|
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: * Usability (how difficult is it for beginners to generate some kind of meaningful output) * Learnability (how steep the learning curve is for new, average, and advancing users) * Sound "quality" (which environment produces the most subjectively appealing sound) * Creative flow (in what ways does the environment affect the creative process - e.g. guiding the user in certain directions) These attributes can vary strongly depending on the tasks used for evaluation. Some other common comparisons include: * Audio performance (issues such as throughput, latency, concurrency, etc.) * System performance (issues such as ''buggyness'' or stability) * Support and community (who uses the system and who provides help, advice, training and tutorials) * System capabilities (what is possible and what is not possible (of effort ) with the system) * Interoperability (how well does the system integrate with other systems from different vendors) 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Comparison of audio synthesis environments」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|