Puredata! (thread)


The patches are really well laid out and commented, so you could always dive in and poke around.

Failing that, you could try this: https://github.com/megalon/pd-AUTOMATONISM-sampler/blob/master/README.md

I’ve had good experience with modifying regular pd patches to work with automationism, you could try that too, find a patch you like and make an automationism module :slight_smile:

If you’ve discovers a bug, drop Johan a mail, I’m sure he would appreciate it.


i wrote johan - he said it’s not designed to do accurate pitch tracking.
i also checked out the megalon version but it seems to have the same issue.
poked around in there a little, but it’s quite intimidating to a PD newb.

i’ll look around for other sample players i might be able to wedge in… wondering if there might be an inconsistency with how automatonism handles pitch values vs other patches.


Hmm. Yeah I only ever dance around the edges of patches like this.

I changed the quantizer module to produce “colundi” frequencies, but that was relatively straightforward - if fairly unmusical. Generally I am totally lost when it comes to audio/sample math like the above.


If you’re willing to sit through a ~15 minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boX0v54SqtU is a pretty easy to digest tutorial, however it doesn’t get super deep into how re-pitching a sample works outside of speeding up and slowing down playback speed.


hi, I was thinking about what you have suggested…Are there any instructions on how to make an Automatonism module from an existing patch? Does this apply to pd-extended patches that exist?


have other people made automationsm extensions before ?? I’ve been considering this as an outlet for modular ideas but torn between pd & max, leaning max


Just open up the automationism patches and start poking around. They are well documented. All you need to do is copy the file and rename it.


Automationism is vanilla only afaik.


hi guys,
Does anyone have experience in both Puredata & SuperCollider?
I’m learning SuperCollider at the moment, but Puredata looks so fun and interesting as well. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

I’ve just started learning SuperCollider and I’m completely new to sound synthesis in general, so it’ll probably take me a while to get comfortable enough with one first before I try something new. However, I’m just wondering if there’s any advantages in using both SuperCollider and Puredata? Do they complement each other well in some way? For example, are certain things perhaps easier to do or has a better workflow in one vs. the other? Like creating the sounds in SuperCollider but using Puredata’s graphical interface for controlling the sequencing and structuring of the song?

Note: i’m extremely new to SuperCollider, so perhaps what i’m talking about don’t even make much sense at all lol


I think this is all doable via OSC messaging to communicate between the two platforms?

To answer your first question though, I think Pure Data is easier to learn if you aren’t a programmer by trade. The visual aspect of the platform lends itself more to learning high level musical concepts and then supercollider is great if you’re used to writing code. Just my two cents.


Getting used to writing code has a whole lot of advantages if you have a goal of creating an instrument that you intend to maintain over a number of years.

Graphical patching languages such as Puredata are fantastic for getting simple results quickly. They start to show their constraints as your needs get more complex. But those boundaries are still pretty large. Tom Erbe and Olivier Gillet have mentioned using Puredata as a prototyping environment they like to use for working out ideas, later to be transferred to C/C++ DSP code, when the idea has taken form.


a really important thing to remember to is that what you learn working in puredata, max, or supercollider isn’t knowledge gained in a vacuum. many of the concepts that you apply to one environment/language translate into others even if the api and objects you use are named differently.