EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 11, Number 3 Today's Topics: Computers and music (6 messages) MIDIPaint Magnetic Filings Review MT-32 Analog synths JamBox desk accessory IBM MIDI interfaces and software (2 messages) Christmas gift list (3 messages) EPS-M/S-330 (6 messages) 4-track tape decks MIDI specification (2 messages) Amiga music software Where to get stuff? Problem downloading Korg M1 patches Samples for free (2 messages) Synthesizer philosophy (13 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, 15 Dec 89 09:28:47 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: The dragon's breath warmly bathes me I hate to be a spoilsport, but let's please take the computer discussion to private mail. I have no objection to getting a summary post later; it's just that discussions of word processors really don't have much to do with the list. Thanks, everyone. Has anyone seen the new Narada Christmas music collection? I noted pieces sequenced on both a Mac and on a C-64, and I really couldn't have told you which was which without the liner notes. A nice CD for mood-setting. For me, that pretty much says that the computer doesn't matter; it's the arranger or composer that's the primary part. I suppose this all ties back to the dis- cussions we've had about w*rkst*t**ns - the music is what matters, not the instrument. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 10:58:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: RE: The dragon's breath warmly bathes me If you plan on writing with you computer, spend some time evaluating displays, refresh rates, resolution etc. Eye fatigue is a real issue if you plan to spend many hours at the machine. Try spending an hour or more using each machine and see what feels the best for you. IMHO monochrome systems are preferable for text work because of inherent trade-offs in the construction of color monitors. -joek ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 12:30:00 LCL From: Stefan Herr Subject: Re: The dragon's breath warmly bathes me Hello... It is a difficult question which computer is the best for making music AND word processing. Here my (*NOT* unbiased) opinion to some of them: IBM PC/compatible: Good for business applications and of course word processing. However it is not possible to produce 'interesting' sound without buying slot cards or MIDI interfaces (which are worth nothing without a MIDIfied Synthesizer or other keyboard). An expensive choice in the end, I think. Atari ST: Has good business and professional programs, but a limited hardware. Has got a 3 voices soundchip by YAMAHA, but with even less abilities as the Com. 64 soundchip!! BUT: On the ST you can get the BEST MIDI programs on the whole market. Together with a modern synthesizer (like Korg M1, Roland D-50 or so) you can make cool music and write your texts, books or whatsoever... AMIGA: The Amiga is unique.: It has got 4 voices, but special ones: They can replay natural waveforms by sampling them with an A/D con- verter. The ST for example uses synthesized waveforms. The Amiga, however, can not only replay natural waveforms, but some programs are able to calculate synthesized waveforms in realtime! Another music program on the Amiga is able to mix waveforms in realtime, so that you can have up to 8 voices without hardware extensions. This program is absolutely new, it is called Oktalyzer. There are also lots of MIDI programs for the Amiga (Dr. T's). Of course the Amiga is also to do the 'normal' computing stuff, like text processing, data base'ing, ....., and, last not least, phantas- tic graphics with up to 4096 colours. Certainly there are computers like the MAC, which have comparable abilities, BUT: they are 10 times more expensive than an Amiga. If you have more questions about the Amiga (because I use it nearly only for making music) then tell them to me. If you want I can copy you self-made demo disks for the Amiga which show it's abilities. Do this by sending two empty/full 3.5" disks to: S. Herr Postfach 30 7859 Efringen-Kirchen West Germany. Of course other people can also get the demos. Bye bye. Stefan. UK12@DKAUNI2 P.S.: Please don't mind my English.......... P.P.S: I know that the Amiga also has disadvantages (like EVERY computer), but it is still the best for doing sound AND serious stuff AND cool graphics at a very LOW price. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 02:51:11 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: RE: The best computer for music Dan Riley writes: > Come on, I'm sure you can think of something worse [than an Amiga] Ok..ok...lesse....a PDP-11 runing RSX11....a TRS-80..... :) -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 03:04:55 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: RE: The best computer for music >>In My Humble Opinion....the best computer for the money is the IBM PC line >Interesting...what software and equipment are you using? CAKEWALK 3.0, with a Roland LAPC card running on a 386 at 25 mHz. (I WAS using a plain XT with an old MPU-401 up until a week ago.) My qualifying comment was "for the money". NEXT machines are still a bit too expensive, but I like the ideas I've heard about them so far. I'm talking about budget computing here. My 386 (if you leave out the expensive hard disk I splurged on...110MB ESDI drive) cost me a mere $1200 (including case, pwr supp ly, motherboard, floppy disks, and etc). I could have what I used to have (which was adequate for music purposes) for less than $500 with brand new equipment. > I still don't believe the prices I've seen for IBM software! I don't believe the prices I've seen for ANY software! ;) >> 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... Well, I've been talking to those who work in the video games industry mostly. But someone I know trying to use the AMIGA for serious work had a big problem wi th getting the proper documentation... > BTW, which version of the Amiga OS were you working on? I think it was WOrkbench 1.3 and the version of dos was 1.31 or something like t hat. > More specifics would be nice if you're going to say such things. I see! I can see that if I had more specifics, that I would be more credible.... and even though that was only my opinion, it should have been more well informed, ri ght? -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 03:13:25 PST From: Dave Hayes Subject: Re: Sorry to interrupt the compuflame exchange, but.... Metlay write: > I don't own a computer... > ...and I can do anything I need to do without one! Then (after that observation) he asks: > So now what do I do, huh? What you need to do, right? Without one, right? ;) -Dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 11:36:32 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Re: MIDIPaint MidiPaint is by Southworth Musci systems (maker of the JamBox) who are now out of business. I am not aware of a version 2.0, but would certaintly be interested in it if it exists. I have version 1.0 which I bought very shortly before Southworth went under. I am very happy with it as a sequencer. I has many of the graphic features that are just now beginning to appear in other sequencer packages. It also supports looping of segments (patterns or sequences of any types) an unlimited number of tracks (limited by memory only) also supports continuous sequences, full SMPTE or click-track sync, great editing quantization and rythm track generating features, also shuffling of time and other interesting MIDI manipulation capabilities On the