EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 10, Number 1 Today's Topics: Keyboard amp recommendations (6 messages) Taping problems (2 messages) Studio recommendations D50 archives question Yamaha V50 E-mu Proteus (7 messages) DAT and PCM recording (9 messages) MT32 and D110 (4 messages) "Electronic Filings" (6 messages) Bulk erasing (3 messages) Korg M-series (4 messages) IRCAM Computer Muzak... Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 89 15:28:58 CST From: Jayson Tipp Subject: amps Any comments on good keyboard amps. 75-150 watts. For live use with mainly pianos and organ patches (very little synth). I'm currently borrowing a Crate KBA150 to try it out. 3 channels, effects loop which breaks the internal reverb loop, insert on channel 1, separate eq plus overall eq, 1 15" plus a horn. Clean, crisp, and loud & available for under $500. Others??? Recommendations? Thanks, -Buzz. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Nov 89 16:53:18 EST From: Jon Subject: Re: amps 1 Nov 89 15:28:58 CST from I own a CRATE 60 watt amp and I am VERY happy with it! It was pretty inexpensive ($260) and I think it has the best range and the overall best HIGH END (a MUST for keyboards). So, I say, go with CRATE- they seem to be a good company (sent me a lamenated warrentee card) and the amp came with a looong warrentee. So, again, I am pleased with CRATE. -Jon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Nov 89 20:32:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: re> amps I have the Ramsa, and use it with the Ramsa speakers (the little ones) and it sounds good. But I had to do it over again I think I would have waited for a sale and got a Crown. It may or may not be better, but I would have saved about $300. But I should say, the Ramsa would need a mixer. I have my eye on one of the 16+ channel rack mounts, perhaps the Tascam MM-1 Jeff Beer, Chicago. where it is wait till next year regarding my equipment in addition to the baseball. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Nov 89 09:15:38 EST From: Anthony Whipple Subject: re: amps I am more often a guitar player than keys, but friends that have borrowed my Roland JC120 for keys loved it a lot. It has a really crisp high end and an extra high boost to boot. It also has a really beautiful stereo chorus. The distortion unit on it is not very good, but then that's probably not much of an issue here. Tony ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Nov 89 10:58:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: Amps An amp you might want to look into is the Galleon-Kruger (sp?). It's pricey, but it is very compact, clean and loud. It is a stereo amp (if you buy the self-powered extension $peaker), so you can make use of all those fat stereo sounds your synth puts out or do a better rotating speaker simulation (leslie). If I remember correctly, it has digital effects built in like chorus, reverb, compression and distrotion, or at least some of the above. It's been a couple of years since I played with one, and it was the guitar-oriented model, so their keyboard-oriented system is probably different from what I am describing here. I was impressed by the quality of the sound, but not impressed by the price. IMHO, IMHO, it's off to work I go... -chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Nov 89 14:54:00 EDT From: a Pirate twin Subject: RE: re> amps I just bought an AMR-200 power amp for my home "studio" set-up. Very clean, nice and loud ... it's driving a pair of small Fostex reference monitors. Having a good amp, however, makes you realize your mixer is terrible! Oh well, only so much you can buy at once. I don't suppose this unit would be any good for playing live, except in small venues (it IS rack mountable, has 1/4" inputs, and seems quite rugged), but for my application it's fine ... my neighbours say it's quite powerful enough ... While I'm at it and while the 4-track reviews are going on -- I'm looking at for an eight-tack recording system. Currently the Fostex 1/4" reel-reel with the 8X4 board is my choice ... basically because my friend had one and I liked the results he got. Anyone have any comments/recommendations? I think I can spend about $4k Canadian ... -brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Nov 89 08:11:00 EST From: "Daniel J. Graham" Subject: Problem taping Roland piano Greetings all, I'm having a problem that I hope somebody can help me with. I am trying to record a Roland HS-3500 piano onto a track of my Tascam 388. I'm feeding the output from the back of the Roland to the line input of one of the channels on the Tascam via a 25 foot shielded cable that is sold as a "guitar" cable. As I monitor the piano through the 388, it sounds excellent. However, when I record it (dbx on) and then play it back, things are different. There is, of course, a little hiss, I expect that. There is also a different kind of hiss/distortion that gets louder when loud notes are played. It sounds as though there is a volume expander in line that hears a note and increases the gain. The piano sounds fine, but the hiss that increases with each note sounds very strange and unacceptable. Let's say I'm playing a scale, I hear the scale and along with each note I hear a HISS...HISS...HISS. Between notes the background hiss is always there, but as soon as notes are played, the hiss jumps with each note, returning to base level during pauses and inter-note spaces. I tried the audio output from my Juno 2 and got the same results. The Tascam 388 seems to work perfectly on all other input sources, and I'm being careful not to overdrive the input circuits. In fact, the effect is still there with record levels of less than -20 db. 1. Am I using the wrong kind of cable to connect the piano to the Tascam? 2. Does Roland do some kind of audio processing in their output stages? 3. Should I be using the PGM INputs on the Tascam instead of the line in on a given channel? 4. Are there questions I'm not asking that are relevant? I'd appreciate any help I can get. Thanks in advance to all. Dan Graham ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 08:34:00 EST From: "Daniel J. Graham" Subject: Re: Problem recording Roland piano on Tascam 388 - Answer Well, I solved my own problem and thought my solution, embarrassing though it is might help others. I've been in recording for years, and should have seen the answer immediately. I was getting very strange noise and distortion while recording my Roland piano on my brand new Tascam 388. I suppose it was the new equipment or something that dulled my senses, but I had failed to BULK ERASE my tape before recording. DUMB MOVE! I tried a bulked tape and there was no hiss or distortion at all, save for that which you would expect in the background. I'm rather chagrined about this...I should have known better. A good lesson for all. Always bulk erase any tape, audio or video before recording. I'm rather happy someone didn't suggest this and embarrass me further...thanks folks for being discreetly