EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 13, Number 4 Today's Topics: Onboard effects (2 messages) Waldorf MicroWave and Ensoniq VFX(3 messages) Various forms of synthesis (3 messages) Waiting vs. not waiting (2 messages) 1-bit sampling?? Oberheim: Matrix-1000, Matrix-12, Xk, rumors (16 messages) Downloading after ftp (2 messages) SY77 and "the new FM" (10 messages) Drum samples (2 messages) Sampling (2 messages) Rogue catalog? Educational opportunities Mac-to-MIDI connections (2 messages) Cheetah MS6 Atari sys-ex software? ZOOM effects (2 messages) MIDI Interference Kawai K5? Mirage (2 messages) Everything... Log search and results (2 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 00:11:57 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Onboard effects (was Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me?) M^2 writes: >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. Actually, Mike, my initial vague reference to a negative attitude about on-board effects was half-joking. Like you say, if implemented well, they are a pretty good idea (also IF THEY CAN BE BYPASSED!). I am just one of those purists who wants a bunch of modular boxes. If I want a signal processor, I'll get a signal processor. But, alas, even I know when there's too many patchcords and too much hassle. My whiny complaint is that onboard effects and sequencers seem to be driving up the price and littering studios with W**********s. I think the DPM 3 is too expensive, but probably not soley because of the effects. It would have been acceptable if Peavey was taking the high-falutin attitude that no rack mounts should be produced. The DPM 3 would have been a great tone module. If it had been as cheap as K4, I might have one already. But, this list has been through this before... Please, no tomatoes... - Kurt P.S. I agree with whoever that was commenting about the Peavey ads. I think someone should be castrated for those... I thought we had finally gotten over those type of synth ads in the 70s! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 20:33:13 PST From: 300-331J Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? Er...why are some EFX boxes noiser than others? Is it: a) bits per sample b) samples per second c) Something other than a DSP56000 d) crummy analog OR e) Something else -Dave Hayes "Only Sweet Voiced birds are Imprisoned" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 10:04:07 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? > 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. Ok, lemme try and clarify that. The Waldorf has, as far as I can tell from spending a little time with it, a nice voice architecture; the filtering is nice, the wavetables are nice and smooth, and it has the warmth of an analogue synth with the animation of a wavetable machine. I played about with some rather wild modulation settings, and the sound never deteriorated into anything unmusical; the machine responded very nicely to the weird settings I put into it. Sounds like I'm describing a plane or something; that'll teach me to read A Gift of Wings over breakfast... The Waldorf is crippled by its factory presets. They are a complete turn-off. A $500 Juno will blow it away in terms of preset strings, brass, bass. As as result, I am a little unsure of how far the Waldorf can be stretched; can it do that wonderful formant-swept vocal sound? I dunno. The fact that it claims to be a PPG incarnate has a lot to do with its appeal, and that seems to be what's selling it in the US; but that's largely a marketing claim (even though the Waldorf shares the same wavetables and similar architecture), so it maybe something to be wary of. Regarding the VFX: very impressive voice and *performance* architecture. I like the fact that the filters, even though not resonant, can be switched to combinations of high- and low-pass, and that each "partial" (in D-50 parlance) has dedicated filter and LFO settings. But, I find that Ensoniq stuff sounds boring. I've no idea why. The ESQ-1 sounded boring. The VFX sounds boring. Even the VFX wavetable sweep sounds sound boring. It's as if every other instrument I own can paint in a selection of colours, whereas the VFX has an incredibly flexible and programmable command of all the shades of grey. I'll be spending some more time with the Waldorf and a VFX over the next week or two. Meanwhile, I'm in a quandary. My heart says go for the Waldorf, because it has the potential (as far as I can tell) of sounding gorgeous. My head says try and get some more money scraped up and go for the VFX/SD. We need some kind of performance sequencing set-up fairly soon, and the VFX/SD would seem to deliver, as well as providing another keyboard and some more effects. Also, my colleague has a plain VFX already. (important question: can you address 16 external MIDI channels *as well as* the internal programs of the VFX?) Perhaps I should ignore the fact that the VFX sounds boring to me; what's important is the music, and how we capture our ideas in a live performance, in which case I might be able to justify a VFX/SD more than a Waldorf, even if the latter sounds better. What are the US prices of the VFX and /SD? (I need both so I can scale up the plain VFX price to Europe levels and work out the local /SD price.) I don't know if there are any decent dedicated MIDI sequencers (> 16 channels) available for the SD/Waldorf price difference. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 10:53:05 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? 22 Feb 90 16:09:08 -0500 <9002222109.AA15807@css.itd.nrl.navy.mil Brian, do you mind if I answer your comments about the VFX on EMUSIC-L? I'd like to get some more feedback from others on this machine, if possible. Firstly: the voice architecture of the VFX is very impressive. For example, you could set up a patch with several "partials" (in D-50 parlance) sweeping through various wavetables, and then use poly/aftertouch to flange individual notes. My only minor concern is in the character of the filters, since they're digital and don't have resonance. The filtering on the M1 is, well how can I say it, naff, though the D-50 filtering is not bad at all when you bring the effects into the audio chain. I don't know about the VFX's filters. The VFX has programmable/modulatable (?) independent low *and* high-pass filtering, which sounds pretty interesting. I wouldn't worry about the lack of waveforms that much, since the synthesis/modulation facilities should make up for it. I'd rather have a fixed set of waves and a well thought-out synthesis/modulation architecture than an open set of waveforms and boring architecture, a la M1. Also: what good is the ability to read ROM-cards or whatever if you only have a whispered promise that they'll be provided. How many people out there have additional reverb programs for their D-50? Yes, it can! No, there aren't. I believe the Proteus has velocity-linked filtering, but no modulation either by envelope or LFO etc. So, for every note you play, the filter setting is fixed for the lifetime of that note. My musical colleague has a VFX, and he reckons that the machine has a lot of potential character based on the sophisticated voice architecture. He might well be right, so I'm going to spend some time with his machine this week and try and put together some PPG-like formant patches to see what it can do. I don't think the VFX exudes character from its audio jacks like the Waldorf does, but it might well be capable of it once you get your fingers dirty. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 14:03:49 MST From: schabtac@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Subject: Re: Is this a Waldorf I see before me? Nick (and others): Here's a few things I learned about the VFX recently that may be of interest if you're considering adding one to your arsenal: 1) MAKE SURE you get one with ROM version 2.0 or newer (I think 2.0 is the newest as of this writing). This is particularly true if you buy the VFX rather than the SD. The first few ROM versions were buggy (kinda like a swamp in the Amazon jungle is buggy -- that buggy). 2) There are several generations of keyboards (the blacks & whites them- selves) on the Ensoniq keyboard. You probably want the newest, since most people seem to think it "feels best". I can't vouch much for this, not being much of a keyboardist (I'm a lot better with the QWERTY variety), but my girlfriend, a pianist, really hates my old EPS keyboard. 3) I have a friend with an SD, who has recently started getting his hands dirty with programming. He's very impressed; his opinion is worth- while since he grew up with ARPs and patchcords and things. I can't say much about this myself; unfortunately I haven't been able to come up with the $$$ for one, and this friend lives about 2000 miles away. 4) If you haven't done so yet, you really must hear the preset called STARJAMHOLD. Make sure the PA can handle frequencies down around a few hertz, and let it rip. It usually even gets the attention of the wannabe heavy metal guitarists in other parts of the store :-). Hope you find this informative. --Adam P.S. what the devil does "naff" mean? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 00:44:28 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Various forms of synthesis >("vector synthesis" doesn't seem to be a form of synthesis, just a >neeto way of fading sounds.) Well, at one time, the methods used in "wavetable"/vector synthesis were quite distinct from sampling. However, it seems that such divisions are breaking down. Everything's got "PCM samples" for source waves for whatever type of synthesis they do. SY-77, D-70, K4, DPM, etc.: all include samples as "wave sources". Just look at the reviews: no one knows what to call anything anymore. EM called the K4 a "wavetable synth". I think Keyboard called it a "sample playback synth." Yet EM calls the DPM a "Composition Center" (arrghh! Sounds like the W word to me!) I think with this software-oriented direction, synths will have even vaguer labels in the future. A table used to be just that- a fixed list of digital wave descriptions of fixed length. I tend to think of a wavetable synthesizer as one that uses digital wave descriptions, be they single cycles or full PCM samples, and allows you to mix and match such waveforms and manipulate them in a manner similar to a classic subtractive/modulation synthesis. I consider this a seperate approach to synthesis. Under this description, the K4 really is a wavetable synthesizer (it even has ring modulation!) So is the VS... (Vector Synthesis was a catchy name for SCI's particular brand of wave mixing.) Oh well, enough rambling, - Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 08:06:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: Re: Various forms of synthesis The reason for the variety in terminology is usually marketing and often simply a lack of systematic thinking. It is also part of the aversion to mathematical and scientific thinking. The worst one I ever saw was in one of the early Yamaha manuals for the DX7. The referred to frequency modulation as "tickling and operator." Inventing new terms for old concepts is just confusing and makes an already difficult task harder. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 13:49:33 GMT From: White Rabbit Subject: re : various forms of synthesis vis - a - vis > From: Yary Richard Phillip Hluchan > Subject: Various forms of synthesis >Here are the methods of electric synthesis I've heard of: > >additive/subtractive I would say that additive and subtractive synthesis are two rather differnt methods, but if you understand them then you already know this... >FM >sampling >granular >LPC >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. Granular and LPC are two i know little about, apart from the fact that granular synthesis appears to involve 'sequencing' parts of the waveform over time... LPC seems to be of a similar principle to vocoding where bands of frequencies' amplitudes in the input signal are modulated according to the equivalent in the 'control' signal, thus giving, say a synth voice the formant movements of a human voice... if this isnt LPC, it IS analogue vocoding... Others : Karplus-Strong where the output is effectively an interpolation between two waveforms, but is also 'fed back' to replace one of them... the harmonics thus die off as they would in a plucked instrument. Waveshaping : Where a sine (or any other wave) is used as the indice to another waveform... altering the amplitude of the sine wave causes the change in timbre. Wavetables : like samples, in a way, except that the table consists of a series of waveforms, and the actual waveform read out from is what is modulated... Transitions may be interpolated or 'raw'... see the discussion about the Waldorf on this list for more info... VOSIM : Cosine waves are read from a table with three parameters altering the timbre... they are (I believe... )damping of the wave over time, frequency, and distance apart (? been a while, cannae remember, but it sounds about right). Good for vocal sounds. 3D Waveshaping : As Waveshaping, but using two indices, and a 'cube' waveform table. Ive also got one of me own... but that's staying secret until (a) I can check if it works and is predictable and (b) I can sell it to Yamaha, a la Chowning, and make my fortune... well enough to get me a box of 56000's and a couple of Gb of Hard-Disk... hehehe. I asked about books on this list not so long ago - so if youve seen the replies I got you should be able to look in them for more info... Ive got to find them in the UK first, though. ******************************************************************************* White Rabbit : found in these burrows * * JANET : sxa@uk.ac.dl.cxa * Internet : sxa%cxa.dl.ac.uk * ...and the dormouse said EARN/Bitnet: sxa%cxa.dl.ac.uk@UKACRL * UUCP : sxa%cxa.dl.ac.uk@ukc.uucp * feed your head. Ean : sxa%cxa.dl.ac.uk@ean-relay.ac.uk * ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 10:42:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: New synths, specifically the D-70 ... Question for Nick: since you seem to be on the verge of a new synth purchase, have you considered waiting to hear the D-70? My dealer said they were shipping here in March, which isn't too long to wait. Or does the D-50 give you enough of *that* kind of sound ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 10:38:15 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: New synths, specifically the D-70 ... 22 Feb 90 10:42:00 EST <6986.9002221745@lfcs.ed.ac.uk Tiddly-pom, away for three days and I come back to 90-odd new mail messages, most of them from EMUSIC-L, I don't doubt. Just let me get a cuppa tea... ...right, now where are we... >Question for Nick: since you seem to be on the verge of a new synth purchase, >have you considered waiting to hear the D-70? For a millisecond or two. >My dealer said they were >shipping here in March, which isn't too long to wait. But there's *always* a new synth round the corner, be it the D-70 in March, the Korg WS machine in the summer, the new Ensoniq VPS/SSX combined sample/synth workstation/hard disk system in the Autumn, the new Kawai 88-key 64-voice additive synthesis/analogue filtered keyboard early in 1991, the $3000 Synclavier playback module in 1992, the ... We could all grow quite old waiting for the Machine Around the Corner. Here's a thought: as long as the machine can do what you want, it doesn't matter whether there's a new one round the corner (which there always is), *and* it doesn't matter whether you really love the sound, or just like it; I might be leaning away from the Waldorf and towards the VFX or (if I can afford the cor-blimey-guv-you-must-be-kidding-right European price) VFX/SD, which have oodles of programming versatility, not 'alf, and are a lot more suitable for what we need for live work. Even if the Waldorf does sound sweeter to my ears, what's important is the music and the hardware requirements to deliver it live. Comments? >Or does the D-50 give you enough of *that* kind of sound ... Well, I do have 4 Roland synths already, which is probably enough for now. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 09:44:20 EST From: "5268 Spires, Shannon V." Subject: 1-Bit Samples A post from EMUSIC-D... Gan Seum-Lim inquired recently: >Yesterday a friend showed me a computer detective game "Mean Street", it is >run on a IBM PC compatible and it is able to drive the build in speaker >to produce high quality music (infact, any sound) just like the Macintosh. >Does anyone know how this is done ? I am very curious about this ! The question essentially is how to get reasonable sounds out of a 1-bit D/A converter. There are several names for how this is done, but they all essentially boil down to pulse-width modulation. Given a continuous, complex waveform, if you use it to pulse-width modulate a high-frequency (beyond 20khz) squarewave oscillator, the output would have narrow up-going spikes where the input wave was low in amplitude, and narrow down-going spikes where the input was high in amplitude. If you then lowpass filtered the output, it would closely resemble the input. This is what's happening on the IBM PC programs that make music with the builtin speaker. Except the lowpass filtering part is done by your ear. If they don't make the basic squarewave frequency high enough, you'll hear a lot of high-frequency "hash" along with the music, but it will still be okay for game use. It's funny you should ask this question because it turns out that this may be the A/D conversion technique we'll all be using in the future. There are companies that are now building 1-bit A/D converters that work this way. They sample audio at a very high frequency (a few hundred KHz) and get 1-bit per sample, then digitally filter the samples into 50Khz 16-bit samples. Cost of the hardware is supposedly cheaper, and the S/N ratio is much better than standard 16-bit A/D's. I think Crystal Semiconductor is one of the companies doing this. They call it "Delta- Sigma" modulation. