Talk:Comparison of audio synthesis environments

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  good article foundation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Impromptu 

message: 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)
thread_title:  re: jMax etc. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  PWGL 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MUSIC missing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ChucK 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bidule by Plogue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms