EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 12, Number 1 Today's Topics: Comparing Architectures: M1, Proteus, VFX (5 messages) Whither FM? (6 messages) Magnetic Filings (2 messages) MIDI interfaces (2 messages) Synth philosophy (4 messages) Where to get Performer (2 messages) MKS-50 Dependencies on technology (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: Sun, 31 Dec 89 11:36:27 SST From: Gan Seum-Lim Subject: KORG M1 What method of synthesis is used by the Korg M1 synthesizer ? Does it use Frequency Modulation method like the Yamaha ? Or does it use additive synthesis ? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 09:01:59 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: M1/Tx, Proteus, VFX The M1 uses a technique called AI synthesis. Basically this technique is just another way of processing sample based mulit-sampled sounds (called multisounds by KORG) Using sample based sounds for syunthesis gives you a wide range of varied harmonic and/or non-harmonic structures. However, the M1 implementation is not abundant in ways to modulate or modify the basic sampled sounds. The M1 does however, have a large range of good samples and a large number of possibilities for different sounds exist as a result. More creative manipulation of sample based sounds can be done with other sound boxes (in my opinion as a result of a recent look-see) such as the Proteus and the Ensoniq VFX. These units offer more modulation capabilities and more possibilities for real-time performance control than does the M1 or new T series using the "AI" technique of synthesis. Someone please correct me if I'm off base, but this is how it appears to me as result of playing with each of three mentioned boxes for about 1 hour. This is a reply to question concerning the M1's synthesis technique. Brian Adamson P.S. The VFX sounded/felt/etc pretty darn good to me. Any opinions out there? --Need I ask. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 23:19:09 SST From: Gan Seum-Lim Subject: Re: M1/Tx, Proteus, VFX 3 Jan 90 09:01:59 -0500 from Could you elaborate more on the so called "AI" synthesis. The way you exaplained seems to me that there is no synthesis at all. The sampled sound just gets modified and as a result gives rise to another different sound. Just a matter of interest, how is the process done ? I thought synthesis is to start from scratch (i.e. an euqation) and define a few parameters. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 11:10:22 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: M1/Tx, Proteus, VFX 3 Jan 90 09:01:59 -0500 from I've been shopping for a few months now for a good master keyboard to start my setup, and I've been looking at both the T-series and the VFXsd. I really liked the feel of the VFX -- it seemed to have a nice action and was very playable (I grew up on pianos, so I've never been happy with an unweighted action). I have to admit that the salesman and I somehow managed to crash the VFX while we were fooling with it, though we couldn't duplicate the problem. The big disadvantage is that you get essentially the sounds that you buy with the machine. There's no PCM channel (which I believe you can get for the T's and as an aftermarket for the M1), so you're dependent upon outside sources for your sounds. Admittedly, the sounds you have are very nice. Does anyone know if the VFX can load sounds from disk as well as from ROM carts? If so, there's a definite opportunity for some clever person to provide an interface to these nice sample-diddling programs that are available now. Keyboard mentioned problems with slow or even missed attacks in dense sequenced textures - the "splatterbrass" (I think that was it) patch was supposedly particularly bad for this. I suppose this could simply be a software bug, but who knows if it will ever be fixed? I didn't run across it in just playing, so it might not be a problem for live use. From a "blind test" standpoint, I thought the T's sounded a bit better, in that I liked the sounds better, but the VFX was much more pleasant to play. Both were very clean; their built-in sequences seemed nice. The T's seemed to have a better display in that it was bigger. The VFX's LED display was easier to read under different lighting conditions, though. Are there any real, true, VFX owners out there who can provide experiences? Ditto for T-series users? I'd appreciate hearing more about the PCM-channel stuff, as the salespeople sort of mumble and shuffle their feet at the places I've been so far... --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 14:08:37 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Re: M1/Tx, Proteus, VFX I played with the VFX SD and got a data sheet on it. I don't have it with me today, but I do remember that you could load sounds from the floppy disk as well. The SD version also had some very nice drum kits. I am in complete agreement on its ease of use. There are approx 60 buttons on the front panel. The 6 buttons around the large display made it very easy to select different things depending on what you were doing. I really liked the real-time performance capabilities (i.e. the patch buttons which let you select different voicings for a patch while playing) Splitting and layering the keyboard was as easy as hitting a button to select the patch, then hitting the low piano key and high key to assign parts of the keyboard to a sound. The T was a bit nicer soundwise, but I am not sure how programmable this AI synthesis thing is. The VFX specs look much more promising as a machine that one get really get into programming...particularly with hooks into real-time performance variations Brian Adamson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 11:17:18 SST From: Gan Seum-Lim Subject: YAMAHA DX7IIFD I have been notified that YAMAHA has stopped manufacturing the DX7IIFD synthesizer. Does anyone know the reason ? Are they comming up with a newer model (say DX7III) or could it be that the DX7IIFD has some faults discovered too late ? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 16:33:00 EST From: It's not easy being Green Subject: Re: YAMAHA DX7IIFD They are stopping producyion for the simple reason that no one wants these machines. Face it... FM is out. of course FM can cut through a song like a knife (good for solos) but they can't produce realistic acoustic instruments like PCM sample based synths can. There are other factors that I wont get into (like Yamaha hasn't produced an original item since 1983 or so)... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 21:09:18 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Re: YAMAHA DX7IIFD AAAAAAAGH!!! (ahem) Does this mean that the price is going to plummet on these puppies? Or will it be the opposite? I don't care how "out" FM is, I LIKE IT. My brother just got a Roland U-20 for Christmas (drool) and I brought my Mac II home and we hooked up Performer and had some great jams... I was ALMOST converted into thinking that sampled sounds give you more meat, more grit to work with, when I realized that the sounds I liked best on the U-20 were the ones that sounded like they'd been synthesized with FM and then sampled... maybe I just prefer surreal timbres... What about the TX802? The FB-01? (or did they stop making that already?) Are they discontinuing other things, too? -ctan rabid fm lover ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 23:49:00 EDT From: GOODWIN@SMCVAX.BITNET Subject: Re: YAMAHA DX7IIFD One reason for the discontinued production of DX7II models is the recent intro of the new SY77. This is a 6-op FM-type synth/workstation using a modified form of FM called AFM, Advanced Frequency Modulation coupled with some sampled sounds processed through what Yamaha calls Realtime Convolution and Modulation, or RCW. There is a good review in the January '90 issue of Music Technology. Quick summary of features: 3.5" disk drive 45 algorithms 6 stage EGs 4MB sample ROM Operators have 16 waveforms each, and 2 FM inputs with 3 feedback loops Two drum/percussion kits internal Separate EGs for the drum kits 16 track, 16K note sequencer 2 reverbs, two modulation processors for flanging, chorus, etc. Max polyphony 32, but affected by layering and voice design Optional waveform and User Voice card slots Dave Goodwin Goodwin@SMCVAX ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 11:53:00 EST From: It's not easy being Green Subject: Re: YAMAHA DX7IIFD there's nothing wrong in liking FM sounds. The Yamaha does have good potential, but it; it's been over worked. What I mean is, everyone is so used to the DX7 that they have turned to something else. As for the TX802, it's just another rack mount DX7 with the possibility of 8 multi- timbral, although they are much out of use and expensive. The FB-01 is dead as rack mounts go.. You can pick one up for $200 if you really want to...but they are very weak sounding..nothing like the DX-7's.....Oh well..anymore questions? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:09:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: Re: YAMAHA DX7IIFD ctan, rabid FM lover-- New TX802's were going for about $900 in cleveland back in november. They are also out of production I believe. -joek ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 21:00:51 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Re: Magnetic Filings Review Joe, I haven't gotten around to sending review tapes to any of the magazines I want to (I have a list somewhere). Do you have the address and submission inforamtion for the one you mentioned? (I can't believe I've forgotten the name already) Anyone else have any ideas? Electronic Musician and Keyboard were the two big ones. Do they review in Computer Music Journal? -ctan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:06:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: Re: Magnetic Filings Review ctan, There is a section in the back of the Computer Music Journal that reviews books and CD's. They might be interested, given the nature of this project. -joe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 10:31:00 EST From: CTDONATH@SUNRISE.BITNET Subject: MIDI interface hardware The official MIDI 1.0 specs shows the basic MIDI interface hardware as using the Sharp PC-900 optocoupler. Does anyone have any info on this chip? data sheets? source(s)? Nobody seems to carry it, and I can't find out what is inside it. The specs do say that the HP 6N138 optocoupler could be used instead, but with "appropriate changes" (no further details). Has anyone used this and/or could suggest/send a schematic that uses it for MIDI? Are there any other ICs that can be used for interfacing a UART to the MIDI lines? HELP!!! Why am I asking all this? Some computers/development boards can run their RS-232 lines at the 31.25bps MIDI data rate. I want to build an adapter that converts RS-232 to MIDI. Any suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 09:33:48 MDT From: schabtac@STOUT.UCAR.EDU Subject: Re: MIDI interface hardware "CTDONATH@SUNRISE.BITNET" at Jan 4, 90 10:31 am Here's a schematic for using a 6N138 optoisolator instead of the obscure PC900: +5V ^ | +------+ | < +--+--+ < 220 ohm | 8 | < 5 >------------+------+3 6+---+---------> To TTL circuitry | | | --- | | MIDI in 1N914 \ / | | === | | | | | 4 >---/\/\/\---+------+2 5+---+ 220 ohm | | | +-----+ | | --+-- --- - I hope this survives going through the Net! Let me know if it gets mangled. --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 16:15:26 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Synth philosophy (was: Re: A brief flame) 21 Dec 89 13:59:18 MDT <3500.8912230637@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >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. Fair comment. I use a D-110 for percussion, building my own percussion sounds from the PCM samples plus some modulation, detuning and so on. >Also, the >EPS has an extremely flexible modulation and filtering architecture, so it >behaves rather like a wavetable synth. Really? The wonderful thing about wavetable synthesis is that you can use envelopes and LFOs to sweep (or jump) through the wavetable, to give pretty gut-wrenching (if you're that way inclined) harmonic/spectral changes in a sound. As I understand it, the synth interpolates the harmonic content as it sweeps the table. What's more, I haven't met a digital filter worth its salt. Give me analogue filtering any day... >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? :-). Oberheims are fun, though the basic sound quality of the Matrix-6 family machines isn't anything special (it's the modulation that really adds interest), and the Oberheim gear I've encountered (M-6R, Cyclone) is severely brain-dead from a MIDI interfacing point of view. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 09:49:02 MDT From: schabtac@STOUT.UCAR.EDU Subject: Re: Synth philosophy (was: Re: A brief flame) Jan 4, 90 4:15 pm > >Also, the > >EPS has an extremely flexible modulation and filtering architecture, so it > >behaves rather like a wavetable synth. > > Really? The wonderful thing about wavetable synthesis is that you can > use envelopes and LFOs to sweep (or jump) through the wavetable, to > give pretty gut-wrenching (if you're that way inclined) > harmonic/spectral changes in a sound. As I understand it, the synth > interpolates the harmonic content as it sweeps the table. Nick, what is this wonderful wavetable synth you keep alluding to? Is this the rackmount thingy with the Fisher-Price front panel you described? But anyway, yes, you can sweep through waves with the EPS, almost. What you can do is set a loop over one or two cycles of a sound, and modulate (with envelopes, LFOs, pedals, poly pressure, MIDI controllers, whatever...) the *loop position*, giving sort of a wavetable effect. Trouble is that it tends to produce some nasty popping and scratching. The VFX does something similar with its "TransWaves" but without the noise. Very nice. Definitely gut-wrenching, kinda like hard-synced oscillators on an old Odyssey (as heard on Ultravox's "Vienna", for example). The other nice method of wavetable synthesis I've messed with recently is in Turbosynth, Digidesign's software synthesis package. You build oscillators by dropping icons of waves along a horizontal time axis, and it crossfades from one to the next to produce the sample. Each icon can be opened up so you can either draw the wave by hand, synthesize it by specifying the amplitude of 64(!) harmonics, or use a section cut out of another sample. Of course, you still end up with a sample, so there's no real-time modulation. :-( Still pretty cool, though. > > What's more, I haven't met a digital filter worth its salt. Give me > analogue filtering any day... > Definitely. The EPS's filters are okay, but what good is a filter without resonance? Feh. > [. . .] and the Oberheim gear I've encountered (M-6R, > Cyclone) is severely brain-dead from a MIDI interfacing point of view. > > Nick. > Does your Cyclone manual say "preliminary" on the front, the way mine does? Are they gonna give us a "real" manual some day? Just dreaming, I guess... --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 12:24:00 EST From: Chris Iverson Subject: Re: On synthesis Up until very recently I was not using computers at all (standalone computers - today's synths are computers in their own right) because I was monotimbral. Now that I have finally joined the human race, a computer is indispensable. I mostly use mine for sequencing, and, like Nick, as a midi patch bay (via Performer), although as a patch bay I can only use it to route outgoing signals because I only have one midi-in port. Granted, I could do these things alot cheaper with equipment dedicated to that particular application, but then I can't play Pac-Man on a sequencer, nor can I do my income tax returns. Eventually (when I win the lottery....) I would like to try out some things like TurboSynth and recording to hard disk, which would definitely affect the way I create music. For the moment, though, my computer mostly impacts the ease with which I can manipulate music which I create in a more traditional manner... in my head :-) Certainly the sequencing/editing powers of a computer make it much *easier* to craft a song from the ideas I create, but so far as actually the creative process itself goes, a computer cannot simulate inspiration. At least not yet... -chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 17:38:26 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Synth