EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 13, Number 3 Today's Topics: Mirage sound sources (2 messages) Techolust and compositional needs (6 messages) FM Synthesis (8 messages) Yamaha Piano Sounds Keyboard and other magazines WX-7 usage hints (12 messages) Sound enhancers (5 messages) Request for sample sources for U-110/U-220/U-20 Mandala and M1 librarians for the Amiga (4 messages) Vector synthesis questions and answers (4 messages) More books... Waldorf MicroWave (16 messages) S-330 OS version and MIDI data filtering (5 messages) MOXC Drumming records and electronic drums (12 messages) MKS-20 vs. Rd series... (3 messages) Music files requests (2 messages) MS/DOS compress and tar Question about synthesis methods 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: Thu, 15 Feb 90 01:01:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: A tentative comment ONLY A MIRAGE?! HOW DARE YOU, gibber shriek blah blah flame etc etc.... |-> There's still a huge gamut of samples available to Mirage users; even more significant are the eight or nine different roll-your-own-OS disks out there that turn the Mirage into a SysEx filer, wavetable synth, etc. It seems that the Mirage was regarded as a small enough and easy enough to hack setup that a lot of computer-inclined people did a lot with it. (anyone have a reasonable listing of alternate Mirage OSes? I've half kicked around getting an old one; they're cheap and kind of fun, esp. with computer editing, and the sound's kinda nice and crunchy....) Placesd to check: the classifieds and small margin ads of KEYBOARD, MUSIC TECHNOLOGY, and especially the synth hacker's sourcebook, ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN. Also, do you get the TRANSONIQ HACKER? It's a newsletter for Ensoniq gear owners; these days I think they lean heavily on the EPS and VFX, but there should still be good Mirage info there, or accessible through them. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 11:55:44 EST From: "B. Kirsch" Subject: Mirage-SoundProcess-Mac Hello, Is there anyone out there running Sound Process on their Mirage, and also uses a Mac? I am looking for beta testers for a visual editor that I am writing. Barry Kirsch MAIL: 2500 Skyview Ave. Langhorne PA, 19047 PHONE: (215) 441-1886 (W) (215) 322-7074 (H) ARPA: bkirsch@nadc.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 00:51:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Do you really need it ? Well, actually, I'm kind of ashamed to admit this, DAvid, but i suffer from gear-lust as badly as most, WHEN THE GEAR IS RIGHT. From 1986 to 1989, I only bought one synthesizer that I still have: a Korg EX8000, which I love dearly. (I don't count my second Xpander, BTW, as I prefer to think of it as the "other half" of my FIRST Xpander, which didn't have enough polyphony. |-> ) I did, however, cycle about twenty other synths through my studio and blow a lot of cash, only part of which I got back through resale. That included a Chroma Polaris, a Korg DW8000 (which I replaced with the EX), a Pro-One in rotten shape, a Mono/Poly, a Bit One, a Moog Taurus II, etc. etc. The problem was free-floating technolust; I *wanted* to buy SOMETHING new, but nothing new excited me. In the years from 1984 to 1990, only two instruments excited me: the Xpander and the VS. I have two Xpanders, and now I have a deal closed on a VS Rack. (Don't ask how hard it was to find, and DON'T ask what it's costing me. My fiancee's quote was, "Sweetheart, we met in 1986, and you've been talking about finding a VS ever since I've known you. If it were anything else, I'd tell you to forget it, but...." I really love that woman. |-> ) If things were in the same sorry state as they were a month or two ago in this business, I'd have called my setup "interim-completed" and relaxed with a sigh.... BUT.... Now vector synthesis may be making a comeback in a new and powerful form, and the Waldorf MicroWave represents in many ways a true digital analogue (that didn't come out right. Well, you all know what I mean....) to the Xpander. Between the Korg WS and the Micro, life suddenly seems worth living again. So now what do I do? Answer: try them out and decide if I like them. And if I do, they should be affordable used in 1994 or so, just as the NEXT generation of synths I like comes out. (sigh) |-> In the meantime, tho, I use what I have. And grumble a bit. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 10:50:43 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Do you really need it ? 14 Feb 90 16:47:31 EST <10093.9002142256@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >This BB to me is a bit >disapointing, in that great excitement is generated by new (or >even old obscure) bits of gear, but little discussion goes on >about how we actually use what we've got. I second that. As I've said in previous postings, the music "media" goes a whole bundle on sounds, new products, and so on, but hardly ever talks about music. There seems to be this unwritten rule that says that anybody who buys an instrument is some kind of musician who knows what they're going to do with the machine anyway, so we'll cover the technology and, er, "fashion" instead. The UK music press (technical magazines like Sound On Sound and Music Technology) are getting a little better now, but at one stage you could have gone through an entire issue, reading product reports, learning about sequencer and sampler technology, reading about wonderful new synthesiser architectures and classic gear, without a single mention of the word chord, melody, harmony, progression, resolution, or anything to do with the structure of music and how to make it. I've been involved with synthesisers and music for about four years now; I remember, because at the end of 1985 a friend lent me his Casio P1000 keyboard and showed me where middle C was (I guessed wrong, pointing out concert A instead). I started taking lessons in piano technique, sight reading, and started to learn what synthesisers were (up to this time I'd played around with a Moog Prodigy for a few minutes, but that was it). I've spent the last couple of years getting together the money to build a home synthesiser set-up; this is pretty well done now. Now comes the hard part; composing and arranging the music. And, all of a sudden, there's no source of information, technical tips, or suggestions, so I'm having to work it all out on my own. I listen closely to electronic (and other) CD's, scribble notes about the arrangement and orchestration, draw pictures showing where the various sounds fit into the audio spectrum and the mix, work out the focal points of the harmonies and so on. I could find a dozen articles about how to program string sounds on a variety of synths, and a dozen more telling me which hot new instruments can do the best strings. [There are, however, precious few articles that go below the surface in synth programming; a while ago I picked up a patch for the D-50 which makes a wonderful analog-sounding "aaah" sound; it's all in the delicate balance of oscillator pitches and harmonics, and programming of the chorus; how do I learn how to do things like this?] This doesn't tell me how to use a string section in a piece of music I'm writing, nor whether a string section is appropriate. If it doesn't sound right, can I alter the sound to make it fit? Can I alter the mix? Does it require layering with something else? And so on... I've been listening to the first track on Johannes Schmoelling's first album; the track is called "Matjora is Still Alive". There is nothing difficult here, and I can play any of the parts without much difficulty. I also have enough synthesis power at home to put together a track like this and make it sound quite professional. But, musically, this piece is absolutely beautiful, and not because it is "difficult" or "complicated" in any sense. Perhaps I'm after a quick fix... Music is complex, and difficult to make; this is what makes it so rewarding, and worth doing in the first place. I suspect that I have to work these things out for myself, and draw my own conclusions; that way, my music will sound like *mine* alone, and not like Kylie Minogue. >And I'm looking >for new ideas which _don't_ involve buying new $3000 synths - >partly because I believe you have to live with any instrument, be >it a tin whistle or a Synclavier, for a good many years in order to >really get to grips with all it offers Bear in mind that there are a good few absolute spuds on the market. My Simmons was a waste of money. The TX7 is useful in quite a few contexts, but FM doesn't sound good enough to me to spend the time and effort coming to grips with it; I'd rather concentrate on conventional synthesis, and learn to program my MKS-70. Not all instruments are appropriate for what you want to do, so you have to decide what your needs are and spend appropriately. Unfortunately, modern marketing technique is all about the week's hot new pieces of gear (SY77, D-70, K1-II, whatever), and not about getting to grips with what you have already. This is what interests me about the Waldorf: it's a classic architecture, redesigned by a small German company, and I'm more willing to spend time and effort getting to know a machine like this than the current flavour-of-the-month Yamaha. (who remembers the V-80? Nobody? Yup, obselete before it even went into production.) >, and also because as a UK >academic I can buy maybe one every 5 years!!! (I'd like to know how >Nick does it... :-) ). Ah, I was on the consultancy circuit for a couple of years, basically to get the money together to build the synth setup. The consultancy is drying up a little now, which is good because it gives me more time to spend doing important things like making music. I have to admit, though, that the Waldorf is going to basically be a luxury, since I don't really, ah, *need* it, and it will take time to get to know it, get software support going on my Mac, and so on. And I have a nostalgic love for the classic sound of the PPG, I'm afraid. The marketeers are always telling us what wonderful new hot equipment we need to make our music better (even the magazine reviews do this, which I think is a little unfair); rubbish of course, but as far as the Waldorf goes, I'm swallowing this one, hook line and sinker. "The Micro-Wave: it could make your music sound very different indeed..." Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 08:24:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: composition Nick's comments about the difficulty of deciding what you want to compose and acquiring the technique to do it really strikes at the heart of dilemma we face as composers of electronic music. Face it, even the cheapest smallest synthesizer we can buy today is better than anything that was around a few years ago. In more than 25 years teaching electronic music and composition I have never found a direct relationship between the quantity and sophistication of the tools and the artistic and esthetic qualities in the music that gets made. The short message is buy what you can afford (as long as it sounds good to you) and find out what you can do with it. I don't want to turn anyone off by sounding like an academic but I really like libraries and research. Most of what I know about electronic music (the technical side, that is) comes from reading. So here are some possibilities. Two books by Reginald Smith Brindle - "Serial Composition" and "Musical Composition" both from Oxford U. Press. The first one focuses on serial music but it also teaches about the relationships between rhythm, harmony, and melody and is one of the few "musical" books on the subject. The second presents some very basic concepts in a clear and artistic fashion. Both are small paper backs that hopefully will not break your bank. However, go to the library first. It's probably worth a trip to that major university or big city if you can look at a lot of stuff to determine what will work for you. David Cope's "New Directions in Music" is in its 5th edition. Somebody likes this book. I sure do! It talks about what's happening now with examples, theoretical discussions, lots of scores and composer profiles - Vangelis and Glass are in the new edition along with Cage, Berio, Boulez, Ives and Manny Moore. Vincent Perschetti's "20th Century Harmony" from Norton will give you a taste of nearly every scale or harmonic technique that can be found in this century. He has clear composition exercises and finishes each chapter with a list of pieces where you can find examples of each technique (right down to the measure number!) If you want more of this kind of thing, let me know. Specific questions about books are welcome. I can switch over to Oberlin's on-line catalog without leaving my studio so I think I can really help you find sources of information. In my next posting I'll give you the particulars on a jazz composition book and a book on the harmony of rock and roll. