Cycling '74 releases Max 5 details

http://c

reatedigitalmusic.com/2007/09/28/cycling-74-releases-max-5-details-bringing-max-out-of-the-80s/#more-2537://http://c

reatedigitalmusic.com/2007...-80s/#more-2537://http://c

reatedigitalmusic.com/2007...-80s/#more-2537

  Quote

Max 5 is a complete overhaul that’s all about making patching more pleasurable, with an entirely new, 21st-Century user interface and code base. It’s not about adding a zillion new objects. The idea is to be easier to learn for beginners, and more fun to use for experts. (Interestingly, this is similar to the more modest but philosophically parallel reworking of Logic Studio, another app born in the late 80s.)

 

It’s not just skin deep, because doing things like building workable UIs for performance and debugging promises to be easier.

 

Keep in mind, this is all basically hearsay on Max 5 because I haven’t seen it yet; I’m just condensing what I can based on my knowledge of Max and David’s introduction. But I don’t want to make you wait for details, since I know we have plenty of die-hard Max users collected here (and the odd Cycling ‘74 employee, so I hope I’m not too far off.) That said, here’s an overview of what to look for from the new version, with more details to follow:

Awesome!

Sweet. I've been meaning to make the jump from Reaktor to Max/MSP for a while now. Maybe I'll have to hold off a little longer...

  children r r future said:

Sweet. I've been meaning to make the jump from Reaktor to Max/MSP for a while now. Maybe I'll have to hold off a little longer...

IMHO the only really big thing you are missing is the ease of creating FFT's

  acid1 said:

IMHO the only really big thing you are missing is the ease of creating FFT's

I'm mainly interested in Max's extensive MIDI facilities. I also like the idea of creating Pluggo plug-ins that can be saved with projects, instead of having to keep track of scores of different Reaktor ensembles. I use Reaktor mostly for delay-based effects, and I'll keep using it if I can't easily recreate my ensembles in the Max/MSP environment.

  acid1 said:

  children r r future said:

Sweet. I've been meaning to make the jump from Reaktor to Max/MSP for a while now. Maybe I'll have to hold off a little longer...

 

IMHO the only really big thing you are missing is the ease of creating FFT's

There are vast differences in Max's capabilities in the area of programmability. Its midi manipulation objects are second to none, it has proper abstractions, it has the ability to use Java and Javascript, and if that isn't enough there's an SDK to write your own code in a compiled language. Not to mention how good the documentation is.

On the other hand, Reaktor sounds lots better to my ears, especially for FM and subtractive synthesis. Granular, I'm not sure about. Reaktor is certainly easier to use for throwing together quick granular tools and effects.

Solution: use them both.

BTW, they released FFT instruments and macros for Reaktor last Xmas. The vocoder is not bad at all.

Why use FFT's for a vocoder? Just make one out of filters....

There are some good-sounding FFT vocoders. A very different sound compared to "traditional" vocoders, but interesting nonetheless.

I will certainly use both Reaktor and Max. It would be really spiffy if NI would allow the creation of Pluggo-like plugins from Reaktor instruments. It's kind of a drag having to create a new instance of Reaktor just to implement some simple effect.

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Why use FFT's for a vocoder? Just make one out of filters....

have you used any of the kyma or other fft vocoders out there such as Vokator by native instruments? they blow away most other software vocoders i have heard. they may not have that classic gay daft punk sound, but if you want to be just a little innovative you would enjoy them.

I dunno all I really want a vocoder to do is a good impression of an EMS 5000, so, all you need is some filters.

  ten fingers ten toes said:

I dunno all I really want a vocoder to do is a good impression of an EMS 5000, so, all you need is some filters.

if that is your only need thats fine. But imo a vocoder is a very expansive and versetile concept that be used on just about anything.

I look at it the same way id see a compressor or a reverb effect. I think making impressions of hardware is fun, but software allows for more interesting concepts sometimes.

But what is the FFT doing that more and more filters wouldn't?

  ten fingers ten toes said:

But what is the FFT doing that more and more filters wouldn't?

That's a bit like asking what FM synthesis is doing that subtractive synthesis can't. It's all about controlling the harmonic content of a voice, right? Different approaches to the same problem often lead to similar but different results, and the the various approaches to the concept of the vocoder are a perfect example of that.

Yes, I'm asking for specifically what does an FFT vocoder do that using many filters to create a traditional vocoder does not?

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Yes, I'm asking for specifically what does an FFT vocoder do that using many filters to create a traditional vocoder does not?

http://www.panix.com/~jens/pvoc-dolson.par

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_vocoder

(also, cycling74 should be given a medal for finally allowing multiple undo's, after 20+ years)

That's a very broad question, since not all FFT-based vocoders work the same way or are intended to achieve the same results. Even a "traditional" vocoder (i.e. one based around bandpass filters) can be implemented using FFT. There are other vocoding techniques (e.g. "phase vocoders") that operate on different principles entirely and are used for purposes beyond the scope of traditional vocoders.

  ten fingers ten toes said:

Yes, I'm asking for specifically what does an FFT vocoder do that using many filters to create a traditional vocoder does not?

well if you really want to break it down to basics an FFT is just a really complex 'filter' with a shit load of bands usually starting at around 512. So its just like using a normal vocoder but like 100x the power and resolution. I think in the most basic terms it gives you a lot more flexibility to the type of sound compared to a normal say analog hardware vocoder. But specifically what would an FFT allow you to do that a traditional vocoder wouldnt? For one you can do very good sounding cross synthesis. In NI vokator i can use a ravi shankar sitar performance to vocode a drum sample.

this would be so much cooler if I had the brain capacity to work Max.

Actually never even tried it, but it looks hard yo. In all seriousness, should I even bother trying to get in to this? I mean like, 2000's era AE is my favorite stuff, but I really like working with hardware. And progress with vst's is slow.

???

i prefer reaktor over max but i think its just because i absolutely do not have have the patience for it. I think it takes a certain mindset to truely use maxmsp. I still haven't even really gotten that deep into reaktor. A lot of the new patches people make in it are way over my head. I think you could equate it to hardware users also. Like on the old rack mounted kurzweil digital synths, it takes sometimes hours to make a good preset on one. I never had the patience to use those tiny lcd screens to make a preset having access to a single jog dial. Having a short attention span is not a good thing though, i wish i could do all this hardcore music programming stuff