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 09:41:00 EST From: Mario Vergona Subject: Matrix-1000 Hi there, I am considering buying a Matrix-1000 module since I have access to a number of sounds for it, a software editing program for it and the price is dropping all the time. Yes, I know it is only 6-voices and yes I know it is only bi-timberal. What I am interested in is comments from anyone who owns one as to their feelings on how the unit sounds. Does it have really great organ/piano/string sounds, etc. m ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 10:39:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: RE: Matrix-1000 >From: Mario Vergona > I am considering buying a Matrix-1000 module since I have access >to a number of sounds for it, a software editing program for it and the >price is dropping all the time. Yes, I know it is only 6-voices and yes >I know it is only bi-timberal. What I am interested in is comments from >anyone who owns one as to their feelings on how the unit sounds. Does >it have really great organ/piano/string sounds, etc. > m I'm considering the same purchase ... I once owned a Matrix-6R, which is the same archtechture - I was very pleased with the sound, although the particular unit I had had some problem staying in tune. The factory patches included some good strings, but no usable organs or piano-type sounds -- with some tweaking, however, good results can be obtained. While Oberheim is being discussed, is the Matrix-12 bi-timbral? Is the architecture similar to the Xpander? I was listening to some old tapes last night (my Matrix-6 era) and my mouth is watering again for that sound. If I don't go for the quick fix (Matrix-1000) I may look for something more substantial. (My wife wants me to buy a Prophet-5 because she likes the case!) brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 11:21:13 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Matrix-1000 >While Oberheim is being discussed, is the Matrix-12 bi-timbral? Is the >architecture similar to the Xpander? Is the Matrix-12 bi-timbral!?? I don't know why I'm even bothering to post, no doubt Xpander Man is already suiting up to put the networld to right... :-) So, I'll just point out a couple of things I think might go unrealized. In addition to having the Xpander architecture with twice the number of voices, (BTW, it is "sextimbral" in poly mode, or "twelve-timbral" in mono mode) I have found the Matrix-12 to be a remarkable master keyboard controller which pretty much goes unmatched even with some of the higher end master controllers and keyboard synths. Basically, there are six "zones" which you can do anything one. As a for instance, I've seen people complain about not being able to turn off local voices. The Matrix-12 could have something like this easily: A three way split with one keyboard zone playing a doubled local patch, a second zone playing an external synth with no local voices, a third zone playing another set of local voices, plus remaining voices controlled from an external MIDI source. Plus, it has that Oberheim keyboard feel which I really like- not spongy or weighted. Plus it has release velocity, and many velocity curves: the "send" velocity curve can be differant than the "receive" velocity curve!!! Anyway, there's my 2 cents on the Matrix-12. Now hold on to your hats while Xpander Man gives the Xpander architecture ONE MORE TIME!!! - Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 11:17:15 CST From: Jayson Tipp Subject: RE: Matrix-1000 Not about the Matrix-1000 actually. Since it's been discussed so much recently, I thought I ought to pass on that a VS was advertised in the San Francisco Chronicle classifieds last Sunday for sale (Feb. 18). Sorry I don't recall the price, but I may still have the paper. Shall I supply the info?? -Buzz... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 12:34:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Matrix-1000 The Xpander and Matrix 12 are 6 and 12-way polytimbral with fixed voice allocation. And in terms of sound, they eat the lower-cost Oberheims, and everyother analog synth on the market, for lunch. (Biased? Me? Nah.) metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 15:39:15 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Matrix-1000 22 Feb 90 09:41:00 EST <5387.9002221531@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > I am considering buying a Matrix-1000 module since I have access >to a number of sounds for it, a software editing program for it and the >price is dropping all the time. Yes, I know it is only 6-voices and yes >I know it is only bi-timberal. The Matrix-1000 is monotimbral. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 13:05:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) Brian: If Oberheim is still alive, it's still in production. It's their flagship and it's handmade and handtested., just like the Xpander. New, they list for (hold you onto your hat!) $8000, but you can find used ones in in the $3000 range. They're entirely American built, but they don't have all of the Xk's features, like spillover or an arpeggiator or MIDI transpose. Why don't I own one? Several reasons: first of all, the software for the 12 was in flux when ECC bought Oberheim, and the last debugged version (availabel only in beta test) still had some glitches. Second, cost. Third, I'm a modularist at heart: I own two Xpanders and an Xk, and I can fix or replace any of them without losing the whole shebang. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 14:30:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: Re: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) >If Oberheim is still alive, it's still in production. It's their flagship >and it's handmade and handtested., just like the Xpander. New, they list >for (hold you onto your hat!) $8000, but you can find used ones in in the >$3000 range. They're entirely American built, but they don't have all of the >Xk's features, like spillover or an arpeggiator or MIDI transpose. Ouch! My sights are set way too high on that one. That's too many mortgage payments ... maybe the used Xpander is more like it. A buddy of mine used to handle the Oberheim gear and he had one in his store for awhile. The sound is a dream, and at that time I never dreamed of owning one. But ... >Why don't I own one? Several reasons: first of all, the software for the >12 was in flux when ECC bought Oberheim, and the last debugged version >(availabel only in beta test) still had some glitches. Second, cost. >Third, I'm a modularist at heart: I own two Xpanders and an Xk, and I >can fix or replace any of them without losing the whole shebang. Good point on redundancy. Just out of curiosity, ever lost anything during a gig? Touch the wood on the sides of my Xk (that is wood, isn't it?) I haven't had anything worse than a stuck note or two ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 09:47:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) The big question: is the Matrix-12 still in production and what's it going for? I'm also wondering if it's an American unit or a Japanese one (ie: could this thing replace my Xk as well as sound good?). And why doesn't Metlay have one? brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 15:20:46 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) Yes, a handful of Matrix-12's were supposedly still being made at least up until Oberheim started to change hands again (we still don't know the end of THAT story.) The "new" official retail prices was $7999, which is steep even for a Matrix-12. That rise in retail price drove up the typical used prices significantly, but since the latest Oberheim trouble I think they've dropped down a bit. Rogue just listed one for $2999 in their latest mailer. - 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: Fri, 23 Feb 90 16:40:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) My Xk has quit nine times on me, always during recording sessions or rehearsals wiuth full bands in the studio with the tape rolling. I hate it. |-< metlay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 17:10:07 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) Say did you get my message as of last night?? Are you really going to be home this weekend? - Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 14:54:41 CST From: Galanter Galanter Subject: Re: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) I also have a Matrix-12. The modulation routing list is _quite_ useful I think. The only bugs I have found involve bogus midi volume and patch change messages being sent when going between single and multi-mode and a few other front panel operations. Having a Mattrix-12 rather than 2 Xpanders takes up less space. At the time I bought mine I was going to get an Xpander for about $1995, a good price at the time, and was offered a M12 for only $1K more...so I figured that was an even better deal with double the fire power and a midi keyboard thrown in. Phil || Philip Galanter, Manager \\ 627 Dartmouth Place // AppleLink: A42 \\ || Advanced Technology Group \\ Evanston IL 60208 // Compuserve: 76474,154 \\ || Northwestern Univ. - ACNS \\ (708)-491-4050 // galanter@acns.nwu.edu \\ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 08:55:25 EST From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Matrix-12 (was Matrix-1000) Oh, and how could you forget, M^2: the Xpander has CV/Gate interface on each voice. These are not on the Matrix-12. The Matrix-12 has two Xpander main circuitboards in it and they still have the CV/Gate stubs on them, but I haven't dared try pump anything down them. I believe that the M-12 had the software to support CV removed from its ROMs because they ran out of memory. In addition to the on-board keyboard features, other differences include slightly expanded multi-patches (of course, to cover the 6 