[CM] Newbie learning. . . . CM / CLM-3 / SND / Scheme???

Joseph Anderson J.Anderson@hull.ac.uk
Fri, 25 May 2007 15:09:31 +0100

content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Bill,

Oops, not intending to be so selective in my quoting. . . the below =
quote just jumped out at me.

So would you suggest the Snd route as the modern way forward? Just a =
quick glance at the Snd pages, the option of using Ruby looks somewhat =
more approachable for the lisp clueless.

I suppose if I have a go with the docs I can work out how to use Snd as =
a batchable Music V engine?

So you're suggesting this path rather than the clm-3?


-----Original Message-----
From:	cmdist-admin@ccrma.Stanford.EDU on behalf of Bill Schottstaedt
Sent:	Fri 05/25/2007 1:18 PM
To:	Joseph Anderson; Cmdist@ccrma.Stanford.EDU
Subject:	Re: [CM] Newbie learning. . . . CM / CLM-3 / SND / Scheme???

>  interpreted Scheme (as in Snd currently) is about 30 to 100 times=20
> slower than CLM instruments using the run macro.

Geez, it's the week for selective quoting -- the very next sentence =
that the run macro exists now in Snd, and the difference in compute time
is more like a factor of 4 -- even that strikes me as high -- I'll have =
re-run some of my timing tests to see how close it is.  I'll rewrite =
paragraph.  I think Snd is easier to use than the CL versions of clm.
I don't have an extended tutorial for clm -- one is badly needed.
There are lots of example instruments and note lists, and sndscm.html
has individual discussions of each of the clm instruments in Snd =
for example).

Cmdist mailing list

Content-Disposition: inline

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html