EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 15, Number 1 Today's Topics: Four-tracks (5 messages) Request for info on patch archives UNIX MIDI interfaces (3 messages) Synth modules 6 messages) Low-cost Mac Mac setups Looking for Finale users... (2 messages) LYRIC server (5 messages) The way forward? Or just nostalgia? (13 messages) Thanks for books IRCAM Moog Prodigy Theremins (3 messages) Meet Chris at Macworld... Brother hardware sequencers MIDI file question (2 messages) Your EMUSIC-D Moderator is Joe McMahon. Please send articles to EMUSIC-L@AUVM.BITNET. Send administrative mail to xrjdm@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov. Digests are distributed weekly. For faster response to questions, subscribe to EMUSIC-L at LISTSERV@AUVM.BITNET. Subscribers to this list may send mail to EMUSIC-D; it will be forwarded to EMUSIC-L. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 20:48:49 EDT From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Four track recorders I am searching for a good relatively inexpensive four track recorder (say, around $500 or less). I have compiled quite a lot of information on the subject from old e-music-l messages and other sources. The message that follows this one is a compilation of the messages, arranged by manufacturer: Tascam, Yamaha, Fostex, Misc. I'd like further comments from you all, and answers to some questions, which will follow later. Thanks! -ctan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 20:55:17 EDT From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Four track info compilation Here is the information I have thus far: Four track tape recorders, info compiled from e-mail and mailing lists TASCAM MODELS: >From: "'Patrick C.K.Tsang'" The simplest and most popular 4-track for the past few years has been the Tascam PortaOne. A 4-channel mixer, dbx** machine. Just about anyone can use it, and when you are in the middle of a great composing session it is very important that you don't waste time learning the right switches. Since then Tascam has brought out the Porta 05, perhaps not really meant to be 1/2 a PortaOne, but is cheaper anyway. The Vesta series are also cheaper alternatives. For 6-channels, the Tascam PortaTwo has little difference from the One except it has 6-channel of mixer and double tape speed. For the same money I would go for the Yamaha MT-2X, (now replaced by the slick MT- 3X) which has more facilities. There is an input for Sync-code direct to track-4 and bypassing the dbx. This is very important since dbx can corrupt some time-codes, but one cannot afford to switch off the dbx while recording. It has switchable normal/double speed, and on the MT-3X there are two sets of stereo effects send/return for out- board FX, reverb, etc. Again very important. >From: WFELTEAU@SCTNVE.BITNET I had the Tascam PortaTwo and it served its purpose as a drawing board for my stuff. But after a while it really got old. You might want to save a little and look at getting a Fostex 8track they arn't really that spensive. The sound quality on the PortaTwo really sucks. I think that the Fostex sounds better. >From: Jayson Tascam PortaOne: I used one of these for a couple years right after they came out. I think this is a very nice dependable machine for getting things down. For the quick-and-dirty stuff it's great. I agree with Chris' comments about his Fostex, and I think they apply here also. The PortaOne has alot of utility to the "Oh God that's great, quick we gotta record before it's gone" composers. Tascam 234: An upgraded PortaOne with rackmount. It's got separate line ins,outs for each track. Used with a Tascam mixer you're reputedly able to route out for effects on separate tracks and route back in!? Still cassette machine. More expensive than the PortaOne, but much cleaner and crisper. Much nicer recordings, they seem more spacious than the PortaOne. This has now become the 238. Tascam TSR8: 1/2" reel machine. New, more sophisticated eight tracks. < $3500. Best bet for the money, and if you want a real (ie. reel) machine. >From: MTG@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM I bought a Porta-Two oh so long ago, and haven't really regretted it. It's certainly better than the Porta-One; a lot more flexible. I must say that I like DBX's quality over Dolby B (which is what the Fostex uses, I believe). The -Two has six channels in, MONO effect out but stereo effect in, has a tape monitor output (same output as if your headphones are set to "Cue"; you have four dials to control the volume of each track). Lessee... Dunno what more to say about its specs; if you wanna know something specific about it, ask... Personally, it's held up well for a few years without needing any fixing, and I've even used it on the road for the last year and a half (I need it everytime I perform; roughly, one every other week). My only annoyance is that I pick up a local over-powered