extra voices), detune/voice in a multi-patch, and a modulation routing "summary list" in single patches: you can scan through a list of all modulation routings and edit their amounts. (Otherwise, you have to find where every parameter is modulated- not THAT much more of a hassle if you know you're way around and they're marked with a dot) Also, a XUG member who hacked out the sysex spec (Oberheim won't give you one!) has found the sysex implementations to be slightly different, especially in the multipatch formats. In addition, reading Xpander data cassettes hasn't been 100% cool for me... I don't have the "newest" ROMs, but some people claim they have a bug in them which cause the entire M-12 to lock up at random times. Mine has no such problem, nor does it have any other software problem that I've been able to find. - 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: Sat, 24 Feb 90 11:28:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: Oberheim rumours ... I was talking to my friendly neighbourhood Oberheim dealer last evening and he said Oberheim had been bought by Gibson. Any truth to this? I got my hands on the UK edition of Music Technology ... quite interesting to see all the ads for the London shops. There were quite a few ads for Cheetah products. Has anyone heard the MS6 analog synth they offer? It reads like it would be a great addition to my setup ... multitimbral analog 6-voice, 2 DCO's per voice, etc. brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 11:37:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Oberheim rumours ... Oberheim HAS been bought by Gibson. This from a reliable source. I have been trying to pin down what they were going to do with the company for a while now, and have heard two possible outcomes from two somewhat reliable sources.... (a) Gibson thinks Peavey's approach to synths was bogus: bad PR, a name keyboardists don't trust, etc. They've acquired Oberheim and are giving it a much-needed facelift and injection of capital in the hopes of starting a new division with the power of the Oberheim name to sell good gear. (b) Gibson's going to kill Oberheim and claim a tax writeoff. Pick one. My source says that as of the NAMM show last month, Gibson had not yet decided what precisely to do with Obie.... they had, however, decided to keep the Xpander and Matrix12 as flagships, and ditch the Perf/X line and the Matrix1000, which had been wrecked on the market by the Sam Ash $299 blowout. So if the company survives, it will have two proven synths on its roster and a healthy dose of development capital, to fix the mess ECC made. (Tome Oberheim is currently suing the lawyer who advised that he sell Oberheim to ECC.) New R&D plans aren't even at the rumor stage. DISCLAIMER: The acquisition of Obie by Gibson is a fact. Everything else is a RUMOR, and should be treated with extreme caution, especially the stuff about which parts of the product line would continue to be manufactured. Your friendly purveyor of juicy Oberheim gossip, metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 09:47:10 EST From: Alexander Rubli Subject: ftp ucsd download A question from the Digest Zone... >I was trying to download the music scores in the ucsd.edu ftp file server. >under midi/scores/dmcs > >does anybody knows in wich format they are posted ? > >I tried with binhex and stuffit but with no results . . . > >alex > >RUBLI@UDLAPVMS ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 09:40:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: more on ftp Here are my instructions for moving files from your mainframe to you macintosh after you "get" them from an ftp site. ======================= The following describes the method I use to download Macintosh files and applications from ftp sites. If you don't know how to use ftp, first check with the use service people at your friendly local mainframe to see if they support ftp. If they do, they should have instructions for you. If you need more help after reading the instructions, I can send you a transcript of a typi cal ftp session that includes logging in to the remote site and roaming the public directories. When you find a file on that you would like to copy from an ftp site, type: *get fn Replace fn with the name of the file you want. ftp will copy the file into your file space on the mainframe. Get as many files as you want this way then: *quit to exit from ftp. On the mainframe, type whatever you need to get kermit running. On the vax at Oberlin a kermit send looks like this: $ kermit VMS Kermit-32 version 3.2.077 Default terminal for transfers is: _TXE0: Kermit-32>send fn Then set your terminal program (I use Red Ryder 9.4) to receive a kermit file. You will be asked to give the name of the mac file that is to hold the data from the mainframe. When the transfer is complete, the mac will tell you and the mac file will be closed. Do this for each file you want to copy from mainframe to mac. Log off the mainframe and quit your terminal program on the mac. For the next steps you will need three mac programs: binhex 4.0, stuffit 1.5, and packit 1.2. If the mainframe file name had the suffix .hqx, use binhex to convert the file. The .hqx files are in a hexidecimal code that is designed for easy transfer over the net but they must be changed to MacBinary format. If there is no .hqx suffix, try to read the file as text. If you see a line like: "(This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0)" near the top of the file followed by many lines of strange looking stuff, you have a candidate for binhex decoding. If you see something else or get garbage, you have reached the end of my present knowledge. Double click binhex and select "upload -> application" from the file menu. The usual file name dialog follows where you select the (hex) input file and name the (bin) output file. Before leaving binhex, convert all of the files that you copied from the mainframe. The binhex output files will be in .pit (for packit) or .sit (for stuffit) format. Double click on the .pit or .sit file and the proper application will open. In packit, you simply select a .pit file name and hit the "save all" button. In stuffit, select "Open Archive" from the file menu and select a .sit file in the usual dialog box. A window appears showing the contents of the .sit file. Double click on a file name to open another dialog. Hit the "save" button and the selected file will be unstuffed. The result of stuffit or packit is usually several files that have been packed together. There may be an application and a help file or manual. Somet hines there are sample data files. If you are downloading a Think C program, th e result may be a Think C project, several files of C source code, a README file, perhaps a resource file, and whatever else the author of the program decided to pack for the trip. Good luck. ========================= Note: The transcript mentioned at the top of this message was sent as another message this date. Gary Lee Nelson TIMARA Program Conservatory of Music Oberlin, OH 44074 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 13:48:16 EST From: Tony D'Amato Subject: More on the SY77 I saw this demo on the Yahama SY77 earlier this week. Talk about an amazing axe! As per the fellow who was demoing it, it combines some advanced FM synthesis with analog (!) technology to produce its sounds. In addition, it also has a sequencer built into it (in the same way that the VFX-SD does). I know not too many people on this list care for Yahama, but I was very impressed by the quality of sound it produced (for example, the pipe organ sound even included the little "lip flap" noise when the finger is released from the key.) I'd give more info, but they didn't have any handouts describing the beast in more detail, except what I've just said. Enjoy! --Tony D. (NAD100T@ODUVM.BITNET --or-- nad100t@oduvm.cc.odu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 16:35:45 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: RE: Yamaha Well, while I was off in New Jersey for a month (did you miss me?) I managed to pick up both a Yamaha FB-01 sound module and a YS-100 for about $500 total including a sustain pedal and some cable. Thanks to whoever it was suggested I check out Sam Ash music stores! They have been selling off all the "old style FM" Yamaha synths mega-cheap and thus are out of stick of just about all of them. Far as I can tell, the TX802 is the only one still alive. Sorry I haven't been around to read the list, so you may have covered this already, but have you heard the scoop on the NEW FM? I will post what I think I know in a minute. ctan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 16:45:20 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: The New FM Alraight, I've read some of the recent debate about FM synthesis. Yes, it is true that FM is, for the most part, non-intuitive. In that if you want a certain sound built from scratch, it ain't obvious how to get it. There are a few FM-savants in the world who seem to be able to do it (I am not one of them) but it doesn't bother me a whole lot. The use of a Patch Editor (from Opcode) for the DX7 and FB-01 has been good enough for me. Yes, it's true that the old FM was good for certain things (bells) and pretty near impossible for others. BUT, has anyone heard yet what the