ongoing "exchange" my fuel to the fire is as follows. I have been using Macs for a long time, since their inception, and have seen many changes in them. They have really grown with times. The integrated graphics capability which is part of practically every piece of Mac software maps over very well to music applications. The consistency in the user interface is also very useful fr high productivity and minimization of the learning curve with any piece of software. Unfortunately, the IBM world hasn't progressed so rapidly in hardware changes and/or truly productive changes in the presentation of their application software. But they do have a user and software support base that can't be ignored. I am very excited over the Amiga, but as people have previously mentioned, its been a big risk for the software people with experience to develop alot for Amiga. Good things have been happening for music software for the Amiga, but for me persoanlly, a computer is too big an investment that I wouldn't to use it for other things (i.e word processing and other personal/business use) If we want to talk based on the pure capabiities of the machine, the computer that gets my vote is the NeXT machine. I got a copy of a detailed overview of the music & sound capabilites that are built in this machine ( I may still have it for upload, if anybody's interested) Although it doesn't sport a built-in MIDI interface, it does have very sophisticated built-in features specifically designed for the manipulation of sound and MIDI data. But, cost & availability of software really do count. Brian Adamson IBM PC, Mac, Apple II, Atari, Yamaha, Amiga, C-64..What next? Oh NeXT! oh no. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 13:17:09 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Magnetic Filings Review 14 Dec 89 16:54:28 EST <23717.8912151117@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >How did you do those ratchety bits and the multiple-hit arpeggios? Ratchety bits? You mean the percussion stuff? The opening percussion pattern is just one sound (panned left and right), and the `flams' were put in partly by step-record, partly by shift/repeat, in a delicate bit of surgery. The flam events are panned alternatively hard left and right, for a pretty gross stereo effect. The note velocities (read: loudness) were quite crucial to get the `zip zip ZIP' phrasing right. At one stage I was thinking of taking the percussion out at the end using a fairly gross ritardando (?), as if the percussion stuff was playing from tape with someone cutting power to the tape motor. By `multiple-hit arpeggios', I assume you mean the stuff that comes in half way through the cliched moog solo. That's done with 3 passes using the Cyclone, with the `dry' crystalline sound coming from the D-50 (which is also doing the moog and bass melody) and two passes panned left and right for the `wet' crystalline sound from the D-110, at double-tempo. The D-50 reverb is set to one of its echo configurations, hence the echoes. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 09:55:08 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: MT-32 Here's an electronic article on the guts of the MT32 that I thought may be of interest to some people on the list. The guy who wrote it has some home-built modifications for the MT32 to improve its sound and is working on others. I have seen his ads in the back of Electronic Musician. I'm just posting this for people who are interested. I haven't tried any of his ideas or products so no endorsement is given or implied From ucsd!rutgers!gatech!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!it sgw!steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!mfs Sun Jan 22 07:21:36 PST 1989 Article 3957 of rec.music.synth: Path: ucsd!rutgers!gatech!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!it sgw!steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!mfs >From: mfs@edison.GE.COM (Martin @ I was a plant in a previous life) >Newsgroups: rec.music.synth >Subject: The MT-32 >Keywords: the guts of the machine >Message-ID: <1780@edison.GE.COM> >Date: 18 Jan 89 22:19:20 GMT Lines: 152 Ah, the MT-32; a great little box - for the money. I dearly love mine, even though it is kind of noisy. I have gotten a lot of requests for info on the MT, so I will attempt to share what I know about it. Most of this info also applies to the D110, except the D110 has more reverb modes, more PCM samples, battery backup, a card slot, and killer drum samples. First, the obvious. The MT is a multi-timbral sound module that uses Roland's now famous (infamous ?) sound generation method called LA (Linear Arithmetic) synthesis. This is really just a fancy name for mixing PCM samples with 'normal' sawtooth/square wave kinds of sounds While the timbres produced by the LA method sound complex, programming the sounds is actually rather easy. Of course, to change any of the MT's parameters, you need a computer and the proper software; there are only a few things you can change from the front panel. The MT is logically divided into several sections. First are the synth parts. There are 8 of these, each of which has its own midi channel number, volume and pan setting. Kind of like 8 synths and a mixer in one box. The next section is the drum section. This area allows you to assign a canned rhythm sound or any sound loaded into RAM to a particular note number. You can also set the pan, volume and turn the reverb on or off for each of these sounds. Now, all of the synth parts and the drum section draw from a 'pool' of sounds arranged in banks of 64. There are two banks of 'musical' sounds in ROM (A and B), one bank of 'drum' sounds in ROM (actually only 30 of these, abbreviated R) and one bank of RAM sound locations (called M for memory). You can get to the ROM A and B sounds in two ways. The first way is to select a part button and spin the knob. The little micro inside the MT dutifully loads the sounds into the part as the knob goes round. You can also use MIDI program change commands to pull up the sounds. There is a difference tho, 'cause when you use the program change commands to pull up a sound, the MT uses an area called the patch map to get to them. The patch map is an area of 128 locations, each of which corresponds to one of the 128 possible MIDI program change numbers. Each entry in the map specifies a bank (A,B,R or M) and a number (1-64). When you power up your MT, this map is defaulted so that program change numbers 1-64 will 'point' to ROM bank A and numbers 65-128 point to bank B. Using a computer and editor, you can change these map entries to point to any sound in any bank. And, not only can you specify the bank and sound number, each map entry allows you to specify the bend range, the keyshift (in semitones), the polymode (whether the next note on cuts off the previous note or triggers a new one) and the whether the reverb is on or off. Note that there is only one patch map. If you send a program change to one part on a certain channel and then send the same program change the another part on another channel, they will both be set according to that particular patch map entry. The last group is the system section which controls the global things such as master volume, tuning and the reverb. The MT has four kinds of reverb: room, hall, plate and discrete echo. You can set the reverb time from 1-8 and the level from 0 to 7. Note that the reverb on the MT is global. You can turn the reverb on or off for each part or drum sound, but you