radio station on the headphones, but that could be a headphone problem rather than the -Two's problem. The tape doesn't get the radio on it, and that's what counts. It's pretty decent for the money. I wish I had an 8- track now, but... >From: Wally-G-WIZ You asked for any suggestions on what 4 track to buy. I went through the same thing about two years ago. I ended up getting a Tascam Porta-05. It has some neat features like DBX, LED level indicators rather than analog type, effects loop in and out, and counter stop. I'd say all in all it was a good buy. The specs say it has a S/N ratio of 85 dB (that's pretty good for cassette). I like the fact it has an effects loop. Some of the cheaper 4 tracks didn't have one but this one is good; you can individually control the effect level on each channel and the total level. The more expensive model is called the Porta One and has some other nifty features like battery pack (I think). The Porta-05 retails at $450 (or did anyhow), but I got mine for $260 by shopping around and haggling. >From: I've got a Tascam Porta- Two... if you're got the money, it's a hell of a lot better than the low end-cheapies, like the Porta- One and the cheap Fostex. I can't remember now what I paid for it... $700 or so?... but it's pretty nice. Recording on any or all channels at once... a 6-channel mixer going in... tracks can be recorded from the right or left or from a direct line from a channel... DBX noise reduction... effects provisions and two insert ("global effects") jacks... a fun speed control, battery power (8 C cells; portability is NICE), and mine's never broken (in over 2, maybe 3 years). Yet. >From: Craig Gleason I've had a Porta-One for about four years now and it's quite good. If I remember correctly, the speeds and sound quality are the same as the Porta-Two, and the main differences are the four channel (vs. six) mixer and only being able to record two tracks at once. Since I have no friends, recording on more than two channels has never been an option anyway. The Tascams seem to be very reliable, but shop around. You might do better with a Yamaha or Fostex two-speed unit at the same price. If you have big $$$, look into the six-track made by somebody (Sansui?) or the Tascam eight track cassette (I've heard they're down to about $1200 now). For some things, four tracks is quite limiting (it's almost death if you like stereo). >From: "Kurt A. Geisel" The PortaOne gets thumbs up in this studio. I've been using it for about four years with no trouble. The dbx works well and it's an amazingly quiet and good sounding box. I've never had problems with crosstalk on the tracks that I can hear, but there must be some crosstalk during recording because if I record an FSK output from my Oberheim DX, it will have syncing trouble if I lay in a loud (percussion) track adjacent the FSK track- but ONLY during record when the FSK track is being cued. If the adjacent track is laid down first (which kind of loses the point of syncing....) there is no problem. So, it's no Otari but it works and it's not likely to be replaced soon because tape is the last thing I want to spend alot of money on. I'm thinking about getting an R-8 next year, but these new TASCAM MIDI decks are awfully nice. >From: jhm@EBay.Sun.COM ( R'leyeh Realtors, Unltd. ) Yeah, there are some nice toys out there, but most cost... I picked up the new Tascam unit, the Porta5, for about $360. It's 4- track, dbx, effects bus, variable speed. I got the HS (high speed) model, runs at twice normal cassette speed. While you can't play tapes made on it in a normal deck, you can take advantage of this to experiment with double-speeding and half- speeding things, which is also a cheap way to transpose up or down an octave (for those of us unfortunate enough as to not have samplers...) Of course if you've got the cash, there's the Tascam 644 for $1495. It's got 8 channels/16 inputs, built-in MIDI sync, 99 setting memory, fancy LCD display, etc... >From: "b.klassen" I'm considering a major purchase, namely the MIDIstudio 644 by TASCAM. It's their top-of-the-line 4-track ... 16 channels of input, automatic MIDI sync, and gobs of other features. Sound is good too, for a 4-track cassette. Has anyone seen/used/owned this beast? I'm planning on using it in the following way: 1 track for sync (driving 24 MIDI tracks), 3 tracks for guitars, vocals, etc (bouncing could add a few more tracks to the "acoustic" section), and then mixing down to a hi-fi VCR (great way to sell the idea to the girlfriend). Comments? >From: Craig Gleason The 644 is only a 4-track, but it's set up for MIDI - hence the vast number of inputs. There's also a 688 with 8 tracks on cassette, up to 20 inputs, all the rest of the above, for about $3300. I think these things should be heavily discounted, since they fall into the ranks of "pro audio," more or less. Tascam's 238 (8 track cassette, nothing else) is down