NEW FM can do? I haven't, but according to the blurbs and articles I've read, the addition of sampling to the FM toolbox is going to make it so powerful people won't even know what they should try to make first! Here's what I understand thus far: In the old FM you had operators, which could be carriers and modulators arranged according to certain algorithms, and all of which were sine wave operators. The new FM will allow you, apparently, to use waveforms other than sine waves as carriers and modulators, and to use SAMPLED waveforms as carriers and modulators! The resulting noises could be nothing short of glorious, if I have the theory all straight. Unfortunately, I still haven't heard the animal, and it wil probably take a while for people to really unlock it's power anyway... ctan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 20:32:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: RE: The New FM Using oscillators with something other than sine waves in FM is not new. Max Mathews described the effect of using white noise as a modulator in his TECHNOLOGY OF COMPUTER MUSIC (1969). In 1977, Bill Schottstaedt described his research with complex modulating waves in the simulation of natural instrument tones in CMJ 1:4 (p46). My own "FMorch" program had the same capability for more than ten years starting in 1974. It his heartening but not surprising that the commercial world is catching up. I am beginning to think that the difference between being a guru or "savant" and being an "intuitive" in computer music is the posession of a library\ card. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 21:10:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: FM I had a private message from metlay about the unexplored regions of FM. I menti oned a few of these areas in a posting some time ago. With apologies to metlay, I have decided to reply in public. It seems that there is a love-hate relationship between musicians and FM. The method is so elegant and the sound so arresting (and now so familiar) that our c onsumer mentality tells us that it must be ready for discard. (My colleague Larr y McIlvain used to tell his music appreciation students at Purdue that they woul d be ready for Mozart when McDonald's hamburgers started tasting bad to them.) When you assess traditional instruments, you would never make a remark like "th at oboe sounds too much like an oboe." Musical instruments establish themselves through years of trial and error, failure and success. The best survive. FM i s a success and, in spite of some shortcomings in the commercial implementations , it provides a rich palette for musical expression. Do we discard the viola be cause it can't play B2 (MIDI key 47)? What happened with FM is that a large commercial firm took a snapshot at Stanfo rd in the 1970's, made some compromises to keep the price down, made some guesse s about what we might want in our artistic tools and then released a product. F ortunately, that product gave us some marvellous opportunities but hid some equa lly marvellous things from us. There are more than 150 parameters in the defini tion of a DX7 voice. How many of them can be continuously varied through a note ? A case in point is John Chowning's FM singing voices as heard in his "Phone" (W ergo Records). Singing voices must have formants. Using ratios to express the frequencies of operators in the X-series makes anything like a formant very diff icult. In Chowning's software model of the singing voice, the frequency ratio and outp ut level of carriers in an instrument similar to DX7 algorithm 5 depend on the f undamental frequency of each note. The "scoop and droop" in the pitch envelope of a singing voice can be approximated with the DX7's pitch EG but there is no w ay to envelope the depth (bandwidth) and speed (frequency) of the LFO. Vibrato varies continuously in acoustic instruments with respect to frequency, amplitude , and waveshape. Can we expect to simulate the complexity of natural tones with a LFO that has a fixed shape, speed, and depth? It is these shortcomings that are making software synthesis (as described by Mi ller and Boulanger in the January 1990 ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN) and attractive prosp ect again. With programs like csound on a DSP, you decide what musical paramete rs are most important to your model of sound. Of course you will have to learn to program. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 12:44:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: FM Gary: No need for apologies. My thanks for the post, but I must confess vague memories of other areas (more easily explainable in concrete terms to hardware addicts) that were mentioned earlier....well, don't sweat it, I can always get off my duff and de-archive them myself. As to your comments on the "snapshot" status of FM a la Yamaha and its power when removed from these manufacturer-imposed constraints, let me pour oil on troubled waters here and now. I have absolutely no quibbles with FM synthesis as a concept, or with the fascinating music that is being produced with FM now and in past years. My gripes with FM, and please understand that I do not speak for anyone other than myself, lie with the unhealthy trends in electronic music that were largely spawned by the introduction with the DX7. This is a complaint about the machine as product and the musical instrument company as seller of product. When the DX7 ws introduced in 1983, a great deal of activity was generated in the music world, some good and some ill. I don't think I need to list the good efects; we play them every day. Yamaha, with its strong commitment to FM, exposed a blissfully ignorant world to a new way of creating sound, and they did so with well-made and reliable instruments that were also, and very importantly, eminently playable. The other players in the MI game, shut out of FM manufacture by Yamaha, turned to other means of mimicking the Yamaha sound, and gave us affordable wavetable synths, phase distortion synths, samplers, and so on. But there was another legacy the DX7 left us: the legacy of the divorce between the player and the creator of sound. Yamaha knew it had a hit on its hands; it struggled desperately to meet demands for years, and sold more DX7s than any other synthesizer in history. As with any successful venture, the pressure was on to sell more and more devices of proven popularity. And this is where the problems began. As you are well aware, the DX7 is a non-intuitive machine for those trained in analog subtractive synthesis. It is frustrating to learn to program, especially in the light of the excellent presets available on board. The natural tendency in the vast majority of players, then, is simply NOT TO PROGRAM. The difficult user interface of the DX and its alien synthesis engine combined to make a machine that it was easier to let someone else program for you. The trend did not start with the DX; the first Prophets with programmability would come back to the factory for repairs with presets intact, and Korg had been making a synth with a one-knob user interface (the Poly-61) for years. But the tremendous popularity of the DX7 opened the eyes of a whole new community of musicians to the wonders of electronic music, and all of these people were introduced to the synthesizer as a device that one could not program oneself, unless one was a musical genius, a mathematician, or a hacker. A whole new way of creating sound was born overnight. Third-party sound developers, ROM presets in every instrument, random patch generators: the musician suddenly solved the problem of creating sound by throwing money at it, by hiring others to be creative. The music industry walked into this state of affairs with open eyes: the DX7 had shown that a whole new, lucrative market could be tapped. And somewhere along the way, the manufacturers stopped allowing on-the-road beta tests for reliability, and stopped talking to musicians about what they wanted in their machines (aside from a cursory nod and a jot or two on a ppad in front of a booth at NAMM). We have arrived in an era hwere manufacturers decide what features we need, and then use advertising to convince us of this. Even MIDI is being pushed to the background, attacked on one side for being slow and limited in its uses, and on the other by manufacturers pushing "workstations" that sell you one of everything in one easily disposable box. There are glimmers of a future worth waiting and fighting for: your work with FM. Granular synthesis. The Accelerando system at Austin. Resynthesis. Computer-aided sound modeling and virtual synthesizers. Even the revitalization of simple old ideas with gret power, like vector synthesis and resonant filters. But these glimpses are rare in a landscape where the synthesizer, a work of art, has become product, like toothpaste or condoms. And we don't owe it all to the DX7, but can you think of a more suitable symbol for the dawn of this Brave NEw World(tm)? I've been bashing FM synthesis on these Nets for years. Most people know me well enough to know that I've worked with DX7s in the studio, and have programmed them enough to be able to make informed decisions about their suitability for me. I don't own one, although I might buy a DX7IIFD some day, and I prefer to focus my