can't have one part set to one thing and another part set to something else. So all in all the MT is really very flexible in terms of setting things up and pulling up sounds via midi. Now I will try to break down the parameters that make up a sound. The smallest unit of sound generation is called a partial. Four partials are grouped together to form a timbre. You can make a timbre using all four partials if you want, or you can use just one or two. There is a section of the timbre refered to as the common parameters. This area contains the 'switches' to turn on or off any of the four partials and the partial structures (see below) All together the MT can generate 32 partials at any one instant. These are all dynamically allocated between the synth and drum parts. Let's look at a partial. Each one of these is made up of a Waveform Generator (WG), Time Variant Filter (TVF) and a Time Variant Amplifier (TVA). Each of these blocks has several parameters and a five stage envelope generator associated with it. The WG has controls which affect the coarse and fine pitch, select the waveform (sawtooth, square or PCM #) and control the amount of envelope effect. The TVF parameters include cutoff frequency, resonance, velocity sensitivity, several keyfollow parameters and a five stage envelope generator (the last stage of the envelope is fixed as the sustain level and release time). The TVA has an overall level adjustment, velocity sensitivity controls, a five stage envelope and two programmable keyfollow controls. Partials can be one of two types: Synth or PCM partials. In the Synth partials, all of the above mentioned blocks are active. You can set up a sawtooth on the WG, filter it with the TVF and adjust the volume with the TVA. In a PCM partial, instead of using the standard square or sawtooth kind of waveform, a sampled waveform is selected. Some of these samples are looped so they sustain, while others only sound during the initial attack of a note. Also, in a PCM partial, the TVF has no effect. As mentioned above, partials are combined into blocks called timbres. Each timbre is made up of two pairs of partials. These pairs are combined by setting a parameter called a structure. The structure tells the partials what kind they are (Synth or PCM) and how their output is combined. Depending on the structure setting, the partials can be set up as 2 synth partials, a PCM partial and a synth partial, 2 PCM partials, stereo PCM/synth partials (one partial out the left and one out the right) and ring modulated synth and/or PCM partials. (13 all total) Very flexible. I should note here that the MT firmware has a bug which does not allow the volume to be controlled properly if structures 10-13 are used. (Maybe this is just a H/W limitation) Now for the MT insides: The MT-32 uses an Intel 8097 microcontroller as the main CPU. It has a total of 64K of ROM and 32K of RAM. The RAM is not battery backed, so you have to reload all of your sounds and the patch map when you power up. The CPU (and the operating system in the ROMs) controls the custom LA32 chip. The LA chip has connections for the PCM sample ROMs (two 256Kx8 Toshiba Mask ROMs on board rev 0 or one Hitachi 512Kx8 ROM on board rev 1) and the digital reverb chip. Contrary to popular opinion, the LA chip sends all it's data to the reverb chip in digital format, not in analog form. The data is routed to the D/A converter (a BurrBrown PCM54 chip) and out to 6 sample/hold chips. With a few exceptions, this is the same circuitry as in the D110. (And probably the D10 and 20, but I don't have them so I can't look inside) For some reason, one of the data lines from the LA chip to the D/A is LEFT OFF, killing the S/N ratio. Also, (as near as I can tell with the trusty 1240 logic analyzer) the sample data in the ROMs has no data for this bit. Note that the D110 runs ALL 16 bits to the D/A which explains its better S/N ratio. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh well, I'm busy trying to find a way to quiet my MT down by running the extra line and using a slightly better D/A, but so far, no luck. I am also gonna try putting a D110 PCM sample ROM in the MT to see if that will work. I've managed to dissassemble all the code in the ROMs and I hope to get some simple front panel editing functions in there. (Not that easy!) And, I'm workin' on a battery backup circuit and a 500+ EPROM sound bank. I also have new EPROMs available wich have 128 new sounds in them. Unlike the aforementioned products, these are done and work quite well. (The sounds are MUCH better than the originals too) Of course you will have to install sockets in your MT, as only the first 20000 or so were sold with socketed EPROMs..... Oh well. Write or Email for more info - Martin mfs@edison.ge.com BLUE RIDGE MUSIC SOFTWARE Rt 8, Box N55, Charlottesville, VA 22901 I hope this was of use to someone. Brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 13:25:56 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Analog synths yippee kai yay 11 Dec 89 12:46:00 EST <2544.8912181236@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >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? KEYBOARD didn't say anything about the Innovart, so I wrote to them. All they gave me was an address in France... One of Jarre's portables has microphones on metal supports. If you're interested, I can dig out my concert program for the Docklands concert and give more detailed descriptions... Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 10:53:47 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: JamBox Macintosh Desk Accessory Does anyone have the address of Glenn Workman, the guy who took over JamBox support after Southworth's demise? I am looking for the Macintosh desk accessories for the JamBox and the phone number I got for Mr. Workman before doesn't seem to work. I hear he is Winchester, Maryland but the telephone company doesn't seem to know about him. Any help is greatly appreciated. Brian Adamson Information Technology Naval Research Lab adamson@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 16:53:09 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: New subscription & IBM MIDI interfaces & software It's been so long since I subscribed to this list that I don't remember how I did it. I've got someone here who wants to subscribe to the list. He can be reached at kopp@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil Could someone please send either him or me a message on how to subscribe to this list. He is also interested into getting into MIDI. He has an IBM compatible PC and is looking for information and specifically user feedback on different sequencing and notation software packages as well as IBM MIDI interfaces. He wants to know "Are all MPU-401 compatible interfaces alike (i.e. do they have the same capabilites, does any one have any advantage over another?). Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you, Brian Adamson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 16:18:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: New subscription & IBM MIDI interfaces & software Sorry about the empty message---computer got away from me. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the MPU-401 compatible cards are similar. The major player (hope I don't leave anyone out) is Voyestra, Music Quest, CMS, and Roland. The only major differences I have seen is the tape syncing capabilities. Some read and write FSK, some SMPTE, and some don't have tape sync. About 98% of the IBM software out there seem to support these boards--at least the most basic ones. From what I understand, none of the sequencing software support SMPTE fully. I have not really heard of any combination that of board/software that did not work. I would feel pretty safe getting anyone of the MPU-401 compatible boards out there. The only problem I have heard is interrupt problems. The original Roland MPU-401 used IRQ2 for an interrupt. If you have something on that interrupt you may run into some problems. Some of the boards have jumpers to customize which interrupt to use. However, if your software does not let you choose an interrupt other than 2, then, you will definitely have problems. I have noticed, though, that the new releases of software has an interrupt number option. Personally, I am using the CMS 401 card. It is a real basic card, no sync. I have not problems with it and it works with all the software I have purchased. I use Cakewalk as a sequencer and a D-10/D-110 sound editor (can't remember t he name of it off hand). I have a handful of public domain librarians, and utilities that also work fine. All the major sequencing programs support the 401, so you will not have any problems finding a sequencer that will work with these boards. Willis Dair Systems Programmer Academic Computing Center Santa Clara University DAIR@SCU.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 22:41:00 EST From: The Silicon Junkie Subject: Gift List. I am moderately new to the list. I am eating my way through all the log files, but it's going slow, mainly because of (gritted, nasty, gnarled teeth) Limited Disk Space. (Cleaning Woman !!!??!?!!) I have many nice things on my gift list. One of them is a copy of the emusic-l collaborative music tape, or is it Magnetic Filings. I would love to get a copy of this. Is this possible? This is one of my friends Christmas list consisting of one thing... ART SGE Effects Unit. That's all he wants. I'd like one too, but I'll just use his (hee hee). _____ __ ___ \\ Tim Joslyn \\ Silicon: | (__ | // at // The Final Frontier |he __)ilicon \_|unkie \\ JOSLYNT@NORWICH \\ Bound to Bitnet. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 15:12:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: Christmas wish list I put a downpayment on a U-220 a couple of weeks ago. I am hoping it will be shipping shortly after Christmas. I have a friend who works at a music store, and he said if I sent him a down-payment, he would put my name on the first one he gets in. I don't even know what it is going to cost me yet, but I am expecting it to be in the neighborhood of $750. I had originally intended to get a Proteus, but the U-220 sounds like it will be more versatile, plus the sound library already exists for it in the form of D-110 cards. Both machines (the Proteus and the U-220) list for $995.00, but my friend said Roland would allow him to mark the U-220 down about 25%, whereas the Proteus could only be discounted by about 16%. After I get the U-220 in my sweaty little hands and play with it for a while, I'll send my impressions of it to the list. (c'mon, Santa....) While visions of synth modules dance in my head... -chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 12:54:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: Re: Christmas wish list I'm kind of a Roland-junkie, and have gotten Roland gear at 20% to 30% discount. Seven-hundred fifty dollars seems like a good ballpark figure. When the U-110 was listing at $1100 (boy, the U-220 has better sound, and lower list), I paid $800 for it. Oh, by the way, I think you meant U-110 ROM cards, but typed D-110. The U-220 will have the same types of sounds as the U-110. That way, they can reuse the U-110 cards and have a full repetoire of sounds as the U-110 was meant to be. One thing I have noticed, from the pictures of the U-220 I've seen, there is not RAM card slot like there is in the U-20. The RAM card holds an additional 64 patch slots. I guess if you get a U-220, you probably have a computer/sequencer and you can do a dump to disk. From my comparison of the Proteus and the U-20, I have concluded that you are comparing apples to oranges. I feel the Proteus is more synth oriented. There are filters and envelopes and LFO that can be tweaked. The U-20 only has a simple ASDR envelope and a single LFO to affect what Roland calls vibrato. To my ears, I feel the U-20 has better reproduction of acoustic instruments. If that is the type of music you produce (I main use traditional acoustic instruments) then I would pick the U-20. The Proteus has a lot more electronic type sounds that are quite good. Some of the acoustic sounds are pretty realistic, but some are not. The synthy type sounds are very full. If your genre of music is semi-acoustic and leaning towards some electronic, the Proteus would be a good choice. Definitely let us know what you think og it when you get it. I have been sorta interested in it, after using someone else's U-20. I love the sound. Hope you don't get too wrapped up in the menues- yeah there are a lot of them. Enjoy! Willis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 22:24:47 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: EPSM/S-330 I am considering buying an S-330 to add to my rig but before I do I would like to know what any of you think about the EPS/EPSM. Thanks, all comments appreciated Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 17:38:00 EST From: It's not easy being Green Subject: Re: EPSM/S-330 The S-330 is a much better way to go! Roland is the only company that practically gives away the sample library away to all Roland Sampler owners (all you have to do is bring in the disks and the store is obligated to let you copy anything Roland had to offer, which is over 140 disks). Keyboard magizine also rated the EPS/M the worst sounding sampler on the market..also it doesn't have the possibility for a video hookup and free hand wavemaking by mouse or digitizer tablet (no computer needed). Basically, you can't beat the sound and quality of the S-330. I wish I had more money to buy a second. Hey, it also has the best sequencing software for it than any other built in sequencer of any other workstation out. So tell Ensoniq to eat it! Steve Castle SXC2407@ritvax Rochester Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 16:24:41 MDT From: Adam Schabtach Subject: Re: EPSM/S-330 Green" at Dec 19, 89 5:38 pm As much as I don't like to fan flame wars, I couldn't let this kind of idiocy go by uncorrected. Preface: I have an EPS. I have not worked with an S-330. > > The S-330 is a much better way to go! Roland is the only company ^^^^ Wrong. > that practically gives away the sample library away to all Roland Sampler > owners (all you have to do is bring in the disks and the store is obligated > to let you copy anything Roland had to offer, which is over 140 disks). Ensoniq has exactly the same offer. I don't know how many disks are in the library; I've got about 100 filled. Ensoniq also has a few disks that are for sale, rather than freebies. > Keyboard magizine also rated the EPS/M the worst sounding sampler on the > market.. Well, actually the Mirage got last place, overall. > also it doesn't have the possibility for a video hookup and free > hand wavemaking by mouse or digitizer tablet (no computer needed). Basically, I admit that video displays are useful for looping, unless you're using a machine that has sophisticated looping algorithms, like the EPS. The EPS has real-time autolooping