silent and letting me figure it out. --Dan P.S. The Tascam 388, an eight track mixer/recorder is a spectacular machine for the money. The mixer is first class, and the recorder, while only a 7 inch reel machine, is still very decent. You'd have to spend twice the money to do much better in my opinion. (Don't pay a penny over $2,850 for one) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 09:52:22 EST From: Anthony Whipple Subject: re: 8-track and mixing board The Fostex 8 track is a decent enough recorder, however I do have a recommendation about the board. It is always advisable to have more channels of input than there are tracks on the tape. I have a 16-track semi-pro studio that I run near Ann Arbor, MI and when I set it up, I bought the Fostex 16x4 board. In general I have been happy with it, and for the price it's hard to beat. But I have just recently bought another 16 channel board that I intend to run along with the Fostex. The reason is that I often find myself in need of more channels for stereo effects returns, and if I wanted to completely fill the tape with analog sounds and a sync track, I could then use the extra channels to mix the synth sounds "live". Another limitation of the Fostex boards are the two aux sends. I often find myself wanting more. Alesis has a 16 channel by 2 board that will be shipping soon for very little money. I believe it has 6 aux sends. Depending on you application, if you dont need the 4 busses, this might be a good choice. Tony ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Nov 89 15:21:00 EDT From: a Pirate twin Subject: D50 archives I have a problem receiving 8-bit files (ie:binary) over the net. Subsequently, when I request a binary from a server on the net, I request that it be UUENCODEd, which converts the file to seven bits. Once the file is save and sound on my PC at home, I UUDECODE it. The BIG question: can I request the D50 banks to be encoded in the same manner? -brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Nov 89 23:36:00 EST From: Bright Eyes Subject: Yamaha V50 Keyboard Hi. I'm relatively new to the list, and have a question on a specific keyboard. ( sorry if this has been asked and answered before.) What can anyone tell me about the V50 keyboard. I've played around with it...lots of nice sounds, although some aren't as realistic as they could be, and I know a little about the sequencer, but what are some REAL comments about it...likes, dislikes, is it worth spending $1600 for? Kelly Leigh KLEIGH@DEPAUW ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 09:14:47 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Re: The Proteus Chris, Thanks for your reply. Even if you get discouraged at not being able to get a Proteus right away, I wouldn't settle for an MT-32. My dealer here mentioned that the other guys (Roland, KORG, Yamaha, etc) are scrambling to put out things to compete with Proteus (proabably in the Jan-March 1990) time frame. I've got an MT-32. It's OK for working out ideas and parts but it really is lacking for any kind of serious recording. It's really quite noisy and the sounds just aren't that great. There are a few people pushing home-brew upgrades for it, but I don't know about them. Also, the internal signal processing (i.e. Reverb) is pretty bad. Luckily, I only paid $300 for mine, but I don't think I would even do that again. The drums on it are pretty good though. I'm with you, crossing my fingers for E-mu and the Proteus; but it will be very interesting to see how the competitors respond. This may be and instance where a little patience may pay off greatly. Electronics packaging and manufacture is undergoing some seemingly subtle improvements as a result of the movement to automation in production in the computer industry. Look at the NeXT machine or Alesis new products for example. The combination of automated produciton and easily programmable VLSI gate-array technology is going to have quite an impact on this industry in particular. Brian Adamson adamson.css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 11:33:17 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: Proteus I *just* got one of these nice units...and BELIEVE ME it sounds * g o o d *! There are some real quality sounds in there, and while it'd be nice to be able to put my own in...I may never need to! The proteus is pretty good. I'd highly reccommend it. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 09:41:20 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Re: Proteus Dave, Are you with nasa in the D.C. area? If so, where did you find a Proteus? and how much? if you don't mind. I checked at Veneman's in Rockville and they fed me some line about not being able to get Proteus in much quantity...E-mu's on the verge of bankruptcy and can't afford to buy the parts to build Proteus. Of course they also told me several other vendors are planning to release Proteus-like competitive products close to the beginning of 1990. Has anyone heard similar gossip? Just curious. Brian Adamson. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 13:50:11 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: Re: Proteus No...I am with JPL/NASA here in the Pasadena area. I got a proteus through a dealer friend of mine...not at liberty to say whom. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 16:53:00 EST From: MCINTYRE@MSUPA.BITNET Subject: E-Mu problems? >From: Brian Adamson > I checked at >Veneman's in Rockville and they fed me some line about not being >able to get Proteus in much quantity...E-mu's on the verge of >bankruptcy and can't afford to buy the parts to build Proteus. I would be interested in hearing more about E-mu's financial health and ability to stay in business. Anyone know more? John McIntyre Physics - Astronomy Dept Michigan State University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 09:55:40 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: E-Mu problems? 6 Nov 89 16:53:00 EST <334.8911070503@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >I would be interested in hearing more about E-mu's financial health >and ability to stay in business. Anyone know more? This topic was bandied about on USEnet a while ago. As far as I know (which isn't very far), E-mu is fine. What *will* kill them, however, is the wildfire spread of unsubstantiated rumours about them being virtually bankrupt. Careless talk costs lives! Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 19:06:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: gossip (malicious and otherwise) Quick notes for you folx, none of which you heard from moi: 1. Emu is not in bad shape to my knowledge; they just got caught with their pants down when Proteus orders started rolling in. Baldwin's helping them out these days. There are RUMOURS of them having a bad year in '88, but I can't say for sure. 2. Oberheim has been sold by ECC to a new parent company. Details when I know. 3. Did my PCM box piece get to everyone? Cecelia said she loved it, but I got recent mail from Brian intimating that he hadn't gotten it. ARGH! gotta run, -- metlay | "Blah blah woof woof" --Jimi Hendrix (the "m.m." stands for | "my moniker's") | "Blather rimita rah ro" --Matt Howarth metlay@pittvms.BITNET | metlay@vms.cis.pitt.EDU | "Gibbity gibbity gibbity" --Spike Jones Oh yeah, PS: I'VE GOT A RECORD LABEL DEAL FOR MY NEXT ALBUM! YEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 09:33:35 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Panasonic DAT recorders. To whomever is interested: I just got in a couple of the Panasonic SV-255 portable DAT recorders. (They're cute as a button) I am also getting a SV-3500 rack mount type DAT recorder which has more features (but is less expensive, believe it or not) I would be happy to do a reveiw of these, if anyone is interested, as soon as I have used them a little. Anyone interested? Brian Adamson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 11:21:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: DAT would be nice, Brian. |-> Brian: Yes, please! I use a VCR with a Sony PCM-501ES, a Godlike setup that's not quite up to the DAT's highest-rez standard but easily CD quality and a much sturdier format than DAT (by recent reports), and I'm curious to hear your experiences. metlay PS> Those articles you see occasionally on infinite multitracking with CD sound quality on VCR tapes using a Sony PCM box are all true. That's the method I use for my own album work, AND YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH DAT! NYAH! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 16:00:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: RE> Dat Yes, anybody gets a DAT, sound off. I would want one to allow recording a synctrack in addition to stereo recording, but those tend to run $10K. I am not going to be able to spend $10K Jeff Beer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 17:18:05 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: PCM Usage Metlay, would you mind filling us less technical folks in on how you use the Sony PCM? I know that it's still possible to find them used every once in a while. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Nov 89 22:48:44 GMT From: "'Patrick C.K.Tsang'" Subject: Sony digital >metlay >PS> Those articles you see occasionally on infinite multitracking with CD sound quality on VCR tapes using a Sony PCM box are all true. That's the method I use for my own album work, AND YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH DAT! NYAH! I am interested to know how you do it. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 89 12:45:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: On PCM recording and multitracking (*long*) >From: Joe McMahon Metlay, would you mind filling us less technical folks in on how you use the Sony PCM? I know that it's still possible to find them used every once in a while. >From: "'Patrick C.K.Tsang'" >PS> Those articles you see occasionally on infinite multitracking with CD sound quality on VCR tapes using a Sony PCM box are all true. That's the method I use for my own album work, AND YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH DAT! NYAH! I am interested to know how you do it. Soitinly! Nyuk nyuk nyuk..... The Sony PCM boxes have a fascinating history, about which I'd like to speak for a moment before I get into the technicalities of how I use them. But even before that, I'd like to explain to the uninitiated (uninitialized? hmmm...) exactly what a PCM box is! Okay, we all know about DAT, righty ho? Basically, a rotating head digital recording system using a proprietary tape format, yes? Fine fine fine. But what precisely IS a DAT recorder, after all? Well, it's a 16-bit D/A and A/D converter on the front end, and a digital storage medium with error correction and all that other whizbang stuff. The D/A and A/D aren't that innovative with respect to things that've been around for ages, well, years anyway, but the compact data storage is what really sets the DAT apart. Digital mastering decks use the same principles, but different data storage (tape reels), and so will recordable CDs (optical disks). So what are digital recording devices? Basically an A/D and a D/A with something to store the ones and zeroes quickly and accurately. The PCM box, as invented by Sony, is just such a device. It was designed to do what DAT does, using an already-extant data storage format that was portable, reliable, and cheap: VCR tapes. That's right, kids: the video track of a VCR has oodles of bandwidth for recording sound, so all we need to design is a box that has a D/A and A/D converter and some means for disguising the resulting data as a TV picture! Voila! Recordings with CD quality, and cheap! The idea was first tested with a gizmo called the Sony PCM-F1. It was designed to be portable, for on-location recordings of concerts with a camcorder tape unit. Plug in two microphones to the mic inputs on the F1, roll tape, and go. It cost around $2000, plus or minus, and was welcomed with open arms in the audio world. And that's when the trouble began.... (The following is not STRICTLY accurate, but close enough to give the reader a feel for the "flavor" of the times....let the credulous reader beware.) Sony suddenly discovered that sales of PCM-F1s were going through the roof, and sales of their high-end digital mastering decks were dropping like a felled ox. They were strangling their own Pro Audio Division with their own gear! Yikes, went Sales. Off the market, went the F1. SSSHHHHHRRRRRIIIIEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!! went the audio industry. Sony gritted their teeth and held on for as long as they could, as used F1s became a hot ticket item and people STILL refused to buy high-end decks. But eventually somebody knuckled under to outside pressure and sold the plans to the F1 to Nakamichi, who painted it black, changed two input capacitors for a slightly "sweeter" sound, and marketed it as the Nakamichi DMP-100. Nakamichi stock took off, and Sony was REALLY screwed. So they did the only thing they could, which was to start putting out the F1 again, with the addition of the new caps Naka had added since people liked them. Since then, other people (JVC, Technics, etc) have done the same thing, and Sony is now truly caught between staying enough ahead of their competitors in this little-known but fiercely competitive field, and throttling their other digital formats, like open-reel digital and DAT. It's a bad situation. Bad for Sony, that is; we get the best end of the deal, because they have no choice but to supply us with these boxes! |-> The usual market pattern is as follows: R&D comes up with new features for the PCM units. A new model is manufactured. Its production run is limited and only takes place once per fiscal year. Most units are wired for Japanese power, and are sold to Japanese users. A select few are wired for US power and exported. The US models are so rare and costly that they vanish essentially instantly. The Japanese models are bought by