to $1300 discounted now - and that's an advertised price. The memory stores patching setups, but there's no automated mixing or anything like that. The built in MIDI sync is a great idea. I've been syncing to tape for quite a while now, but I have to go through some pushups to do it, and my Porta-1 doesn't have dbx defeat on channel 4. That causes the occasional problem. Wow... nm-list sinking to discussing recording techniques. =============================================================== YAMAHA >From: Wally-G-WIZ A good friend of mine has a 4 track made by Yamaha and it is also of good quality, but I don't know the model number. >From: "'Patrick C.K.Tsang'" Yamaha used to do the MT-1X, now replaced with MT-100. The Tascam PortaTwo has little difference from the One except it has 6-channel of mixer and double tape speed. For the same money I would go for the Yamaha MT-2X, (now replaced by the slick MT- 3X) which has more facilities. There is an input for Sync-code direct to track-4 and bypassing the dbx. This is very important since dbx can corrupt some time-codes, but one cannot afford to switch of the dbx while recording. It has switchable normal/double speed, and on the MT-3X there are two sets of stereo effects send/return for out- board FX, reverb, etc. Again very important. >From: Jayson Yamaha MT100, 3X, ????: For the comparison to the inexpensive cassette machines I like these best. Especially nice are the effects loops and mixing facilities. >From: "Michael B. Hutzel" If you are looking for decent frequency response in a 4-track, you might consider the Y*M*H* line. Some models have a frequency response up to 18kHz. (Much higher than my Fostex X- 15) I know...I know... I know... I said the "Y" word. Don't remember the low frequency cutoff. Check it out. The Tascam stuff looks great, but look at those specs. >From: Tapio I can recommend a Yamaha MTX-2 (I think?), which I got with $390 two years ago. The real nice thing about is that it has 6 inputs. It also has the standerd goodies (2 speeds, fine tuning, DBX etc.). Admittedly, the EQ system is simple (just bass and treble), and it has an irritatingly unclear LED level display, but the sound is very good and it has worked wihtout a hitch! =============================================================== FOSTEX >From: "'Patrick C.K.Tsang'" Fostex 260 is in the same class except that it uses Dolby-C** as noise-reduction instead of dbx**. This is perhaps less quiet than the dbx system but it gives a more natural sound. For 6- channels, the Tascam PortaTwo has little difference from the One except it has 6-channel of mixer and double tape speed. I believe the Fostex equivalent is the 460, the EQ on it is excellent covering hi, lo and parametric mid-range. If you like fiddling with EQ this is a good one. It has Dolby- C. >From: Chris Iverson I bought a Fostex X-15 series II a couple of years ago for about $400.00 new, including a power supply (it's made to operate on battery power, but it takes about 10 "C" cell batteries and only lasts a few hours on them). As a cheap 'scratchpad' type of recorder it is great: real easy to use, and the sound quality is okay. It is good for trying out idaes, or recording ideas for use later in a better recording setup. For serious recording, get something better. There are many limitations to this 4-track: you can only record on two tracks at a time, you can only monitor line levels on two tracks at a time, EQ is coarse Hi and Lo, and once you start ping-ponging tracks, the sound quality goes fast. However, I am glad I have this one, as I can't afford to get into the pricey stuff, yet (wouldn't mind stumbling across a deal like that 8-track and mixer for $600.00, but those deals don't happen out in agriculturally- zoned areas like Lancaster, PA). >From: Chris Iverson I don't know the Fostex X26, but I have a Fostex X15 (presumably even cheeper than the X26) which I got, with power supply, for about $450.00. Actually, my wife bought it for me, which is why we paid list for it, but that's another story... I have been very happy with my deck, as long as I don't get delusions of grandeur about it. It is good for trying out ideas in multitracking, and can do fairly well if you don't do much ping-ponging of tracks, but it is definitely not a replacement for a professional multitrack. The EQ adjustments onboard are coarse, headroom is extremely limited, and overall quality is mediocre. Even so, I am very glad that I have it, since it is the only way I could afford to go multitrack. If you want to hear examples of what one can do with the X15, send a cassette and return postage to Cecilia Tan (her bitnet address is ST902235@brownvm.BITNET), 438 Wickenden Street Apt. #3, Providence,RI 02903-4428, and ask her to make you a copy of 'Magnetic Filings'. I have two pieces on there, both of which were done on Fostex X15's. Of the two, "Ruminations" is an example of using the deck