philosophy (was: Re: A brief flame) 4 Jan 90 09:49:02 MDT <4204.9001041702@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >Nick, what is this wonderful wavetable synth you keep alluding to? Is this >the rackmount thingy with the Fisher-Price front panel you described? The Waldorf MicroWave (yucky name) has been designed by Wolfgang Palm. Waldorf seem to be the same people as PPG. The MicroWave will appear at NAMM, or so the UK distributor told me. I'll post a more detailed picture when I get my hands on one. >Definitely. The EPS's filters are okay, but what good is a filter without >resonance? Feh. Quite. I believe that the MicroWave's VCA section can be deliberately overdriven as well, which sounds ... interesting ... >Does your Cyclone manual say "preliminary" on the front, the way mine does? Yup. And it alludes to a (non-existent) SysEx spec. in the back. The only thing more preliminary than the manual is the machine itself. Does yours have firmware v1.0? I keep crashing mine... >Are they gonna give us a "real" manual some day? When's the last time you got a documentation update from a synth manufacturer? :-) I think the Perf/X series was somebody's bright idea which should never quite have made it off the drawing board, let alone through quality assurance. They still manufactured them, though... Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 16:47:00 EST From: STEARNS@BIOVAX.BITNET Subject: Performer? Would anyone suggest a cheap place to buy Performer for a Mac? I'd be buying through the mail, so anywhere in the U.S. ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 10:07:40 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Performer? 4 Jan 90 16:47:00 EST <5709.9001042158@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >Would anyone suggest a cheap place to buy Performer for a Mac? I'd be buying >through the mail, so anywhere in the U.S. ... Can't help you with that one (I paid through the nose here in the UK, and it took several months to get it), but I thought I'd mention that you're after version 3.3 which is the latest and has numerous features over and above 3.21. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 11:04:02 CST From: Eddie Mikell Subject: mks-50 I have added a mks-50 to my collection of different musical toys, but I have one problem .... No instruction manual. Is there anyone willing to photocopy some of the manual for me, or no where I can get a copy of one? I'm willing to pay for the foot work. Also, any suggestions on a source of good sounds would be appreciated! Thanks Eddie H. Mikell ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 16:33:48 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: On synthesis 25 Dec 89 17:33:53 CST <14614.8912261803@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >So---to what extent have each of you become dependent on computer technology >to compose or generate music? and why? Well, there's the point that MIDI equipment requires "computer technology" - period. For that matter, so does polyphony, unless you have a way of building very small relays or something else which can allocate voices to keys ( :-) ), or unless you can afford 61 voices. As for sound generation, without digital processors we wouldn't have the instruments we have today. As for computers per se: my Macintosh gives me a front-panel programming interface to all six of my MIDI synths, helps store all my patches, and acts as my multitrack recorder (I don't use tape). I use it for laying out ideas (verses and layers etc.) graphically. It also acts as a MIDI patchbay and semi-automates the mixing process. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 14:57:06 EST From: MTG@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM Subject: My dependency on technology... >So---to what extent have each of you become dependent on computer technology >to compose or generate music? and why? Good question! Since my "band" is solely my and my instruments, I rely pretty heavily on it: I have found out a couple of times while performing that I am squelched pretty quickly by a lack of electricity, although since I do incorporate my accordian, I can play a couple of things acoustically. I'm finding myself relying less on sequencing, as I can perform a sequence pretty well and would rather it not sound "too perfect", as it usually does coming from a sequencer. Fortunately, my sequence (Pro-MIDI Music Studio) doesn't quantitize unless you tell it to, so it doesn't have to sound perfect. Even if I don't use the sequencer though, I'm almost always dependent on the ol' Porta Two, my cassette four-track. Since I like a thick sound, I do a lot of multi-track work and I wouldn't be satisfied with my music without that capability. It's kind of annoying being so dependent on one thing (electricity, mainly), but I guess that's the nature of things right now. T'would be nice to have other band members to reduce that dependency... or would it? _Is___________________________________________ ________________________there_ | ___ | | | Mark G., of... The | volution | "Hold my mules! I think | | |--__ | I feel another one comin'!" | | |_/_ \ ontrol | | | "Controlled | __ | - Some evangelist | | breeding out \_// \ ommittee | I recorded a while ago | | of control? Call..." | | taken gloriously out of | | \__/ | context. | |_any__________________________________________|______________________escape?_| ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************