What are the differences and relationships between RJC1000 and RD? When should I use one over the other to create scenes? No responses from the RjDj team or forum to my questions...
Pd is much more flexible than RJC1000, but doesn't have the easy-to-use, built-in effects and synths. From what I can see at the moment, RJC1000 doesn't have the ability to sequence sounds/reality effects according to input events. Everything plays at once. With Pd, you can do whatever you want, but you have to make it all yourself - or use abstractions from the Rjlib - which is much less straight forward.
So it seems like RJC1000 are modular pieces of code that were built using PD? RjDj's intent would be to make creating scenes easier for the novice user. So you gain ease-of-use at the expense of flexibility and control. Does that sound right?
I am playing around with both of them, and that is the way it seems. Big learning curve on PD, but it goes deep. I was using RKC1000 in minutes, but I was confined in what I could do with it...
Yep, I'd say you've understood the situation perfectly. It's a tradeoff between flexibility, ease of use and depth.
I don't work for RjDj and haven't investigated the output of RJC1000, but I have lots of Pd experience and went to a couple of the RjDj sprints, so I know a reasonable amount about it.
I'd expect RJC1000 will go from strenght to strenght though, and I wouldn't be suprised to see actual event-driven and time-based composition features before long.
5 comments:
What are the differences and relationships between RJC1000 and RD? When should I use one over the other to create scenes? No responses from the RjDj team or forum to my questions...
Pd is much more flexible than RJC1000, but doesn't have the easy-to-use, built-in effects and synths.
From what I can see at the moment, RJC1000 doesn't have the ability to sequence sounds/reality effects according to input events. Everything plays at once. With Pd, you can do whatever you want, but you have to make it all yourself - or use abstractions from the Rjlib - which is much less straight forward.
So it seems like RJC1000 are modular pieces of code that were built using PD? RjDj's intent would be to make creating scenes easier for the novice user. So you gain ease-of-use at the expense of flexibility and control. Does that sound right?
I am playing around with both of them, and that is the way it seems. Big learning curve on PD, but it goes deep. I was using RKC1000 in minutes, but I was confined in what I could do with it...
Yep, I'd say you've understood the situation perfectly. It's a tradeoff between flexibility, ease of use and depth.
I don't work for RjDj and haven't investigated the output of RJC1000, but I have lots of Pd experience and went to a couple of the RjDj sprints, so I know a reasonable amount about it.
I'd expect RJC1000 will go from strenght to strenght though, and I wouldn't be suprised to see actual event-driven and time-based composition features before long.
I think it'd be great if RJC1000 does evolve.
I like Pd too, but it can take a long time to get anything working
Post a Comment