purely to record two stereo sources without bouncing any tracks around (although the guitar echo effect is pretty noisy), the other piece, "Waditis" is the other extreme: I bounced tracks until my head was spinning (with sometimes disastrous effects) to fit everything on, and the resulting quality of the recording shows it. I could probably do the same piece over again now with less noise after going through the learning experience of recording "Waditis", but in any case, with a cheap deck, bouncing tracks means more loss of quality than with a better deck. If I wanted to produce a professional demo that my future income depended on, I would use the X15 to work out the kinks in the arrangement, then rent a good deck to do the real thing. >From: PRESTON@morekypr I'm afraid that I don't have that much experience with many different home-studio setups, but I'll be glad to share my limited knowledge. :) I used to own a Fostex X-30 4- track cassette recorder... it was so-so as far as sound quality went, and it was really simple to use. The biggest problem with it was the enormous amount of tape hiss that was always present. Of course, it only had Dolby B-C onboard... but when I went to find a dbx unit, I found that it cost nearly twice what the X-30 itself had cost! Needless to say, I didn't get the dbx. It was sufficient for putting ideas on tape, though. I have also used a Yamaha 4-t cassette, but I don't know the model. It had a few bells and whistles that the Fostex didn't have, but the sound quality was roughly the same. I did a little work on an Akai 12-t (it used a proprietary tape cart.) and it was rather good, but then again, I was running through several thousand dollars worth of outboard gear, too. My suggestion? If you have around $4000.00 to play with, check out Music Emporium (somewhere in NJ, I think... I can look it up if you like). They have a nice package deal on a Tascam 8-t open reel w/dbx, and all the goodies for about $4k. If you're like me (exceedingly poor!), they also offer a package built around a new model Fostex 4-t cassette for like $399.00. That's with a microphone and headphones! Me, I'm saving my pennies for that Tascam package. It may be awhile, but once you do a *quality* recording, you can never go back. :) =============================================================== MISCELLANEOUS: AKAI, TEAC, ETC >From: Make sure you get a GOOD 4-track. Offer to pay half if it will help. There's nothing like having a 4-track which works, but just doesn't quite cut it. Make sure it runs at double speed, too. Oh yeah, and has Dolby C noise reduction NOT dbx... >From: Patrick J. Waara I have a Ross 4X4 II. It cost $350.00 new about 3 years ago. It's a good machine for the money, but it has its faults. I think the sound quality is substandard, and the mechanicals for the 1/4" inputs are insufficiently reinforced. It has it's good points too, like being able to record four inputs at once (which some can't do). It's a good way to get into multitrack recording at a reasonable price. Look into the Yamaha when compaison shopping. >From: Zilgia Quafay <76703.4176@CompuServe.COM> The TEACs run from around $400 and up, but you can usually find used machines pretty easily. Dolby B & C noise reduction are available on (I believe) all new models. As for as I know, none of the models has MIDI sync capability, but I haven't looked at the newer models in a few years, so I'm not positive. I'll see if I have any specs or brochures around here, and let you know if I find out anything more specific. >From: "'Patrick C.K.Tsang'" The Akai professional (416 ? 614 ?) has just about all you need which include a massive mixer, a 5-track for time code (made possible by carriers at 19khz hi- frequency) and lots of goodies I cannot afford to have. But at that price I would really look at 8-track alternatives. >From: Jayson MG612: Akai machine with alot of sophistication and a nice mixer to boot. I had the opportunity to buy one of these for $800 used, or trade. It does alot of nice things, like synch track, but as with all cassette based machines, the recording will get saturated pretty quickly. My questions will follow in the next message. -ctan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 20:56:26 EDT From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Four track questions A few holes in my information: PortaOne--what is the lowest price you've seen this? Does it have a DBX defeater for the sync tone? Fostex-- the 260: price range? noise reduction defeater for sync? the X-15: how many channels of input? again, MIDI sync? how does it compare to the Yamaha MT-2X Yamaha-- MT-2X, is this still on the market or has it been bumped for the MT-3X? And, does it have the DBX defeater? Last, does anyone have a cheap one they'd like to sell? Thanks everyone for your advice. ctan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 08:54:00 EST From: "John