that is faster and easier than doing it visually. I've tried both. > you can't beat the sound and quality of the S-330. I wish I had more money to > buy a second. Hey, it also has the best sequencing software for it than any > other built in sequencer of any other workstation out. Can it do dynamic mixdowns? How about pre- *and* post-quantizing? Track offsets by units of single clicks? > So tell Ensoniq to eat > it! I really don't think that's necessary. I could go into all the amazingly cool features the EPS has, like poly key pressure, all the modulation routings, huge number of waves in memory, layering, onboard sample editing, etc. that the EPS, and only the EPS has, but I don't know enough about the S-330 to go around loudly slamming the Roland keyboard. > > Steve Castle > SXC2407@ritvax > Rochester Institute of Technology > --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 12:00:00 EST From: It's not easy being Green Subject: Re: EPSM/S-330 Adam...sorry about abusing the Ensoniq name. I was thinking of the Mirage. It's true that Ensoniq is on of the only companies with poly pressure. Ok. As for the rest, I was stating about the W-30, which roland claims to be an upgraded S-330 keyboard. It does have all of the other features you mentioned (with the S-330, you have to upgrade by buying the "director S" software (which is the top of the line MRC sequencers offered by Roland without the box...make sense?). Oh, on other thing I forgot to mention...the S-330 is not memory upgradeable like my friend the EPS. I have used both and I still like the Roland stuff better. For the price of the upgrades for the Ensoniq, you could practically buy another rack mount (hard disk and memory expansion). So you can stop getting all mad at me now...I apoligized! Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 12:16:56 EST From: Jeffrey R Kell Subject: Re: EPSM/S-330 19 Dec 89 16:24:41 MDT from The Korg DSS-1 does automatic looping and zero-point location. If you keep the loop reasonably short (keep levels close on start/stop points) it does a good job, most of the time. If it doesn't loop smoothly, you can do an X-over function which takes the loop segment, reverses it, and mixes it 'digitally' with the original which almost always smooths out any volume-related anomalies in the loop. /Jeff/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 13:44:26 MDT From: schabtac@STOUT.UCAR.EDU Subject: Re: EPSM/S-330 Green" at Dec 20, 89 12:00 pm > > Adam...sorry about abusing the Ensoniq name. I was thinking of the > Mirage. No hard feelings :-) just wanted to set the record straight. It's a common mistake. > . . . I have used both and I still > like the Roland stuff better. That's fine. Obviously they both have their strengths and weaknesses, like everything else. I haven't used Roland's samplers much (except that horrible dinky one they put out awhile back -- the S-10 or whatever it was), but they make KILLER drum machines, and the D-50 is obviously a classic. > So you can stop getting all mad at me now...I > apoligized! > > Steve > Apologies accepted. Have a nice Christmas! --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 11:40:00 EDT From: "b.klassen" Subject: 4-tracks, namely the new Tascam MIDIstudio 644 I considering a major purchase, namely the MIDIstudio 644 by TASCAM. It's their top-of-the-line 4-track ... 16 channels of input, automatic MIDI sync, and gobs of other features. Sound is good to, for a 4-track cassette. Has anyone seen/used/owned this beast? I'm planning on using it in the following way: 1 track for sync (driving 24 MIDI tracks), 3 tracks for guitars, vocals, etc (bouncing could add a few more tracks to the "acoustic" section), and then mixing down to a hi-fi VCF (great way to sell the idea to the girlfriend). Comments? brian PS: happy holidays to Metlay, if I'm not too late to catch you. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 14:01:27 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Latest MIDI Specification Hello, Could someone either send me or tell me how to retrieve from the archives the latest MIDI spec. I used to have it electronically, but somehow it was misplaced or deleted. Thank you Brian Adamson adamson@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 14:03:53 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: MIDI Specification Hello, Could someone either send me or tell me how to retrieve from the archives the latest MIDI spec. I used to have it electronically, but somehow it was misplaced or deleted. Thank you Brian Adamson adamson@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 14:33:00 EST From: "From the desk of Mark A. Dolecki" Subject: AMIGA MUSIC (MIDI) SOFTWARE HI! I need some help finding some quality midi software and peripherals for my Amiga. If anyone can help me out, drop me a message at MAD91@GENESEO.BITNET THANKS, MARK DOLECKI MAD91@GENESEO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 16:06:00 EST From: The Silicon Junkie Subject: Where to get stuff. MIDI Musicians... I'm looking for places to purchase music hardware, esp. MIDI, but I'm always interested in the latest guitar gadgets and hardware. I built my own electric with a built-in control panel for access to my effects processor, so parts and 'stuff' would be good also. The only catalog houses I know about are Rogue Music, Music Emporium, and Stuart MacDonald's GTR Shop Supply. If anyone knows of any other music suppliers, could you jot them down and send 'em my way? Address, phone number and any order information would be great. If you can send it directly to me, that'd be best, but I'm at a Bitnet-only node which could create problems for some of you, although I don't know. If there are no objections from 'he who wears the hat of power', I'll post a summary or send it to be added to the file basement. That is, if it is not considered to be advertising. I think it would be a valuable list to have for us all. Have a fine couple of holidays, _____ __ ___ \\ Tim Joslyn \\ Silicon: | (__ | // at // The Final Frontier |he __)ilicon \_|unkie \\ JOSLYNT@NORWICH \\ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 20:58:35 GMT From: Duy-Minh NHIEU Subject: Korg M1 patches I ftp some files from ucsd.edu under /midi/patches/M1, however I don't know how to use them, (I don't have an M1 but my friend has one however, he does not know much about computer). Can some one out there please help? (I can unshar it but can't get that far) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 09:45:00 EDT From: "b.klassen" Subject: Free stuff, samplers ... Most music stores I've ever dealt with will give you "free" software for buying product from them. When I bought my S950 I got 150 disks worth of samples at $2/disk (which in Canada is cheaper than you can buy the little buggers). I have ordered a hard disk/CD interface for it from a different store and that store has opened its entire sample library to me at my leisure. I just have to bring disks. If a store doesn't offer you this opportunity, I'd consider finding a new store to deal with ... BTW, anyone have a good book on sampling technique? I haven't done too much of my own sampling as of yet, being content to hack away at the samples I have already. The Akai manual is ... nevermind. You have to hack from day one. Sort of like Roland manuals ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 14:08:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: Sample book (was: Free stuff, samplers ...) For those that are new to sampling, try