US companies that export them via the grey market, rebuild their power supplies and RF shielding, and (legally) resell them to voracious American buyers. (It's only illegal if the customer doesn't know about the rebuilding before he buys.) Then the supply runs out, pleas for more from Sony fall on deaf ears, and there's a dearth for months until the cycle begins again.... (End of slightly popularized historical note. The following is straight dope.) The units are occasionally available used, but they're likely to be costly, and one should be damn sure one isn't being sold a grey-market box without knowing in advance who did the mod and whether they'll guarantee their work. Sony has, in its history, made the following models: PCM-F1: The original. Portable, with mic inputs. Expensive ($2000 or so?). PCM-701: Essentially a line-input, rack mount F1. Cost about the same. PCM-501ES: Freestanding stereo-component style box. List about $800. PCM-601ESD: The current design. Has PCM-1630 digital I/O. List about $1300. All of the above are essentially equivalent in design and sound quality, and all will work essentially interchangeably with one another. They operate in two modes: 14-bit with heavy error correction, and 16-bit with somewhat less error correction. In the experience of everyone I know who uses them, including my own, the incidence of pops and clicks is no higher for 16-bit than for 14-bit. There's a noticeable difference in sound quality, too: as Freff once put it, "At 14-bit, it's like looking through a freshly washed and crystal-clear window. At 16-bit, it's like removing the glass." The Nakamichi DMP100 is identical to the PCM-F1 in every way. All of the other PCM boxes on the market, from Technics, JVC et al., are inexpensive and sound good, but they are all only 14-bit units, so if you're a spec-head they won't satisfy. That includes the Toshiba deck everyone's been screaming about. Any VCR can conceivably be used with a PCM deck, and many users get by with a low-end VHS consumer deck without any trouble. Remember, the data is stored as VIDEO information! Not audio, not VHS or Beta Hi-Fi, just a picture. So any deck can be used, no matter how primitive. Some people use Hi-Fi to add two tracks of almost equal quality to the PCM tracks. One caveat, though: although most people don't have trouble, there are certain types of decks that give the most flawless results in heavy use. 3/4" U-matic is the choice of pros, and audio types who really care about quality (like me) prefer to use Sony Beta decks, for two reasons: First, no matter what anyone says, Beta is a mechanically superior format, and second, Sony decks almost always have a PCM switch, which optimizes the deck for PCM recording by switching out redundant error correction and doing something arcane to the data transmission (apparently there are subtle timing differences between PCM audio and a real TV picture, although I don't know the details). Everyone I've ever spoken to who has had dropout or click/pop problems with a PCM box was using a cheap VHS VCR, and the people who have used Betas are happy as larks. How are they normally used? Simple! MIDI instruments are set up to play in real time, run by a sequencer. Roll tape, start sequence, send everything to digital in realtime in one pass. If non-MIDI instruments are to be added, this can be done live or via multitrack analog tape synched via SMPTE. The point is to keep analog recording and bouncing to a minimum, if not at zero. The result is a PCM-box-readable digital master, 16-bit at 44.1kHz, which most if not all mastering houses can transfer painlessly to a pro format for next to nothing. The vast majority (99-plus percent) of users use PCM for either this purpose or for live digital recordings. The other less-than-1 percent use PCM for infinite digital multitracking. As for my PCM multitracking method, well, let's back up a minute. It isn't true multitracking, and it imposes strong strictures on the recording technique of the user. Few people that I know of use this technique on a regular basis, and no record album has ever been put together with it to my knowledge (which would make mine a first, which I don't mind). The principle is more of a digital sound-on-sound technique, and it takes advantage of an odd design quirk in the Sony PCM boxes: the D/A and A/D converters are two separate entities, that don't communicate with one another directly, so one can be sending one audio signal one way and the other can be handling a different signal in the opposite direction. So the principle is straightforward: one VCR is designated for playback, and the other for recording. They're hooked up to the PCM box accordingly in the digital domain. On the analog side of things, the playback machine is run to two channels of a mixer, and the recording machine isn't hooked up at all, neccessarily. The procedure goes as follows: 1. Set up and record a mix on the record deck. 2. Remove the resulting mix and put it in the playback deck. 3. Play it back through the mixer, and add more stuff to it. 4. Repeat ad nauseam. Get it? You can do the same thing with analog media, but the generation noise will kill you in no time flat. With digital, if your mixer is clean and your sources don't have a lot of hash in them (no low-res digital synths or effects need apply), you can bounce and bounce to your heart's content. I've heard 24-track mixes of guitar overdubs that sound like they were played live by two dozen guitarists! The disadvantages, of ourse, are equally obvious: you can't edit what you've done, whether by punching or spot erasing, so everything is live and direct to tape. You can't unmerge data, either, so if you're on Tracks 11 and 12 and you suddenly realize there's an unforgivable glitch in your solo that you laid down on Tracks 3 and 4, you've just lost not only those two tracks, but Tracks 5,6,7,8,9,and 10 as well! Eek! The idea, of course, is to get a complete mix down in as few passes as possible. The primary difference between this method and the "MIDI setup to digital master" is that for every pass you can use your whole setup all over again. So if you own three synths and four effects, two passes gives you six synths and eight effects, and so on. Sync is easy: lay down SMPTE on the linear audio of the VCR, and jam sync and restripe on each pass. It's a very demanding way to work: your sequencer holds all of the data but slelcted bits must be muted, since you can't audition everything at once, and anything you decide to play live immediately takes on the characteristics of the old direct-to-disk sessions. It's rough, but fun, and I enjoy it immensely. Any Questions? |-> metlay | First pass: arpeggiator, pads and drum mix (the "m.m." stands for | Second pass: synth solos "my moniker's") | Third pass: e-guitar and e-violin solos metlay@pittvms.BITNET | Fourth pass: Vocals and a-guitar metlay@vms.cis.pitt.EDU | Fifth pass: Discovered mistake in drum mix! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 89 15:58:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: RE> PCM an aside, the PCM format has an extremly robust error correcting system, allowing one to get as good a performance out of cheap $200 VCRs as the HIFI ones. You don't even need the expensive tape, just one without dropouts. jeff ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 11:20:31 EST From: "AED-FD Homesh R. Lalbahadur" Subject: PCM Recording Metlay, excellent article on PCM. Question: Upon playing back the VCR master tape for conversion to audio, is there a method for altering the tempo of the finished work; i.e., is there a speed control/pitch control on the PCM box? Holmes L ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 12:46:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: RE: PCM Recording No, there isn't. Digital data can only be time-compressed using DSP methods; speeding up or slowing down the tape only produces garbage. If you were to offload the data onto a fancier digital machine, such as a PCM-1630, then a fair amount of editing and so on would become possible. metlay ps. "Glurk"? I ask you! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Nov 89 18:17:00 EST From: "Ben Chronister, SPN." Subject: The MT32 revealed... People, I don't know if any of you have been considering buying a Roland MT-32 sound module. It was released about 3 years ago, and I have seen it for pretty cheap recently. There are some problems with it, which you may not be able to find out from the eager-to-sell seller... 1)ROLANDs customer support sucks! I called them about some of the problems I was having, and it involved about 6 calls to California before anyone would talk to me. It involved being hung up on, and accused of not knowing what I was talking about. I finally gave up on them. 2)There is a design flaw... The D/A converters can be overdriven resulting not in a nice distorted guitar effect, but a loud, rude, equipment-damaging, ear-shattering crackle. If you have the oppurtunity to play a MT32, the easiest way to hear this, is to play the Honkytonk sound, or the orchestra smash at high velocities. It happens much more often when sequencing, due to the fact that you can change the velocities manually. I brought my unit back for service after hearing this, and they charged me 30 minutes labor, before I found out that ALL MT32's do this. Roland's explanation? When they admit the problem exists, they say it is not designed for professional use. 3)The reverb, although it has some nice effects, is noisy and is best turned off for serious recording. 4)There is no battery back-up. The system is designed, or so I hear, to use one, but they decided to eliminate it to save a buck or two. The unit is capable of some incredible sounds, and endless varieties, but everything is gone when the power is shut. Because of this, you NEED an editor/librarian, which of course means you need a computer. 5)There is no way to initiate a MIDI data dump from the front panel, eliminating the dumb librarian capibility. 6)While I am discussing the front panel, there is very little you can do. You can set master volume, and the volume of all 8 parts. You can set the master tune, and set the reverb depth for room reverb only. If you have changed it to some better reverb setting, such as plate, as soon as you change the depth, it reverts to room. Bad move, Roland... Another bad move, you can set only the ROM patches from the front panel. That means that unless you have a keyboard capable of sending patch change commands from 0-127, you can not hear any patches you have gotten from elsewhere. The only remaining features are reset, and overflow assign. 7)From a studio point of view, it is lacking individual outs, but it does have a right and left/mono to eliminate Y cables for single channel mixers. 8)Finally, it is missing a cartridge port, a feature found on every other Roland. There are also a lot of good points, but they are easy to find out. This served to let you know what you may not find out until after you bought it. One good thing that nobody seems to know, is that if you have a friend with a D10/D20/D110... The majority of the patches on those machines are compatible with the MT32! All you need is a librarian... And a computer... Any questions or comments can be directed over the listserv to me. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 89 12:19:09 EST From: aerts@MEDIA01.UUCP Subject: Re: The MT32 revealed.. Ben Chronister writes: > There are also a lot of good points, but they are easy to find out. This > served to let you know what you may not find out until after you bought > it. One good thing that nobody seems to know, is that if you have a > friend with a D10/D20/D110... The majority of the patches on those > machines are compatible with the MT32! I wonder wat you would consider "the majority of the patches". I upgraded from an MT-32 to a D110 some months ago, and I found that most of the MT-32 patches sound "interesting" on the D110, but not at all like the MT-32. The reason for this incompatibility is that the number of PCM samples has not only been doubled on the D110, the ordering of the samples has been changed as well. This means that patches using PCM samples will *not* sound the same on the D110. "Ordinary" synthesiser patches however will. The D110 is a much improved version of de MT32, in almost every aspect. But in my opinion some MT-32 sounds are still better than the corresponding sounds on the D110. This is the main reason why I haven't sold my ol' MT yet. +-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ | Ad Aerts | It's a shame each of my messages sees more of | | AERTS@HUTRUU52.BITNET | the world than I ever will... | | aerts@media00.uucp | | +-------------------------+------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 09:45:22 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Re: The MT32 revealed... Ben Ditto on your MT-32 comments. very noisy & limited albeit a cute concept & I have found it useful for working out parts. For actually recording it though . . . . alot to be desired. That's why I am interested in the Proteus. lots of sounds, one box, one price. I do need to buy other things besides many, many synth modules. Brian Adamson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 12:37:33 EST From: Jon Subject: MT32 and D110 Ad Aerts writes: >I wonder wat you would consider "the majority of the patches". I upgraded >from an MT-32 to a D110 some months ago, and I found that most of the >MT-32 patches sound "interesting" on the D110, but not at all like the MT-32. >The reason for this incompatibility is that the number of PCM samples has not >only been doubled on the D110, the ordering of the samples has been changed >as well. This means that patches using PCM samples will *not* sound the same >on the D110. "Ordinary" synthesiser patches however will. It is true that the number of samples has increased in the D110, and that they rearranged the order. BUT, I think what Ben is trying to say is that with MINIMAL work, one CAN make