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 10:08:54 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: Do you really need it ? I don't know, Nick. My compositions (as you know) have not been exactly Top-40 chartbusters :-), but my approach tends to hinge upon improvising like mad until I get something I like, saving that, and then listening to it until the the next step becomes obvious, turning knobs and diddling around with the parameters until a sound that fits comes out. Like Metlay said, the intuitive approach. I don't believe that I've ever through- composed anything, from the standpoint of deciding all of the parts, figuring out the structure, etc. Obviously, most currently-available equipment doesn't lend itself to this approach. The emphasis seems to be on musically hip sounds rather than on real-time controllability. I suppose what I really want is a synth with total analog control, but digital recording of my actions in real time. Sort of an ARP 2600 with digital patch cords and auto-recording sliders. The "cmusic" approach affords the control that I'd like, but there's the gap between setup and performance that doesn't appeal to me. The amount of work required seems to me to be a hindrance to my improvisational approach. I'm not sure, exactly, what it is that I'm looking for, but I can tell that in general what I see out there isn't it. I will still probably get something soon, but only because I can't stand trying to compose on the Mac with Concertworks. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 13:40:54 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: composition 15 Feb 90 08:24:00 EST <15644.9002151332@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >David Cope's "New Directions in Music"... >Vincent Perschetti's "20th Century Harmony"... These sound quite promising. I'll have to chase them up. Do you have details of publisher and ISBN? Are they available outside the US? Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 14:01:20 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Do you really need it ? 15 Feb 90 10:08:54 EST <18343.9002151623@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >I don't know, Nick. My compositions (as you know) have not been exactly >Top-40 chartbusters :-), but my approach tends to hinge upon improvising >like mad until I get something I like, saving that, and then listening to >it until the the next step becomes obvious I don't have any real problem getting started on something, but I find it more difficult to develop a nice idea (which may be 8 bars long or something) into anything resembling an entire piece. I think overall structure is important, in order to plan out the development of the ideas in a piece. I can't really compose linearly, starting with something where the orchestration at that stage is complete, and just running forward in time; it ends up unstructured (assuming it ends up at all). I prefer to have an overall layout, with a rough idea of the "sections" of a piece, whether there are verses/choruses/solos in a section, and what orchestration and rhythm parts are needed in which sections. Performer's graphical chunk layout scheme is useful for creating sections and dragging them around in this way. The Sudstern track from the EMUSIC tape was done in three main sections; once I knew what these were going to be, it was easier to put together the sections themselves, and the crossovers between the sections. This is pretty important for a totally-MIDIfied setup where each (monotimbral) instrument can only be used in one place at a time, and the effects processing has to be shared between the players. >The emphasis seems to be on musically hip sounds rather than >on real-time controllability. As far as my style of working goes, I view this notion of "performance realtime control" as a bit of a red herring; while I spend a lot of time and effort messing about with volume/pan/aftertouch/modulation fades for sounds, I view this as part of the mixdown process. Yup, that's right, aftertouch fading! The opening strings in Sudstern have a filter fade-in which was a programmed fade using aftertouch. While it's important that I have these facilities on a synth, I don't know how much I use these features as part of the "playing". Perhaps that's because I've worked on a piano, where the realtime performance "controls" are limited (though not as much as you may think). Should this bl**dy WX7 ever arrive, I may well start thinking differently, of course. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 00:36:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Re : Synthesis Gan: I gave up on FM in 1983. I much prefer analog and wavetable synthesis. There have to be better people on EMUSIC-L to field these questions than I. (Anyone? Help? I'm not the best person for this area....) I will say that I find the control structure to be too non-intuitive; I prefer to program from the gut, and one can't do that with FM. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 02:01:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: On FM and exploration in sound I'd like to comment on Gary's recent post concerning two topics: first, the power and usefulness of FM synthesis, and second, the divergence within EMUSIC-L from what he considers the truly important topics (i.e. the music we're supposedly trying to create) and matters such as economics of synth purchasing. These are both valid points, with vaild concerns behind them. But a slightly different viewpoint may be in order, to add a little bit of perspective.... On the matter of FM's inherent worth, I should point out that I wholeheartedly believe in the power of FM and in its ability to do new and useful things in the realm of sound creation. I should also note, however, that my recent comments on EMUSIC-L were based on my personal opinion of FM as based on six years of association with the Yamaha line of synthesizers, and were never intended as blanket condemnations of the form. I can only speak for myself when it comes to the usefulness of certain ways of sculpting sound, and I had decided long a go that the type of sounds best suited to FM and the relative alienness of its user interface were not suited to my purposes. While I endeavour to remain open-minded about new ways of doing things, I recognize when a particular approach to sound construction represents enough of a divergence from my current musical direction to be avoided, at least in the short run. If I had chosen to explore FM, I don't doubt that I could have come up with interesting and worthwhile sounds. But it's my belief that that had I done so, I'd still be trying to complete my first album rather than preparing my second for release. I'd also like to comment on his characterization of EMUSIC-L as a place where the predominant questions appear to be based around equipment pricing. In an academic environment, the availability of many types of sound creation is a vital part of the electronic music program's ability to teach effectively and comprehensively. Nobody would argue with that. But those of us who are not either professionally or academically associated can find it difficult to assemble studios with such power. Admittedly, the newer boxes give a lot of power for the money, but this is usually at the cost of a "black box" mentality that is to be avoided at all costs, as Gary has pointed out. The point is that the majority of EMUSIC-L members are attempting to realize their musical visions on limited funds and with limited time and support for their work. The question they ask is a combination of "What's the best gear?" and "How can I create something new?": "What gear allows me to realize my visions creatively and powerfully without beggaring me in the process?" (On a somewhat more snide note, I refer anyone who regards EMUSIC-L as a place hopelessly inundated with consumerism to the rec.music.synth newsgroup on USEnet. The most popular news thread of late has been the assembly of a database for where to get the best prices on synth gear around the country.) We aren't all natural-born musical visionaries. It helps for us to be reminded on occasion that the reason electronic music exists at all is to open new vistas, not, as some folks in Hollywood seem to believe, score TV programs and films in less time and at lower cost than an orchestral arrangement would require. But it also helps to remember that that there are other visions in the electronic world than that of the academic, and that these visions may point up other needs and wants. I don't wish to sound combative; I just think that we all need to balance our understanding between the creation of new ideas and the accessibility of the technology, both in terms of mental exercise (hence the first topic of this post) and of affordability (hence the second). On a related note, I take from your post that Oberlin is now using the Midia synthesizer. I am intensely interested in the capabilities of this device, as I'm sure many others on EMUSIC-L must be, having seen it advertised but not reviewed for over a year. Thanks for letting me vent a little steam on this, metlay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 23:06:00 EST From: It's not easy being Green Subject: Re: fm Reply to the DS-8.. I was a former owner, but it is kind of a dead end. I think it beats the DX-7 models, but that's about it. It only had 8 voice polyphony.. what the heck can you do with that? Basically nothing. It was made primarily as Korgs first multitimbral synth but as the salesman quote..."it started out well, but it's a dog in disquise." I kind of agree. Believe me, I hate admitting it, but it is. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 09:55:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: FM MFs So what do you want to know about FM? I don't think that FM is NOT intuitive, I created a sound with the idea of crossing the sound of a sitar and Jimi Hendrix for a CX-5M. You know the sympathetic string create a high frequency buzz that comes in later than the initial attack. You also know that it does not affect the basic sound. So you choose an operator which has two independent strains, use one for the basic sound, the other for the high frequencey modulation. Back in the volatage controlled 70s, when taking electronic music during my undergrad, I was using a Putney synthesizer which allowed AM and FM. I was able to create a very complex gong sound using FM, having the modulating frequency controlled by a sub-audio AM and FM. I made it stereo, with a sub-audio AM in different phases on each channel. It was very simple to build from scratch. You don't need to know the Bessel functions. Of course, if you want to be precise, you do have the Bessel functions. I have heard of research projects which derive DX7 steady state parameters for the approximate of a sample dump. I chose FM because I was confident in my understanding of acoustics. There were other features of the TX-802 I liked, for instance microtones and the eight seperate outputs to the oscillators. I rejected samplers because the ones that were available at the time were not very good. The idea of simply playing the same sound without much real-time variation seems cold and unexpressive. There is only so much you can do with the LFOs. I think what all digital synthesis methods could use is multiple time- varying bandpass filters that could be under realtime control. (if they don't already exist. I must confess I have not been following the new synthesizers since I got the TX-802. My next purchases will be for a mixer and effects. I also am looking at getting a librarian for the TX-802, a scoring program, and a laser printer. I still eventually want a sampler, but figure they will be better by the time I am ready) may your carrier frequency live long and prosper, jeff beer ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 15:21:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: RE: fm voices Gary, Am interested in how you did the interpolations for these banks? Is that something that the opcode editor can handle, or was it a mostly manual process? I have all the gear you specified, did you mention where the files are stored? tnx, Joe K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 16:10:00 EST From: DSR@CRNLNS.BITNET Subject: Synthesis (FM) Comment: Originally-To: JNET%"emusic-l@auvm" Nick Rothwell writes: >Another point is that I find FM synths hard to program; not because of >the complexity of FM per se, but because a lot of the results aren't >useable. You can't easily take a nice FM sound and turn it into something >else nice by altering a few obvious parameters, like you can on a more >conventional synth; you tend to end up with a rather unpleasant sound >which isn't as good as the original. I suspect there is a black art here >which I've never got to grips with; I don't consider FM worth the time >and effort to master to