taking a look at the book "The Sampling Book." I don't recall the author (I don't have the book handy). Anyway, it can be found at the some music stores (I got mine there) and also, I saw it advertised in Keyboard the last couple of months. The book is quite good. It lays down the fundementals of sampling. The book is a little dated though. There are some pretty old samplers mentioned (anyone remember the Roland S-20?) There a many exercises to help you develop your sampling skills. It discusses miking, looping, filtering, multi-sampling. Good stuff for the $19. Willis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 10:13:24 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Proteus vs. M1 vs. U-220 vs. S-330 Hello all: I liked the comments on the Proteus versus the U-220 (and S-330). I am interested in similar comments on these same synths versus the M1 or M3 module. I am interested in multi-timbral sound generation capability with good programmability. I guess I fall in the semi-acoustic with electronic leanings category described. I don't *really* care about sequencing and built-in effects aren't absolutely necessary but good quality ones wouldn't be objected to. Being a DSS-1 fiend, I have a particular fondness for sample based with addtional synth capability synthesis. The Proteus sounds pretty good to me, but I really am interested in how an M1 compares as far as sounds go (Is there any comparison?) I think M1's on sale have been coming as low as the $1400 range around here. I am trying to be slow about this in hopes of some new high-capability, low-priced products after the turn of the decade but, as you all know, this kind of cold, rational thinking and jpatience is virtually impossible for us with the fever (except perhaps Metlay). I like this recent line of comment. I think we are being alot more productive discussing the pros and cons of all these new synths and stuff than DOS vs. Macintosh vs. Amiga, etc. Good Stuff! Brian Adamson adamson.css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 16:37:06 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: A brief flame (Re: Proteus vs. M1 vs. U-220 vs. S-330) 20 Dec 89 10:13:24 -0500 <17851.8912201625@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > I liked the comments on the Proteus versus the U-220 (and S-330). > I am interested in similar comments on these same synths versus the >M1 or M3 module. I am interested in multi-timbral sound generation capability >with good programmability. Contentious assertion here: I wouldn't call the Proteus or the U-220 or the S-330 synths at all (nor would I call them "programmable"). Do any of these devices have the sort of programming flexibility you expect from a synth? I recall that the Proteus doesn't have dynamic filtering. The M1's filters are pretty weak from what I recall when I played with one. >The Proteus sounds pretty good to me, but I really am >interested in how an M1 compares as far as sounds go (Is there >any comparison?) Ah, now that's a different question. I'm sure these new machines sound absolutely wonderful. But, I'm not going to consider a machine which lets me sound just like anybody else (a la Proteus), regardless of how good its onboard sounds are. I'm not really into the plug-in-and-sound-great approach to music (good sounds don't make good music, especially when they're not your own good sounds to start with...). I'm interested in getting some feedback on these more "philosophical" points. Me? I'm going to investigate that new wavetable synth (with dreadful presets, apparently, but with excellent filtering and very flexible voice architecture, at least according to reviews...). Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 12:59:58 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Re: A brief flame (Re: Proteus vs. M1 vs. U-220 vs. S-330) Nick, I am of course more interested in the potential of the machine than its presets. When I mentioned that the Proteus "sounded" good to me, I meant I liked its features--I have yet to actually hear a Proteus. I was looking for your type of comments exactly, you pointed out the lack of dynamic filtering which is now of great concern to me. I do want a machine I can make my own sounds with. But I do want a machine that will get third party support. For synthesis is fun and I do like to taylor sounds to my music, not so much the reverse. But I like to write music, even stuff you would play with acoustic instruments that have been around for some time and pretty much sound the same. So the synthesis of new sounds is not my life, but I do like wonderfully expressive synthesizers, so maybe the Proteus is out for me. However, I am looking for something...maybe wavetable synthesis is it...or something else. Please, tell me more. How expressive can an M1 be? etc. etc. etc. Etc. Brian Adamson adamson@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 11:12:19 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: A brief flame (Re: Proteus vs. M1 vs. U-220 vs. S-330) 20 Dec 89 12:59:58 -0500 <8912201759.AA17477@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil > I was looking for your type of comments exactly, you pointed >out the lack of dynamic filtering which is now of great concern to >me. I do want a machine I can make my own sounds with. But I do >want a machine that will get third party support. The third-party sound market in the US seems pretty healthy, much more so than in the UK. I take a bit of a "third-party" approach with my TX7, since it's only a Yamaha FM synth and I'd rather hack around by editing sounds from my library than spend time and effort really getting to know the machine. The TX7 was my first synth, and nowadays I would buy a synth because of the sound and whether I liked programming it, third-party support being pretty irrelevant. The MKS-70 doesn't have any third-party support, but so what? It's pretty easy to program and sounds great. The Valhala sounds I've heard for the D-110 are pretty naff, and of no use to me. (most of the American third party sounds are fat and brassy, and I don't find them very interesting.) I should own up here and say that I do have a fair number of D-50 banks which are very useful to steal ideas from (I didn't realise a D-50 can do a proper analog "Aaaah" or make that Synclavier scraping glass sound before I got these patches...). So: if the Proteus has good modulation facilities and good filtering, and it's easy and fun to program and makes the sounds you like, then that's good; isn;t the amount of third-party support irrelevant? I'm not sure it's worth buying a machine on the strength of third-party support alone - isn't that an admission of weakness in the machine if you're concerned about whether other companies can supply the sounds for you? Doesn't it bother you that you'll be paying for and using the same sounds as other people? (having said which, I personally wouldn't mind a machine which can make the best "Ooohs" and "Aaaahs" in the Universe; but then, Tangerine Dream have been using Emulator Oooohs and Aaaahs for the last couple of years, and they're starting to wear thin...) These are some of the reasons why I don't own a sampler, and am more tempted by that new wavetable synth than by the Proteus. But then, I'm into "painting" with atmospheric sounds, music and sequences. If what you want is a machine which can deliver, on the press of a button, the best sounding guitar patch in the galaxy, then it sounds like the Proteus is it. I admit, I wouldn't say no to one, and would probably buy one for about half of the $1500 UK price, but I'm not going to pay that much for something I can't get truly original sounds out of... Standard disclaimers apply, batteries not included. This *isn't* a flame, but just an attempt to get some discussion going... Comments? Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 09:37:47 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: How Does the Proteus Sound? The Proteus, in terms of pure sound, is a killer. I heard the demo sequence at a local music store and I was impressed. The quality of the sounds is excellent. In terms of "what can you really do with it", well, it'll never be an Xpander, though it does have a little programmability, I guess. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 10:12:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: Apples vs. Oranges Willis Dair writes: > To my ears, I feel the U-20 has better reproduction of acoustic >instruments. If that is the type of music you produce (I main use traditional >acoustic instruments) then I would pick the U-20. The Proteus has a lot >more electronic type sounds that are quite good....(stuff deleted)... >If your genre of music is semi-acoustic and leaning towards some >electronic, the Proteus would be a good choice. I am more interested in acoustic, or traditional, intsruments at the present. What I want is a box that will give me the most multitimbral bang for the buck, and since I already own a Korg DW-6000, the synth sounds are not that important in the module. I am particularly interested in a good piano and organ sound, which no one has made any mention of on either the Proteus or the U-220. I don't expect miracles from a box under $1000, but those sounds are crucial, and will heavily color my satisfaction with whatever I buy. It sounds like my first choice, the U-220, is the best one for me, but if the Proteus has a significantly better piano sample, I might reconsider. Any subjective comments? -chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 10:16:43 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Synth vs. Sound Box Thanks to Nick on his last comments. I think we're beginning to touch on some very interesting areas -- matching up the right music with the right synthesizer. Nick mentioned tha he is "into 'paintiing' with atmospheric sounds, music and sequences" Correct me if I am wrong, but this implies that the synth used plays an integral part in determining the structure of the music created. Nothing wrong with that, you can't create sculptures with a paint brush. So if that's the type of music you're into, a synth with many dynamic parameters certainly allows more degrees of freedom in the evolution of a particular sound. However, the type of music I create could sort of be generalized as multiple melodic and rythmic structures supporting an overall theme. That is to say, music in the more traditional sense. Thus, my sound requirements lie more in the area of shorter, more percussive sounds. Rarely, if ever, do I use sounds with long, slowly evolving attack, sustain, and decay characteristics. I don't even like strings very much, unless they are pizzicatto. As a result, samples work great for me. . .. but I've got this slightly weird fondness for very non-traditional sounds. Although I am very paranoid about my music sounding like everyone else's, I am not too worried about using some of the same sounds as everyone else. Again, it's a result that the music I create is not driven by the particular sounds I use. If I were "painting sonic pictures" I would certainly be worried about using the same sounds as everyone else. But with my sculpture I can sometimes even use the same shade of marble throughout and get very different creative results every time. I see the synthesizer as a palette of different colors which are available to me. I can use the same colors to get very different results, just like the painter. Of course, creating new colors and applying them is a very valid and creative art. So is the other. And each have their place. To some members of the list, my view of the synthesizer as somewhat of a soundbox may seem very bland. I do want to say however, that I am interested in creating new and interesting sounds, but it is, by far, not the most important thing in the world to me. I am hoping that this better understanding of what each of us wants in a synthesizer will help us all help each other in matching up the right equipment to out music. So I am still fishing for what today's different synthesizers offer me and/or anyone else for their or my particualr type of music. Let's keep the comments rolling. Good luck to all to all a good night. Brian Adamson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 10:25:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: Re: Apples vs. Oranges This is pretty much the philosophy I have. I have synths and I need a box that will pretty accurately reproduce traditional instruments. There is no way that a synth can reproduce a piano sound. From my observations, the Kurzweil PX box has the sweetest sounding piano sound (Then again that is the sound Ray Kurzweil started with and refined). The PX can be had for about $1400 (the new one) and under $1000 for the old one. However, I think the U-220 piano would be come pretty close for the money. In my opinion, I feel the Proteus' piano is a little thin. Willis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 10:43:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: Proteus vs. U-220 vs. M3 vs..... I agree with Nick that the Proteus and the U-220 do not merit inclusion in the category of truly "programmable" modules. To my mind, they exist purely as an entry-level (but nonetheless high-quality) multitimbral synth module for someone who is looking for a lot of sound for not a lot of money. If you are concerned with being able to massage the sounds in any significant manner, you should be willing to pay for that capability. This situation will probably get much better in the next year or so; competition between the major players in the synth market is beginning to show signs of benefitting the consumer in the form of more capability at a significantly lower price tag. Too bad I can't force myself to wait another year before I buy (but, that statement will *always* be valid :-b ). On the more philosophical issue, I think the sounds are important, but not nearly as much as what you do with them. Tweaking a patch to get just the right sound is just the icing on the cake to me, with the cake itself being made up of rhythm, chord progression (if applicable), lead/melody lines, and atmospheric sounds. When I write, I usually begin with a chord progression or a melody line or perhaps some lyrics, and I build from there. Rarely do I construct a piece based on a sound. On the other hand, sometimes a particular sound will give me an idea for a melody, or a particular rhythmical motion, that can be built into something more, but I still would say that the emphasis is not so much on the sound itself as it is what the sound suggests to me. A sound is a stationary thing. Music is a movement of sounds. -chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 11:14:00 EDT From: "b.klassen" Subject: RE: A brief flame (Re: Proteus vs. M1 vs. U-220 vs. S-330) ON my reasons for buying a Proteus ... (well, almost - I have a deposit on one that's supposed to be in my hands by the end of January): I am attempting to make a transition in my music ... up til