the MT-32 sound just about like a D110 sans reverb. Yes, it would take a good ear and some experience, but I would tend to agree that ALMOST any patch could be converted to MT32 with little if any discrepancies. >The D110 is a much improved version of de MT32, in almost every aspect. But >in my opinion some MT-32 sounds are still better than the corresponding sounds >on the D110. This is the main reason why I haven't sold my ol' MT yet. I agree that the D110 is much improved and an overall better machine than the MT-32 (it better be- it's about 2 years newer, more expensive, and marketed as the MT32's sucessor!). I also believe that some of the MT32's sounds are better than their correpsonding sounds on the D110. Roland might not be the best company in the world, but they sure know a lot about making good-sounding synths and affordable prices!! -Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 89 20:52:48 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: THE TAPE!!!! Thank god! Now more than half the dupes are done, and the LINER NOTES are done--that was holding me up from sending out the tapes last week. At last... In any case, the following message from me will contain the liner notes. About three printed pages worth! (Some of you were quite verbose...) A taste of what is to come. If anyone out there still wants a tape, the deal still stands. You send me a blank 90 minute (or 100 minute if you want ot be safe) tape and the Self-addressed-stamped-envelope (or just the postage and I'll re-use your envelope) and I'll make you a copy. To: Cecilia Tan/438 Wickenden St. Apt. 3/Providence/RI 02903-4428/USA -ctan PS_METLAY, your note on the pulse code modulation boxes was great. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Nov 89 20:57:10 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: THE LINER NOTES Here they are, the liner notes for the compilation, as promised: MAGNETIC FILINGS A Compilation of Musical Contributions by the Subscribers to the EMUSIC-L electronic mailing list. For more information send e-mail to EMUSIC-L- REQUEST@AUVM. Compiled during the Summer of 1989 by Cecilia Tan (ST902235@BROWNVM.BITNET). Notes from the Compiler-- First of all, I have to apologize. As a former sound engineer I cringe when I hear the poor editing on Side 2, but I didn't realize the limitations of my equipment until it was too late. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I also apologize for the curious fact that not all 90 minute tapes are created equal! My "master" tape f "Waditis" in its entirety on the end of Side 1. But Maxell 90 minute tapes cut few measures before the end. TDK doesn't, though. Hmmm..... Secondly, I must say that we have amassed an impressive collection of tracks here, that span multiple genres and styles. I have listened to these son over and over and the quality level continues to amaze me. It wasn't easy to decide what to leave out--that's right, I actually had to leave pieces off of th finished product because there were just so many. Every contributor has at leas one piece included, though. Well, except me. Since the new material I was working on wasn't finished in time, I decided it would just make room for more finished material to go on. Maybe next year. That's right! Next year! I think that if I still have a network connection and there is an interest, I'll do this again next year--hopefully with some bett equipment! So here it is, listen and enjoy! Liner notes are the creators' own words except where noted. SIDE ONE Joe McMahon Liquid Crystals 3:52 Third Rail 3:55 The two pieces are essentially improvisations captured on tape and edited. They were done in 1978, using a Micromoog, two 1/4 tape recorders, and a razor blade. The echo effect was achieved using a Y-adapter to feed back portions of signal from the right channel to the left, and adding new material on top. The linear mixing of the signals added some interesting modulation to the existing material. [They] were composed and performed for an electronic music class for non- majors... These are two pieces which approach the traditional electronic music genre with respect, affection and humor. These pieces are dedicated to Gi Trythall, my instructor and the writer of the first book I ever read on electron music. These pieces are best played LOUD. And they're a lot of fun on headphones. E-MAIL: XRJDM@SCFVM.BITNET Chip With A Vengeance (consisting of Carl T. Donath, a Syracuse University senior in computer engineering, EMUSIC-L subscriber and electronic music hardware hacker, and Phil Zampino, DB2 expert at MONY Financial Services and MIDI music experimenter.) Vacuous Scream 1:46 Digitized Horses 2:50 The hardware used included: Korg 707, Yamaha DX-100, Digitech Time Machine 7.8, Roland MT-32, Atari 1040ST, Digitech MX-8, Furman Patch Bay, Yamaha Rex-50, Yamaha FB01, Yamaha CD01, Boss Delay. E-MAIL: CTDONATH@SUNRISE David Mantripp (a "silent" user of EMUSIC-L) and Paul Gallant Raft 10:50 Cecilia says--This selection comes from an actual album on cassette called EASTER, that David Mantripp sent to me. He describes this piece as "...experimental, and can be (to some) very very depressing--sort of instrumenta Cohen!" I don't know how anyone can find such good music depressing... Among t equipment Paul and he used "... a Chroma Polaris, EMS Synthi, and a lot of percussion instruments, all on 'ambient' microphones, taped on a Fostex 160, mor or less live, and remixed on a 16 channel desk." For more information on how you can get a copy of EASTER, e-mail Mr. Mantripp at E-MAIL: DM@C.MSSL.UCL.AC.UK Chris Iverson Ruminations 2:45 Because of my monotimbral status, this is a low tech, low-quality recording; my apologies to your ears. No sequencing was used; each part had to recorded separately in real time, played by my fallible human hands, so there ar plenty of clams (mistakes) for you to overlook. "Ruminations" was written by a guitarist friend of mine, Steve Shanholtzer (who plays on this track), and is a new-age sort of wander through music. E-MAIL: CHRIS@FANDM Dan Bornstein Ethereal Nature 1:18 Untitled 2:20 Noises from Nowhere 4:00 I've been playing with synthesizers since about my sophomore year in high school (1986 or so) but I haven't had much in the way of formal keyboard trainin Aside from keyboards, I also play mandolin and banjo. Aside from music, my big interest is computer science, especially artificial intelligence. I just began second year at Brown University; I'll probably be designing an independent major involving both computer science and cognitive science. My current setup is pretty basic--I have a Roland JX3P as a controller, and I have both the Roland and the Yamaha TX81Z to generate sounds. I use a Yamaha MT1X four-track to do the recording. Ethereal Nature was done entirely on the Roland using no preset patches, and, is vaguely a response to Laurie Anderson's "White Lily." Untitled is the first piece I have done in almost a year. To get fingers and my memory back in shape, I started to play a lot of Bach. Consequently, when I made this piece, I was very much in Back *mode.