Comparison of audio synthesis environments
Software audio synthesis environments typically consist of an audio programming language (which may be graphical) and a user environment to design/run the language in. Although many of these environments are comparable in their abilities to produce high-quality audio, their differences and specialties are what draw users to a particular platform. This article compares noteworthy audio synthesis environments, and enumerates basic issues associated with their use. Subjective comparisons. Audio synthesis environments comprise a wide and varying range of software and hardware configurations. Even different versions of the same environment can differ dramatically. Because of  this broad variability, certain aspects of different systems cannot be directly compared. Moreover, some levels of comparison are either very difficult to objectively quantify, or depend purely on personal preference. Some of the commonly considered subjective attributes for comparison include: These attributes can vary strongly depending on the tasks used for evaluation. Some other common comparisons include: Building blocks of sound and sound "quality". Audio software often has a slightly different "sound" when compared against others. This is because there are different ways to implement the basic building blocks (such as sinewaves, pink noise, or FFT) which result in  slightly different aural characteristics. Although people can of course prefer one system's "sound" over another, perhaps the best output can be determined by using sophisticated audio analyzers in combination with the listener's ears. The idea of this would be to arrive at what most would agree is as "pure" a sound as possible. User interface. The interface to an audio system often has a significant influence on the creative flow of the user, not because of what is "possible" (the stable/mature systems listed here are fully featured enough to be able to achieve an enormous range of  sonic/compositional objectives), but because of "what is made easy" and "what is made difficult". This is again very difficult to boil down to a brief comparative statement. One issue may be which interface metaphors are used (e.g. boxes-and-wires, documents, flow graphs, hardware mixing desks). Data interface methods. Interfaces between the language environment and other software or hardware (not "user" interfaces).