recently I have cultivated a very synth sound, ala older Thomas Dolby, Howard Jones. Now I'm trying to get a more "acoustic" sound. I started with my S950, which has an excellent "acoustic" drum kit, very good solo orchestral instruments, etc. I have one patch on my MIDIbass which, with a lot of EQ, sounds reasonably electric bassish, and one killer standup bass patch. Then for piano I have my trusty RD200. On this platform, along with acoustic guitar, I have been building my music. I then decided to purchase a multi-timbral sound module to add more sound producing power (I am mixing 4-track guitar, vocals down to a VCR with the sequenced synth stuff live at mix-down, so the more sounds I can produce concurrently the better). I played the U-20 and the Proteus, and I found the Proteus more suited to my needs because it sounded less-produced. The U-20 has a beautiful smooth sound that was too "nice" for what I'm after. As well, the U-20 has many "D-50"-type sounds and I already have a D-50. Add my very personal preferences with the fact that you can edit alot more parameters with the Proteus, and my decision was made. Flames, comments? brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 11:29:40 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Does anyone like the M1? I like the talk of late. One of my questions has been if you had to choose between the M1 sounds and the Proteus sounds, which would you choose? Brian Adamson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 14:35:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: Does anyone like the M1? The discussion has drifted a little towards the M1 of late. For those that are not on USENET news, I will post a little mini-review of a Korg clinic I went to a while back. I haven't touched an M1 since it came out, so I am not as fresh in my impressions of it. My attitudes and tastes have changed a bit and my initial impressions may be invalid now. I did play with a T1 recently and it is similar to the M1. The M1 sounds good to me. I have found that most of the Korg equipments sound very smooth. The M1 has many percussive type sounds and many ethereal newage-ish sounds that are all quite good. The M1 has also made some dents in the commercial music market. I see many M1's in studios, on stages, and on TV. I think one of the great point of the M1 is its effects section. The reverb is very nice and give the M1 an airy ambiant presence. The traditional acoustic instruments are pretty well done too. The samples are pretty nice. I don't recall the M1's piano sound, but the new T1/2/3's Bosendorfer grand sample is very good. The Korg people are very proud of the new sax sound, and I would agree it is one of the better ones. However, I play a sax and I would say it is close. Most sax timbres in the emusic industry sound like kazoos. In my opinion, I feel the M1 can be categorized in with the Proteus, in that it can do acoustics and also electronic type music pretty well. In an overall sound category, I feel the sound coming out the M1 is a tad better than the Proteus. I think the M1 is a little more versatile. Then, again, you have to hear for yourself to make your mind up. The Proteus wins, though, in the polyphony department. The M1 can play 16 single tone sounds, while the Proteus will do 32. Anyway, enough of this babbling. Some information straight from Korg's horse's mouth follows: ------ I went to a Korg factory clinic a few weeks ago at a local music store. The guy doing the demo was the person that developed many of the sounds in the M1 and M3R. I am not an M1 owner, so I don't know the terminology nor familiar with the AI structure, but I can pass along what he had to say. They featured the M3R and the T1 that night. First the M3R was made to fit into the lower price bracket. They had to cut corners to get the price down. As some of you have noticed the sound structure is a little different and affects the sound. The M3R is the same as the M1 except there is one less LFO. The M3R will use the same wavesample ROM cards as the M1, but the patch card is different since the structure is not the same as the M1. Therefore, the M3R will have a different set of patch cards. Another cost cutting "feature" is that the M3R is not expandable. The M3R also has an overflow mode so that a second M3R could be connected to the first one through MIDI and play notes that overflow the first M3R. The T1/2/3 is in fact based on the M1. In terms of the sound department, the T-series is the same as the M1 except they doubled the ROM wavesamples. As a matter of fact, the guy said you should be able to buy the addition ROMs and retrofit your M1 and M1R so that it will sound like a T-series unit. Because of cost issues, the M3R cannot be upgraded with the new ROMs. At my local music store, the price of a T1 is about $5600, and the T3 is about $3700. I forgot what they said the price of the upgrade ROMs will be, but I think it is around $400 or $500 (don't take this as gospel truth). Let's say that an M1 goes for $2200 and you add the ROM for $500, is the T3 worth the extra $1000 for the disk drive, screen and better sequencer? I don't know, I guess you will have to make that decision. I do have to agree- the sound of the T-series is fantastic! Willis Dair Systems Programmer Academic Computing Center Santa Clara University DAIR@SCU.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 13:59:18 MDT From: schabtac@STOUT.UCAR.EDU Subject: Synth philosophy (was: Re: A brief flame) Dec 20, 89 4:37 pm > I'm interested in getting some feedback on these more "philosophical" > points. Me? I'm going to investigate that new wavetable synth (with > dreadful presets, apparently, but with excellent filtering and very > flexible voice architecture, at least according to reviews...). > > Nick. > I gotta agree with you, Nick. As much as I love hearing wazzo new sounds on new synthesizers, I find it dismaying that so many people shop for keys on the basis of how many pre-fab sounds they can get for them. So many songs these days have the same sounds, that everything is starting to sound the same -- there's that RX-5 snare again, there's that D-50 flute, there's the M1 whatever-it-is, etc. I've thought about going through my EPS disk library and throwing out anything I didn't do myself, but there's a lot of stuff (mostly orchestral instruments and drums) that would be very difficult for me to redo if I ever needed it. So I content myself with doing my own sampling for most of the "up-front" sounds in my works, or creating new synth sounds with Turbosynth, or mucking around with someone else's samples until they sound like something else. Now, why do I have a sampler as my main axe, given this philosophy? Well, I do a lot of cyberpunkish stuff, and there's no way to get the requisite mondo-in-your-face-like-it-or-not percussion without samples. Even the goddess of synthesis, Wendy Carlos, is using a digital drum machine these days, rather than attempting to synthesize drums from scratch. Also, the EPS has an extremely flexible modulation and filtering architecture, so it behaves rather like a wavetable synth. Thirdly, I use Turbosynth a lot, which is like having an enormous, open-architecture synthesizer in your Mac. But lately I've been developing this craving for something a little more like my old, long-gone ARP Odyssey, like maybe one of those "X"-word machines (Metlay has gone on vacation, hasn't he? :-). Just my $0.02 worth. --Adam ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************