* One of my housemates says it sounds "religious." E-MAIL: DANFUZZ@BROWNVM.BITNET Jari Riitala Imperventus 2:49 Acid Rain Expected 4:03 I recorded this on my Nakamichi BX-125E (yap, that's old). Both written (played in, conceived or anything but certainly not penned own on paper!) by me. Don't ask what "Imperventus" means--I don't know myself. "Acid Rain" is not a political comment. I am not a member of the Greenpeace movement. Equipment: DX7 (the old one), D-110, Atari ST, SMPTE Track by Hybrid Arts, and a touch of SPX-90 (the old one here, too!) E-MAIL: T6M-RIIT@MAMMUTTI.UTU.FI Chris Iverson Waditis 4:45 I wasn't quite sure what this was when I finished it, hence the title. It just came to me once when I sat down at a piano and tried to do something different. It was a surprise, and is unlike anything I have written before or s The equipment I used consisted of a Korg DW-6000, Roland SuperDrums, a Shure SM57 microphone and a Fostex X15 four-track cassette deck. SIDE TWO Nick Rothwell Sudstern 8:18 The purpose of music is to communicate ideas and feelings. Synthesiser music is well-placed in this respect, because of the vast palette of sounds and compositional tools available to the composer, with which to realise musical (an therefore emotional) ideas. It is, therefore, a great shame that trends in instrumental music, New Age in particular, strive to be passive, ambient, and no confrontational. How is a piece of music serving to communicate if it can be ignored? I don't want to make music which is "nice." I want to make music whic is confrontational, in the sense that its emotional message is direct and obviou Fear of emotional confrontation is, I think, an unhealthy barrier to communicati Breaking such barriers down is difficult; but music is a good place to start. Oh, yes: Sudstern is part of the of Kreuzberg area of West Berlin. Equipment: Roland D-50, D-110, MKS-7; Yamaha pf85, TX7; Oberheim Matrix-6R, Alesis MIDIverbII, Quadra Verb; Simmons SPM 8:2, Studiomaster 16:2, Macintosh computer with Performer, Oberheim Cyclone, Digital Music Corp. MX-8. E-MAIL: NICK@LFCS.ED.AC.UK Totentanz Meditations of the Monk 13:13 Performed by Totentanz, which is the Reverend playing Monster, his homebuilt synthesizer, and Wolf on guitar, Arp Odyssey, and Roland TR808 drum machine. (which one of them is John McIntyre, Emusic-l user, I don't know--CT) E-mail: MCINTYRE@MSUPA.BITNET William T. Angel 2 North Indian Ragas Total time: 20 minutes approx. While working as a computer programmer I developed an interest in computer graphics and computer music, both of which I am exploring through personal projects. In particular, I have been creating mathematically based computer graphics, and then "listening" to the designs via a MIDI based synthesizer. These selections are the result of an attempt to combine certain elements of North Indian classical music, with elements of algorithmic composition. A computer program running on an IBM PC computer equipped with a music synthesizer takes as its input a short selection of an Indian raga encoded symbolically (in Indian solfege notation). The program then generates variation and embellishments of the sequences according to certain rules very similar to t rules used to produce complex fractal visual images. (As described in "Plants, Fractals and Formal Languages" by A.R. Smith, 1984 ACM SIGGRAPH Convention) (That's all folks. I hope to see some brisk discussion of the music on E-music- the near future! -Cecilia) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 12:12:17 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: THE LINER NOTES Excuse me for coming late to this group and probably missing all the details, but how does one go about ordering a copy of this compilation tape? Thanks, - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, BIX : kgeisel briefed, debriefed, or numbered!" - The Prisoner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 14:56:24 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: THE LINER NOTES 5 Nov 89 20:57:10 EST <294.8911062114@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >That's right! Next year! I think that if I still have a network connection >and there is an interest, I'll do this again next year--hopefully with some >better equipment! Hopefully I'll have some better quality music by that time as well... (and, my god, were my liner notes really that pretentious?). Only... next year, will we be treated to Metlay's PCM multi-tracked Cyclone-arpeggiated twin Xpanders? Glurk! Did you say you were thinking of sending this tape off to one of the US magazines? Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 12:26:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: Wait till next year Yes, I hope there is a tape next year, as I am sure to have a piece ready. I have been working on a Master's thesis, and that has been a real timne consumer. But lately I have been working on some stuff. Jeff Beer, Chicago ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 13:51:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: many of the messages of the past 2 days... First, to Cecilia - Yahoo!!! Can't wait to listen to THE TAPE. I seem to recall that THE TAPE was given a name, but I forgot what it was. Care to refresh my memory? BTW, it was awfully altruistic of you to undertake this project; after reading the liner notes (briefly), I begin to get the feeling that you had quite a job sorting through everything. I hope we all are sounding duly appreciative... Next time, if you actually are crazy enough to handle this thing all over again after seeing what is involved, make sure you reserve yourself some space on the tape. If anyone deserves it, you do. Nick - You get my vote for "Most pretentious liner notes" ;-) Dan - If I'm going to bulk erase my tapes, does it make a difference if I get a bulk eraser from Radio Shack for $5.00, or should I spend more for something better? Concerning the Emu rumour mill - Here's something to add to circulation: A friend of mine who works in a music store (by no coincidence at all he is the author of 'Ruminations' on THE TAPE) told me that Roland is coming out with a rack-mount version of the U-20 (did I get the model number right? It's their latest offering that everyone has been praising...) for $995.00. Now we'll all have to argue about which is the better value - the Proteus or the U-20. I hate when that happens... 8-) finally - I think Cecilia did mention that she was thinking of sending THE TAPE to either Keyboard or Electronic Musician or both. Makes me wish I had done a better job on what I submitted...