Young, Southern CT State Univ" Subject: 4 TRACK INFO Cecilia, Thanks for the compilation of info on 4 track machines. Great idea. Lots of information all in one place. Thanks again. jy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 14:39:35 MST From: TPARKER@NCARIO.BITNET Subject: 4-track Anyone have experience with the 6-track recorder from Sansui (model WS-X1) ? It seems to have some nice features (at least in the ad!), but I am wondering about quality, ease of use, price, etc. Thanks, Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 22:36:00 EST From: AD0834@ALBNYVMS.BITNET Subject: Patches To whoever-would-know-about-these-sorts-of-things, Can someone tell me a little about PD patch libraries available around the various nets? I am looking for patches for the Roland D-10 and the Yamaha TX81Z. What I would like to know is: 1) Are there libraries of these sorts of things anywhere? Can someone give me FTP addresses or server names? 2) What formats are they stored in? I use the D-10 with an Atari ST and the TX81 with a Mac. For the D-10 I have a bulk memory dump program (as opposed to an actual patch editor), and for the TX81 I have a patch editor. Are there any PD programs available which can be used to transfer patches (in whatever the standard format is) from the two computers to the two synths? Thanx in advance, Andy Dickinson Please reply to this address: (AD0834@ALBNYVMS.BITNET) [Actually, I think there's a fair amount on interest in this subject. Could anyone responding please also post to the list? - JM] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 09:23:25 GMT From: mf Subject: Unix MIDI interfaces? Can anyone suggest interfaces from Unix machines to MIDI devices, preferably from a serial or SCSI port? Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 16:08:04 ADT From: EDWR000 Subject: re:midi on unix to run midi on a unix machine, look into key electronics midiator ms-114. it can be used with any rs-422 interface and it you only have rs-232, converters are $50. more from : key electronics 9112 highway 80 west #221 fort worth,tx 76116 tel: 817-560-1912 i read this in april music technology. alan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 18:03:16 EDT From: Dean Swan Subject: re:midi on unix Key Electronics also has a toll free number: (800) 533-MIDI. There generic RS-422 interface is a little expensive though - $229. I don't know if the IBM serial interface units will work on machines other than IBMs (and clones of course). I suspect they might use non-standard baud rates (like 115,200Kb). -Dean ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 14:00:00 EST From: "b.klassen" Subject: Re: Stand alone analog filters ...? >Oh, damn. Did you hear that? Another grey hair on my poor head! Ouch! >Brian, time was, the ONLY analog filters were "standalone." They were >modules from modular synths that could be patched to any sort of audio >input, and controlled by envelopes-in-a-box, LFOs-in-a-box, and so on. Sorry, but back then I was still trying to get out of my piano lessons so I could play road hockey! ;-) I remember going to the music store near my house on a ten-speed to look at a synthesizer (ARP 2600 I think) and trying to get the guy behind the counter to let me play it ... he was a big scarry-looking bald-headed drummer/biker, and it took all the guts I could muster just to go into the store. He said no, and told me to get out of his store before he called my mother ... >The Envelope Follower (or "auto-wah") is a dynamic filter that opens in >proportion to signal amplitude. It's used by funk bassists and reggae >guitarists mostly, these days, but has to be used sparingly, as the effect >is pronounced and can be REALLY annoying after a half hour or so. |-> Not quite what I had in mind (after reading the article in EM). So what about the concept (processing digital/sampled sound with analog filters)? I suppose someone is doing it, but is there anything out there besides old gear that will accomplish this? What about building something? I am totally out to lunch on this idea? >metlay brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 14:41:00 EST From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: Re: Stand alone analog filters ...? Brian, I still don't know what kind of filter you are looking for: swept, hi-pass, lo-pass, band-pass, etc. I am a guitarist. I mostly play an acoustic or classical through a rig which consists of a limiter (alesis micro-), an effects box (alesis quadraverb II, what a box!) a graphic equalizer, and then a Randal 200W amp into a pair of AR speakers. There's also a Boss 8-channel mixer, so I can balance wet against dry. Sometimes I use a 3/4 fender electric which I was lent by a VERY good friend. The point is this: I use group of `fixed' analog filters this way. I primarily use the equalizer to remove the evil effects of using electronics on my lovely, real acoustic instruments