such a degree, I'm afraid. I used to have the same problem--making small changes to patches seemed reasonably intuitive, but I found it very hard to program my way to sounds I wanted that were far away from any I had on hand. FM programming became much easier after I purchased a computer based patch editor with patch interpolation, mixing, and randomization. Now I tend to treat pre-existing patches as tone components which I can mix and match in the patch editor. I pick a couple of patches that between them have most of the elements that I want (which usually is surprisingly easy to do), and then interpolate between them or mix/randomize them, depending on the effect I'm looking for. I build a bank of these hybrids (one quick operation), and then preview each until I find something reasonably close which I can edit down to the sound I want. It's a little distressing that I still have a hard time programming the beast entirely from scratch, but at least now FM programming is fun, fairly quick, and I get the sounds I want. For me, it just took the right tools and a different approach to the problem. I do agree with Nick that FM does not do everything--it's good to have a variety of different synthesis synthesis methods readily available. -Dan Riley (dsr@crnlns) -Wilson Lab, Cornell University ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 08:43:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: RE: FM synthesis Ring modulators are amplitude modulators. So are voltage control amplifiers if both the signal and control inputs are in the audio domain. The spectrum that results is the sums and differences of all the frequencies present in the spectra of the two inputs. If the inputs are harmonically related, the output is usually a "fat" harmonic sound. If the inputs are noisy, contain inharmonic components or are inharmonic to each other, the output will not be harmonic. AM can produce very nice dynamic changes in spectrum if the levels of the inputs are varied with an envelop. The changes are not as complex as with FM but there certainly is a superficial resemblance. The presence of ROM voices for FM synths tells us that somebody learned how to program timbre. FM becomes intuitive after a sometimes difficult initial period of acquiring the conceptual base. Unfortunately, experience with analog or other synth techniques seems to hinder rather than help. I have much better luck teaching FM to people who know nothing about synthesis. I remember Bo Tomlyn's wonderful deos of the DX7 when it first came out. The very first question from an experienced audience was always "Where are the filte rs?" Again I suggest Chowning & Bristow's book on FM (ISBN 4-636-17482-8) for those who prefer fact to rumor. By the way, what is not intuitive about FM are most of the manuals that come with the synths and get published from other sources. Chowning and Bristow have a clear and thorough presentation. After all, Chowning invented the technique and Bristow works for Yamaha in England (and, I think programmed some of the original voices). Gary ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 01:52:35 EST From: Jeffrey R Kell Subject: FM synthesis Excuse a possibly stupid, moronic question (but hey, what the hell)... I always understood FM synthesis to be based on FM modulation, ie, some 'carrier' frequency is frequency modulated based on some other input. The FM in modern synths carries many other parameters with it (I won't pretent to know what) but the basic component is FM modulation of two signals. FM inherently induces harmonics higher than the carrier (plus some lower, depending on the modulation mapping). But anyway... Isn't the old "ring modulation" a form of FM synthesis? Or is ring mod an AM technique (I thought FM, but will confess stupidity if I'm wrong). Raw ring modulation was great as long as you tuned to primary harmonics (octave, fifth, fourth, etc) but pretty nasty if the tuning was dissonant. I had an old Korg MS-20 (analogue, mono, pre-MIDI, patchable) with a ring mod choice for VCO-2 that was neat. The ARP Odyssey also had a "VCO-1" source of modulation for VCO-2 that (I think) was a form of ring modulation. But all the "ring modulation" tended to produce very fat almost distorted sounds with bizarre harmonics; not a pure square wave of course but with lots of odd harmonics thrown in. Assuming the above is (at least partially) true, the trouble with FM synth programming comes into an example I can deal with. When dealing with any of these "ring modulation" cases, if you vary the degree or frequency of the modulating tone even slightly (laymens term, a c*nt hair) the resulting sound may change drastically. While most of us may know what mixing various simple waveforms (sine, square, sawtooth, triangle) may yield, very few people have an intuitive notion of what an FM combination of two waveforms will yield. So FM is virtually unlimited in complexity, but I tend to believe that the really "neat" results are more chance than deliberated effort. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 10:52:23 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: AVM 15 Feb 90 06:59:12 SST <10214.9002142322@lfcs.ed.ac.uk No idea; I'd guess the Yamaha Portasound stuff is largely sample-based, since that's flavour of the month right now. You should be able to tell from the sound (or from the trendy logo on the front of the machine). Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 10:11:47 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Korg WS and Music Trades Mag 14 Feb 90 16:52:44 EST <10072.9002142254@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >ps Nick - I think I've found a mag to dump Keybaord for... Aw, no, I really like Keyboard, it lives in a completely different world to the rest of us. All this "why let your equipment get in the way of stardom, all you need is the Yamaha xxx", "you can bet I'm a singer, and here's my $15.95 to prove it", "round-up of the 100 top K1 sounds hot from L.A.", "J. M. Jarre, number 1 in new-age keyboards" and all this kind of thing. It's a hoot, really. And all those wonderful haircuts... Actually, I buy Keyboard for two things: (i) Fowler's "Applied Theory" column, which talks about music structure, harmony, the structure of melodies, motifs, and things like this; (ii) Freff's "Creative Options" which, despite being uncompromisingly Californian, I find quite entertaining to read whilst eating my porridge and washing my kilt. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 14:22:12 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: WX-7 experience >There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do this on non-FM >synths, as long as you have (i) a flexible enough voice architecture, >and (ii) decent MIDI control. The Oberheim Matrix-6 family certainly >have the former, although MIDI-wise the Matrix-6 has the intelligence >of an artichoke. But, of course, it's 4 years old now, so this isn't >surprising. I bought my WX-7 during Christmas and has since played it through everything I could find --- from my U-110, S-330, D-10 to the MKS-70 JX and now the Oberheim Matrix-6. Quite frankly I am disappointed with the possibilities of the WX-7 when not played with a DX/TX. With the Matrix I got some screaming aftertouch but playing a tube with the sound of the Oberheim feels so weird it was almost a turn-off. I was a lot happier with the JX's flutey and polysynth sounds. Whether or not the JX sound better is a matter of taste but I think the breathing noises (which the Matrix is not so good at) really makes the difference. TIP: When playing the WX-7 with non-DX/TX instruments it is good idea to turn off the module's Velocity sensitivity altogether. And control the amplitude of the sound with MIDI volume (ctrl-7) alone. The reason being that if you initially blow a soft note then throughtout the sustain of that note you cannot go any louder than the attack volume. Keep the velocity at maximum and you can control the entire envelope of the sound with your breathe through MIDI volume. Patrick. *Nick : How do you use the WX-7 with the QuadraVerb ? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 15:47:38 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: WX-7 experience 15 Feb 90 14:22:12 GMT <17377.9002151524@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > I bought my WX-7 during Christmas Oh, so *you* got the last one from Soho Soundhouse, huh? You got a good deal, I've paid around 70 quid more. >and has since played it > through everything I could find --- from my U-110, S-330, > D-10 to the MKS-70 JX and now the Oberheim Matrix-6. > > Quite frankly I am disappointed with the possibilities of > the WX-7 when not played with a DX/TX. >... > I was a lot happier with the JX's flutey and polysynth sounds. This is interesting. I'm still waiting for my (second, first having been lost by post office) WX7 to arrive so I can try it out with my gear. I can imagine it sounding pretty good on a DX/TX because (as I pointed out in my otherwise largely condemnatory posting recently) FM is good for programming sounds with wild dynamics, which more conventional synths aren't. So: how hard did you find it to get to grips with the WX7? Could you handle sax/clarinet/whatever before that? Have you found that any of the MIDI synths (or sequencing software, for that matter) can't keep up with the MIDI data stream? Do you find that things played on the WX sound totally different to anything which could come from a keyboard? Hopefully I'll be able to answer these questions myself, soon... >TIP: > When playing the WX-7 with non-DX/TX instruments it is good idea > to turn off the module's Velocity sensitivity altogether. And > control the amplitude of the sound with MIDI volume (ctrl-7) > alone. This was my thinking. I was thinking about using the WX7's initial velocity value to alter the *timbre* of the note, and then using breath control to control the overall volume during the sustain stage. This is why I'm so excited about getting a chance to plug a WX7 into a Waldorf, set up the WX7 to do some serious wavetable modulation, lock up the pets and children, and see what happens. I'm also very interested in exploring some of the alternate tunings on the Waldorf for wind controller solo material (solo as in no other instruments, apart from the odd atmospheric sounds, perhaps). [See, I have no end of ideas for pieces of music, but don't have the (what Keyboard magazine would call) "arrangement chops" to do them justice. Sigh.] >*Nick : How do you use the WX-7 with the QuadraVerb ? I was just throwing open some ideas. There's no reason why the WX7 has to have all its performance data interpreted by a synthesiser which then feeds into a static effects chain. Instead of using breath control to alter one of the synth parameters, you could be modulating some of the effects instead, like reverb mix, or EQ notch, or delay feedback, or something like this. So, you treat the + QuadraVerb as a single instrument, playing *both* from the breath controller. Just an idea. I'm not in a position to try, yet, of course. [sound of fingers drumming on tabletop.] Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 23:52:19 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: WX-7 Continued .... >Oh, so *you* got the last one from Soho Soundhouse, huh? You got a good >deal, I've paid around 70 quid more. No. Actually I got mine from Hong Kong for even less. >So: how hard did you find it to get to grips with the WX7? Could you >handle sax/clarinet/whatever before that? The WX-7 is closer to a Clarinet than a Sax, and some of the sharp keys are missing --- the same notes are played with two trill keys which takes any note up by semi/whole tone. I find it quite easy, but you have to get on with the five octave keys. >the MIDI synths (or sequencing software, for that matter) can't keep >up with the MIDI data stream? Do you find that things played on the >WX sound totally different to anything which could come from a keyboard? One thing **NOT** to do is plug a WX into a Mac. A second's worth of blow could take the Computer 10 seconds to crunch. This is probably the fault of the Mac serial port rather the software, but Performer, for a start, cannot work with the tube. Even the U-110 Sampler, having to understand no controllers apart from MIDI Volume, gets occasionally jammed up. Roland just didn't anticipate the data flow as Yamaha had designed it. >This was my thinking. I was thinking about using the WX7's initial >velocity value to alter the *timbre* of the note, and then using No. Better use Aftertouch, which is sent parallel with the midi 7 (cuz I looked at it). > WX7 into a Waldorf, set up the WX7 to do some serious wavetable >modulation, lock up the pets and children, and see what happens. Is the MicroWave a rack-mount or a keyboard ? How much, how good ? Where can I get one ? >[See, I have no end of ideas for pieces of music, but don't have the >(what Keyboard magazine would call) "arrangement chops" to do them >justice. Sigh.] Sent us a few MIDIFILES ! We will do the arrangements ! Like your ideas about wind-controlled FX ! Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 10:01:50 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: WX-7 Continued .... 15 Feb 90 23:52:19 GMT <24357.9002160936@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > One thing **NOT** to do is plug a WX into a Mac. A second's > worth of blow could take the Computer 10 seconds to crunch. > This is probably the fault of the Mac serial port rather the > software, but Performer, for a start, cannot work with the > tube. Oh dear... Funny, but somebody else was saying that it works fine with Mastertracks on a Mac. Perhaps I'll have to do some filtering in the MX8 to cut down the amount of data (it can do dynamic filtering if the datastream gets too clogged). If Performer can't handle it, that's a rather big setback. I shall email my contact on USEnet and try to find out about this. > Even the U-110 Sampler, having to understand no controllers > apart from MIDI Volume, gets occasionally jammed up. Roland > just didn't anticipate the data flow as Yamaha had designed > it. I've heard that D-50's can't handle the WX7 very well, but a lot of other equipment doesn't have much problem. I can believe this; Roland have brought out machines with some pretty incompetent MIDI implementations in their time. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 08:49:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: WX7 and Mac I have been using a WX7 with a Mac for almost three years with no trouble at all. In fact, my piece "Refractions" uses four WX7's as input to a Mac Plus. I don't know about all of the commercial sequencing software but MOXC has no trouble at all digesting the breath control and volume data. HINT: If your sequencer has data filtering or thinning you can ask it to through away the dynamic data. Unless you are trying to capture a live performance with all its nuance you don't need this data in your Mac file anyway. I sometimes play the WX7 into the Mac, write a midi file and port that file to Finale for notation. Only the pitches and rhythms are important here. Finale doesn't have any notation equivalent for breath contraol anyway. (A prize to the person who can tell me what the notation equivalent is) *"Refractions" was commissioned by the Prism saxophone quartet, a professional group that plays half of their concert on WX7's. They premiered the piece in New York on Oct 3, 89. IT"S ALGORITHMIC. What they play determines what the computer will compose for the accompaniment. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 17:14:13 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: WX-7 (Arrhh ... more ?) >I have been using a WX7 with a Mac for almost three years with no trouble >at all. In fact, my piece "Refractions" uses four WX7's as input to a >Mac Plus. I don't know about all of the commercial sequencing software >but MOXC has no trouble at all digesting the breath control and volume >data. I suspect you have the lip/wind sensitivity turned down, which could cut down the amount of output of the WX-7 considerably. I have set up my tube with the lip sensitivity on full to give me the maximum lip resolution on the Pitch bend range --- the way that I feel it best resembles a real Sax, but this also means massive amount of data is being thrown out at high speed (Pitchbend, Aftertouch, and Ctrl-7). Try setting the 4 screws at the back on full and see if your Mac can still chew it ? Sounds like I should try out this MOXC ! >HINT: If your sequencer has data filtering or thinning you can ask it to >through away the dynamic data. Unless you are trying to capture a live >performance with all its nuance you don't need this data in your Mac file >anyway. Yes, Performer has data thinning ... AFTER it has recorded the data. Since the computer gets jammed while recording and screws up the timing, notes etc the recorded material is worth very little anyway. Is it now time for me to buy a MX-8 ? I ask. >Gary Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 14:03:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: RE: WX-7 (Arrhh ... more ?) I DO NOT have the sensitivity turned down and neither does Prism. These are four of the best saxophonists you'll ever hear and they simply don't palay without the maxiummum sensitivity. I suspect that the problems are associated with commercial software where the company decideds what you will want to do. If your artistic needs extend beyond their vision, too bad. The software I use is MOXC from Carnegie Mellon (described in an earlier) posting). It ios fast enough to deal with controoller data without choking up. It is also can also be customized with Think C. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 15:43:31 EST From: "David A. Roth" Subject: Re: WX-7 (Arrhh ... more ?) MX-8? Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 10:12:24 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: WX-7 (Arrhh ... more ?) 16 Feb 90 14:03:00 EST <1975.9002171539@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >I suspect that the problems are >associated with commercial software where the company decideds what you >will want to do. Hmm. I'm in e-mail contact with Mark of the Unicorn, so I'll give 'em a rocket if it can't handle a WX. What version of Performer are you running, Patrick? (latest is 3.3.) Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 22:37:00 MET From: Robert Belleman Subject: RE: WX-7 Continued .... [...] >> Even the U-110 Sampler, having to understand no controllers >> apart from MIDI Volume, gets occasionally jammed up. Roland >> just didn't anticipate the data flow as Yamaha had designed >> it. > > I've heard that D-50's can't handle the WX7 very well, but a lot of > other equipment doesn't have much problem. I can believe this; Roland > have brought out machines with some pretty incompetent MIDI > implementations in their time. > > Nick. I had a change to try the WX11 and the '7 on my D-50; the '11 is a big no-no. The WX11 can only transmit breath-control messages which the D-50 can not process. The WX7 worked great when having it transmit after-touch !! Anyone got a WX7 for the price of a '11 ?? -- Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 13:32:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: RE: WX-7 Continued .... My experience with the WX7 and the D-50 was also good. The trick is to use aftertouch instead of breath. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 10:07:48 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: WX-7 (Arrhh ... more ?) 16 Feb 90 17:14:13 GMT <2118.9002161812@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > I suspect you have the lip/wind sensitivity turned > down, which could cut down the amount of output of > the WX-7 considerably. Hmm, I shall bear that in mind. From what I recall from the reviews, the WX-7 has a so-called "tight lip mode" (?) where you have to hold it at zero pitch-bend with constant lip pressure; I can imagine this causing large amounts of data. Are you playing it this way? > Is it now time for me to buy a MX-8 ? I ask. The MX-8 doesn't do thinning (or so it seems from a quick read of the manual), but it will selectively throw away pitchbend and aftertouch data if it detects a 30ms or more delay between reception and eventual transmission time. This may or may not have the desired effect. I'll let you know when my 'WX arrives (5 weeks and waiting...) Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 10:48:51 EST From: MTG@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM Subject: Enhancer information wanted... Greetings! A question for all you knowledgeable folx: I have a decent setup (DSS sampler, 2 synths, Amiga, and more) and like making my own tapes and such. I've noticed that when I record something on tape, even though I'm nearly overloading the levels when I play it back it just doesn't sound LOUD. I've heard that an enhancer can cure this, but don't know anything more about enhancers than just that. OK, quiz time: Can anyone tell me anything more about just what an enhancer does? Is this what I'm really looking for? Are there other things that might work better or help in addition to that or something? Lastly, I'll be open to suggestions on your favourite one[s]: I can't spend a lot on it, but I'd like to get something decent. Advanced thanks! - Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 12:41:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: Enhancer information wanted... Though I nothing to contribute to the enhancer question, I've come across the loudness issue. From my own experience, I think it is not as much the loudness, but the fullness of the sound and the interaction between the different timbres in the music. In fullness, I mean the fullness of the frequency spectrum of the sounds. I play my system through my stereo at home and I have a spectrum analyser on the amp. Typically, when taping your peak meters are displaying the peak amplitude and not the overall average. Thus, if you have some pounding bass, the bass will nail the meter, but maybe the other sounds aren't represented as well. This is well confirmed by the presence of low frequency and very little high or middle frequencies on the spectrum analyser. Another reason it may not sound as "loud" is that the ear is not an absolute machine. It tends to differeniate loudness relative to other volumes. I have found that changing the mix of the sounds you can achieve a fuller or richer sounding mix. Here are some of the "tricks" I use to make the music sound fuller. Try adding timbres that are missing in your mix. If you have a lot of mid frequency sounds, add a bass type sound. If you have a lot of bass type sound, add something that has lots of harmonics; such as strings or synth-strings sounds. Another reason that it may not sound as loud is that the music is not continuous. Take for example music that is kinda staccato or percussive. The peak meters are pegging every time you hit some notes, but die down when you release. If you think of a duty- cycle or the ratio between the time music is produced at a certain level and the time there is no sound or reduced sound, the apparent loudness can be achieved by this ratio sometimes. I have found that adding more sustained chords with the appropriate missing frequencies will help. In taping, I have realized the importance of noise reduction as a tool to get better dynamic range. With noise reduction, it is OK to tape at -15 or -10 db and later have a passage that will go to 3 or 5 db. With the amp cranked a little higher than normal to compensate for the lower recording level, you will definitely get a louder sounding mix. Oh, another thing about tape machines, many of the Japanese recorders are calibrated a little lower and some tape manufactures recommend that you can record peaks of 3 and 5 db instead of the 0 and 3 db. This will help in recording a stronger signal so that the noise is reduced. Anyway, these are my experiences---hope they help. Willis Dair Santa Clara University ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 17:43:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Enhancer information wanted... My experiences with enhancers tends to be very choppy; if used in tiny amounts, they can work wonders for stale, flat mixes, but it's very easy to go overboard and make things sound crummy and harsh. I don't know the details of how most enhancers work, but I do know that the BBE Sonic Maximizer is different from the Aphex and other machines in that it doesn't add third-order harmonic distortion to a sound, but instead uses a bandpass filter and time delay system of some kind. My primary information wasn't from spec sheets, tho, but from my ears: I feel that the BBE does an obscenely good job at adding sparkle and definition to mixes or individual instruments, much more cleanly and pleasantly than an Aphex. Your mileage may vary; I advise A/Bing them. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 23:25:18 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Enhancer information !!! Mark, It is not an Enhancer that you want, but a Compressor (or Limiter, as otherwise known) to boost the maximum recording levels. I have an Alesis MicroLimiter in my modest setup which has proven **crucial** to good 4-track recording. You see I work with live Sax a lot and the **only** way a miked up Sax can stand out in the heavily synthesised mix is to have it at a constant 100% loudness. To do this I compress it by a ratio of about 10:1 such that there is virtually no dynamics and record it to almost red --- and it will stay red most of the time. However probably due to the nature of the Sax dynamics is still felt --- if not stronger --- just by the tone alone. An Enhancer (Exciter) simply boosts the trebles. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 13:02:35 GMT From: Tony Jewell Subject: Re: Enhancer information !!! Well, to put in my ha'penny's worth ... > It is not an Enhancer that you want, but a Compressor > (or Limiter, as otherwise known) to boost the maximum > recording levels. > > An Enhancer (Exciter) simply boosts the trebles. No no no .. An exciter does not "simply boost the trebles", if you just wanted to do that, why not get a graphic equaliser ? An exciter works by adding treble were there was no treble before, by adding controled amounts of harmonic distortion. This makes it useful for adding brightness to dull tracks, adding a bit of top end to sounds with little or no top end etc. In this respect it is far more complex than just an equaliser. They are great for making sounds come out of the mix, and giving stereo depth. For instance you can 'place' sounds in front of or behind the speakers, i.e keep strings in the background and make a solo leap out of the speakers (okay, calm down Tony). However, I do agree with the earlier points, a compresses will bring the volume levels to within a certain range, and get rid of high peeks in volume, which may not be very obvious to the human ear, but your tape-recorder can see, allowing you to record at higher levels. Also, a good quality tape should let you record at higher levels than the peak led's might imply. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 15 Feb 90 14:34:42 CST From: Eddie Mikell Subject: Samples for U-110 (or U-220, U-20). Has anyone located a source for samples for the U-110 besides Roland? I looking for some new samples for my U-20, but have been unsuccessful so far. Thanks Eddie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 15:38:00 EST From: JWK%OPUS@MCOIARC.BITNET Subject: Mandala software for Amiga. This is a long shot, but does anyone know anything about a program for the Amiga called Mandala, from Very Vivid Software (formerly of toronto canada). It's an interactive video system that allows one to use live video to control, among other things, synthesizers via stored sequences which are triggered by actions in the video image. Any information on the company, the product or the authors would be greatly appreciated. joe k. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 22:38:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: RE: Mandala software for Amiga. I don't know anything about the company but my friend Burton Beerman has been using it for several years and does a touring show with his wife, a dancer. Burt is on the composition faculty in the College of Music at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. I don't think he is on email but you can write to him at BGSU. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 12:16:00 EST From: From the warped mind of Mark Dolecki Subject: RE: Mandala software for Amiga. Joe- It seems to me that the package was to be discontinued, or was pending rele ase after some debugging. That was from an article about 1/2 year ago, can't remeber where though. -mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 13:21:43 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: M1 librarian for Amiga I was just wondering if anyone out there has some sort of PD librarian for the M1 (for use on an Amiga) that would simply allow me to display two different banks of sounds and simply cut and paste between them. I have MUSIC-X and I can't seem to get the generic librarian to accept data from the M1; maybe someone has figured out a way to modify it to accept M1 data. Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 20:26:50 EST From: DAMIAN@UMASS.BITNET Subject: stuff Hi, I've beenhearing a lot about IRCAM and was wondering if it was worth getting in touch with my local IRCAM bulletin board looking for sounds and samples and stuff. Can anyone tell me whether there is a board up anywhere near Amherst/Boston, Mass. or how to find out if there is one? Also, while I'm here, I thought I should comment on Mike Metlay's recent description of Vector Synthesis. While Mike is partly right about the joystick moving in real time, if my memory serves me correctly, the VS only allowed the mixing of the various volume levels of the different waveforms across the 2D grid, as opposed to actually switching between waveforms. The difference, I believe, is quite subtle but important. I also thought that Mike made it sound like you could just move the joystick around and that the VS would remember the movements. As far as I know, it's oops...its not the case, but again, I could be wrong. Two other aspects of the VS also attracted me to it. The built patch randomizer sounded really nice, and it also had the ability to load a sample from a Prophet 2000 (though a short one). It also allowed you to combine waveforms into a user-definable waveform. The possiblities really did seem endless when I was checking it out. And the arpegiator was great too. I guess I will just wait for the new Korg synth...it sounds incredible (and wait for the $2.5 Gs to just drop in my lap...oh well, maybe a rack unit will come out). Please Mike, no hate mail. I still have not managed on getting rid of the files associated with our last disagreement. B-] I'm Elvis with the words of wisdom (3rd Bass), Damian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 15:02:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: stuff Damian, you ignorant slut! |-> Sorry. Couldn't resist. Actually you're right on your two points of clarification; I should point out that in one case the difference between what I said and what you corrected is quite subtle but significant, but in the other case it's a minor point. RE the mixing of waveforms: I never claimed that the joystick altered waveforms, only that it allowed realtime four-way mixing. The four "points" of the joystick field and the waves they represent are preselected by the user and cannot be changed in mid-tone. True. Big deal. You want realtime waveshape change? Go buy a MicroWave. So there. Nyah. Arf. RE the realtime motion of the joystick: the way it worked was to "remember" points at which you "paused for breath", i.e. touched a button and told the VS to note where you were. This let you "connect the dots," as it were. My description was a bit overly generalized, but I view the difference as a minor quibble. The operative word on your end, however, is that you're correct. There. I said it. Now can we get back to flaming each other? |-> metlay PS. I'd forgotten about the randomizer. Neat stuff! I wonder if Korg is going to include one (or an arpeggiator) in the WS? Probably not |-< --they never put in the really FUN stuff when you want them to. *sigh* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 14:04:57 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: stuff RE: the VS doesn't change waveforms, it just mixes them Uhh, excuse me, but was my elementary wave physics course kidding last semester or do you get new waveforms when you vary the mix of two or more waveforms?? Something about wave summation??? I think that is the whole point of vector synthesis... Actually, I would think that vector synthesis offers more intuitive control than interpolating across a wavetable (ala PPG/'Dorf). In the interpolation method, the resulting "new waveforms" created by sweeping the wavetable are very dependent upon the type of waves in the wavetable and the order in which they are arranged. Don't get me wrong, the interpolation method is capable of VERY interesting, if not more interesting waveforms. I just am guessing that there is less distinctive control by the performer. (i.e. you can't select a set of 4 specific waveforms and mix them, you can sweep across a wavetable at varying rates but in a fixed order) Disclaimer: These assumptions are based on the ultra-vague "graph" in the Waldorf brochure. - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "We just need to short-circuit the continuum on a BIX : kgeisel 5 or 6 parsec level." - Forbidden Planet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 17:54:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: stuff There's an old saying that goes: ""If it looks like a rock, feels like a rock, smells like a rock, and sinks like a rock, don't waste time trying to prove it's a mythical beast playing possum." Or, if you prefer, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference." Basically, there may be very little auditory difference between the wave mixing in the VS and the wavetable scanning in the Waldorf if the parameters are set up properly. My guess, though, is that the rapid shifting of wave tables and the abrupt steps possible between waves in the 'Dorf will lead to a somewhat different sonic character. (The old PPG wave's appeal lay in the clickety clack as it desperately scanned wavetables as fast as its proverbial little legs could carry it. |-> ) This speculation is moot until we can compare the two directly, though. (It's thumb-twiddling time. Oh, WS, WS, wherefore art thou , WS? Forswear thy Vector and forgive thy name, and I'll no longer be a MicroWve. What's in a name? That which we call a PPG by any other name would sound as rude... Uh, okay, I'll shut up. ) metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 23:07:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: more books The Persichetti "Twentieth Century Harmony" was published by Norton in 1961. My copy has no ISBN. A couple of other interesting ones are William Russo's "Jazz Composition\and Orc hestration from the Univ of Chicago Press and Richard Babbitt's "Harmonic Technique in the Rock Idiom" from Wadsworth (1976). Two ISBN's are given for the textbook and the workbook ... 0534004741 & 0534004784. When I was searching for the Babbitt I saw several other music theory type books that deal with the rock/pop idiom. Give me a little feedback and I'll get the details. Gary Nelson Oberlin College ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 10:03:42 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: 'dorf 15 Feb 90 23:52:19 GMT <24357.9002160936@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > Is the MicroWave a rack-mount or a keyboard ? How much, > how good ? Where can I get one ? rackmount (2U), #999, dunno yet, TSC for starters. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 18:06:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? Based on the UK reviews I've read, I'm not surprised. Apparently the factory programmers did an amazingly bad job of giving the machine any sort of in-the-store appeal. Waldorf will preach to the converted, and that's about all. So do I buy one sight unseen (A trial model in Pittsburgh?> HA!) and pray, or do I wait for the WS and pray even harder that it lives up to the Vector name? *sigh* metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 11:50:21 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? 19 Feb 90 18:06:00 EST <9298.9002192320@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >So do I buy one sight unseen (A trial >model in Pittsburgh?> HA!) and pray, or do I wait for the WS and pray >even harder that it lives up to the Vector name? ... or wait for me to buy one, knock up some sounds, make a tape, and air-mail it to you. This might take a while, by which time the Waldorf might have vanished from the face of the Earth. Does anybody actually know if that wonderful vocal/choir sound from the second half of TD's Kiew Mission track (from Exit) is actually a PPG Wave? I've just had a horrible thought that it might be a Crumar GDS or something else, and maybe the Waldorf can't do it...? Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 12:12:17 MST From: schabtac@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? Nick-- I'm a little puzzled by something you posted: you said that the VFX sounds "nice" but "boring" and that your heart says go for the MicroWave. But earlier, on your "first-encounter" posting, you said (in effect) that the 'Dorf sounds really boring, or at least as far as the presets show. What has the 'Dorf done to win over your heart? Is it that it claims to be a PPG reincarnate? Or that it has analog filters? Or that it's not Ensoniq (by the way, the VFX SD is pretty bug-free, if you get the 2.0 ROMs, or so I've heard from an SD owner)? Just curious, because the VFX is the first synth to really get my attention since the D-50 came out. I see a new synth in my future, and both the ? oops -- unfamiliar keyboard both the Waldorf and the VFX are strong contenders. --Adam P.S. I guess I forgot to mention that I realize your infatuation with the Waldorf has been long and intense -- it's just that you seemed a bit disappointed with it after finally seeing it in the light of day. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:13:55 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? >>Nice formants, but it really reminds me of Alvin, >>Simon, and Theodore. >...whoever they are...? Ach! No wonder the US is going down the tubes! :-) Nick, you DON'T WANNA KNOW! >It appears >that Waldorf is just a money-spinner to keep Palm and Duren going >while they get more involved with some of the new Steinberg Digital >Audio stuff, like the Topaz Direct-to-Disk system. Frankly, even if the Waldorf is a PPG, it is sounding less and less appetizing all the time. I didn't know it would be $2000 in the US. >The only other machine which seems even >remotely comparable at the moment is the VFX... Don't forget the Korg WS. It's looking better all the time. Besides, you don't want an "ugly American synth"! :-) - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "We just need to short-circuit the continuum on a BIX : kgeisel 5 or 6 parsec level." - Forbidden Planet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:16:00 EST From: Tim -Got Your Aten- Chen Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? this is actually also just a test. the VFX is incredible, but beware.... The Roland D-70 Super (as opposed to lame?) L/A Synth is lurking. . . Incredible PCM samples (you can even filter them in real time), multi- timbral, etc etc etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 10:59:47 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? Hi. I finally got to play with a Waldorf MicroWave this weekend. It's not going to sell, guys. Lemme tell you why not. For a start, it doesn't look like a $2000 synth; it just about looks like a $\pounds$999 synth if you use your imagination a little. The front-panel is a little cheap-looking in the flesh, although it feels fine and the buttons and so on have a nicer feel than on a lot of the other gear I have. Also, the data entry knob is one of those ratchetted ones like on the Akai S900, which is a good move. Machines sell on the presets. The DX7 sold because of TUB BELLS and E.PIANO 1, and the D-50 sold because of Arco Strings and DigitalNativeDance. To be honest, this is what made me buy my D-50 as well; the variety of sounds and timbres exhibited by the presets convinced me of the machine's versatility. By contrast, the presets loaded into the MicroWave stink. I was expecting to be able to plug it in, dial up Preset A-01 and hear a PPG choir, or a wonderful waveswept electric piano, or a punchy metallic flute lead sound. Nope. There are just the usual synth bass sounds, a couple of organs, some strings, a few marimba patches, and more of this kind of thing. I can get better sounds than a lot of these out of my Juno-106 rackmount; the MKS-70 would blow it away for choirs and strings. Basically the presets hardly make any use of the wavetable modulation facilities, and just show the kinds of thing the MicroWave isn't very good at. So, if you were to go into a shop, would you buy a diminutive red and blue rackmount called a MicroWave and with no decent sounds on board? Or for the same price would you buy some sleek black rackmount called something like an MZ-05 Digital Interpolation Workstation, full of choirs, atmospheric timbres and chiff sounds? I spent a couple of hours in the morning with the MicroWave, until the guitar heros started to turn up so that I couldn't hear what I was doing. Unfortunately, by that time I hadn't quite come up with any sounds to blow them away. Despite having wavetables, The MicroWave isn't any kind of sample playback machine. Flipping through the wavetables won't turn up that wonderful choir or those rich strings; this isn't a machine with wonderful sounds on tap, by any means, and it can't be treated as such. I found the best way to come up with anything half decent was to treat it like an Oberheim, and try to get the right amounts of modulation from the envelope generators and LFO's. The filtering seemed pretty good - the sound got somewhat richer and fuller as you closed the filter, in true analogue fashion - but I didn't have much chance to build any combined filter/wave sweeps. After about an hour I had come up with one or two pretty impressive wave-sweep pads which had some of the ol' PPG magic about them. The macro facilities were quite useful for setting up some pretty impressive modulation patterns such as chorusing and pseudo-leslie effects, but I didn't get much chance to investigate further. The LFO's were pretty wonderful; messing about with the LFO shape bias and "humanise" features and having the LFO modulate wavetable position generated the kind of sound to make you seasick. Unfortunately, I failed to come close to that wonderful multitimbral choir sound from Tangerine Dream's Exit album - you know, the second half of the first track where the choir's voices drastically change timbre depending on where they are on the keyboard. I couldn't quite convince myself that the MicroWave could do this; a lot of the wavetables sounded rather dull and lacking that kind of punch. Thinking about it later, I think I was neglecting to set up the keytrack modulation in the second wave oscillator, which would probably not help, and I suspect that the best PPG sounds aren't due to the wavetables per se, but more the pitch detune, filter, LFO and modulation settings - you know, like a real synth. I think the MicroWave is a versatile machine, with plenty of character, crippled by its factory presets. It *isn't* easy to program, in that you can't dial up the appropriate PCM sample wavetable and get the sound you want in a few seconds. It feels like a real synthesiser, one which you have to get to know thoroughly before you can really let rip with it. By the way, the (preliminary) manual is almost an inch thick, all in English apart from one or two comments in German which describe the as-yet unfinished illustrations. Will I buy one? Probably, yes. I'll go and spend some more time with it next week (hell, they aren't going to sell it before then), armed with some ideas for PPG sounds that I want to get out of it, and I'll take some sandwiches. This isn't the sort of fast-food purchase decision you can make in five minutes. I think this machine is going to be quite scarce, and I can't see Waldorf making a fortune on it as it stands. Now, if they'd called themselves "Palm & Duren", brought out a keyboard version, called it the "WaveStation 1", given it a sleek black finish with a large LCD display, and loaded it with classic PPG sounds, then it would have sold. Unless Waldorf put out some ROM cards with top-notch sounds pretty quickly, the MicroWave is going to bomb, so maybe I'd better put down a deposit while I can... Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 09:58:21 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? >So do I buy one sight unseen (A trial >model in Pittsburgh?> HA!) and pray, or do I wait for the WS and pray >even harder that it lives up to the Vector name? *sigh* Well, I've seen enough to know to trust Nick's judgement. If he can patch it to sound like a PPG, I'm going to have a heck of time keeping myself from buying it. Otherwise, it doesn't sound too impressive from first impressions... As for the WS, there's hope. After all, this is the original SCI design team. If Korg hasn't stunted its development, it should be pretty amazing. Keep in mind, though, that the WS is >>>>>>>>>$$$$$$$$$$$$... If it has onboard effects, I'll cringe. If it has a sequencer, I'll puke! Damn the DPM3!!!! - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "We just need to short-circuit the continuum on a BIX : kgeisel 5 or 6 parsec level." - Forbidden Planet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 10:10:39 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? >Does anybody actually know if that wonderful vocal/choir sound from >the second half of TD's Kiew Mission track (from Exit) is actually >a PPG Wave? I've just had a horrible thought that it might be a >Crumar GDS or something else, and maybe the Waldorf can't do it...? Well, I'm not POSITIVE, but I am almost sure. I have a transcription of Chronozon with nearly everything labelled "PPG Wave", so I have no doubt that it makes up most of the album. Also, I have heard similar choir sounds from Klause Schulze which have been positively identified as PPGs. - Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 12:31:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? It's interesting how individual tastes change. My friends and I alway skip over "Kiew Mission" when we listen to Exit, because we can't bear the "chipmunk choir" at the end. Nice formants, but it really reminds me of Alvin, Simon, and Theodore. And I can wait for a tape, Nick. For $2000 at risk, I can wait. metlay PS. BTW, the best simulation of that choir I've ever heard, , and the one used by TD on their underwater sunlight tour, was on a Roland JX8P. You've got an MKS-70, bucko. Go for it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 12:35:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? Cringe but don't puke, Kurt. It has two onboard FX processors and no sequencer. It's also going to retail for under 3 grand, from what I've been told. Perhaps way under. (What the hey, the original VS had a chorus on board and got flamed by KEYBOARD for not having a full DDL!) metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 09:35:06 MST From: schabtac@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? >Keep in mind, though, that the WS is >>>>>>>>>$$$$$$$$$$$$... >If it has onboard effects, I'll cringe. If it has a sequencer, I'll puke! >Damn the DPM3!!!! From what I've been able to find out, the WS is ~$2500, while the Waldorf KitchenAid (sorry, folks, I'm still having a hard time with the NAME of the thing) is $2000. Assuming the usual 15-25%-off-list price for Korg gear, and also assuming the 'Dorf is gonna be hard to find stateside (even if Nick does coax the killer TD choir out of it, it just ain't gonna be a runaway seller in the U.S.) and hence will go for nearly list, the price difference between the two won't be enormous. With the WS, you get a keyboard (mixed feelings about that, but I guess I could put up with it) a couple of joysticks to waggle, and what looks to be a pretty nice front panel. You'll cringe, but you won't lose your lunch: the WS has two effects processors but no sequencer. The literat but that has to do with the sound generation (perhaps a scanning mechanism similar to the PPG/MixMaster, yes, maybe, hopefully?) and not sequenceing int the usual sense. I played a DPM3. Yawn. I really don't see why Keyboard got so excited about it. It sounds okay, but sonically speaking, the VFX SD sitting next to it blew the pants off it. Maybe they're influenced by all the advertising space Peavey has bought over the past few months (God, those are the worst ads for music gear I've ever seen). --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 14:40:34 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf .... >Does anybody actually know if that wonderful vocal/choir sound from >the second half of TD's Kiew Mission track (from Exit) is actually >a PPG Wave? I've just had a horrible thought that it might be a >Crumar GDS or something else, and maybe the Waldorf can't do it...? >Nick. A similar question : What do you think the opening choir/breath chords are on Mike and the Mechanics' "The living years" single ? I have heard some Fairlight additive sounds which are VERY similar but not as nice ... anyone knows ? Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 10:57:20 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? 20 Feb 90 12:31:00 EST <8944.9002202305@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >It's interesting how individual tastes change. My friends >and I alway skip over "Kiew Mission" when we listen to >Exit, because we can't bear the "chipmunk choir" at the >end. Nice formants, but it really reminds me of Alvin, >Simon, and Theodore. ...whoever they are...? I don't want to spend the rest of my musical "career" making EEE/AAA/OOO/UUU noises with a Waldorf, but I want a machine which can do things as distinctive as that, as long as it has a decent amount of versatility to do other things, of course. I just got some mail from Alan Vymetalik, TD guru at large, who reckoned that the vocal sound might be sampled (Emulator). Apparently Edgar said in an interview at the time that they were doing things like making short sample loops of huge layers of instruments at weird frequencies, so that the harmonic characteristic of the played-back sample would change drastically at different playback pitches (presumably due to quirks in the Emulator's playback circuitry, or something). A little inside info: last night I went to an Ensoniq demo, and had a chance to talk to Paul Wiffen (session programmer who has worked with Jean-Michel Jarre, and who got his Synthex waterlogged at the Jarre Docklands concerts in '88, don't worry guys, Synthexes can swim), as well as another guy (whose name I forget) who programmed sounds for PPG in the early 80's, and is doing sounds for the Waldorf. It appears that Waldorf is just a money-spinner to keep Palm and Duren going while they get more involved with some of the new Steinberg Digital Audio stuff, like the Topaz Direct-to-Disk system. So, I don't know how much of a long-term affair Waldorf is, or whether there will be more MicroWave-like machines coming along. Wiffen claimed that they were selling in the US, but only to die-hard PPG owners who wanted to add some voices and get something a little more reliable. Technically, he claimed that the MicroWave has a problem in that the VCA's don't close down fully, so it would probably need to be gated. I shall check up on this. I now have a deposit down on the machine, and will be going to spend more time with it next week. The only other machine which seems even remotely comparable at the moment is the VFX, and to some extent the VFX/SD would be more useful for live work; as a performance instrument it seems pretty well thought out, and it has onboard sequencer, play while load, and so on. But, I think the VFX sounds boring. Nice sounds, nice architecture, nice performance features, but boring. My head says "save up for a VFX/SD, it's perfect for live use", my heart says go get a MicroWave. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 10:36:37 EST From: Jeffrey R Kell Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? On Tue, 20 Feb 90 12:35:00 EST said: > (What the hey, the original VS >had a chorus on board and got flamed by KEYBOARD for not having a >full DDL!) Maybe that's why Korg put two DDL's in the DSS-1, to make damn sure Keyboard didn't bitch at 'em :-) /Jeff/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 19:18:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? Actually, the first instruments to have any sort of FX on board were the early Korgs (the DW8000) and the VS. A lot of people hated the idea, because onboard effects supposedly represented a means of simultaneously adding bells and whistles to a boring synth and of hiding its sound weaknesses. Funny how opinions have shifted. (I, personally, think that a well-made FX section is very handy. But NOT if it wrecks the sound of the synth! Which is why I like the DW and the DSS-1, whose DDLs are wicked silent, and HATE the K4 and the other modern workstations, whose digital FX processors are always putrid with quiescent noise. Bleah!) metlay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 15:39:36 EST From: "David A. Roth" Subject: Re: S-330 OS ver >From: Jason Keeler > Well, I finally decided to buy this S-330... chine. Jason, I just got a S-330 too. The version I got with my system is version 1.01. This disks are labeled version 1.00. Are you saying your version displayed on the screen says 1.03? Thanks, David ...att!osu-cis!david!david ...uunet!abvax!osu-cis!david!david ------------------------------ >From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" > Yes, Performer has data thinning ... AFTER it has > recorded the data. Since the computer gets jammed > while recording and screws up the timing, notes etc > the recorded material is worth very little anyway. > Is it now time for me to buy a MX-8 ? ... Patrick, What is an MX-8? I am using Performer on the MAC with my Akai EVI (a trumpet-like wind controller) and I would like to also be able to filter data before it is sent to the sequencer. Does the MX-8 allow this? Tell me more. Now I have seen ads for boxes that do some kind of MIDI filtering but the control appeared to be only on/off of controller info. Thanks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _TT /| |~ >====ttt===< | O| |~ att!osu-cis!david!david {_|||_} \| O| uunet!abvax!osu-cis!david!david David A. Roth Columbus, Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 13:17:57 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: Re: S-330 OS ver 16 Feb 90 15:39:36 EST from David, Yep, ver. 1.03 is definitely what I have. I'm not sure what improvements they've made over the version you have though. Sure are great machines aren't they....... Jason ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 21:13:01 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Data thinning > What is an MX-8? I am using Performer on the MAC with my Akai > EVI (a trumpet-like wind controller) and I would like to also > be able to filter data before it is sent to the sequencer. > Does the MX-8 allow this? Tell me more. David, It is a kind of MIDI patch-bay / signal processor from the states. I have only seen it's ads in Keyboard magazine and feel like having one. Nick knows about it a lot more than a do. I am sure he can tell us all about it, won't you Nick ? Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 14:42:07 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Data thinning 18 Feb 90 21:13:01 GMT <8259.9002192012@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > Nick knows about it a lot more than a do. I am sure he can > tell us all about it, won't you Nick ? Yeah, I suppose so.... :-) MIDI Patchbay, 6 IN, 8 OUT; you dial up patches to connect each output into any one of the inputs. In addition, there are two MIDI processors into which you can connect the inputs and outputs. The patchbay doesn't do general MIDI merging (in fact, all it does is make electrical connections between the ports), but the processors can, in that you can refer to the merged output of the two processors. Each processor can do MIDI-processor-type things, like filtering of various kinds of data, (chromatic) transposition, velocity switching, channel mapping, MIDI echo/delays, and so on. The processors do this dynamic filtering thing to avoid MIDI congestion (or so the manual claims, though I don't have my WX7 yet so I haven't tried it). You can send the MX-8 MIDI patch changes to adopt new configurations, but you have to have a designated processor listening on the input port which receives the patch change. When it changes patch, the MX-8 can be programmed to send up to 8 further patch changes for each of its output ports. There's also a panic button which sends All Notes Off, Pitchbend Reset, and (if held) cycles through all the Note-off commands on all the outputs. Full SysEx details in the manual, cor blimey. There you have it. It's not exactly an all-singing all-dancing MIDI processor, and we'll probably need something more powerful for live use (like the MidiTemp PMM-88 unit which does more and has a remote control panel), but I got it cheap, 2nd-hand, from someone in the US, and it does the job. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 20:09:35 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: S-330 info Bob Muth mailed me directly for info on the S-330, but I cannot reply to his address via direct E-mail, so I will post it here: The Roland S-330 is a 16-note polyphonic, 12-bit, 30Khz sampler, costs between 800-880 pounds in the UK, and was originally meant to be a scaled-down version of the S-550. It's 750KB memory gives 14.4secs of sampling time at full bandwidth and 28.8secs at 15Khz. The sounds are arranged into two banks, so effectively the longest sample you can get is only 7.2secs, this makes it less suitable for long sampling applications than the Akai S-1000/950. However, when Roland introduced the S-series of samplers it was a great breakthrough --- they were the first ones of all available rack- mount/keyboard samplers to have: 1.) CRT monitor outputs and comprehensive visual editing of samples (as good as you can get with a Computer). 2.) Disk-loaded operating systems (which enabled them to update the software, and more importantly, implement their Director-S MIDI sequencer into the machines without any hardware alterations) 3.) 'Interpolated' sample playback. Most machines sample at full bandwidth, but may playback the sample at different frequencies to alter pitch. Say a sample of 440Hz is sampled at full 48Khz bandwidth, to play a note of 220Hz the sampler then have to playback the sample at 24KHz bandwidth, sacrificing its fidelity. The Roland S-series however samples and playback at a consistent full 30Khz by mathematically 'Stretch' or 'Compress' the sample to produce the equivalent wave- form of the sound at 220Khz, ensuring consistent high fidelity of the signal and saving $$$ in memory. They have managed to get the mathematical function exactly right for the new sample to sound almost identical to the original, except in pitch. N.B. There is now a 'time-stretch' function implemented in the Akai S-1000 to alter duration of samples without pitch variation. 4.) Dynamic voice allocation. A lot of samplers did not have multiple-outs before the Akai S-900, which allocated one output for each of its 8 voices. The Roland ones were the first to allow ANY tones (samples) to be specfied, in the tone parameters, to output through ANY of the 8 individual outs. Furthermore, the 16-notes polyphony can be used by ANY tones and patches: it doesn't matter if 7-notes of pads is going out through socket 3, 2 notes for drums going out through socket 4, .... as long as the total is =< 16, they will get to the outputs, a totally dynamic configuration. You can program an entire patch to go out through a specific output, or for every tones (samples) within the patch to go their own ways ! For a drummer, this is a dream come true --- I can set output 1 to be dry (for Cymbals), output 2 to be ambient (Tom-Toms) and output 3 to have gated-reverb (Snare and Bass) --- bang ! Effect drums without a mixer ! With the S-900 I would have to get an 8-channel mixer, then 2 effect sends for the gated and hall reverb routings. To conclude, the S-330 is easy to use, sample and edit. It is very good for multi-timbral stuff, very fast, and sound nice. The library is impressive, though not as big as the Ensonique or the Akai ones, but it is cheap. Furthermore its ease of use pushes you to go and sample your own stuff, rather than use what other people have sampled for you. Drawbacks: lack of hard-disk (though S-550 can), sampling time a bit short for serious music making (like using it for backing vocals arrangements and long sampling), and the 30Khz and 12bit resolution is low compared to the crystal-clear fidelity of the Akai S-1000 which works at 48Khz and full 16-bit. For all of the stuff I sample this only become apparent when I am sampling off CDs or real Snare and Cymbals, or if you do an A-B comparison of the machines. If you want to use more sounds in one go the S-550 has twice the memory of the S-330 (4-banks) and loads 2 disks worth of sounds. Still 16-polyphony though. Wait for the S-770 16bit, 48Khz if you are after more beef ! Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 19:25:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: MOXC I have had a number of requests about MOXC. I described it at length in an earlier posting by here is the address again: Center for Art and Technology Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA (412) 268-3454 MOXC is a set of functions for programming interactive performance environments on the MAC. It is programmed in Think C. I have used it extensively with Think 3.0. The current version of Think C is 4.0 and will cost you about $150. MOXC is public domain and CMU charges only $20 for the disk (including source code) and a manual. Gary Nelson Oberlin College ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 11:19:41 EST From: DAMIAN@UMASS.BITNET Subject: live drummer records I don't know if anyone will know anything about this, but I have been looking for a record/cd/tape of a live drummer, just playing by himself...sort like a drumming practise album. Anybody heard of such a beast? Thanks in advance, Damian damian@mars.ucc.umass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 12:55:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: live drummer records Damian: There was a whole series of albums of this sort of thing in various styles, called "DrumDrops." Where you'd find a copy now (they were sold in music stroes originally), I don't know. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 15:27:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: RE: Solo drum records Pulse by Ronnald Shannon Jackson ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 21:05:44 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Live Drummer >I don't know if anyone will know anything about this, >but I have been looking for a record/cd/tape of a live >drummer, just playing by himself...sort like a drumming >practise album. Anybody heard of such a beast? Damian, One that immediately comes to mind is Dave Weckl's Contemporary Drummer Plus one package which is more of a tuition set (with scores included) and include both his accompanied playing and just the backing only, makes excellent practice material. Bill Bruford has recorded several WICKED albums based on his percussion playing and drumming with Orchestras and bands, 'Master Strokes' is THE ALBUM TO HAVE which include an amazing solo called 'The Drum also Waltzes' ! Simon Philips has recorded one called 'Protocol' which he playes Keyboards and Electronic tuned percussion on, it's very much a Drummers' record. I recently added Kazumi Watanabe, a Japanese guitarist's albums to my collection, called 'The Spice of Life' and has some SHIT-HOT playing by Bill Bruford and Jeff Berlin (Bass) on it. Odd timings all over the place ! Personally I prefer Videos when I want to study a drummer. Steve Smith's Parts I & II, Dave Weckl and Steve Gadd are the essentials. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 09:30:37 EST From: Doug Cutler Subject: Re: live drummer records What about the "Shefield Drum Record" ? I don't know if it is still around or if it was ever offered on a CD but it was considered a "Hi Fi Test Record" for quite a while a few years ago. Doug. Cutler Academic Computing Services, Systems Programmer University of North Carolina. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 14:59:42 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Sheffield Drum Record > What about the "Shefield Drum Record" ? I don't know if it is still >around or if it was ever offered on a CD but it was considered a "Hi Fi >Test Record" for quite a while a few years ago. 'Sheffield drum record' is indeed available on CD and is combined with the 'Sheffield track record' , worth about 32 minutes of playing time. A very rare recording indeed ... guarantee to shake the stuff out of your almost perfect speaker/amp system. If you can get one hold on to it for your life's worth ! I managed to borrow one and sampled all the drums :-> Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 19:30:32 MST From: schabtac@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Subject: electronic drums circa 1984 Anybody out there know what sort of electronic drums I'm likely to be hearing on a technopop record dated 1984 ("Love Life" by Berlin, to be specific)? There are some really nice, meaty toms here and there (check out the tracks "Dancing In Berlin" or "Now It's My Turn" if you happen to have the album) that don't sound like any drum machine I've heard. My guess is that they're old Simmons, but I don't really know. I'd like to find out so as to pursue the beasts, sampler in hand... --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 23:18:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: electronic drums circa 1984 There wasn't a lot to choose from in '84. Simmons were the hip instruments to own then, so SDSv or SDS7s are my guess. Failing that, there are also the Cano Modulus drums and the Tama Techstars, both INCREDIBLY hip analog drum synths. If you ever see an old Tama techstar unit offering two pads and a rackmount brain with "CLAPS" and "SYNTH", buy it. Buy buy BUY! Ditto for the Cano Gravitom. They're both very easy to use, powerful analog synths for pitched and unpitched percussion sounds, with LFOs, ring mod, oh drool, oh yum.... And for those of you with less cash, the Roland PC2 has many of the same feature at a very low usedx price. I got mine for about $20, and it's worth a lot mor e tme than that.... metlay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 15:47:32 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Drums matters .... >> I managed to borrow one and sampled all the drums :-> > >What kind of sampler do you have? I just got a Roland S-330 and think >it is great? What do these drums sound like? > >David I have the S-330. It is impressive. When I first bought it I did a fully arranged cover version of the Olympic tune 'Hand in hand' on it ... using the Techno Set disk with Drums, SynBass, Choir, Bells, Lead Guitar, etc ... it never ran out of polyphony ! I dumped my MT-32 straight away. (Jeff Beer is probably going to tell me sampled sounds are flat --- but how much would I have to spend to get so many sounds from individual synths ?) The drums off the Sheffied drum record are of course ** REAL **, but they won't blow your top off because they are also DRY, no reverb, no exciters, nothing. When used in your home recording they don't stand out like the Korg M1 or the Roland R8 sounds. But they are genuine (the bottom tom rings for 2 secs). I play them with my Simmons kit to replace a real kit in live gigs cuz' I really cannot keep a real kit in college. >Anybody out there know what sort of electronic drums I'm likely to be hearing >on a technopop record dated 1984 ("Love Life" by Berlin, to be specific)? >There are some really nice, meaty toms here and there (check out the tracks >"Dancing In Berlin" or "Now It's My Turn" if you happen to have the album) >that don't sound like any drum machine I've heard. My guess is that they're >old Simmons, but I don't really know. I'd like to find out so as to pursue >the beasts, sampler in hand... >--Adam I have owned the Simmons SDS-V (Analog) and SDS-5 (hybrid) kits and I keep all the Simmons sound on S-330 format, if you have the S-330 I can distribute these sounds around. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 12:17:07 EST From: Andy Silverman Subject: Re: Drums matters .... Has anyone actually tried using an R-5 with pads as a live substitute for real drums in a gig? That's what I'm using and I'm interested in other people's experiences. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 12:54:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: RE: Sheffield Drum Record > 'Sheffield drum record' is indeed available on CD and is > combined with the 'Sheffield track record' , worth about > 32 minutes of playing time. > > A very rare recording indeed ... guarantee to shake the > stuff out of your almost perfect speaker/amp system. If > you can get one hold on to it for your life's worth ! > > I managed to borrow one and sampled all the drums :-> > > Patrick. Where can I pick up such a CD? Sounds intriguing for sampling purposes, since I'm using my S950 almost exclusively for percussion. Are there any other CD drum sources suitable for sampling out there that anyone knows of? (I've ordered a board that will allow me to sample direct from CD.) I've heard of the McGill University set, but it's a lot of dollars. BTW, did anybody happen to catch the articles in the AFM rag flaming McGill for producing their CD sample source set. They claimed this would cost scores of musicians' jobs, and they all but black-listed the musicians who "performed" for the sampling process. I don't know how you others feel, but I was rather amused by how intimidated they are by technology ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 16:04:04 EST From: Jeffrey R Kell Subject: RE: Sheffield Drum Record On Wed, 21 Feb 90 12:54:00 EST b.klassen said: >BTW did anybody happen to catch the articles in the AFM rag flaming McGill for >producing their CD sample source set. They claimed this would cost scores of >musicians' jobs, and they all but black-listed the musicians who "performed" >for the sampling process. I don't know how you others feel, but I was rather >amused by how intimidated they are by technology ... Our local union (when I was in it :-) ) frowned on just plain synthesizers (and we're talking 1970s era mono-synth days). Likewise they hated string machines, mellotrons, drum machines, etc. A solo guitarist/singer (lounge act style) could use a drum machine -- but had to charge the client as if the drum machine were another musician -- and had to pay it's work dues! /Jeff/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 13:26:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: MKS-20 Piano Module vs RD series ... I've recently gained access to a Usenet feed and have been tuning into rec.music.synth, but I have been unable to reply to the group ... so, I thought I'd ask my question on this side of the fence: Does anyone know if the sound-generating circuitry in the Roland MKS-20 module is the same as that of their RD series? I use an RD200 on stage and can't imagine being without it, except that as a controller it is lacking. I'd like to replace the 200 with a decent controller and a module that would give me those utilitarian electric grand and Rhodes sounds ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 17:41:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: MKS-20 Piano Module vs RD series ... Brian: Yes, the MKS-20 is an RD-250 in a rack. Either that, or an RD-1000; I don't remember how sophisticated its EQ and memories are. Speaking personally, I love the RD sound. It may not sound "real" in all respects, but I think it's a much smoother instrument in terms of tsa tactile response than most multisampled instruments. One of these days, I'll get a used MKS-20 or P-330 to MIDI to the piano patch on my Xpanders.... metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 09:35:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: Re: MKS-20 Piano Module vs RD series ... >Brian: > >Yes, the MKS-20 is an RD-250 in a rack. Either that, or an RD-1000; I >don't remember how sophisticated its EQ and memories are. > >Speaking personally, I love the RD sound. It may not sound "real" in >all respects, but I think it's a much smoother instrument in terms of tsa >tactile response than most multisampled instruments. One of these days, >I'll get a used MKS-20 or P-330 to MIDI to the piano patch on my Xpanders.... > >metlay I'm in love with the sound for that very reason ... the response. I've played every "piano" I could lay my hands on (save the Kuzweil rack-mount stuff ... I have played a home-version of the Kurzweil and was not impressed) and nothing feels quite like the RD. The sounds, most of them, are very usable. Pianos One and Two sound like banjos in the middle, but Piano Three is right on, except in the very high ranges. The Clav really kicks, and the touch is near perfect. The harpsichord sounds good, though I never use it. Vibes are great. Epiano 1 is my favourite, the only epiano sound that could come close to replacing my two-tons of Rhodes. All in all, a good unit. If I find a used MKS-20 I'll buy it on principle. I've got tens of piano samples for my S950, but I've found that each sample only has one range in which it is usable. So I use it sparsely, when I only want a piano bass line, or a simple comp part. To sit and play as if I was sitting at a piano makes my teeth hurt. Perhaps if I had some editing software to mess about with the samples I could come up with something more usable. (Just need more money, really ...) ... but a piano that starts looping like a car starting on a cold morning does not turn my crank -- enough on that ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 15:32:21 EST From: Tony D'Amato Subject: Yamaha SY77 I don't want to start a flame war (gosh, why not? ;-) ), but has anyone heard anything about the new SY77 they just released? I'm going to a place here in Virginia Beach (KBD Systems) that is going to demo the beast. Enjoy! |========================================================================| | 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: Tue, 20 Feb 90 09:46:45 EST From: Alexander Rubli Subject: Midi Music Forwarded from EMUSIC-D... >I am looking for MIDI music in any of the FTP nodes. Can anybody help me with >that, I found just one in summex. > I would like to exchange midi-music for the Mac (any format), basically >rock and classical. somebody Interested? > >Thanks in advance. > > >Alex (RUBLI@UDLAPVMS) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 16:28:40 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: MIDIFILE songs >Another idea just popped up... I have some PD sequences that only have >one track and need to be filled out; percussion, accompaniment... >Maybe someone can beef them up, improve on them and resubmit them to >the library. >What do you say folks? Interested? >Willis Dair >Santa Clara University Ok try sending it to me ... I like arranging. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 13:25:59 EST From: RRH101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Subject: Compress and Tar Could someone please tell me where I can get MSDOS versions of Compress and Tar. I would like to download some of the midi software at the UCSD.EDU FTP site, but many have the .tar.Z endings. I have tried simtel20, but I can never get connected to it (too many anonymous users). I really need to get a copy of these archive utilities. Information about .shar files and the unarchiving utility used would also be appreciated. Thanks. Randy Hammond RRH101@PSUVM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 23:04:17 EST From: Yary Richard Phillip Hluchan Subject: Various forms of synthesis Here are the methods of electric synthesis I've heard of: additive/subtractive FM sampling granular LPC ("vector synthesis" doesn't seem to be a form of synthesis, just a neeto way of fading sounds.) I understand the principles behind each of these, except for granular & LPC. I'd like someone to explain the processing involved, and point out any methods I missed. thank you-- heh heh yary ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************