(did you really do it, Cecilia?). Bye now (pay later) -chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 14:56:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: bulk erasing of tapes Color me naive, but what is the advantage of bulk-erasing a brand-new blank (supposedly?) tape. -chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 16:22:00 EST From: "Daniel J. Graham" Subject: Bulk erasing tapes >Color me naive, but what is the advantage of bulk-erasing a brand-new >blank (supposedly?) tape. From the manufacturing plant until you thread it onto your tape recorder, a "new" tape has gone through many magnetic fields of one strength or an other. These cause hiss on the tape. There may be more reasons, I'm not sure. What I do know is that it quiets tapes down a lot. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Nov 89 17:34:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: RE> Bulk erasing I know bulk erasing improves the tape for mastering, but what if you are going to punch? Is the noise going to be as bad as it was before bulk erasing? Jeff Beer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 09:22:00 EDT From: "Sample this...!" Subject: Korg M1R Big question: I have a chance to pick up a Korg M1R for a very good deal (ie: even trade for a piece of equipment I'm dying to get rid off ... Metlay, can you guess?). How do you people rate the M1? I know we had this workstation converstation, but I'm only interested in the sounds. Is this a good multitimbral unit? What's the going price for an M1R these days? -brian (Metlay ... congratulations! Btw, I received the PCM note as well ... makes me think I should re-evaluate my decision to go with 8-track ...) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 11:32:16 EST From: Jon Subject: Korg M-line In response to Brians question- I personally don't own an M1 or M1r, but I have played around with them a bit and am truly impressed. The sounds are tremendous! The sounds are what distiguishes the Korg from the Roland, Kawai, or Yamaha (V50). Basically, the sounds tend to be toward the fat side (which is why I love it so much). If you are the kinda guy who LOVES the clean, crisp FM sounds, go with a V50. The percussion on the M1 is also fabulous. It has some nice latin perc as well. I hear that the sequencer has something left to be desired, but I couldn't tell you from personal experience (I ALWAYS prefer a PC sequencer over a built-in). If you want to hear the M1 in action, flip on Comic Strip Live on Saturday nights at 11:30 : The whole soundtrack is an M1 (I beleive). Or, turn on The Arsenio Hall show- the keyboardist has 2 and she's always bangin' on them! They are extrememly popular, so there is a lot of 3rd party support (patches, hardware mods, etc.) One VERY nice feature that the other companies left out of their workstations is slots for RAM cards AND ROM CARDS! Being able to put ROM cards in is a blessing- the ROM cards give you (I think) 4 more sampled waveforms (Keyboard reviewed a few of them recently). I am new to this listserve, so I don't know what you guys covered in your 'workstation debate'. So if anything I said is either repeating what has already been said, or is just totally wrong, sorry (I'm just a lowly D10 owner) -Jon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 12:44:00 EDT From: "Sample this...!" Subject: RE: Korg M-line Thanks to Jon for the M1 comments ... luckily I've arranged to have the thing at home for a week before I commit to the deal. Like Jon, I prefer the PC to do my sequencing (IBM PC with Texture 2.something), so I'll probably never use the M1 for that. I am interested in the drum kits ... I'm currently using my S950 for drums, which replaces my ancient RX-11, but I'd like to free the sampler up for bigger and better things. I'm also impressed with the fatness of the Korg ... I had a super-fat Oberheim MX-6/R which sounded great but wouldn't stay in tune for anything, so I canned it (for the sampler, actually). Now before anyone jumps on me for comparing Korg to Oberhiem, I'm just saying I need a fat analog sound from time to time and I can't afford to own a car and an Xpander at the same time! -brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 13:44:00 EST From: "John Young, Southern CT State Univ" Subject: M1R >Big question: I have a chance to pick up a Korg M1R for a very good deal (ie: >even trade for a piece of equipment I'm dying to get rid off ... Metlay, can >you guess?). How do you people rate the M1? I know we had this workstation >converstation, but I'm only interested in the sounds. Is this a good >multitimbral unit? What's the going price for an M1R these days? As a fairly new owner of an M1 (a few months), I have to say that I'm extremely pleased with all aspects of it except one. The sequencer is fairly easy to use, but it is very limited as far as storing your work. There is no disk drive (unless you want to purchase a Frontal Lobe unit), so the only way to save patches and sequences is on RAM cards (very expensive.) However, the sounds are really impressive. And you have lots of very acceptable samples at your disposal without loading. Patches are fairly easy to program and the on-board effects give you quite a bit of flexability in your sounds. (Of course, from a guy whose main instrument used to be a Hohner Pianet, this is quite a step up...). By the way, Brian... I believe M1Rs are going for around $1400, probably less now. The M1R has the sequencer and all. There is a new rack piece out with just the sounds of the M1. I forgot the model number (S1??). You might want to check into that also. john young ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 89 21:01:55 EST From: "Kevin R. Weiner" Subject: Computer muzak At this past week's International Computer Music Conference, I noticed a curious phenomenom. With the tremendous range of tonal color and rhythmic variation available to the computer music composer, I was struck by how consistently uninteresting the majority of concert pieces were. It seems that the delight individuals take in producing interesting "sound effects" and convoluted themes is taking precedence over delivering to the audience something which they can relate to as well. The main advance brought about by computers is the ability to control complexity. Indeed, this capacity has been placed in the hands of composers who can now generate works of such extreme complexity, that only laborious study by the listener will reveal its content. I was always under the impression that simplicity was the essence of art. It seems that the simplicity, or the capacity to use it, has vanished. After several hours of listening, I found myself longing for a Mozart chamber piece. Or the Bangles. Or even a single major triad! I don't want to get off onto the issue of modern composition in gereral, where dissonance has become the tedious norm - I'm more interested in the use (or rather *abuse*) of computing and electronic music technology. Revolutions are okay, but a measured introduction of new concepts will meet with much less resistance than a complete break with the past. Back to the original subject, I found that the conference CD was almost listenable as background music while I was doing something else. Was that the goal? Do we have to accept it? Opinions and/or flames encouraged. Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************