and my wife's lovely, real voice. But I do some other effects-based stuff with it, mostly playing with the over- all sound. The kicker: I have two 10-band graphic equalizers. One is a BSR from DAK, which has a spectrum analyzer-of-sorts and a calibrated mic. The other is from Radio-shack, and I got it the last time they had a sale for under $90. If you just want a filter, this is a good way to go. Once you've zeroed your electronics to the room acoustics (very important to me, since feedback is real easy when you live-mike an acoustic box with built-in resonators and a heavy peak at 220Hz), take note of the settings, and then play with it. If you wrote down the settings, you can get back to start almost as easily as you can with the Quadraverb's recall-preset function. If you want something parametric, that's another story. Please let us know. -raybro ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 20:45:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: Stand alone analog filters ...? There's no reason at all you can't build a few synth modules and a power supply to do this stuff; kits exist for these things from various companies, like Paia and whomever it is sold the stuff that Kurt Geisel is currently turning into his very own MONSTER ANALOG MODULAR DEATH MACHINE. (As if a MAtrix-12 weren't enough. Tsk, tsk!) metlasy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 23:10:54 EDT From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: Stand alone analog filters ...? I'm using the Digisound-80 modules from Britain. They used to have a US dealer (who was based here in Pittsburgh, no less), but he has fallen back to technical support. The modules are all Curtis-based and are roughly equivalent to everything that Serge provides. Whether they actually perform as well as Serge, I've yet to verify for sure. In design theory at least, they are as good (if not suspiciously similar). They are available in a variety of forms from plans to a fully assembled rack. Getting the complete kits or assembled modules imported from Britain is very expensive, although not quite as expensive as the corresponding Serge modules I think. I've chosen this route because I can take the plans and mass-produce modules from scratch at about a tenth of the price of Serge modules. However, this is not recommended unless you want to breathe a LOT of solder fumes in the near future (not to mention etch and drill PCBs until you turn green). Oh, the unstuffed PCBs are available for about $10.00/module if you just want to go parts hunting. If you really wanted to rig your sampler with analog filters, I would recommend getting such modules. The Serge modules are preferred because they are US supported, LONG standing, and of extremely high quality. If your pocketbook can handle it (figure on about $170/filter plus a power supply, then you'll probably want envelopes). Then, you have two options. You can either buy/build a MIDI->CV converter and set your master keyboard up to send MIDI to the trigger converter in sync with the sampler. Secondly, you can use an envelope follower on the output of the sampler. The advantage of the former is that you can patch the filters to do keyboard tracking (vary the cutoff based on what pitches you are playing). In the latter case, you are at the mercy of the flexibility of your envelope follower. Ideally, you wouldn't be using the envelope follower at all: just a gate/trigger derived from the output signal. The D-80's envelope follower is packaged with such a gate/trigger output. Now, whatever you do this will be filtering all of your output monophonically, regardless of what polyphonic parts you are playing (sort of like the first polyphonic synthesizers and the Korg Poly-800 types). If you really want to go all out, you would have a sampler with individual outs and you would put a gate/trigger follower and a filter/envelope on each output for true polyphonic triggering. Frankly, for the cost of all those filters, you could go get a good 'ol sampler like the Prophet 2000 which has analog filters built in! If anyone is interested in contacting Digisound or Serge, drop me a message. Oh, and if you're curious, you can hear the D-80 on Wavestar's _MoonWind_ or on John Dyson's album. Nothing fancy there, they just have it doing some wonderful buzzes. - Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 11:45:15 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Stand alone analog filters ...? 2 Apr 90 23:10:54 EDT <6394.9004031023@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >If anyone is interested in contacting Digisound or Serge, drop me a >message. Oh, and if you're curious, you can hear the D-80 on >Wavestar's _MoonWind_ or on John Dyson's album. Nothing fancy there, >they just have it doing some wonderful buzzes. Wavestar wheeled out the D-80 for the last concert I saw. Quite impressive to see all those lights flashing in time with the sequencers... Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 13:27:00 EST From: DSR@CRNLNS.BITNET Subject: Re: Stand alone analog filters ...? >There's no reason at all you can't build a few synth modules and a power >supply to do this stuff; kits exist for these things from various companies, Years ago I built a box of modular guitar effects based on designs from Craig Anderton's short-lived DEVICE newsletter (which was before Craig joined Polyphony which was before Polyphony became Electronic Musician). Fun stuff--flangers with voltage controlled delay and regen, multimode VCF's (using CEM or SSM chips), triggered envelope generators, voltage controlled distortion, LFO's with voltage controlled frequency and amplitude (I used a CEM VCO chip--complete overkill, but it was easy. The CEM's use a current mirror to generate a triangle as the base waveform, so they can go real slow), and so on. It isn't digital, it's noisy (mostly my fault--I was a novice at laying out circuits back then), and there are patch cords hanging out all over the place, and it's still by far the most expressive bit of electronics I own. -Dan Riley (dsr@crnlns) -Wilson Lab, Cornell University ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 14:12:00 EDT From: CHRIS@FANDMA.BITNET Subject: Low cost Mac For those of you who wanted to use a Mac but couldn't afford one, the latest rumour is that the low-cost Mac will be introduced this fall to replace the Mac Plus and the SE. It is basically an SE without an expansion port, and supposedly will list for around $1,000 U.S. which means discounts to around $800 will be available on the street, and perhaps as low as $650 on campuses. -chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 11:38:20 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: You asked for it (Mac setups) 30 Mar 90 13:26:00 EST <22206.9004011604@lfcs.ed.ac.uk >Also, I was wondering if Nick Rothwell would enlighten us IBM users regarding >his Mac setup. Ok, just let me don my costume and transform myself into my PERFORMER alter-ego in a dazzling flash of designer windows, chunks and MIDI sliders... (not much else I can do at the moment, since our section of the ether has died [the cable, you understand, not the stuff itself], so all that's working properly at the moment is this Macintosh...) My setup... well, I'll tell you what it's like right now, since it's (shock horror) about to grow again to encompass two independent MIDI rigs for a live set (what was Metlay saying about Tonto?). I have 6 MIDI synths, a MIDI piano, Cyclone arpeggiator and QuadraVerb in my MIDI network (I also have a MIDIverb II, but this stays tuned to program #28 for blanket reverb and isn't MIDIed). At full pelt I need to address some 24 MIDI channels, although a few of these can be merged together; for example, the MKS-7's percussion section only responds to a small part of the MIDI note range, so I could use the upper part of the keyboard for something else, and put a patch-change-only unit on the same channel. Also, I rarely try to drive all 8 parts on the D-110 at the same time. Even so, it would be extremely inconvenient to shoehorn everything into 16 channels. I have a 2.5Meg Mac plus (the higher machines have truly stratospheric prices here in Europe), and run Performer together with the Anodyne generic patch editor/librarian, at the same time under MultiFinder. Performer will kick out its serial port drivers when it is switched out under MultiFinder, and I hacked Anodyne (which is a MIDI Manager application) to do the same. This means I can have Performer running a sequence, and then flip to Anodyne, and have several active patch files and current edits for my D-50, D-110 (tone, timbre, patch, rhythm), MKS-70 (both tones), MKS-7, Matrix-6 available at once. There is, unfortunately, no integration between Performer and Anodyne, although their windows share the same screen and I can flip between them in a second or two. As an aside, Performer seems pretty happy driving all this stuff even on a Mac+. I sometimes need to take a little care to avoid some delays when I have some layers of fast Tangerine Dream style sequencing and percussion mixed with 15-tick volume fades; but these delays are problems internal to units like the D-110, rather than anything to do with the Mac, Performer, or the MIDI cables. When we're flying flat-out, though, the window refresh gets mightly sluggish...! Oh yes, a 20Mb HD (75msec access, so pretty slow and klanky, but it does the job). I have a home-built dual-port MIDI interface (1MHz), all string and sealing wax... In fact, not a bad looking machine, a black project box with two bicolour LEDs. These monitor the MIDI side of the interface, and burn red when data comes in and green when it goes out (and yellow if both). In fact, the LED's take as much circuitry and PCB real-estate as the rest of the interface. I intended them to just