a drumbeat, a melody, and improvise

from there ...


Yes, I actually am going to use ChucK to compose. I want to create songs. As
I have done a lot of software development, I was looking for programming
language, which is not too much one-purposed (like creating scores,
synthesizing sound, programming this or that aspect of
some readily-available synth or generating midi), but would do all those
things in both realtime and preprocessed modes. ChucK clearly is that and
other languages I looked into clearly are not. Csound was somewhat
interesting, but too complex and not so coherent - it rather seems like a
bunch of random functions to create things in C. Faust attracted me with
mathematical purity.

I like to have all programming power at my hands whenever I need it when I'm
doing something with computer - like doing 3D with PovRAY and writing text
with LaTeX. Thus, natural way to compose is ChucK.

Anyway, I also want to create effects to existing voices and instruments,
where ChucK is rather irreplaceable (one would need something very similar
to replace it for good).

2010/9/11 Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com>

> Hans;
>
>> If ChucK could load dynamic libraries, then no recompilation of ChucK
>> would be needed, but I do not think ChucK can do that.
>
>
> It's one of the oldest wishlist items though, and support for this in some
> form is planned.
>
> Kas.
>

That's just what I was thinking today.

2010/9/11 Kassen <signal.automatique at gmail.com>

> 2010/9/11 Tambet <qtvali at gmail.com>

> To explain my situation:

>

> <snip>

>

> To explain, what I miss and lack:

> * Drums.

>

> <snip>


> I agree. We could really use a decent percussion-synth UGen or two.


> *Nothing makes synthesis as appealing to new students like percussion
> synthesis.

*Some livecoding organisations and people frown on loading external material
> like samples

*Everyone likes Roland X0X-style sounds, secretly or not. It's -in my
> experience- a rare computer-music researcher who won't admit to a fondness
> for solid house tracks after a beer or two (research yet unpublished,
> performed by the author in the hallways of STEIM and various other
> organisations. Waiting for grants for more beer to continue this research).


> Yours,

Kas.


This is true.

I would like those UGens. Rhythym
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20100911/dfbe5521/attachment.html>