Jump to content

torstenanders

Members
  • Content Count

    439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by torstenanders

  1. It looks like conTimbre would be a considerably larger collection of articulations and also better documented (e.g., I guess if you play a certain multiphonic you are able to learn how it was produced or vice versa, which is not the case with the IRCAM Solo Instruments), but its playability as a plugin from Opusmodus or a DAW seems to be less developed. In case you played already with it: how well does the latter work, now that they have support for VST and AU plugins?
  2. Update: It seems the samples are the same as in version 1 (which are now > 10 years old and with the original problems like rel. few samples i.e. few velocity layers or no round robins to avoid machine gun effect and all very closely miked), but now the scripting and instrument is much improved, e.g., with legato phrasing now supported, streching/shrinking notes like transitions, a timbre control (e.g., could be used for avoiding the machine gun effect). However, reviews report that these new scripts are not perfect, e.g., key swit
  3. I would very much appreciate some feedback, but I am already almost decided to get it in any case. We might perhaps work on an Opusmodus sound set together. I will only use a few instruments (currently I just need the cello), but would like to make a wide range of techniques available in Opusmodus. However, instrument key-switches etc. hopefully share patterns, so once one instrument is reasonably covered it should be possible to scale that at least for the other instruments in the same family. One problem might be that they keep standard (what they call classic) and
  4. Hi guys, Did anyone of you already look into the rather new IRCAM Solo Instruments 2 by UVI? That might be nice to control from within Opusmodus with its wide range of extended techniques available. From what I can tell from the videos, this seems to be a clear improvement over the former version and also conTimbre in terms of sounds and playability. Anyone already tried it? UVI IRCAM Solo Instruments 2 - Avant-Garde Solo Instrument Collection WWW.UVI.NET 16 instruments, 550+ playing techniques, experience unparalleled depth and detai
  5. BTW: Common Lisp has built-in tracing mechanisms, which happen to be more fine-grained and work automatically without any need to sprinkle explicit function calls like do-verbose in any definition at all. For example, there is the builtin trace: CLHS: Macro TRACE, UNTRACE CLHS.LISP.SE In case of an error (and only in case of an error), a full stack trace is usually automatically printed. This happens to be disabled in the standard Opusmodus editor, but works as normally in Common Lisp when using the Emacs Slime interface. For example, consid
  6. Just evaluate this. (defparameter *do-verbose* nil "Enable or disable traces printed by do-verbose.") For some context see
  7. Concerning own GUI applications: you can already do that. This is independent of Opusmodus. For example, on a Mac CCL (the Lisp compiler on which Opusmodus is built) has a built-in Cocoa Interface and Objective-C bridge. There also exist other GUI libraries for Lisp. For example, check out GUI toolkits LISPCOOKBOOK.GITHUB.IO A collection of examples of using Common Lisp
  8. I cannot answer this for Janusz, but I can provide some further reflection on this. You could investigate how the Emacs-Slime interface talks to the CCL compiler, on which Opusmodus is based, and then use that same protocol for your purposes. Of course, this will always only work if on the machine in question Opusmodus is installed. Also, Opusmodus must be started first (which currently always starts the full IDE as well, AFAIK -- at least it does for me, and I use Opusmodus meanwhile mainly via the Slime interface). It is likely possible in principle to get around starting the fu
  9. I just noted that the code I shared above depends on other definitions in my library (e.g., the function preview-score). Below is an update that instead uses only builtin Opusmodus functions. Holler in case this is not working for you, as the code on my machine is a bit different, and I did not test the code below... (specifically, the version below only works for the scores with instruments from the ps set gm, while my own code is more flexible, but then again depends on other custom definitions). ;; Emacs lisp code: put into your Emacs init file, e.g., ~/.emacs ;; Custom f
  10. Has there perhaps been some change with the HTML rendering in the Assistant in recent months since August? On my Macbook Pro (OSX 10.12.6) with the latest Opusmodus version, (most) links are not followed anymore, and the CSS rendering is unreliable (can be missing but when the same page is reloaded it might be there -- sometimes multiple reloading is required; when reloading it again later, the CSS might be ignored again). Most importantly, however, I cannot select any text on the HTML page anymore, i.e. I cannot evaluate example code from HTML pages anymore. I export all the docum
  11. Yes, I can specify that the attribute sends some MIDI messages like key switches or CC messages at the moment when the event with the attribute starts. However, for defining an attribute like ped1 I need to additionally specify a MIDI message to be send at the end of the note in question. And for defining an attribute ped I would need to be able to specify the following behaviour. ;; Pedal depressed for exactly two notes '(q c4 ped e4 g4 c5) ;; Pedal depressed for the whole phrase '((ped q c4 e4 g4 c5)) > You can define any attributes with DEF-SOUND-SET
