Talk:Comparison of audio synthesis environments

overtone
Shouldn't Overtone be included here, even if it runs on top of the SC server? Etnografi (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

good article foundation
Hi, User:Mcld recently I put a cleanup tag on part of this article, the tag was primarily as a note to myself to come back and make a few minor cleanups if still needed. I hadn't bothered to check whether the article was new or undergoing significant development, which appears like it is. Comparison articles like this are an excellent resource. Hats off to you for the work put in on this and thanks for the good information. dr.ef.tymac 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Impromptu
Doesn't (Impromptu) deserve an entry here? It's a Mac only, Scheme-based, live programming environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.197.126.228 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done (mostly) :-) 62.197.126.228 (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what about jMax?

Impromptu has several runtimes (Scheme, ICR, & ObjC) and "unlike Scheme the Impromptu compiler is statically typed." ref. Made change to table. --Ds13 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Kyma (& jMax, etc)
SymbolicSound Kyma is missing, too.

I don't think jMax is worth noting. Almost no one uses it, its abandoned. Its historical, at best.

I think that this article should focus on current and supported languages... otherwise you have to include all sorts of obscure things that nobody uses.

Reaktor lacks any facility for coding. While I am not sure if this is a requisite, if we are talking simply modular builders then Synthedit and Synthmaker and all those other things would need to be included.

So I would opt to have REAKTOR removed since its more of a synth builder than a programming environment (?)

re: jMax etc.
As of 2009 jMax development is on again, but there has been no public release. The inclusion of Common Music in the last table is a mistake: CM is not an audio synthesis environment, it is a Lisp-based music composition environment with no audio synthesis capabilities. The latest versions do include a library of instruments designed with Bill Schottstaedt's Common Lisp Music (CLM), which should have been included on this page. Ditto for Cmix/Rtcmix. To be honest, the rubric "audio synthesis environment" covers a very broad swath of definition: Is a VSTi plugin an audio synthesis environment ? What exactly differentiates an environment from an application ? If the programming aspect is definitive, how is "programming audio synthesis" defined ? Again, is a VSTi plugin not an audio synthesis environment, and are we not programming it while twiddling virtual knobs and sliders ?

Btw, speaking of "historical" systems, how many people are still using the Kyma system ? 98.30.49.10 (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

CLAM
CLAM should probably be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.73.114 (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PWGL
Mikael Laurson's PWGL is a lisp-based computer-assisted composition environment that also includes an impressive real-time synthesis engine and MIDI input - it should probably be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.201.39.110 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

MUSIC missing
I think it would be great to add the ancestor of most of the audio synthesis environments : MUSIC written by Max Mathews in 1957 at Bell Labs. Bikepunk2 (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ChucK
Chuck now supports 64bit. But I don't know the rules, so I hadn't changed the status of matureness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.10.234 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Bidule by Plogue
It should have been mentionned, IMHO It is like Max...it have a page on the site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidule Lobobelga 25 March 2014  — Preceding undated comment added 10:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing stuff
I find this page very limited since it misses so many programming languages, Nyquist, Overtone, Faust, AudioMulch and all the new javascript ones...

Criticisms
The page has been criticized as having too short of a lead, and containing original, unverified research.

It seems to me that the header pretty well describes exactly what the article does. I hate big graphical unsightly and distracting criticisms that seem to me to be there for no very good reason that I can tell.

Concerning the "original research" criticism, someone left this bracketed comment:

[Observations based on what seems to be common experience with this sort of program are neither "original" nor "research"; while not necessarily 'verifiable' via "citations" there is probably good reason why these particular observations here have evidently not been contradicted by any knowledgeable readers, & I for one find them helpful...]

I agree, they're very helpful, and while we're waiting for someone who feels like it for some reason to do or find some actual objective research of some kind, it's nice to have access to someone's perspective who feels they can provide a perspective. A "subject comparisons" header advertises its content as being a matter of the subjective opinion of the author. Wikipedia might desire to encourage people to do or find objective research, and it might prefer to discourage people from proffering unsubstantiated, objective opinions, but it is a place where people come to get reports from other people about things, and we certainly would like to be able to get reports that include unsubstantiated, subjective opinions, rather than not be able to find anything at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.219.194 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)