creative energies on other ways of making music.I apologize if my offhand comments offended you; I have to be reminded sometimes that not everyone out there knows me that well. But you can bet that the next time that idiot on rec.music.synth who just blew three grand on an SY77, has been listening to the samples and effects processors on board, and has decided in his ignorance that he's listening to the next generation of FM, decides to take me to task for not "getting a clue" about "the true power of FM, not this DX shit," I'm going to come down like a ton of bricks. Again. Regards, metlay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 14:09:10 EST From: Cecilia Tan Subject: RE: The New FM I didn't say that no one had ever used waveforms other than sine waves in FM synthesis before. But it hasn't been something you could buy at the local shop before. not like this. Anyone know of any scheduled demos for New England of the new puppy? ctan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 15:41:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: FM, synthesis techniques ... I'm finding the discussion of late re: synthesis techniques extremely interesting. I wish I had the time to really get into this the way some of you have. I've always "programmed" on any given instrument by starting with something that already has some element of the final product I hope to achieve. Although this limits me to a certain extent I have been moderately successful in creating useful sounds, even on the DX7 I once owned. But I'm sure knowing more about what I am doing when I tweak things (other than this parameter makes it go fizz and that one makes it go wah-wah) would help me, but reading manuals that tell you about "tickling the operator" just don't lend themselves to serious study. Who is writing about synthesis? I've heard of the Computer Music Journal, but never seen an issue up hear. All I've been able to get my hands on is the keyboard rags (Keyboard, Electronic Musician, sometimes Music Technology if I drive to Toronto). I guess I should have paid more attention to my Signals prof ... but running networks and VAX's doesn't need too a lot of brainpower, and I'm afraid much of my schooling has been archived. I guess I'm asking for suggestions on reading material, and hoping the discussion carries on in this thread for awhile. regards all - I'm off to sample my wife's Decosonic ... it's got a piece of wire used to cut the plastic that produces a sitar-like twang when plucked with a guitar pick ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:38:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: Re: FM How can I clarify these FM issues? Try this... My wife is a fine flutist. I hear her practice every day. Michel Debost (now on the Oberlin faculty) is a world class flutist. I have been working with him on a performance of my "Moreso" for solo flute. Last Saturday I went to the Lorain county solo and ensemble contest. I heard some of the worst flute playing imaginable along with some very talented, but unpolishe d, young players. What do I conclude about the flute as an instrument from this range of experiences? FM is a powerfully musical synthesis technique ... even in the limited commercial implementations. If you have unique musical visions, they will transcend your tools. I don't want to perpetuate myself as a evangelist for FM. My message is, rather, that a focus on musical issues ... artistic content ... will give a fresh perspective on the choice of instruments. If you can't do something musical with FM (or whatever instruments you can afford), chances are, you can't make music no matter how big your studio or budget. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 17:52:48 SST From: Gan Seum-Lim Subject: SY-77 Just came back from the Yamaha SY-77 demonstration by Steve Smith. I have found out certain interesting facts about this synthsizer : It can be programmed like the DX-7 series. With 6 operators (actually they call it AFM, and I found out that it is actually the basic FM), 45 algorithms, 3 feedback loops, 16 waveforms, modulation from AWM (advanced wave memory) output. The AFM is actually an extension of the 6-operator 32-algorithm (as in DX7) to 6-operator 45-algorithm. The newly added algorithms can have up to 3 feedback loops (32-algorithm has only one feedback loop). THIS IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE. In fact it's STILL FM. One can use sine wave as the basis of FM synthesis and also other waveforms (16 of them stored internally) as basis of FM synthesis. One important thing I noted is that a synthesized sound can be stored and used as the basis of FM synthesis again. Theoretically, we can synthsize many many sounds with this technique. Other interesting features of the machine : Simultaneous notes, 16 from AWM and 16 from AFM; 16 simultaneous timbres; build-in sequencer, 16 tracks and can hold approx 16000 notes; two card slots, one for synth data and one for waveform data; one 3.5" microfloppy drive (713 kbyte formatted); one pitch bend wheel and two modulation wheels; dynamic stereo panning. There are low and high pass filters (can be made into band pass) with 12dB/octave slope. There is a new term used by Yamaha in the SY-77 :"element". A voice is composed of 1,2 or 4 "elements". Each element can be an AWM or AFM waveform. There are a lot more things I don't know about the SY-77,if any of you wish to know more than what I just said, please go and find out. Whatever it is, SY-77 CAN be PROGAMMED from scratch like the DX7. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 11:57:10 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: 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. Yes, and no. I have used a setup of some Roland pads, the Simmons Portakit (as the trigger/MIDI converter), and my Roland S-330 loaded with identical sounds to the R-5/R-8 (from the Roland CD-ROM library). Let's just say that such a setup saved the gig, and saved the event too. It was a grand dinner/ball do, due to start spot on at 6:30. The stage, decorations, lighting etc were all done by 4:30, and guess what ? The PA system didn't arrive till 6:15 ! It could have gone in the Guiness book of records as the fastest soundcheck in history --- 5 mikes reverbed, plus 2 dry D.I. straight off the stereo pair of my own little mixer for Drums, Keyboards, WX-7 --> U-110, ... There was no need for any EQ or FX from the desk, just amplified flat out the the front, no feedback. The result ? 'Sounds good !' one of the Tuxedo penguins came up to the stage after the gig, ears still ringing from the 'Ouch Snare' and 'Gated Bass Drum', 'But tell me, why are these drums triangular ?' Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 18:45:42 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Sheffield CD and sample sources >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. I got a Sheffield 'James Newton Howard and Friends' CD off the catalogue from a local record dealer but, last time I ordered it in July it came in May the following year --- that's how long it takes ! For sampling purposes I much perfer using the Sonic Images library Vol.1 Drums and Vol.2 Exotic Percussion, I highly recommend them (if you have enough disks and can find any use for the 200+ sounds you get per CD, that is). I think they came from New York, but most music shops stock them. They are about 38 quid each in the UK inc p&p from a shop called Executive Audio in London. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 20:17:52 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Samplers ... >My first problem: I was made aware that S-50 sounds can be translated into >S-550 format by the machine itself, but not vice/versa. Is it the same with >the S-330? One S-330 owner (Patrick (I don't know your last name!)) mentioned >he had an editor or something to transfer sounds to S-50 format. Is this true? >That would be a terrific addition to the S-50 library. Please everyone >straighten me out on this. S-550/S-330 disks share the same DATA formats, but contain different system sectors, so the two machines can read each other's disks. The S-50 on the other hand has a different disk format but with the S-330 utility disk comes a 'CONVERT' function which will enable SAVE S-50, LOAD S-50, CONV S-50 -> S-330 and CONV S-330 -> S-50, so I have no trouble at all swapping disks with any Roland S-series samplers. Early (pre-S-330) versions of the S-550 software couldn't read S-330 disks but could read S-50 disks via the utilities, but it couldn't save in anything other than S-550 format. It didn't take long for Roland to correct this problem and since Ver 1.12 the S-550 could read/write S-50 and S-330 disks, but also understand that the 'Write S-50' software was available as a separate product from Roland. >An S-550 owner (Gary Murakami) stated that he owned the CD-5 and CD-Rom units. >I would guess these are coded with system exclusive sound data (As opposed to >CD's that contain actual sounds that the user is to sample him/herself). >Enlighten me on this as well. Neither. The CD-5 data does not come in through MIDI, but via the dedicated data-bus and the Roland SCSI board, so there is no such thing as 'System Exclusive' for the CD-ROM system. My experience with the CD-5 is that it is SLOW. Yes, SLOW ! If you think about it, to fill up the 28.8secs of memory you would also need to play a CD for (28.8 * 30/44.1)secs, which is not much faster than loading floppies (30/44.1 being the sampling rate difference). There is NO WAY of speeding up for CD players has been designed from the start to playback data at a consistent rate. If I own a S-550 I would still get the SCSI board but with a hard drive, which could go faster. > I would also be interested in hearing about user-samples. I have sampled my >Kawai R-100 drum machine, and also fooled around with some synth samples. So I have, as I have posted here before, quite a range of Simmons drum sounds, plus some real drums. Feel free to swap disks with me. If you don't have the S-330 I suppose it is still possible for you to have these sounds on a high-quality tape, if you don't mind the hassle. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 17:29:00 PST From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: Samplers ... > My experience with the CD-5 is that it is SLOW. Yes, SLOW ! > If you think about it, to fill up the 28.8secs of memory you > would also need to play a CD for (28.8 * 30/44.1)secs, which > is not much faster than loading floppies (30/44.1 being the > sampling rate difference). There is NO WAY of speeding up for > CD players has been designed from the start to playback data > at a consistent rate. Whoa,Whoa there. I have not used the CD ROM from Roland, but I tend to question this paragraph. Typically CD ROMs hold the sample data and the sampler loads the samples into memory just like floppy based systems. The samples are played from the internal memory. I would highly doubt that the sampler plays the samples directly from the CD ROM which is what the numbers you cited reflect. The samples are loaded as fast as the buss and CPU and OS can handle it. From what I understand from Roland documentaion, the samples and patches are suppose to load up in about 10-15 secs as opposed to the 30-60 secs. I agree that this is slow considering it is a SCSI interface, but it should definitely be faster than floppies. Any idea when Roland is suppose to release the SCSI supported OS for the W-30? I heard it was supposed to be out late Fall of 1989. I heard this was about Spring or Summer of 1989. Willis Dair Santa Clara University ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 16:01:00 EDT From: CHRIS@FANDMA.BITNET Subject: Rogue catalog? Maybe someone has already posted this and I missed it, but could someone tell me how I can get in touch with Rogue. Their prices are apparently the best around. I would like to get on their mailing list. Thanks in advance, -chris ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 09:49:00 EST From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: educational opportunities If you want to study electronic music further, here are some possibilities: National Music Camp Interlochen, MI 49643 (616) 276-9221 ask for Carlene Peregrine in the admissions office This is an 8-week session with computer music classes and synthesizer ensembles for high school students. Oberlin College We have a 2-week summer workshop in synth programming, sequencing, sampling, recording and production, and composition. Contact: Connie Georgas Summer Programs Conservatory of Music Oberlin, OH 44074 We also offer a 4-year Bachelor of Music major in electronic and computer music. Contact: Admissions Office Conservatory of Music Oberlin, OH 44074 If you have questions about these programs address me as "FNELSON@OCVAXA" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 21:20:56 GMT From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Mac to MIDI >Question : I have the Developers Stack with the MIDI resourses. Can I take >these, do some editing, and use them in non-Hypercard software, most likely C? >Is there any other MIDI resources out I can get over the network? Also, any one >who has done Mac application programming, Helpful hints, PLEASE!! As if Nick Rothwell's messages has been totally ignored for the past year ! Just in case he has to repeat himself, I will say it for him : 'Use Apple's MIDI manager !' >******************************************************************************* >* Keith Rachunok * >* Suny Geneseo * >* The Physics major that wants to study music. * >******************************************************************************* Patrick. The Computer Science major who wants to make records and a lot of money ! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 11:29:17 GMT From: Nick Rothwell Subject: MIDI to Mac, and other things. 28 Jan 90 23:11:00 EST <3966.9002252140@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >The equipment I'll be working with is a Mac plus with an Opcode MIDI box >connected to the serial port. >... > What I'm trying to do, first, is write the drivers for the serial port >and the MIDI interface. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Use Apple's MIDI Manager, otherwise any specific code you write to drive the serial ports as MIDI devices will be hardwired, nonportable, will break on future machines, and will be incompatible with new software. > A major, I said MAJOR, part of this study is writing everything as a real >Also, any one who has done Mac application programming, Helpful hints, PLEASE!! If you have THINK C, the object library should be a great help. I've not used it, and have programmed "in the saddle" using TranskSkel and pure C. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 11:58:35 GMT From: Tony Jewell Subject: The Cheetah MS6 The Cheetah MS6 --------------- Yes, I own one ! A great little machine, built by (as far as I am aware) the only British synthesiser company left. Well, what can I tell you ? When I bought it, I was basically after a multitimbral analogue synth, the only ones available as far as I know are the Cheetah and the old Sequentials, Sixtrak, Mutiltrak etc. The Cheetah is based on the same Curtis filter chips as the Sequentials but has 2 DCO's as opposed to 1. The result is a nice 'Prophety' (sic) sound, much fuller than the Sequential. Doesn't look much, just a 1U rack unit, 10 buttons and an LED display, built in mains adaptor, MIDI In Out Through and a single output on the back. It comes with 6 banks of 64 sounds as presets, 2 banks of 64 for your own sounds, and 1 bank of 64 for multi-timbral set-ups. The presets are okay, not brilliant when compared with the Matrix-1000, but then again Cheetah didn't have a big user base to draw sounds from, and the Matrix isn't multi- timbral. However, it only needs a bit of tweeking to make the sounds a whole lot better (the filter is too bright for my liking on the strings, for instance). You have the usual gamet of sounds that you expect from any analogue polysynth - lots of string pads, big bass sounds, brass, things that go woosh and things that go weee etc. Internally ? Well .. 2 DCO's, 1 VCF (with a very meaty resonance), 1 LFO (usual), 2 VCO (ADSR), lots of modulation (Aftertouch to filter, velocity sensitive etc), oscilator sync, PWM for each DCO, and of course, all this multiplied by six (six voice only). Multitimbral setups give you sounds for each midi channel and/or keyboard section, each sound having its own volume. Pitch bend & modulation for each midi channel etc. Programming ? Well, like most people, I HATE digital access, especially on analogue synths, but knobs would be too much to hope for at this price. Programming is from the front panel - the LED just gives you a parameter number and its value, i.e 43 - 03 Means LFO modulation on filter is set to 03 etc .. You do need to keep the manual to hand to begin with, but its nice and logically set out, and after a while you tend to learn what all the codes mean. Summary ? Well, I like it, and basically it has no competition - at 299 pounds new, its a give-away, so I don't argue. There are a couple minor gripes - I'd like seperate outputs for a start, and slightly easier DAC programming. Cheetah are a name to look out for for budget equipment .. they have a range of extremely cheap controller keyboards, an 8 bit sampled drum-machine with 8 sounds (I think), and the ability to load new sounds off cassette which retails for a ridiculous 150 pounds in most shops, a samploid expander, very similar to the Kawai K1 for about 299 pounds, a 16 bit drum machine (not yet available) which the say will sell for 399 pounds, and their big new thing is a 16bit rack sampler, which has the ability to read S900 and Lynex (?) disks, as well as its own for only 799 pounds. If you want more details on the above, I'll let you know ... Tony. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony J Jewell Systems Officer City Of London Polytechnic ___ . ___ JANET: tonyj@uk.ac.clp.unixa / \ / / \ EARN/BitNet: tonyj@unixa.clp.ac.uk / / /___ / EAN: tonyj%clp.unixa@ean-relay.ac.uk <____/ <___ / ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 09:40:50 GMT From: Tony Jewell Subject: Atari SysEx Software ?? Feb 25, 90 9:20 p I sent out a mail about this 6 months ago, with no luck, and again I send out this empassioned plea ! Does anyone out there have a SysEx filer for the Atari ??? I've got an old Oberheim Prommer (Don't laugh), and I want to store the SysEx dumps of the sounds on disk (cheaper than trillions of eproms) - all this program has to do is read in the midi data and stick it in a file, nothing flash ! I've scoured all the PD sites, and no sign. This sounds like a simple program that almost anyone with a midi synth and a computer would want. I tried writing one, but my C compiler is lousy, and my knowledge of the Atari's internals is very dodgy. PLEASE Please please help me out there !!!! Thanks in advance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 27 Feb 90 09:51:45 GMT From: Tony Jewell Subject: NAMM & ZOOM Feb 25, 90 9:20 p Did anyone out there either go to, or read about, the NAMM show ?? I read about some very interesting products in Making Music (a freebie magazine) made by a company called Zoom (I think !). This company has made a VLSI effects chip that sounds very exciting. So far, they have used it in 2 products. One is an effects unit for guitarists .. it claims to be able to do something like 7 effects at once, reverb, delay, chorus, compression, distortion etc. This alone would make it very exciting, but the most amazing thing seemed to be it size. The unit was about the size of one of those message pagers, with a little LCD display and a couple buttons. The thing just clips on to your guitar strap, & there you go, all the effects you could ever want !! The other product is a rack multi-fx box. This, again, claims to about 7 fx at once, but it also acts as four discrete units ( I presume it has 4 inputs & outputs), and can do different effects for each input .. this would be wonderful for us 4-track users etc - imagine a multi-fx box for each track, yet contained all within one box. So - is all this true, or am I getting excited about nothing ?? Does anyone have any prices, more info etc ?? Tell me more ...... Thanks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 27 Feb 90 09:21:58 -0500 From: Brian Adamson Subject: Re: NAMM & ZOOM On the ZOOM: There are advertisements in the March 1990 Electronic Musician for both of the ZOOM products (pages 27 & 70, I think) 1) A very small (Walkman size) 16 bit multi-effects box intended pirmarily for guitarists the way it looks: compression, distortion, flange, reverb, digital delay, etc (Maybe even a built in tuner). According to a report in the JAn 1990 EM, this box lists for $395. It's a cool looking little black box with some buttons and sliders and a large LCD display. Supposedly small & light enough to attach to your belt or guitar strap. 2) The other box is the same type of technology but acts as 4 discrete mulit-effects boxes. The ad for it didn't mention distortion but all the others (perhaps more algorithms). According to the same report as above it lists for approx. $1095. These sound like pretty outrageous boxes, but with today's technology it is very believable even at these comparably low prices. I'm sure they are quiet and of high bandwidth (full 20 kHz) Today's CD players have made that part of the technology ridiculously affordable. The only question that your ear will probably have to judge is what kind of algorithms were implemented. . . Were any corners cut to help minimize processing requirements? etc. Will the reverb sound washy or cyclic? How much control are you given over delay times, reverb decay times, etc? How well does the box handle analog input signals from less predictable sources than synths such as microphones, guitars, bass... The guys that started this company (according to EM) are former KORG engineers so no doubt they have some experience, but let's hope they aren't the same guys responsible for some of the M1's cheesier effects algorithms. Hopefully they weren't forced to squeeze too much into limited processing power as seems to be the case with some of the M1 effects. I, for one, am certaintly anxious to try out one of these and am eager to hear of anyone's hand's on experience with one of these new toys. Brian Adamson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 10:07:16 EST From: "ISA-HRDD Robert N. Muth" Subject: MIDI Interference I need help with a problem I recently encountered with my ESQ-1/IBM-AT setup. After laying a few tracks down and setting the mix up on the ESQ, I played back the song I was working on. Unfortunatly, the mix of the voice that was selected on the ESQ would be changed during playback for no apparent reason. I checked the sequencer (Seq + MkII, ver 2.0) to see if it recorded any volume controller data that would affect the mix, but there was nothing to be found. Is it possible that the MIDI signal is being interfered with? I'm sure that the Sequencer is not sending the controller data, but I don't know where else it could be coming from. (NOTE: if I select an empty track on the ESQ, the problem goes away. However, this isn't good when I'm using all 8 tracks)! Any suggestions? Thanks, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | | | | | Robert N. Muth MILNET: rmuth@cor1.pica.mil | | Student WhateveritsnameisNET: u91_rmuth@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU | | | | "If money is the root of all evil, then I should be the pope" | | | | | \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:11:00 EDT From: Marc TARDIF Subject: RE:MIDI INTERFERENCE >Date: 27-FEB-1990 13:08:57 > >I need help with a problem I recently encountered with my ESQ-1/IBM-AT setup. >After laying a few tracks down and setting the mix up on the ESQ, I played >back the song I was working on. Unfortunatly, the mix of the voice that was >selected on the ESQ would be changed during playback for no apparent reason. >I checked the sequencer (Seq + MkII, ver 2.0) to see if it recorded any >volume controller data that would affect the mix, but there was nothing to be >found. Is it possible that the MIDI signal is being interfered with? I'm >sure that the Sequencer is not sending the controller data, but I don't know >where else it could be coming from. (NOTE: if I select an empty track on >the ESQ, the problem goes away. However, this isn't good when I'm using all >8 tracks)! Any suggestions? Thanks, > EH Robert, I think that the DMA or the IRQ interrupt of your MIDI card is in conflict with an other card or drive in your system. Check doccumentation of each one, maybe you'll find something. Marc! ------------------------------ | MARC TARDIF | Bitnet: S004@HECMTL01 | | Ecole des HAUTES ETUDES COMMERCIALES |============================| | MONTREAL, QUEBEC | Attention aux Virus: | | CANADA H3T 1V6 | L'informatique | | Phone: (514) 340-6066 | ca se protege! | ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:46:39 EST From: Dan Bornstein Subject: A potential K5 I recently saw a K5 advertised on rec.music.synth for $700-- is this a good price? I know they listed for about $1500, but then again they're discontinued... Also, if anyone has had some worth-relating (good or bad) experiences with the K5, please let me know. I am seriously considering the offer... Thanks in advance! -dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:42:00 EST From: "SIC TRANSIT GLORIA ESTEFAN...." Subject: mirage Anybody out there got any comments about $750 for a used mirage? Gullibly yours, -------------------------------------------------- Daniel J. Kraus Physics Dept. Fordham University Bronx, NY 10458 DKRAUS@FORDMURH.BITNET Disclaimer: I am but an event, not a being. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 08:20:29 CST From: Eddie Mikell Subject: Re: mirage Status: R > > Anybody out there got any comments about $750 for a used mirage? > > Gullibly yours, > > -------------------------------------------------- Bend over, you've been had. Unless it includes a mega-ton of samples. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 18:39:01 MEX From: LG273828@VMTECMEX.BITNET Subject: Everything... HELP ME, I'M NEED INFORMATION ABOUT ELECTRONIC MUSIC, GUITAR ELECTRONICS, COMPUTER MUSIC, SOUND EFFECTS, ETC. I NEED IT . PLEASE SEND LIST OF THE MOST THANKS A LOT. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 11:46:34 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Log search Would anyone who has back issues of the digest for the dates listed below please contact me? I am attempting to put together a full collection of the digests, but don't have them for these dates: Anytime before July, 1989 EMUSIC-L LOG8908B (second week of August) EMUSIC-L LOG8908C (third week of August) EMUSIC-L LOG8908D (fourth week of August) EMUSIC-L LOG8908E (last week of August) I apologize for this direct mailing, but you folks on the list are the only likely source of these files now. Please, since these files tend to be on the large size, simply tell me if you have them; we'll negotiate as to who will send them to me. Thanks, everyone. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 14:15:30 EST From: Joe McMahon Subject: Logs found - Thanks, folks! Due to the efforts of our subscribers, we've found all of the EMUSIC logs from the middle of March, 1989 to the present, execpt for the last two weeks of June. An exellent job, folks! Thanks to: Bob Messer Patrick Robinson Tom Crone Chris Iverson If anyone can come up with EMUSIC-L LOG8906C or EMUSIC-L LOG8906D, we'd have a pretty complete set. I think there may have been some from before that, but this is really excellent. I'll be storing the old issues offline here at SCFVM, so they will still be available. --- Joe M. ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************