  12. Thanks a lot! Brief question just to clarify: the MIDI output of the existing ped and ped1 attributes cannot be defined with def-sound-set? Confirmation: The MIDI output of sost-ped and una-corda is working as well. For completeness, harm-ped (available for Pianoteq) is not. One of the reasons is that at least with Pianoteq 6 it should use CC 69 instead of CC 68 as specified in the pianoteq sound set, but that is not the only reason (seemingly the relevant text attribute is not even existing. Anyway, that is an only rarely used technique and available on
  13. I am trying to add a new text attribute for half pedalling (later in my scoring application Dorico I can translate that into the proper pedalling notation) and then specify for playback the MIDI CC messages it would need to send (e.g., the new attribute half-pedal sets the damper-pedal CC set to 64). Naively, a simple solution seems to be to complement this half pedalling with a text attribute for releasing the pedal (rel-pedal sets damper-pedal to 0) as shown below. So, I added the following to my pianoteq sound set (besides defining these text attributes). :group omn full-pedal (Pe
  14. Is it safe to completely delete the folders fr.lproj and it.lproj in /Applications/Opusmodus.app/Contents/Resources when I only need the English version? HD space is somewhat limited on my laptop and this amounts to half a GB which I seemingly do not need. The tricky bit is that I would need to delete these folders with every update, but hey Thanks! Best, Torsten
  15. Yes, I understood that, and for a mere preview this is good enough (e.g., no nested layouts needed).
  16. Just for context: my function preview-score (link to doc) in the tot library -- which was perhaps the inspiration for the later function ps -- expands in the background simply into a call to def-score. In def-score, we can specify a layout of nested brackets, braces etc. separately of the actual music, which is expressed by individual single-nested OMN sequences. The function preview-score retained this separation: individual single-nested OMN sequences on the one hand, and the specification of the nested layout separately. By contrast, in the function ps this separation of concer
  17. Apologies. Found the reason for problem 1 in my own setup and fixed it. I had defined a custom articulation ped (expressing a coupler for the organ), which interfered. I renamed that coupler articulation. Anyway, I still would be grateful for a response to the following: Is it correct that the attributes ending in 1 (e.g., ped1) denote a pedalling that is always released (or re-pedalled) at the end of a note, while the other attributes (e.g., ped) can continue to the following note? Can I perhaps somehow change a def-sound-set definition so that the damper peda
  18. Thanks! Yes, as I said I know that I can write the following, where rh and lh etc. are standard single-nested OMN sequences. (ps 'my-instrument-set :p (list rh lh)) (ps 'gm :sq (list vl1 vl2 va vc)) Perhaps I just need to define some custom function that automatically translates my preferred representation -- where all parts (including rh and lh) are represented individually for simplifying further processing -- into the representation above
  19. Apologies, this is a lengthy message, but I want to provide all the relevant technical details to demonstrate the problem. I would like to control piano pedalling (e.g., with Pianoteq). Many things seemingly work out of the box once the predefined pianoteq sound set is specified (nice!), but some things I would like to refine. The PDF document 4th Element Attributes lists the attributes related to pedalling: ped1 ped half-ped1 half-ped sost-ped1 sost-ped una-corda1 una-corda First a question (could not find the in the docs): the attributes en
  20. The functions ps and def-instrument-set allow some control over the resulting layout of the score (grouping of instruments by brackets etc.), e.g., by using some predefined ensemble "instruments" like :sq for string quartet. Is it perhaps also possible to somehow set the layout options supported by def-score in this context? For example, would it be possible to specify the music for the left and right hand of a piano separately (i.e. not together in a triple-nested list), but then have both parts notated on a grand staff? Here is an example (not working) -- amended from the ps docu
  21. I provided a variant for unfold that has some advantages (support for arbitrary function arguments instead of a custom symbol for each argument combination set up with def-unfold-set), but I did not say that it would replace it In addition to what you said, the unfold function is also baked into your counterpoint function, while this alternative is not. > apply the the unfold method to a specific bar Sure. That also works with this variant, as shown above by using the argument section supported by most OPMO functions. (fn-unfold '((tr 12) (ld (2 3)
  22. Common Lisp does usually not distinguish between lower and upper case in its symbols. Standard Common Lisp compilers always return symbols with only upper case therefore by default, but Opusmodus seemingly does internally some trickery to change that to always lower case. It is possible with Common Lisp to specify symbols that distinguish between cases by wrapping the symbol names within bars (|) like so. ? '|TesT| |TesT| ? '(|TesT|) (|TesT|) Unfortunately, this does not to work fully in Opusmodus for all cases, possibly because of the internal sy
  23. Copied from doc: The 'arp-adlib' arpeggiation needs special mention because it responds to the ordering of pitches in the chord. Look at the third list (bar), third chord. (-e - a5d5fs4 f c6f5fs4 d5b5g4 arp-adlib g5d5a4 gs5ds5gs4 gs5e5gs4) Audition this with Cmd-1 (d5b5g4 arp-adlib)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy