EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 11, Number 2 Today's Topics: Amigas and music (7 messages) Emulator III Waldorf MicroWave Turtle Beach Software (4 messages) U-20 voice reserve (2 messages) Xpanders cost-effective?? (6 messages) W-30 (3 messages) Vangelis (2 messages) Programming problems The music-computer, uh, discussion (29 messages) Prophet VS Magnetic Filings (2 messages) Keith Emerson Chrismas CD (3 messages) MIDI on the Mac (4 messages) D-110 cards? Continuous controller pedals (cheap) (3 messages) Low-end keyboards Music software server (5 messages) VFX vs. M-1? Patch request: K-1, M-1, etc. (2 messages) MIDIPaint (2 messages) 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: Fri, 8 Dec 89 09:32:00 MET From: "Robert Belleman, Amsterdam" Subject: Amiga users > I haven't seen anyone mention here on EMUSIC-L that they were using an > Amiga in their setup. Any Amiga users out there? Yep. Here's one. I used an A500 with Dr. T's KCS together with my D-50 and MT-32 (I'm still working on that Wasp, Metlay) but recently upgraded to a B2000 (which isn't much of an upgrade in the music-kind-of-sense; I looks like I have to re-build my MIDI interface for this baby). I saw Music-X at a friends place and I must say, it - is - wicked !! If I'd have the money, I would buy it; no problem, but first I need a SCSI harddisk + controller and another * Meg's of memory. Especially the built in editor/ librarian is absolutely great (you buy it with a D-50 editor built in ! With Dr. T I'd have to buy the seperate editor, which by-the-way won't even allow multitasking. With Music-X you can define an editor for every synth you own). I recommend Music-X (I cannot speak of Bars & Pipes. I've never heard of it until now). > - Kurt Did you guys know that there's also a MUSIC-X mailing list ? Send your subscription to music-x-request@cs.jhu.edu . -- Rob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 09:52:00 EST From: MTG@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM Subject: Amiga sequencing... > ... Any Amiga users out there? Here! Alas, I have not used Bars & Pipes (or seen it, or heard about it) or Music-X, although I am a SoundScape user and have used Pro-MIDI Music Studio with it for some time. It's very convenient since they're very compatible, but it is lacking in many areas. I was always very pissed about it because I never, ever, ever got Mimetics to admit that I exist and never received anything from them (boy, this dissuades me from piracy now doesn't it?). Pro-MIDI has a lot of rough edges -- I hate its file requester and it's note editor is pretty no-frills, but it's served quite well -- at least it doesn't try to quantitize everything unless I ask it to. I have had a couple timing problems due to multitasking, but sometimes it's because I forgot to turn off the clock utility and virus checker while it's running . Also, when I try to record a track and have it playing others, I find it running noticeably slower, which really fouls me up. Hope someone posts something about Bars & Pipes; I'd love to find out more about it... _Is___________________________________________ ________________________there_ | ___ | | | Mark G., of... The | volution | Do you realise that if | | |--__ | the plastic dinosaurs you | | |_/_ \ ontrol | give your kids were flesh, | | "If you're | __ | bone, and alive, they would | | opposed to \_// \ ommittee | eat your kids whole with- | | opposable thumbs..." | | out even saying grace? | | \__/ | So There. (tm) | |_any__________________________________________|______________________escape?_| ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 12:20:07 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Bars & Pipes Info Excerpts from mail: 8-Dec-89 Amiga sequencing... MTG%CSI.COMPUSERVE.C@vma (1885) > Hope someone posts something about Bars & Pipes; I'd love to find out > more about it... I will summarize the article when I get home. Warning: It was not a review. It was written by the designer. - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "Mr. Chowning, you have created a monster." BIX : kgeisel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 16:50:34 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: Re: Amiga sequencing... 8 Dec 89 09:52:00 EST from Bars & Pipes? Heard something about this.....probably another MIDI Magic :) The ONLY decent sequencer for the Amiga is MUSIC-X; unless you want to pay the ridiculously high price for Master Tracks (which I have yet to see). Music-X is a fantastic program; very user friendly and doesn't seem to slow down when multi-tasking. It is very flexible also. All of the utilities are loaded as modules off disk so you don't take up extra space for unwanted utils. The quantization parameters are just great. This thing also serves as a patch editor/librarian and of course plays Amiga samples (why you would want to is another thing). I would strongly recommend this program. You may want to also look at KCS but I HATE the user interface. BTW, anyone have an M1 librarian out there for Music-X?? .....Jason ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 21:13:55 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Bars & Pipes Summary Sorry for the delay, folx. Here's a quick summary on a fairly hot-sounding new piece of Amiga software. This was taken from an article written by the designer in the December 89 issue of Amazing Computing. It is by no means and review and she doesn't seem too technically adept, so it lacks a lot of technical details. Still, it sounds interesting. There were some screen shots which I obviously can't convey, but they look fairly attractive and complex. ---- Bars & Pipes is an "object oriented" sequencing and composing package developed for the Commodore Amiga series of computers. It was designed by musician Melissa Jordan Grey and programmed by Todor Fay, who authored Mimetics' modular SoundScape sequencer. The heart of Bars & Pipes is the "Pipeline." The user arranges software modules and connects them with "pipe" and "valve" icons. The flow of MIDI can be directed on a track-by-track basis. There is no limit to the number of tracks supported. The pipes may connect modules together before the sequencer (pre-production side) and after the sequencer (post-production side). Now what can you do with the flow of MIDI information before and after the sequencer? B&P supports what it calls "Tools." They looked like both "active" and "passive" MIDI filters. It provides a number of tools as well as an "open" environment for both the serious programmer to add tools as well as the casual user to extend tools with a built-in macro language. Here are some examples of tools that were given: RANDOMIZER - Randomly varies timing if its input. HARMONY GENERATOR - Provides interval harmonies to the inputted melodic line. CHORD INVERTER - Set a high and low note octave boundary, then play inversions any way you want. KEYBOARD SPLITTER - Of course. There were other tools referenced in the text such as "Flip" and "Echo." There was also discussion of the Quantizing Tool (which you can obviously put either in the pre-production or the post-production side without affecting the recorded material.) The Quantizer has variable accuracy, anticipation, and has "triplet feel." She also mentioned "Flange" and an Arpeggiator. The sequencer looks fairly powerful. This was not a technical article, and didn't really give good specs (like what is the resolution of the clock and sequencer.) One thing that looks interesting is you can get a "zoomed-out" map of MIDI data within the sequencer area of the screen as you are recording... There is an infinite number of tracks with scroll bars both on the track list (vertical) and the sequencer display (horizontal). The powerful-looking editor provides staff display, piano-roll display, and event list editing. The editing functions weren't discussed in detail. She mentioned some powerful-sounding Lyrics options. Also, you can work on tracks which are organized into Groups. Good support of dynamics (including standard ppp-fff markings and drawing in crescendos). You can "draw in" phrasings (whatever that means) and there was something about a "Phrase Shaper" tool. Also, you can enter articulation information and there are is an "Accent Tool." You can change tempo an the fly and gradually speed up and slow down (accelerando, ritardo, rallentando, and ritenuto). You can set the starting and ending time and specify a linear, exponential, logarithmic, or instant tempo change curve. "Higher Levels of Musical Knowledge" Basically, the Sequencer/Editor can become "sensitive" to the following things: KEY - Provides a selection of keys, scales, and modes, as well as allowing you to create your own. The appropriate key becomes highlighted on the piano roll and the staff displays the key signature. Various "snap to key" options are supported. CHORDS - Chordal structure may be mapped out, B&P will score in the selected chord progression on a given track, and if scale/mode is definited, it can enter the proper triad given a root note. RHYTHMS - Rhythms can be selected from a template, taken from a track, or tapped out. You can then mark measures and have automatic rhythm fill ins (and you can run it through the RANDOMIZER). TIME SIGNATURE - Not much detail mentioned here, but I assume it is essential to a lot of this. She mentioned several Alogrithmic Composition and Accompaniament tools. For instance, Accompany B uses the rhythm and chord information to provide an algorithmically composed accompaniament. Also supported is a system of organizing the song. You can assign letter to song sections (or chord progressions) then easily map out the song, like A-B-A, with automatic repeating. ----- - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "Mr. Chowning, you have created a monster." BIX : kgeisel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 20:49:34 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: Re: Bars & Pipes Summary 11 Dec 89 21:13:55 EST from Thanx for posting the review of Bars and Pipes; Sounds like quite a monster program! Do you have any idea about the price of this thing?? As I've mentioned before, I'm a Music-X fan so I don't know if I'd go out and buy this program, yet the on-screen music scoring sounds rather interesting. I'm glad to see that the Amiga is being taken more serious lately. ...Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 23:04:04 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Bars & Pipes Summary A discount catalog I have lists B&P at $299.98 retail, $229.98 their price. - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "Mr. Chowing, you have created a monster." BIX : kgeisel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 10:51:14 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Emulator III 6 Dec 89 17:17:00 EST <15249.8912081044@lfcs.ed.ac.uk I believe the Emulator was *the* first affordable, widely distributed, sampler. It's pretty grotty by today's standards, I understand. The Emulator II is still an industry standard sampler, despite taking those awful 5-1/4" PC disks. The Emulator III sounds pretty serious, though I dunno if it qualifies as a workstation since I don't know if it has a decent user interface (the unit itself just has a nanoscopic LCD display, though a Mac/SCSI interface would improve it a little). All three Emulators (and the Emaxes) are typically American in that their styling is ugly as sin. (wait until I describe the Waldorf wave synth, though. You ain't going to believe this... that'll have to wait until lunchtime...) Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 12:34:38 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Waldolf MicroWave (sic) 6 Dec 89 12:07:00 EST <12583.8912072232@lfcs.ed.ac.uk There was a review of this thing in the UK `Sound On Sound' magazine (Dec.), but my copy's at home now, so this is from memory. The Waldorf MicroWave is a rackmount unit that attempts to be a reincarnation of the PPG Wave synths of the early 80's. The PPG Waves were fantastic machines with an extremely distinctive (if rather metallic and artificial) sound. I'm sure Tangerine Dream's Exit album is pretty exclusively PPG, as is Robert Schroeder's Galaxie Cygnus-A. As I recall, the PPG was the first affordable digital synthesiser, coming a year or two after Crumar's General Development System and predating the DX7 by about 2 years. Hence the original PPGs were pre-MIDI. Oh dear, say you. Zigackly, say I. Anyway, rumour has it that the PPGs were extremely temperamental and the MIDI implementation on the later ones was pretty flakey, so they dropped out of sight. Tangerine Dream payed $100000 for their PPG gear, and had a hard time getting $20000 for it a couple of years later. (they still had the WaveTerms in '86, though...) Anyway, I digress (and probably diverge from the truth a little - anybody have any more detailed info?). The Waldorf MicroWave seems to be an attempt to build a modern PPG rackmount with decent MIDI control. Does anybody know who Waldorf are? Is Wolfgang Palm in here somewhere? The MicroWave sounds much like a VFX, but without effects, and with analog (resonant) filters. It's 8-voice, multitimbral with stereo output and N separate outputs (which are strictly monophonic). Voice allocation is dynamic. The voice architecture is: two oscillators driven from wavetables, into a `superb' (said the review) analog filter section. There is the usual wavetable modulation, of course, by LFO or envelope control. In addition, the MIDI control facilities seem pretty comprehensive, with aftertouch/continuous controllers mappable to wavetable position and other parameters (sorry this is so vague...). The beast has a (RAM/ROM) card slot on the front which is for patches, and perhaps for new wavetables as well. Apparently new wavetables can be loaded via MIDI SysEx dumps, which is very nice indeed. NUP here (Nick's Usual Proviso) - they'd better be documenting all the SysEx/MIDI parameters in the manual, so's I could make the most of it from my Mac, or I'd be annoyed (assuming I want one, of course. quiet, Metlay... :-)). Presets are apparently pretty mediochre, but so what? This is good, since it means Stock/Aitken/Waterman won't buy one for Kylie Minogue to stand next to. If this machine is the PPG Wave reincarnated, my wallet is in serious trouble. Yes, I know, I have a fair number of synths already, but a PPG Wave... ooooh .... But they'd better document the SysEx specs, or there'll be trouble. Oh yes, appearance. The MicroWave is a 2U rackmount. Sorry folks, it isn't black and mean (1st prize to Casio for the meanest looking rackmounts). The front is blue, with metallic silver buttons and a bright red alpha-dial. All I can say is, this thing better sound good... Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 12:48:22 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Turtle Beach Software 7 Dec 89 13:42:00 EST <16661.8912081227@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >I have a chance to get a brand new Matrix >1000 for around $500 Cdn. Should I? Dunno. Do you like the sound? >I think I heard somewhere that you can >edit and store a certain number of patches if you had software - do you know if >that's true? Yup, 200 of the 1000 patches are loadable. >Is the 1000 splitable like the Matrix-6? Nope. It's also a mono output, rather than stereo (since there's no splits, this seems sensible). Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 09:51:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: Re: Turtle Beach Software >From: "Kevin R. Weiner" >Subject: Re: Turtle Beach Software > >SampleVision is super. Nice GEM-based user interface and lots of >useful features. Excellent support from a small but committed outfit. >You can get it for $279 retail. Highly recommended. I apologize for a bit of ignorance here ... please explain "GEM-based user interface" ... (don't you hate when you don't know what the latest acronyms are about ... arrgggh) brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 10:08:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: RE: Turtle Beach Software >From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET >The Matrix 1000 has 800 permanent patches in ROM and 200 editable in RAM, >accessible via a front panel of a MAtrix 6 or 6R or a computer. It's a >monotimbral instrument and can't do splits, but can access MIDI data on >one channel per voice. Why? To clean up incoming data from guitar controllers. >$500 canuck ~ $440 US, which ain't bad, but I'm not the one to ask (assuming >that you were referring to me as "Mr. Oberheim" and not expecting Tom himself >to suddenly join EMUSIC-L |-> ) as to whether it's a good deal. Listen for >yourself and decide. If you don't like it, there are other analog boxes out >there, from the Cheetah to the Xpander.... I wish Tom (Oberheim) was on the list ... then I could ask him when he expects my Xk to die! (It's still kicking ... I narrowed done my last "controller" problem to my flakey Akai MIDI patch bay - now there's a thorn in my side: nearly heaved it out the window last night) ... Okay, I like the sound, but I hate buying anything that can only make one at a time. What's the multitimbral scoop on currently available analog units? Or do I pick up two or three analog modules at cut-rate prices, such as the Matrix-1000, and end up with the same price/voice figure? brian fighting the never-ending mental war on technology ... and losing ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 11:46:59 EST From: "Kevin R. Weiner" Subject: Re: Turtle Beach Software Sorry about the TLA's Brian. GEM is Digital Research's "Graphical Environment Manager". It's basically "the other" major windowed graphics development facility (yet another Xerox-PARC desktop descendent). Been around since 1984 and is used in several hundered packages, the most significant of which is Ventura Publisher. Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 08:17:45 CST From: Eddie Mikell Subject: Who was that masked midi bit anyway? I've come across a function on the U-20 which is not documented anywhere in their manual (no surprise). It's called VOICE RESERVE. It has a range from 0 to 30, but altering its value doesn't do anything from what I can tell. Anyone have any clues?? Is this something on other Roland models? Is it true that Keith Emerson produced his entire Christmas album for Keyboard magazine on a $75 K-Mart Casio? Thanks for any insight in voice reserve. Eddie H. Mikell ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 12:53:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: Who was that masked midi bit anyway? There is a mention of the voice reserve in the U-20 manual. It is similar to the voice reserve in the D-10/20/110s. The U-20 has a 30 tone polyphony that is dynamically allocated. You can specify a part to reserve X number of tones, so that a given part will not have the tones allocated away during your sequences. Yes, this will not usually so any effects unless you are hearing notes dropping out and you allocate more tones to reserve in the part. Typically, the notes will stop dropping out. RE: Keith Emerson- Apparently, Keith came by locally (San Jose, CA) to do a demo for a new album. He asked a local Guitar Center to loan him an M-1. He used it and gave it back to the store with a silver painted autograph. The store is now selling it for a listed $2750. Value added product: what a way to go- a used instrument (including a scratched LCD display) and you have to pay more than new... :-) Willis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 11:04:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Analog synths yippee kai yay Um, I just received the shock of my life. In terms of multitimbral price per voice, after some hasty calculations, the Xpander is suddenly COST- EFFECTIVE when purchased used! "Glurk," as Nick would say. See, you can get an Xp used for about $1500 or even less. Six voices, six channels. For the same amount of cash, you can get three or four Matrix-1000s or (gag oop ech) Roland MKS-50 alphaJUNO rackmounts. Eighteen or twentyfour voices, yes, but still only THREE OR FOUR MIDI CHANNELS! Well, I never thought that economy of scale would become a selling point for the Xpander, Brian, but hey, go for it! Its sound is, well, another reason to buy one.... Other analog synths available: The MAtrix-6 and 6R, the new box from Cheetah (seems to have some 1000 features and miss others), the MKS-70 and 80 from Roland, and the MKS-30 if you go WAY back. Keyboards: the JX8P, JX3P, and JX10 come to mind, as well as the Korg Polysix, for which a fine MIDI retro exists (320 patches, multiple channel choice, AND THEY INSTALL A DAMPER PEDAL JACK!). And the MAtrix-12, of course. Hack. Hey, here's a couple of quick queries: the Euromarket seems to have a lot of access to stuff we can't get here in the States. I'd like any and all data on stuff by Elka, Bohm, RSF, Wersi, Cavagnolo, Cheetah, etc ad nauseam. How good are the Cheetah MIDI keyboards (I'm looking to ditchola my Xk; any buyers? Hello? HELLO? *sigh*), what were the specs on the Elka Synthex and the RSF Kobol, etc. AND MOST ANNOYINGLY-- I recently had a chance to view a VCR tape of Jean-Michel Jarre's Rendezvous Houston concert. (Pretty impressive piece of work, though I don't doubt it looked better in real life: TV tends to reduce scale somewhat) What knocked me on my proverbial arse, tho, was the keyboard being played by one of his backup keyboardists (he had like five). It was a strap-on, at first glance a modified Yamaha KX1 or KX5, although now I have my doubts. It was fashioned of white plastic, had a pitch ribbon and one mod wheel on the left-hand "neck," but--and this is what floored me!-- it had a NON-STANDARD KEYBOARD. This guy was calmly jamming away on what looked like an electronic version of the Janko or Vandervoort, with a long matrix of black and white buttons, almost (and this is another possibility) like the chord button array on an accordion. It was the weirdest thing I've seen in a while, and it was especially Jarring (sorry) when seen in the context of the other keyboards: an SH101 with the mod grip, an Axis, a Kx1, and (somebody look at the Houston Lyon album and confirm or deny this, please) a heavily customized Kx1 for JMJ himself (or is it a wholly custom instrument?). Any knowledge about this freaky axe? For historical perspective, the concert took place in the summer of 1986, so it can't be newer than that. thanx metlay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 13:37:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: GEM, mulitple analog boxes, hmm ... re: GEM ... sounds like I need (eke) a mouse. I hate mice. I can type a zillion times faster than I can manuever a silly lump of button-laden plastic across a desk covered with pencils, pens, floppies, coffee cups, guitar picks, magazines, manuals, bits of string ... ARRRGHH. Sorry. I have seen a reference to GEM before, but never investigated. Also sounds like my Herc card and my monochrome monitor might not cut it either ... Xpanders cost effective? I haven't seen any used, but last time I saw one in a store it was going for about 3,500 loonies. Alot of scratch, said I, but the sound is truly orgasmic. For 1500, I might be tempted. I'd be the only guy on the block with one, that's for sure. BTW, if anyone needs an Xk for parts ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 17:43:37 EST From: "Kevin R. Weiner" Subject: Re: GEM, mulitple analog boxes, hmm ... SampleVision will support any available graphics card and doesn't require a mouse - it has keyboard equivalents for everything. Oh, and it needs just about all of your 640K. Bye bye Sidekick.... (If you have a 386, though, you can work around that.) Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 10:08:33 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Analog synths yippee kai yay 8 Dec 89 11:04:00 EST <20335.8912082131@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >This guy >was calmly jamming away on what looked like an electronic version of the Janko >or Vandervoort, with a long matrix of black and white buttons, almost (and this >is another possibility) like the chord button array on an accordion. It was That was made by Cavagnolo. I can think of 4 strap-ons which Jarre "uses" (i.e. is seen to "play"). The thing with the accordion keyboard is one. There are a couple of conventional-keyboarded beasts with impressive artwork on them (one looks like it has a keyboard finished in mother-of-pearl; this is the one with a couple of microphones attached as well, so Jarre can vocode as well as play). The Innovart strap-on is the one with the curved keyboard. It's quite possible that one of more of these are theatrical. Ditto for the huge curved controller keyboard with illuminated keys. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 12:46:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: RE: Analog synths yippee kai yay Nick: Thanx for the word on the "mystery controller" used by Jarre's backup keyboardist. Do you know anything about the unit, i.e. what standard its keyboard follows and what it can do? Is it a MIDI accordion button box, or a Janko, or what? As for the others Jarre uses, the Innovart is, I believe, purely decorative, though a recent article in KEYBOARD would give the straight dope. The red and pearl one looks like a modified Yamaha KX-1; where are the mics? metlay ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 17:47:29 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Analog synths yippee kai yay >About Jarre's theatrics Well, I pondered this myself. There is no doubt that Jarre uses a good amount of taped material and maybe some "dead" controllers. On the tape which Mr. Metlay was referring to, they have an interview with Jarre before hand and he does press on keys of the lighted controller and sound does come out. Granted, it probably can only play specifically assigned chords, but I think it was live. I know for a fact that the laser harp works. The computer has to assign the minimal number of strings to the right notes, but it does work. I saw a special where his engineer was talking about its design. Yeah, he's a showman, but give him SOME credit... - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "Mr. Chowning, you have created a monster." BIX : kgeisel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 13:33:00 EST From: It's not easy being Green Subject: Roland W-30 Ok W-30 specialists, I have a question here that (for my knowledge) can't be solved until the DOS update (if there ever will be one). How the heck can I get the W-30 to transmit a system exclusive dump to an external machine (Performer 2.3 on the MAC)? The thing doesn't have a system exclusive switch or send capabilities but it can save external system ex. dumps in a sequence. Does this not make sense? It has modes to allow you to transmit sequences to external devices and external sync. So what's the deal...did they forget this or am I missing something that's not mentioned in the manual? Purpose: Sequencing with the Performer on the MAC is basically useless because the internal sequencer on the W-30 is just as powerful and has all the same functions. I want to be able to store everything on the MAC instead of having to load a sequence in the MAC and the sound set-up in the W-30. It takes way too long! -Steve -Rochester Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 13:09:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: Roland W-30 That is an interesting question- there is no sysex dump on the W-30. But then again, I don't think there is one on the other Roland S series of samplers... I would agree that the sequencer is quite good. There are some functions that are on it that I do not get on my PC/Cakewalk combination- but then again there are things on the PC that are not on the W-30 sequencer. O well.. I thought about your request about dumping the W-30 to a MAC and I think it would take longer than the floppies. Here is how I came to this conclusion. The W-30 had 512K words of sample memory and a word is 1.5 bytes (12 bits). That works out to 512 * 1024 * 1.5 or 786432 bytes. In bits that is 7864320 bits (8 bit bytes + 1 start bit + 1 stop bit per byte). MIDI transfers at 31250 bits per second. That works out to about 252 seconds or 4 minutes!!! Did I do the math right? If this is true, floppies are way better. What I am waiting for is the hard disk version of the OS. Does anyone have any idea when it will be out. I heard Fall/Winter 89. I have talked to the dealers and they do not know. They claim the harddisk loads will be about 15 secs as opposed to about 40 now. Willis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 10:02:04 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Roland W-30 8 Dec 89 13:33:00 EST <20313.8912082129@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >Purpose: Sequencing with the Performer on the MAC is basically useless >because the internal sequencer on the W-30 is just as powerful and has all >the same functions. Surely you jest...? Does the W-30 have 300+ tracks with 0..32 MIDI channels, graphical layout of subsequence blocks into songs, multi-channel simultaneous record, algorithmic generation/alteration of continuous controller data, SMPTE/realtime facilities, MIDI sliders (groups and subgroups) with data transformation in real time, an unlimited number of graphical MIDI data displays on-screen at once which scroll as the sequence plays, Cut/Paste/Merge/nested looping/Repeat /Splice/Shift, input/edit/view filtering? It does? Oh. :-) Nick (Performer addict). -- Ah, you have Performer 2.3. A lot has changed, check out 3.3. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 10:32:50 -0900 From: "Don Rice, GI 708B, (907)474-7569" Subject: RE: Vangelis, and squeaky tapes Nobody mentioned "Heaven and Hell," which includes the piece used as the theme for "Cosmos" (remember, Carl Sagan and his cosmic dandelion seed spaceship?). I've only been able to find the newer albums on CD. I'd appreciate any tips on where to find the older ones like H&H, Spiral, Albedo 0.39 on CD. My old cassettes won't live forever... Which brings up this question: has anybody else had problems with old cassettes getting squeaky? Several of my older tapes that have been played a lot have the problem. It is a mechanical squeak in the cassette, and causes a squeal and distortion in the sound that makes the tape unuseable. I've tried them on several different players with the same results. If I knew of a lubricant that wouldn't get on the tape and ruin it, I'd give it a try. Any suggestions? Thanks, Don FNDDR@ALASKA.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 11:43:46 EST From: David Mantripp Subject: Vangelis Just to be different: 1) See you later 2) Soil Festivities 3) Invisible Connections Avoid at all costs: 1) Mask 2) Earth 3) Beaubourg Never mind Nick - I bought Antarctica on LP for 700 Belgian Francs (about 10 pounds)! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 18:43:02 EST From: HABOURG@BROWNVM.BITNET Subject: Request for help with programming problem Recently I began working on programming some formulae in a COMPUTER MUSIC JOURNAL article by Clarence Barlow ("Two Essays on Theory", CMJ Spring(?) '88). I'm working on the material presented in the second of the essays, "Is Harmony a Special Case of Polymetricity" wherein Barlow explains a concept which he calls "indispensibility". He defines this as "the diverse metrical relevance" of the "singular, successive pulses" of a meter. Briefly, taking a meter, say 3/4 at a particular "level of stratification", 3*2 (ie. the eighth note sub- division of a bar of 3 quarter notes) yields a sequence of 6 pulses. Through Barlow's formulae the six pulses can be assigned numerical values indicating their relevance to the meter - those of lowest value can be unsounded without effecting the character of the meter. If the stratification is represented as 2*3 (that is a 6/8 meter) the resulting indispensibility values reflect this difference, hence: pulse number 1 2 3 4 5 6 1) 3/4 meter, eighth note pulse (3*2) 5 0 3 1 4 2 2) 6/8 meter, eighth note pulse (2*3) 5 0 2 4 1 3 So, theoretically, if pulses 2, 3, 5, & 6 of meter 2 were unsounded the meter would still be recognizable as 6/8, as meter 1 would retain its 3/4 character even without sounding pulses 2, 4, and 6. Obviously, the ability to quantify "indispensibilities" could provide a very useful tool in automatic composition routines. I've worked with Schillinger System for a while and though it provides techniques for generating lots of rhythm and/or pitch sequences, it lacks in a method for selecting, other than randomly, those "musically meaningful" sequences. (Not that I have anything against randomness in autocomposers - I've used it quite a bit - but I'm tired of making music by computers for computers and am interested in exploring the area of computer generated music which models aspects of human compositional practices.) Unfortunately, either I've suffered too much accumulated brain damage over the years and am missing something, or Barlow just wasn't clear on some points in his article. Has anyone read the article and attempted to work with the material? If so, could you give me some pointers? -Otto Matec ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 00:56:14 AST From: The Moonlit Knight Subject: The best computer for music Hi people! I am new in this list and this is my first posting (intended to solve a problem). I shall buy a computer, but first I would like to know which one is best served with respect to music software. I have heard Atari is the one (though the IBM PC would be the cheapest option)... Ah, someone told me Yamaha put out a computer especially designed for music, and besides that IBM compatible... Any opinions? Thanks in advance. Yours, the Moonlit Knight. . P.S. An idea of the prices would be great. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 11:29:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: RE: The best computer for music > Hi people! Hello! > I am new in this list and this is my first posting (intended >to solve a problem). I shall buy a computer, but first I would >like to know which one is best served with respect to music >software. I have heard Atari is the one (though the IBM PC >would be the cheapest option)... Ah, someone told me Yamaha >put out a computer especially designed for music, and besides >that IBM compatible... Any opinions? Thanks in advance. This is probably going to start another computer war... I bought an Amiga 500 partly for music purposes, and although I haven't had the money to upgrade it properly for that putpose, I am by no means displeased with it. Its internal sound makes most keyboards stand up and take notice, and its serial MIDI control is fantastic. An Amiga 500 w/ internal 3.5" drive costs around $550. The software, many people disagree on, but I personally favor Dr. T's. With their software packages, you can have a score playing through the MIDI instruments with KCS and print out professional-looking scores with The Copyist. They have several programs out, and by using the Amiga's multitasking you can have them all running at the same time and have a complete music workstation (I don't have prices handy on doing this). The Atari ST is fairly popular, and Dr. T's is available for that too. Dr. T's has even come out with a special multitasking shell so that you can set up a workstation similar to that on the Amiga (From what I understand, however, this will only function with Dr. T's software as ST software is not normally programmed with multitasking in mind.) My problem with the ST is that you're stuck with the built-in MIDI port, which is just one In and one Out--that's IT!!! You have to buy a separate MIDI interface for the Amiga (usually around $50), but the smallest one I've seen for the Amiga has one in, three outs, and a thru--and two of the outs can be switched over to be thrus! It's really a matter of opinion. B. B. King was a die-hard ST user, but switched over to the Amiga for compositional purposes. RUSH played around with using an Amiga to tour with (to load the samples etc.) but grew tired of the limitations on chip memory and got a MiniVax!!! I'll suggest the Amiga, because in my opinion it's better than anything in its price range, not only for music, but graphics and animation as well--it's what it was built for. But by all means before you buy, check out everything and decide for yourself. Don't let anyone else badger you into a decision you wouldn't be happy with. I've given you my opinion, and I ask you to at least consider the Amiga, but I won't tell you what to buy. By the way, I have absolutely no affiliation with Commodore-Amiga, or with Dr. T's, or any other product I may have mentioned. This is purely personal preferences. > Yours, > the Moonlit Knight. >. >P.S. An idea of the prices would be great. // _ \X/ |he /\/\ad |)octor!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 15:26:00 EST From: Dan Riley Subject: Re: The best computer for music Hi Moonlit, The "best" computer depends on your needs and preferences. I have an Amiga, which I'm happy with, but I would say that there is less high quality music software for the Amiga than there is for the Mac, PC or Atari. This is beginning to change, but I still wouldn't recommend buying an Amiga for music without first surveying the market and making sure that there are packages which meet your needs (unless you're also interested in video, in which case the Amiga is probably your best low cost solution). The best packages for the Amiga at the moment seem to be Dr. T's software (the whole line), and Music-X (which has been getting rave reviews). Texture is also available, as well as some patch editors, M (algorithmic composition), Music Mouse, and a variety of other packages. MIDI adapters are cheap and plentiful. Advantages--user friendly point-and-click interface, built-in multi-tasking, relatively cheap (under a $1000 for a useable Amiga 500 system), builtin graphics, *the* computer for desktop video. Main disadvantage-- shortage of professional quality software. User interface also isn't as consistent as it should be from package to package. The Atari ST does have lots of software available, and does have builtin MIDI in and out (MIDI thru is available with a cheap, non-standard cable). The ST seems to be the computer of choice for music in Europe, and some of the best packages for the ST come from there (e.g. the Steinberg/Jones packages). The entire Dr. T's line is available for the ST, and both Steinberg/Jones and Dr. T's support some form of multi-tasking for their own packages. Like the Amiga, the ST can be fairly cheap, and comes with a user-friendly interface and nice graphics. Macintosh. Lots of high quality software, very slick and friendly user interface, very pricey. It's a nice machine with some great software, but it is *not* a low cost solution, even with University discounts. I personally like Performer on the Mac (has anyone seen the ST port? Is it real yet? Does it work?), but there are lots of other choices. Also lots of high quality programs for just about anything else you might want to do with a computer--something the Amiga and Atari aren't so strong on. IBM/compatible. I know very little (mostly just what I read in Electronic Musician software reviews) about the IBM for music. My main rag on the IBM is the lack of a consistent, friendly user interface. However, that isn't so much of a problem if you only use one or two main programs (a sequencer and patch editor, say). Lots of software available for all sorts of things. Remember to factor in the price of the MIDI interface--they're a little more expensive for the IBM than the other systems. And yes, Yamaha does make a portable IBM compatible designed for music, but I don't know much about it beyond that. Perhaps some one else can say something more intelligent on the subject. If this computer is going to be used primarily for music, I recommend reading some software reviews and trying out some of the available software. Buy the system that matches your budget and has the software that suits your needs. Corrections cheerfully accepted--I've tried to be fair, but I'm obviously no expert on the PC or Atari. -Dan Riley (dsr@crnlns.bitnet) -Wilson Lab, Cornell University ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 13:44:06 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: RE: The best computer for music > This is probably going to start another computer war... Nonsense. Just a little friendly disagreement. :) In My Humble Opinion....the best computer for the money is the IBM PC line of products. This is absolutely the best price/performance combination you can get. I am using my PC/XT to do the rough cuts for my upcoming album. It's great. NOW... There are other considerations. These are my opinion from experience. Your mileage may vary... o The MACintosh, while expensive, is the best computer for those who are NOT computer literate. IT is by far the quickiest and easiest to use for users with little or no experience with music. Those of you computer hackers (and up...) should not get this computer. You wont like it. Get an IBM. o The AMIGA is by far the worst computer I have ever seen. Now understand that I have arranged music for two video games on the thing, and have tried to work with it from a developers level. The OS has to be the worst thing I have se en since VMS 1.0. As I understand, you really need to get a hard drive (expensive) for it so that it can be of marginal use. EVERY DEVELOPER I HAVE TALKED TO HAS SINCE STOPPED DEVELOPING FOR THE AMIGA. (I know...that last WILL start a computer war. Fine....who am I to say that you cannot disagree...?) I have no experience with the ATARI line. Therefore I will not comment. ------------------------------=== =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<<<<<([Dave Hayes])>>>>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= dave%jplopto@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov | Jet Propulsion Laboratory M/S 300-329 {cit-vax,ames}!elroy!jplopto!dave | 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109 BIX: dhayes | (818) 354-1910 ------------------------------=== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 09:47:47 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: The best computer for music 11 Dec 89 13:44:06 PST <8460.8912130406@lfcs.ed.ac.uk This is not a war... this is not a war... >o The MACintosh, while expensive, is the best computer for those who are >NOT computer literate. IT is by far the quickiest and easiest to use >for users with little or no experience with music. Those of you computer >hackers (and up...) should not get this computer. You wont like it. >Get an IBM. I agree pretty well with this, except that I chose a Mac *because* I wanted to write application software for it. The quality of some of the software for the Mac is superb. The development environment, while rather complex, is nice to work in when you know it. Hacking is so much more fun when you have an integrated system for dealing with text and graphics...! I avoided the Atari ST because of all the reported bugs in the interface toolbox and OS (at one stage, new releases of the machines could not read write-protected floppies). The Mac is rock-solid in this respect. My advice: go for a Mac if you can afford it, but it *is* overpriced and you'll be committing yourself to expensive software and accessories (think: factor of 2 over PC/ST equivalents). The best bang-for-the-buck is an ST or PC machine, although I find these irritating to use. If I were only interested in sequencing, I'd have probably gone for an ST and Steinberg software, but I'm glad now that I spent the extra cash on a Mac and Performer. Your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 09:33:20 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: The best computer for music I, like Nick, prefer the Mac. However, there have been discussions of late of a box that you can hook up to your Atari to get a reasonably functional equivalent of a Mac Plus. Details are sketchy at the moment; I'm waiting for more comments and clarification from the INFO-MAC list. This is most often referred to in conjunction with the Atari portable, the "Stacy", which is supposed to be reasonably priced and is also supposed to work with this Mac emulator. Anybody else know more? Pricewise, it's should beat "real Apple" hardware, but I'd fear obsolescence and incompatibility. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 11:10:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: The best computer for music I agree for the most part with Nick's comments about the Mac: it is basically the BMW of music computers, in quality of software, enjoyment of operation, and price. IMHO it *is* the best computer for music applications. Unfortunately, it is also the most expensive. You get what you pay for. The Mac is the easiest computer to learn how to use, and has a consistent *and intuitive* user interface, no matter what application you are using it for. This means that once you have learned how to use Performer for sequencing (which I learned to use without looking at the manual even once), you have learned 75% of what you need to know to use any word processing, spreadsheet, game, or what-have-you software you might want in addition to your sequencer. This may be true on other computers to a lesser extent, but the consistency of use across varied applications is where the Mac really shines, and if you are buying a computer instead of a dedicated hardware sequencer, it's because you want something that you can do many different things with. The expense of a Mac is hard to live with at the time of purchase, but once it's done with you have a computer you will really *enjoy* using. Let the flames begin... -chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 11:40:00 EST From: DSR@CRNLNS.BITNET Subject: RE: The best computer for music Comment: forwarded by CRNLNS/FMAIL v2.0 Comment: REPLY may not work. Comment: Network-Source: _LNS62::DSR (HEPnet/SPAN) Comment: Originally-To: JNET%"emusic-l@auvm" Dave Hayes writes: >o The AMIGA is by far the worst computer I have ever seen. Now understand that >I have arranged music for two video games on the thing, and have tried to >work with it from a developers level. The OS has to be the worst thing I have >seen since VMS 1.0. As I understand, you really need to get a hard drive >(expensive) for it so that it can be of marginal use. EVERY DEVELOPER I HAVE >TALKED TO HAS SINCE STOPPED DEVELOPING FOR THE AMIGA. > >(I know...that last WILL start a computer war. Fine....who am I to say >that you cannot disagree...?) Come on, I'm sure you can think of something worse... If somebody asked me a year ago about using the Amiga for music, I would have told them to forget it--quality music software just wasn't there. Now, there is some, and I'd say the Amiga is at least worth looking at. Similarly, about 4 years ago the Amiga operating system and development environment was practically unusable--now, it's pretty nice. (This shouldn't surprise anyone who has used a computer right after release--anybody try a Mac 6 years ago? Or VMS 1.0, for that matter. I remember the initial Mac release, and VMS 1.6, and both were pretty flakey. Updates and upgrades do happen.) A 512K Amiga with two floppies is fine for running programs, but it is pretty painful as a development environment (I know, I used to have one). A little extra memory helps a lot, and 1 Meg Amigas are becoming quite common (you may not be able to buy a 512K A2000 anymore). A hard drive is always nice, but not necessary. And the price has come down since Amiga's have become more common. Mine was ~$100 for the controller plus the cost of a bare SCSI drive, for a minimal system. If you want DMA and 1 MByte/second throughput through the file system, then it will cost more--but at least you have that option. The current release of the operating system is stable and quite usable. Some people don't like it just because it *is* a multi-tasking system. Lots of game programmers are used to taking over the system and doing whatever they will with it. On the Amiga, if you want to get along with the operating system, you have to ask politely for system resources, and give them back when you're done. Finally, there are lots of reasons to stop developing software for a computer. It is easier to make money writing IBM PC software (huge installed base) or Mac software (large installed base, Mac software sells for more than Amiga software). Lots of developers are still writing software for the Amiga. Many others have stopped, and the main reason seems to be money. Most of the ones I know really like the machine, but they could make more money writing software for machines they liked less. -Dan Riley (dsr@crnlns.bitnet) -Wilson Lab, Cornell University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 12:39:00 EST From: Brad Miller Subject: Re: The best computer for music Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 09:33:20 EST From: Joe McMahon I, like Nick, prefer the Mac. However, there have been discussions of late of a box that you can hook up to your Atari to get a reasonably functional equivalent of a Mac Plus. Details are sketchy at the moment; I'm waiting for more comments and clarification from the INFO-MAC list. I saw something in a mag recently (macworld? Macweek? dunno). Anyway, it only seems to be able to simulate a 512e, with a lot of memory, NOT a plus. So stuff like MOTU Performer probably wouldn't work. Since the recent Roms are now 1/2 meg, and this simulater is only for 128k roms, I'd wait until they update it so it can accept the newer stuff... Besides you can get a used plus for $800. which isn't that major a price turnoff. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 12:53:00 EST From: DSR@CRNLNS.BITNET Subject: Re: The best computer for music Comment: forwarded by CRNLNS/FMAIL v2.0 Comment: REPLY may not work. Comment: Network-Source: _LNS62::DSR (HEPnet/SPAN) Comment: Originally-To: JNET%"EMUSIC-L@AUVM" Joe McMahon writes: >I, like Nick, prefer the Mac. However, there have been discussions of >late of a box that you can hook up to your Atari to get a reasonably >functional equivalent of a Mac Plus. Details are sketchy at the moment; >I'm waiting for more comments and clarification from the INFO-MAC list. There are hardware attachments for both the Atari ST and the Amiga for running Macintosh software. They seem to work fine for most software, but I'm dubious about something as hardware dependent as music software. The Amiga certainly doesn't use the same serial port or clock chips as the Mac, and I doubt the ST does either, so MIDI software might not work at all. If it does work, the timing might not be the same as on a Mac. I'd certainly want to see it work, and test how solid the timing is, before buying one of the Mac-alikes to run Mac music software. -Dan Riley (dsr@crnlns.bitnet) -Wilson Lab, Cornell University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 13:50:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: RE: The best computer for music >In My Humble Opinion....the best computer for the money is the IBM PC line >of products. This is absolutely the best price/performance combination you can >get. I am using my PC/XT to do the rough cuts for my upcoming album. It's great . Interesting...what software and equipment are you using? I've worked with the few IBM ports that Dr. T's has, and they can't hold a candle to the Amiga versions. >NOW... > >There are other considerations. These are my opinion from experience. >Your mileage may vary... > >o The MACintosh, while expensive, is the best computer for those who are >NOT computer literate. IT is by far the quickiest and easiest to use >for users with little or no experience with music. Those of you computer >hackers (and up...) should not get this computer. You wont like it. >Get an IBM. I'll agree and disagree. For computer illiterates, it's the best thing to get, BUT they'll take you for every penny you're worth...it's the same with IBM, although it's not as bad as the mac. I still don't believe the proces I've seen for IBM software! >o The AMIGA is by far the worst computer I have ever seen. Now understand that >I have arranged music for two video games on the thing, and have tried to >work with it from a developers level. The OS has to be the worst thing I have > seen >since VMS 1.0. As I understand, you really need to get a hard drive (expensive) >for it so that it can be of marginal use. EVERY DEVELOPER I HAVE TALKED TO >HAS SINCE STOPPED DEVELOPING FOR THE AMIGA. Apparently you haven't talked to that many developers in the music or graphics line--and you haven't talked to software companies who use the Amiga for development and port that to other computers (Aegis, Impulse, RAG, I could go on.) BTW, which version of the Amiga OS were you working on? The only thing wrong with the present version is theintuition interface, which is still more usable than the mac's in my opinion. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that programming on the Amiga is like programming on a mainframe instead of a micro; you have toaccount for those other tasks and the system state etc. More specifics would be nice if you're going to say such things. >(I know...that last WILL start a computer war. Fine....who am I to say >that you cannot disagree...?) I'm just saying be more specific. >I have no experience with the ATARI line. Therefore I will not comment. Have fun! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 14:14:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: Re: The best computer for music >I agree for the most part with Nick's comments about the Mac: it is basically >the BMW of music computers, in quality of software, enjoyment of operation, and >price. IMHO it *is* the best computer for music applications. Unfortunately, >it is also the most expensive. You get what you pay for. The Mac is the (Stuff Deleted) >you can do many different things with. The expense of a Mac is hard to live >with at the time of purchase, but once it's done with you have a computer you >will really *enjoy* using. > >Let the flames begin... > >-chris [power grid on, ignition in 5...4...3...2...1...] As I have said before, I pretty much have free access to macs, and while they are good computers, you definitely do NOT get what you pay for. For example: I was playing around with MultiFinder on a mac SE; it was slow, impossible to work with, and a general pain. One of our macoids said that no one can expect to have a good multitasking system with "ONLY a 68000 and 1 meg of memoey"...all I could say was, "Waitaminnit! I've got a $500 Amiga that does it excellently." I've used programs on the mac, and I've programmed on the mac, and it's like having a good appendix taken out with no anesthetic. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for that slow screen refresh rate, and no reason why accessing the disk should slow everything else down. Sure, the Amiga has its problems, most of which are in the process of being rectified, others are which a matter of time. The Amiga is a younger computer than the mac. That's to be expected. But consider that, on only version 1.3, we have a CLI that runs circles around IBM's CLI. Of course, all this is my humble opinion. If I've made any mistakes, feel free to correct me; if I've upset anyone, feel free to flame me. It boils down to what I said at the start of this mess: It's purely a matter of opinion. I'll give my advice and opinion, and so will others, but if you're debating what's "best", that's no absolute--it's what's best for you. For me, that's the Amiga. I think it's the mindset. The Amiga is a computer for hackers; has been from the start. The public domain world is filled with people experimenting. And while the mac and IBM booths at compuer expos seem stuffy and business like, the Amiga booths are usually like Science Fiction conventions. Everyone's personal and having a blast. I've never been talked down to by them. Have fun! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 14:03:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: RE: The best computer for music >This is not a war... this is not a war... [takes out pocketwatch, swings it back and forth] >>o The MACintosh, while expensive, is the best computer for those who are >>NOT computer literate. IT is by far the quickiest and easiest to use >>for users with little or no experience with music. Those of you computer >>hackers (and up...) should not get this computer. You wont like it. >>Get an IBM. > >I agree pretty well with this, except that I chose a Mac *because* I >wanted to write application software for it. The quality of some of >the software for the Mac is superb. The development environment, while >rather complex, is nice to work in when you know it. Hacking is so >much more fun when you have an integrated system for dealing with text >and graphics...! I avoided the Atari ST because of all the reported >bugs in the interface toolbox and OS (at one stage, new releases of >the machines could not read write-protected floppies). The Mac is >rock-solid in this respect. > >My advice: go for a Mac if you can afford it, but it *is* overpriced >and you'll be committing yourself to expensive software and >accessories (think: factor of 2 over PC/ST equivalents). The best >bang-for-the-buck is an ST or PC machine, although I find these >irritating to use. If I were only interested in sequencing, I'd have >probably gone for an ST and Steinberg software, but I'm glad now that >I spent the extra cash on a Mac and Performer. Well, working at the UNCG computer center, I have access to macs all the time, and in my opinion, while they are good computers, they are definitely NOT worht what you pay for them! Consider this: You can get an Amiga, a 286 bridgecard (which has had NO reported bugs) and AMax (a mac emulator which uses the mac ROMs, 64K or 128K) for cheaper than a mac SE! AMax is fairly new, so they still have to add hard drive and MIDI support, but it already runs FASTER than the mac (because of the Amigas custom chips) and, when you upgrade processor and memory, you upgrade it for the mac side too! As I said, it still needs a bit of work, but the only bug so far that anyone's seen is the sound & MIDI, and the hard drive support which will be included in the next version...for about the same price! An Amiga, A mac SE, and an IBM 286 machine for the same price as a brand new SE...can't beat thatnow, can you? >Your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc. > > Nick. Close cover before striking. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 15:14:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Sorry to interrupt the compuflame exchange, but.... First off, let me say that the folx I've talked to say that the "best" Mac emulator out there right now, the Spectre, still won't let the Atari run any sort of MIDI software, much less realtime applications like sequencing. It simply can't kluge its way to the MIDI ports. If there is ANY Mac emulator that can handle the Mac MIDI software on an ST, even something as simple (sic) as an Opcode librarian, I'd dearly love to hear about it. Second, let me say that I say the above based on the work done by a couple of close friends in the business. I haven't tried it, because, well, er.... ...I don't own a computer. Go ahead. Laugh at me. Drag me through the mud on my face. I don't care! I DON'T CARE I DON'T CARE I DON'T CARE! I make great music without one, I got myself an album deal based on a tape I compiled with a 2-channel digital CV sequencer, and I can do anything I need to do without one! ...except organize my patch libraries, sequence my stuff that takes more than two voices, store my MIDI setups and initializations, print out my scores for my guest musicians, write my doctoral thesis, let my fiancee write HER doctoral thesis, access graphics or music downloads.... In a word, argh. And why, do you ask, don't I have one? I'll tell you why! My best friend uses a loaded 1040ST, my oldest musical compatriot going uses a Mac, the guy I trade studio tips with swears by his PC, and the person I've been spending the most local studio time with (hi, Kurt) uses an Amiga. I'm not afraid of non-WIMP interfaces, I can hack a LITTLE, I like multitasking, internal MIDI ports, HyperCard, and Keller's 48Track. And I have virtually NO money to spend on mistakes. So now what do I do, huh? I hope you people are satisfied. |-> metlay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 16:27:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: The best computer etc. The Mad Doctor states: >Consider this: You can get an Amiga, a 286 bridgecard (which has had NO >reported bugs) and AMax (a mac emulator which uses the mac ROMs, 64K or 128K) >for cheaper than a mac SE! >AMax is fairly new, so they still have to add hard drive and MIDI support, but >it already runs FASTER than the mac (because of the Amigas custom chips) and, >when you upgrade processor and memory, you upgrade it for the mac side too! As >I said, it still needs a bit of work, but the only bug so far that anyone's see n >is the sound & MIDI, and the hard drive support which will be included in the >next version...for about the same price! An Amiga, A mac SE, and an IBM 286 >machine for the same price as a brand new SE...can't beat thatnow, can you?... I would be very cautious about buying an Amiga on the basis of its ability to act like a Mac. My experience is that no matter what the sales literature, or the enthusiasts, say, there will be compatability problems. Notice the many references above to no *reported* bugs... As someone said earlier about synths (Metlay, of course), don't ever buy anything on the basis of unreleased features. You never know what gremlins may be hiding in the shadows, waiting to cause you grief. The Mac is expen$ive, but it lives up to its claims, and works more elegantly than any other computer I've seen microcomputer, that is...). From what you say about the AMax, it sounds like a nice idea for someone who occasionally wants to run Mac software, but definitely *not* a replacement for a real Macintosh, and especially not a system for running Mac music software on, which is by virtue very demanding on the system hardware and not very forgiving if things aren't exactly as they should be. If you want to go to the trouble to save some bucks, I have seen articles on how to build a Mac II from spare parts, and the article I am thinking of even supplied addresses of where to get the parts. If I remember correctly, the total cost was somewhere around 50%-70% off that of a similar new Mac II. They called it the Mac III, because you build your own case for it. The article was in the "Computer Shopper" around October of 1988. -chris, with a big IMHO disclaimer... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 17:34:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: RE: Sorry to interrupt the compuflame exchange, but.... >not afraid of non-WIMP interfaces, I can hack a LITTLE, I like multitasking, >internal MIDI ports, HyperCard, and Keller's 48Track. And I have virtually >NO money to spend on mistakes. >So now what do I do, huh? Throw three pieces of paper into your nearby derby, one blue, one beige and one with 4096 colors on it. Draw. Then go buy it. If you can make music on your sequencer, imagine what you can do with a computer. They're all viable machines that help musicians do incredible things, as evidenced by the ongoing wars. Personally, I like them all. For the record, I used an IBM/AT for awhile, tired of the interface and lack of consistency in software, and bought a lowly Mac+ with an external hard drive a year ago. It works great, but I've been eyeing the amiga of late, may need to add a third machine someday if Apple doesn't get their color act into a reasonable price range. Then finish your thesis. BTW. Congratulations on the recording contract. -joek ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 15:42:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: Re: The best computer for music Hi all- With all this computer bantying, I thought it might be of interest to others what kind of computer I have and what I do with it, and how I decided on it. It might be of interest/benefit to this group and especially people getting into computer music to hear what others use and what they do with their equipment. You'll never know---maybe it will inspire or give ideas to others in newer applications of the ol' computer. When I got into MIDI stuff I already had a computer. Since programming and doing hardware work on "real" IBM PC for over two years at the university, I settled on a PC clone. I was very interested in the ST, but I figure I could do a little work at home, and I would not be throwing two years of software and hardware experience away to learn another system. I picked up a Roland compatible MIDI board which bundled in the Cakewalk sequencer. For those considering getting MIDI boards for the PC, get a Roland compatible board. Don't even consider the proprietary boards, because about 98% of all MIDI software for the PC is written for the Roland compatible boards. For the extra money, in the long run you will have a larger selection of commercial software. Anyway, the first time I gigged the setup, it was a pain- a CPU box, a keyboard and a CRT to lug around plus the music instruments. I really needed something portable. The laptops were useless since they did not accept expansion boards (the C1 was not around, and I think it is too expensive). I found a electronics experimenter shop and picked up a portable PC case. It had a backlit LCD screen and only needed a standard PC motherboard and drives. I found a hard disk at a swap meet and put the whole thing together. It works great. It is not a lattop, but it is about the size of a MAC (a little thinner) and weighs in at about 17 pounds. The other thing is that the keyboard is part of the case, so you do not have to lug the keyboard around too. It is quite compact. The only drawback is that the LCD screen is a little slow. While looking through the keyboard magazines, I noticed that the Bandwagon computer that is advertised look exactly like the case I have. This combination of the portable PC and Cakewalk gig very well. Actually I develop my sequences using Cakewalk at home, and I use Cakewalk Live! to play it on the road. Cakewalk Live! lets you develop playlist of all the sequences you need to play. This elimiated the problem of finding files and loading them at the gig. Also, the program will load the next sequence while the current sequence is playing. This eliminates sequence loading delays. The whole setup works great. I have never had any trouble. It works just as well at home as it does on the road. Along with sequencing, I do some sound development and library management with the PC too. The PC is dedicated to my music stuff. For me the best computer is the one that meets my needs. The computer has to be a tool for you and not a hinderance. It does not necessarily have to be an IBM, just a machine that gets the job done right. I needed somthing that was portable and can be comfortable to use on the road as well as at home. The software was right and the hardware was right and everything clicked. For those looking for computers, look at your needs. What are you looking for in a sequencer? Some play patterns, some from beginning to end. Then choose a computer that will run the program and be cost effective to you. Willis Dair Systems Programmer Academic Computing Center Santa Clara University DAIR@SCU.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 16:29:37 EST From: MTG@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM Subject: War? What war? > ... I think it's the mindset. The Amiga is a computer for hackers; has > been from the start. The public domain world is filled with people > experimenting. And while the mac and IBM booths at compuer expos seem stuffy > and business like, the Amiga booths are usually like Science Fiction > conventions. Everyone's personal and having a blast. I've never been talked > down to by them. This >is< EMUSIC-L, right? Anyway, I'm an Amiga user as well, and I use it for sequencing and such. I'd have to say I'm pretty happy with it... I'll admit a few timing problems, but it's usually because I've accidentily had something running as a background process that I forgot to remove. Oh, sorry, "background process" is a bit of foreign lingo for you IBM and Mac users, isn't it? Anyways, The Mad Doctor's statement about Amiga's hacker mindset hits the head on the nail, right into the grey matter. When I was in high school, Apple II's were the thing -- all hackers used/had one, and when IBM released their PC, the hacker's laughed and kept using the Apple. When they all graduated (myself included), the Amiga came out, and the Amiga, Mac, and eventually IBM's new one were the new war. Hackers still laugh at Macs and IBMs, and still use Amigas... IMHO. Honestly, I've used them all and would rather have the (less expensive, more capable) Amiga. Of course IBMs and Macs have more software -- that's the way it always is; Big Names = Big Software. If the Amiga had been sold to Apple instead of Commodore, you can bet the Amiga'd have software coming out its rectum! But the Amiga will continue being the underdog of the computer world; more capable, but most overlooked. And besides, any game I've seen on the Amiga has made every other computer look like bovine feces. _Is___________________________________________ ________________________there_ | ___ | | | Mark G., of... The | volution | Do you realise that if | | |--__ | the plastic dinosaurs you | | |_/_ \ ontrol | give your kids were flesh, | | "If you're | __ | bone, and alive, they would | | opposed to \_// \ ommittee | eat your kids whole with- | | opposable thumbs..." | | out even saying grace? | | \__/ | So There. (tm) | |_any__________________________________________|______________________escape?_| ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 01:22:52 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: The best computer for music Well, although we promised ourselves not to start a flame war, it looks like we have, albeit a cool one. Let me just put in my $.06 (inflation, ya know.) MIDI sequencing is actually a pretty simple job. An 8031 microcontroller can do it quite nicely (witness the slew of stand-alone sequencers out there.) What seems to be the point of variance is the user interface, and all the bells and whistles which come along with it. User interface is extremely important, especially in music since the composing environment is either the barrier or the funnel of your creativity. But I would argue that all the main contenders out there can support basically the same interface. If you like the so-called "WIMP" interface, even an IBM can run software to provide this. It might not be as smooth and as integrated as a Macintosh, but that's not important from a music standpoint. What matters with music is the environment you have while you're making music. I would hope EMUSIC-L is an environment open for discussing music software, especially since that is one area I think is going to be expanding the most in the '90s. But I think computer hardware discussion and the general merits of various computer systems are best left to comp.sys.XXXXX. Let's talk about software packages. If you like Vision, you should get a Macintosh. If you like Music-X, get an Amiga. Your pocketbook may have a say in this, but speaking to musicians I would recommend shopping on the basis of the music software packages available and the "look and feel" of each, which I argue has little to do with the hardware its running on. If your computer has to serve multiple purposes, the discussion of which computer runs the best word processor belongs elsewhere. I proudly use an Amiga for all my music applications and I have a Mac II sitting about 18 inches away from it. I chose the Amiga for the software it runs. Its fantastic multi-tasking environment is perfect for the "modular" approach which I find so important in the studio. Using independent "modular" pieces of software multi-tasking on the same machine and connecting them together in various ways offers the greatest flexibility of the kind that I'm used to from my analog hardware days. P.S. Larry Fast uses an Apple II. He wrote his own software. So does Kit Watkins (if you don't know, ask Metlay!) - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "Mr. Chowning, you have created a monster." BIX : kgeisel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 09:41:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: RE: Sorry to interrupt the compuflame exchange, but.... >And why, do you ask, don't I have one? I'll tell you why! My best friend >uses a loaded 1040ST, my oldest musical compatriot going uses a Mac, the >guy I trade studio tips with swears by his PC, and the person I've been >spending the most local studio time with (hi, Kurt) uses an Amiga. I'm >not afraid of non-WIMP interfaces, I can hack a LITTLE, I like multitasking, >internal MIDI ports, HyperCard, and Keller's 48Track. And I have virtually >NO money to spend on mistakes. > >So now what do I do, huh? Aw, come on...you can afford SOME sort of setup, less than a grand even!!! You're probably just throwing your hard-earned money away on senseless unneccesaries, like, food. My advice to you personally (and again this is my opinion) is to get together with your friends and associates, ask them why they like it, and see if they'll let you play around with their setup. You can get hands-on experience that way, and can decide for yourself. (BTW if money is a big consideration, you might want to look more seriously at the Amiga and the ST.) >I hope you people are satisfied. |-> > >metlay teehee ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 09:58:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: RE: Sorry to interrupt the compuflame exchange, but.... >Throw three pieces of paper into your nearby derby, one blue, one beige >and one with 4096 colors on it. Draw. Then go buy it. If you can make >music on your sequencer, imagine what you can do with a computer. >They're all viable machines that help musicians do incredible things, as >evidenced by the ongoing wars. Personally, I like them all. HAHAHA!!!! GOOD ANSWER!!!! Seriously, though, I agree--none of those computers would be a mistake, unless they have a weird environment that you personally don't like. If you hate using the mouse, don't get the mac, etc... >For the record, I used an IBM/AT for awhile, tired of the interface and >lack of consistency in software, and bought a lowly Mac+ with an external >hard drive a year ago. It works great, but I've been eyeing the amiga of >late, may need to add a third machine someday if Apple doesn't get their >color act into a reasonable price range. Well, I'll be the first to admit that the Amiga doesn't quite have the graphics of the Mac II (It's close though). However, the Amiga can animate much faster than the mac can dream of at this time and costs a few thousand dollars less. Have fun! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 09:49:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: Re: The best computer etc. >I would be very cautious about buying an Amiga on the basis of its ability to >act like a Mac. My experience is that no matter what the sales literature, or >the enthusiasts, say, there will be compatability problems. Notice the many >references above to no *reported* bugs... First off, don't be so paranoid...I'm not a salesman, merely someone stating my opinion. Also, would you mind explaining how anyone is supposed to know anything about bugs if people don't report them? My point simply was this...I've used all three computers quite extensively, and I can say that from my experience with the bridgecard and Amax that there are NO problems other than already stated--in fact, AMax will run FASTER then a mac! I've tried about every piece of software I could get my hands on to try it, and I haven't even had as many crashes on the IBM side than I have with some clones I've worked with! I'm not saying "If you want an IBM, buy an Amiga and get the bridgecard". I'm just referring to what someone else has brought up about emulators. >-chris, with a big IMHO disclaimer... -The Mad Doctor, with a BIGGER IMHO disclaimer, printed in four-color separation on glossy paper... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 10:40:00 EST From: Mario Vergona Subject: A computer for music... hmmm, Computers, interesting and amazing items. Also EXPENSIVE and so many to chose from, what to do, what to??,,,,, Well when I was starting out with MIDI stuff (I already played guitar and keyboards) I could not decide which computer and the price was also a problem and I kept thinking, and wondering until I finally split the difference and got a COMMODOER C64 with disk drive printer and monitor for 250. The MIDI interface was 75. You'd be surprized at the amount of software and sounds available (very cheaply and some free) I've gotten tons of sounds for the TX81z at a fraction of whatever cost for the ones in other formats. There even are a number of sequencing programs, Passport Dr T etc available. There are also many editor libraian pgms,even for 'new' stuff like the M1. I do have access to IBM stuff at work, I may get an Atari since the price for a 1040st has dropped to 500 (without monitor) but I am very glad that I got the C64, it was a place to start, simple to use and cheap. Granted you miss out on all the P*O*W*E*R of the others, but at least you get it today as opposed to waiting and saving and hoping and then seeing the price on those other machines go up. m ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:01:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: The best computer revisited I promise this to be my last comment on this subject. Choosing a 'best' computer is a subjective thing, just like choosing a synth is a subjective thing. There are so many factors involved: features, finances, attitude, etc., that the only way you can make an intelligent purchase is to get info from everyone and everywhere, sift through it, throw it all out the window and go try out the systems that sound like they fit your particular environment and circumstances. I like the mac because it's what I like. I also like it because I work with it 10 hours a day and it still impresses me (after three years in my present position) with its elegance. All the available computers today are in the process of major transistions: The IBM is trying to be more Mac-like (graphical interface), the Mac is trying to be more Amiga-like (multi-tasking), and the Amiga is trying to be more IBM and Mac- like (well respected). Each has its drawbacks because it hasn't completely succeeded in making the transistion, each will only get better as time goes by. Chances are very good that whatever computer you buy, you will be happy with until your needs have evolved, by which time your computer will probably be obsolete anyway. Maybe the best system for you would be the one the most people around you have, 'cuz then you can share you joy and misery, as well as collaborate on projects. That is arguably more important for *creative* work than the particular harware used. 'Nuff said. Back to EMUSIC stuff for me. I'm biased anyway (see below)... Chris Iverson BITNET%"CHRIS@FANDM" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : Macintosh Tech Support : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Franklin & Marshall College :::::::::::::::: : Lancaster, Pennsylvania : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ****************************************************************** DISclaimer's for YOU! ****************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 13:19:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: Development environments. Not to continue the war, but just out of curiosity. Would anyone care to comment on the Amiga development environment for C or C++? Whose compiler are people using, editors, symbolic debuggers etc. I've used the Microsoft C compiler on the PC and the Lightspeed C environment on the Mac and I'd be interested on how they compare. Cheers, joe Joseph W. Klingler Image Analysis Research Center Medical College of Ohio ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 14:28:00 EST From: The Mad Doctor Subject: RE: Development environments. >Not to continue the war, but just out of curiosity. Would anyone care >to comment on the Amiga development environment for C or C++? Whose >compiler are people using, editors, symbolic debuggers etc. I've >used the Microsoft C compiler on the PC and the Lightspeed C >environment on the Mac and I'd be interested on how they compare. Well IMHO Lattice C++ is the best compiler beyond a programmer's wildest dreams of avarice. (Lattice also has an equally good C compiler, but I prefer C++) You can couple it with Lattice Assembler, so the C code generates assembly language which can the be edited. It's a lot of fun. I like it. >Cheers, Night Court, >joe the mad doctor ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 12:08:00 EST From: REYNOLDS@DEPAUW.BITNET Subject: RE: Re: The best computer for music Chris, What flames? You are absolutely CORRECT in your views on the MAC. A diehard MACfan, Patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 23:38:00 AST From: The Moonlit Knight Subject: The dragon's breath warmly bathes me So, many thanks to Dan Riley, the Mad Doctor and all EMUSIC-Landers who sent their opinions about the "best" computer for music. Although there is no obvious conclusion (some, most likely correct, claim that there cannot be one) the info was much appreciated indeed. Now I will not buy the computer only for music, I am a would-be writer, and available word processors is a point to consider. Taking the PC 'Chiwriter' as a reference (I think it is great to use, but does not have a satisfactory printing quality), what would you say of the processors for other computers, like the Amiga and the ST? Thanks to all, again. Yours, the Moonlit Knight. Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 16:13:00 EST From: The Silicon Junkie Subject: Just what I was looking for! A heaping hello to Mario Vergona who says... ]] ...I finally split the difference and got ]] a COMMODOER C64 with disk drive printer and monitor for 250. The MIDI ]] interface was 75. You'd be surprized at the amount of software available... ]] (loads of stuff deleted) ]] m I'd love to hear where you got a $75 interface. The only one I know of (though I haven't looked much yet) is for $199 from Music Emporium. I'm a MIDI virgin, but I need some help managing my effects programs since I only have 99 user locations on my GSP-5. I also have a friend with a Yamaha DSR-2000 (low-end, I know, but it's a start) and yet another with a MIDI drum unit. I have had a C= 64 for years, and it happens to be the only computer I own (sort of). I'd love an Amiga (yeah, me too) but my financial portfolio is a little inert at present. My birthday is New Year's Eve and I usually get money, so MIDI is in my near future. I'd love to hear anything you have to say about your system, although others may not. So either directly or emusically, I'd appreciate inpuuuut. Thanking you.. _____ __ ___ \\ Tim Joslyn \\ Silicon: | (__ | // at // The Final Frontier |he __)ilicon \_|unkie \\ JOSLYNT@NORWICH \\ Bitnet Only. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 11:45:20 EST From: David Mantripp Subject: Prophet VS Metlay expresses surprise at my comments on the VS. Well in the UK they are quite rare, although not as rare as the Matrix 12, but you can find one if you look, priced at between 800 - 1000 pounds. Add 500 - 600 for a 128K P-2000, and you've got Heaven. I think the reason for this is that US musos tend to delve more deeply into their instruments, and are less attracted by hype. Just an impression! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 11:53:32 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: The tape 7 Dec 89 12:10:24 GMT from I don't have her mail address, but her electronic address is ST902235@BROWNVM.BITNET. She should be able to tell you what her ground mail address is. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 16:54:28 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Magnetic Filings Review First of all, I'm very happy with all of the positive reviews I've gotten from everyone. Thank you! I'll not comment on everything, but the quality of the work on the whole tape was very high. I have to admit that most of the stuff on it requires repeated listening. Vacuous Scream - A very brooding mood piece. Digitized Horses - Like the Imagewriter sample. The reverb on the last sample make it sound like it was in a 55-gallon drum - neat effect. Raft - I have to admit I didn't like this at all the first time through. Now, I really like it. It conjures up great images - the second section in particular makes me think of the raft out in the middle of the sea, with sharks circling... your violinist is really freaked-out. Ruminations - Reminds me of Donald Fagen's stuff. Tasty, with just the right amount of ornamentation from the keyboards. Ethereal Nature - Title has it nailed. Untitled - Wow, Rick Wakeman rides again! Kind of like the organ piece on "Six Wifes of Henry VIII". Good sounds, nice and regal and formal. Noises From Nowhere - Sticks with me. I like that sort of off-center rhythmic feel it has. And that background sort of lopes along behind it... Imperventus - Jari, I think you've been listening to too much Spike Jones :-). This piece is electic to say the least, but it all fits, and it sounds great. Nice clear mix. Acid Rain Expected - This is, like, major-league *funky*. Love it! This would be a great piece to just sit around and jam to. Waditis - Nice stuff; it'd be fun to play with a live band. Sudstern - Nick, I don't think this is too clinical at all. The transparency of the mix really contributes a lot to the piece. How did you do those ratchety bits and the multiple-hit arpeggios? Meditations of the Monk - Another piece I had to live with a while. An interesting sonic oxymoron - frenzied and contemplative at the same time. I like it, now. North Indian Ragas - These never seem to get much of anywhere, but the local scenery is interesting. BTW, Cecilia, have you mailed a copy to Music Technology? I think they actually have a "Reader's Tapes" column. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 13:03:00 EDT From: Steve Rife Subject: Keith Emerson Christmas LP or CD. This is probably a question more for those overseas, but if anyone has heard it I'd appreciate a review. I noticed on a import list of CD's available at a local record store there was a Christmas album available as an IMPORT ONLY by Keith Emerson. I have had no luck obtaining it from them. If anyone has heard this I'd be interested in hearing what you thought about it. Also if anyone knows of a place in the states that can easily get import compact discs I'd appreciate the phone number or address. Thanks !! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 13:15:40 MST From: schabtac@STOUT.UCAR.EDU Subject: Import CD source Someone asked about getting a Keith Emerson import CD -- I lost the message so I couldn't reply directly to the poster. I can't help with the specific disk, but here's a good place to get import CDs: CD City 1915 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 ph. (303) 449-DISC I've never dealt with them through the mail, because I live in Boulder, but I know they do a fair amount of mailorder business. They're the only source of import and small-label CDs around here, so I do a lot of business with them; I've always been happy with their services. --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 11:05:00 EDT From: Steve Rife Subject: Emerson Christmas CD My thanks to those who responded to my questions regarding the Keith Emerson Christmas CD. This item if anyone is interested can be ordered from: EYE & I Productions 930 Jungfrau Court Milpitas, CA 95035 (408) 945-0139 They will ship it UPS to you COD if you wish. Also if anyone is interested a source for mail order import CD's: CD City 1915 Broadway Boulder, Co. 80302 (303) 449-DISC Thanks again to those who responded !!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 19:48:00 EST From: Another Fried Physics Major Subject: Midi to Mac Greetings, Next semester I will be doing an Independent Study involving MIDI to Macintosh. The first investigation will involve actually getting into the MIDI stream of bits and manipulating them. I plan to do this by writing some software, either in C or Pascal, to look at and control the serial port, which the MIDI interface is connected to. The next objective is to write software to control a synth (Note on/off, patch change, ect.) Then to control some of the actual parameters of the sound (I have the use of a D-50, DX-7, DX-7IIFD, and Roland RD-1000.) And then onto things my professor hasn't dream up yet!!! Question: (Finally!!!) Is there any one out there who has done this kind of programming for MIDI? It wouldn't matter if it is for another computer or in another language (Computer Science is ONLY one of my majors!!! You wouldn't want to know the other!!) Thanx for listening, Later, Keith Rachunok SUNY at Geneseo, NY, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 11:00:37 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Midi to Mac You might want to take a look at the "Developer's Stack", available from sumex-aim.stanford.edu and other places. It includes MIDI transmit and receive XCMDS in a HyperCard stack. This may be of interest to you, since it should take care of a lot of the low-level interfacing, letting you spend the time on the actual work you want to get done. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 09:09:04 MDT From: schabtac@STOUT.UCAR.EDU Subject: Re: Midi to Mac Physics Major" at Dec 11, 89 7:48 pm > Greetings, > > [ . . . describes independent study project involving MIDI on a Mac; writing > own serial drivers, communicating w/ several synths . . . ] > And then onto things my professor hasn't dream up yet!!! > Question: (Finally!!!) Is there any one out there who has done this > kind of programming for MIDI? Well, of course. Everyone who has written a sequencer, patch editor, or any other piece of MIDI software has. But specfically, if you're doing it on the Mac, you should get the MIDI Manager Developer's Kit from APDA. There are other, public-domain ways of doing MIDI programming on the Mac, but they're not as nice to work with, and not guaranteed to work on all systems (present and future). The PD packages let you send/receive individual bytes out/in the serial port, the MIDI Manager lets you deal with complete MIDI messages, making life much simpler from the programmer's point of view. It also has some very nice timing functions (internal and external sync are both supported), support for multiple MIDI programs running simultaneously, and some example programs, with source code. > It wouldn't matter if it is for another computer > or in another language (Computer Science is ONLY one of my majors!!! You > wouldn't want to know the other!!) Actually, we might. Mine's CS and Math. > > Thanx for listening, > Later, > Keith Rachunok > SUNY at Geneseo, NY, USA > --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 16:12:38 -0800 From: Brian Russell Subject: Re: Midi to Mac The ADPA kit sounds interesting. Does anyone know of a similar package for IBM machines. I am particularly interested in using port based interfaces since I don't own a computer as of yet. Brian R. Russell ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 08:12:08 CST From: Eddie Mikell Subject: 110 cards Anyone know a source for the Roland 110 cards? I also appreciate any feedback on sounds that they use. Thanks, Eddie H. Mikell Eddie@msstate (bitnet) Eddie@cc.msstate.edu (internet) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 12:16:28 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Continuous controller MIDI pedals (inexpensive) Hello all: A guitar playing friend of mine just recently got an ART SGE multi-effects box. He plans to use it for live performance. The SGE provides for MIDI continuous controllers (any controller # assignable to many different parameters and controls) He has looked around a little but hasn't found an inexpensive continuous controller foot-pedal. He's seen some more-expensive multi-pedal boxes but that's been about it. When he tries to ask for what hje wants the keyboard people in the stores send him to the guitar people who aren't very MIDI literate in this locale as of yet (believe it or not) We're interested in anything people might know about the existence of such a product. Although he is not a member of this list he can be reached at macker@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Joe Macker's the name) Or you can reply directly to me, whichever you prefer. Thank you, Brian Adamson adamson@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 22:31:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: RE: Continuous controller MIDI pedals (inexpensive) My suggestions: an Anatek MIDI Pedal, a Yamaha MCS2, or a Lexicon MRC, depending on his price point. Have him Email me for details. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 01:24:00 EST From: The Silicon Junkie Subject: Also Continuous Contlr Interested. Greets All... I just sub'ed yesterday. I'm new to MIDI. I too am a guitarist with a MIDI capable effects unit, DigiTech's GSP-5. If the ART SGE existed when I was considering an effects unit, I would have bought that one. But I'm happy. Anyways, I'm looking to set up a continuous foot controller also, but I am EXTREMELY limited in funds so I'm looking for a cheap way. The manual suggests using a Digitech (obviously) PDS-3500 MIDI pedal and a DOD Vol/Wah FX-17, which together would run about $220. The Lexicon MRC-1 runs $30, which I don't thi{k includes a foot pedal, so add $80 for the FX-17 again. These are the only units I know anything about (and very little at that). What do the Anatek and the Yamaha MCS2 run for? Sorry to load another request, but I live in a small town with only one music store (MIDI-dry though) so I rely on mail order purchase. Could anyone supply addresses/numbers of some music supply catalogs? The only one I have is Music Emporium. If this was previously discussed, just say so and I'll search the log archives. << I'm not a total cheapskate, just happily unemployed. >> _____ __ ___ \\ Tim Joslyn \\ | (__ | // at // |he __)ilicon \_|unkie \\ JOSLYNT@NORWICH \\ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 20:12:30 EDT From: Lee Calhoun Subject: low-end keyboards greetings! I would like some help recommending an electronic keyboard instrument for non-professional use by a friend -- (well, actually, my MOTHER!) -- she's not dense or anything, but synthesizing and customizing sounds is not her bag exactly. She would just want to set it up and go. What I had in mind was one of the Casio/Yamaha-type keyboards or electronic pianos in the $200-$500 (US) range. Full-size keys, at least 5 octaves, reasonably decent sounds, should be amenable to some user-tinkering, but does not have to allow creating sounds from scratch. I cannot find any discussion of these in my back issues of Keyboard. The only thing I have to go by is a Consumer Reports issue from December '88. The impression I get is that the sound quality is generally tacky, unless you go for an "electronic piano" (e.g. the Yamaha YPR9 or Casio CPS101), where what you have is about 5-10 piano/harpsichord/organ -type voices which are not bad, and velocity-sensitive keys, and that's it. No accompaniment patterns, split keyboards or the like. Does anyone have any experience with these animals? Are Casio and Yamaha the only players? Have any new models come out in the last year that have raised the standards for sound-quality or other features in this price range? Thanks for any suggestions. Lee Calhoun Columbia University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 12:03:18 GMT From: Tony Jewell Subject: Mailer for Music Software If any one is interested, I have recently set up an automated mailing system for the redistribution of Midi software and synthesiser patches. At the moment, I don't have too much to offer, mainly due to space consider- ations. Most of the stuff has come from various FTP sites, and I thought it would be a good idea to have a central site for redistribution, especially for those sites that have no FTP. I currently have new patch data for the K1, K5, M1 and CZ's, as well as patch editors for a number of synths for the Atari ST. To access this data, just send a mail message to: info-server@uk.ac.clp.unixa And the required software is sent by return of post automatically. For instructions on how to use this system, please send a mail message containing simply the word "help" to the above address. If any one else discovers any interesting patches/software (providing its small !) let me know, and I'll add it to my list. If you want any software that isn't listed, but you know it probably exists somewhere, drop us a line, as there is some software out there which I don't have simply because it is too large, but I could get for you on request. Any problems/queries, mail to: info-admin@uk.ac.clp.unixa -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony J Jewell Systems Officer City Of London Polytechnic ___ . ___ JANET: tonyj@uk.ac.clp.unixa / \ / / \ EARN/BitNet: tonyj@unixa.clp.ac.uk / / /___ / EAN: tonyj%clp.unixa@ean-relay.ac.uk <____/ <___ / ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 10:16:47 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Inverted Address for "info-server" For all recipients of the mailing about Tony's "info-server": Anyone who is not at a JANET site (i.e., most non-UK sites) will have to invert the address: info-server@unixa.clp.ac.uk, not info-server@uk.ac.clp.unixa. Hope that clears up any confusion. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 09:59:44 GMT From: Tony Jewell Subject: Hassle with info-server Hello to everyone out there who tried to use my info-server yesterday ... Unfortunately, it has shown up the sort of problems that you really can't test for with simple debugging. Our sendmail has decided to play silly b*gg*rs for the moment and refuses to send replies to anyone outside the U.K. This should only be a temporary problem, and I'm going to be burning the midnight oil trying to get it going properly. For the moment can I ask all non-UK sites not to send it any mail until I get this sussed, as all the mail is just filling up on the system. Thank you for your patience, and for the large response out there (I didn't think so many people would be interested !), and I'll try and get it going .. I'll mail the list again when its working. P.s. Thanks to Ian at Umist for all his help with sendmail yesterday. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony J Jewell Systems Officer City Of London Polytechnic ___ . ___ JANET: tonyj@uk.ac.clp.unixa / \ / / \ EARN/BitNet: tonyj@unixa.clp.ac.uk / / /___ / EAN: tonyj%clp.unixa@ean-relay.ac.uk <____/ <___ / ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 14:31:20 GMT From: Tony Jewell Subject: Info-server After a couple teething problems, the info-server *should* now work for non UK sites as well. If anyone has any problems, or the info-server seems to be taking a long time to reply (at the moment there is no queuing used, so it should be very quick), mail info-admin at the same address Thanks for your patience, Tony -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony J Jewell Systems Officer City Of London Polytechnic ___ . ___ JANET: tonyj@uk.ac.clp.unixa / \ / / \ EARN/BitNet: tonyj@unixa.clp.ac.uk / / /___ / EAN: tonyj%clp.unixa@ean-relay.ac.uk <____/ <___ / ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 16:21:16 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Hassle with info-server Tony, we have some space here on the EMUSIC-L server... If you don't have a whole truckload of stuff, we might be able to put it on here as well. That'd give you some breathing room, and would may all this available. BTW, if you can come up with a list of FTP sites which have emusic-related stuff, I'll store it as a file on our server. You can just send it to the list if it's not too big; otherwise mail it to me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 08:48:00 EST From: STEARNS@BIOVAX.BITNET Subject: To make up one's mind, first be sure one has one. Would anyone want to compare the Korg M1 with an Ensoniq VFX? (the Ensoniq to be without a sequencer -- I have a Mac) (And I liked your comments, Nick) Argh! A pox on salesmen. Tim Stearns ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 16:40:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: alas alackaday I've just learned that I'll be leaving for Oak Ridge to do research on the 2nd of January, and my computer account there is restricted so I can't forward Email. So I'll be temporarily unsubscribing to EMUSIC-L on Friday and leaving for vacation, and then for Tennessee, on the 20th. If I owe anyone any information, answers to questions, etc., please remind me and help me wrap things up by then, because I won't be answering mail from next Wednesday to sometime in February. I'll resubscribe at that time. wishing you all a safe and happy holiday season, I remain, metlay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 17:51:24 GMT From: Duy-Minh NHIEU Subject: patches for K1, M1,.... The posted address: info-server@uk.ac.clp.unixa does not work, when I send a mail I get the message: unknown host... could the person please give a correct address? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 15:12:24 -0800 From: jim deroest Subject: Re: patches for K1, M1,.... From US sites use the reverse domain: info-server@unixa.clp.ac.uk Jim DeRoest University Computing Services University of Washington deroest@cac.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 10:19:04 EST From: Tony D'Amato Subject: MIDIPaint Sorry to interrupt the computer discussion (not quite a war), but... I have a Mac which is running MIDIPaint. This version I have is 1.0. Does anyone else in the EMUSIC universe have this package, and if so, what version? It's a nice package (probably not as nice as Performer, but since I'm only a beginner...), but I have run into several bugs, and if this is the only release of the program, I'll have to dig into my already mostly empty pockets to buy something else. By the way, I already had a Mac, so I can't add too much to the discussion except that ... I abstain from commenting. (Don't want to add fuel to the fire...CHICKEN!) Later... |========================================================================| | Tony D'Amato | | | Computer Systems Engineer | "Deesclaimer! I don't neeed no | | Old Dominion University | steenkin' deesclaimer!" | | E-Mail: NAD100T@ODUVM.BITNET | | | -or- nad100t@oduvm.cc.odu.edu | -- with apologies to Mel Brooks | |========================================================================| ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 16:26:57 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: MIDIPaint I believe I saw a review in Keyboard a while back that said there had been an update. 2.0 is now available, I think - call up the Midipaint folks and ask where your update notice is ... :-) --- Joe M. ------------------------------ ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************