be cosmetic, but in fact I find that having a set of lights monitoring the Mac ports is ESSENTIAL sometimes. Otherwise, how do you know whether an application has kicked in its MIDI drivers or not? Whether active sensing has stopped? Whether the Cyclone is so stupid that MIDI sync signals and foreign SysEx messages go straight through it and loop back to the Mac? (it *is* this stupid, by the way.) Lights are essential to a setup of this complexity. I also have a Studiomaster MIDI analyser, which is a box a little larger than a cigarette packet, with 36 LED's to monitor the kind, and channel, of MIDI messages on a MIDI line. This is my oscilloscope into the system, and very useful indeed. The Mac's MIDI connections go into a MX-8 MIDI patchbay, and then out to the various devices which are spread in a fairly arbitrary way between the MX-8's outputs. The source devices (D-50, pf85, Cyclone) go into the MX-8 and are fed to the Mac. Usually, the D-50 and pf85 feed directly to the two Mac ports, with the Cyclone switched in whenever I want to record its sequences into Performer. I wouldn't bring the Cyclone into the circuit otherwise (it's far too anarchic). I have one spare MX-8 input, which plugs into any other of the (rackmount) units if I want to unload from it. In fact, all of my units except the QuadraVerb have all the voice data stored on the Mac, so I don't need to do this. (why not the QV? Because it's MIDI spec, which is proprietary and secret by the way, is so weird that a voice editor for it would be rather hard work; but, I will get around to one.) That's about it. I don't use tape at all (apart from the adhesive variety). All the recording, rhythm programming, mixdown and effects control is driven from Performer. I have to set up a mix beforehand on my (manual, ho hum) 16x2 Studiomaster, but that's then pretty well fixed for the piece, except for the odd snapshot manual change of something at a predetermined time (Performer's Marker cues inform me of these). So much for the present. Things are going to grow. For our live work, there will be two of us. My colleague has a MIDI set-up consisting of D-50, VFX, MT-32, DX21, Juno106. He drives all this stuff from an Atari running Pro-24. He is, therefore, limited to 16 channels, which means he has to program keyboard splits all the time, and under-addresses the MT-32 and VFX. I hope to take delivery of a VFX as well in a week or two, if my local dealer can find me a V2 machine which works. I want to buy one for a variety of reasons. Firstly, I like it; any mutterings and murmurings about how it will improve my creativity and music would be completely bogus anyway, so I'll not mention them. Secondly, it'll be useful to have the same two main axes (D-50, VFX) between us, in order to move parts from one player to another, and so on. Thirdly, I'm a little uneasy about using too much remote rackmount gear live. I have very few problems with stuck notes and the rest, but given that units like the MKS-70 are buggy and don't respond to All Notes Off, this makes the MX-8's panic button less useful. Rather than play remote units from a keyboard, with the MX-8 switching the connections, I'd rather have another set of ivories, like a VFX with it's pretty good performance features. If we can arrange the music so that the stuff we play is all local to the controlling keyboards (and not going to rackmounts with known MIDI bugs), I'd be a little happier. You may have noticed that the MIDI channel total of my setup, an additional VFX, and my colleague's setup, runs to 52. Whoops. Name me a hardware sequencer that can address 52 MIDI channels, has programmable tempo change, and can store complex backing sequences and mixdown information for a hour of music. Quite. So, I think our only option is to use a Mac and Performer live, running into a MIDI Timepiece to address all these channels. The MTP runs in a "smart mode" where it buffers and times the MIDI data going out onto 8 separate outputs (and ditto for input); Performer preloads, addresses and timestamps stuff for any channel on any output. At least, this is my understanding. So, that's a sequencing set-up with 128 channels (expandable to 512, I'm told). I'm fairly happy about gigging with Performer. (I had a crash two years ago, and was quite happy about this until I brought it down twice last weekend, under rather hostile circumstances like Cyclone'd data streams and low RAM; but, for output only, it should be fine.) My colleague will have to unload his material from Pro-24 into sub-sequences in Performer (losing the structure in the process, I expect); and then we can hang his keyboard rig off some of the outputs of the MTP. The MIDI Timepiece doesn't accept program changes, and I don't want to route anything through Performer during a live set; so, I'll probably retain the MX-8 and use this for live keyboard switching and channelising, sending it patch changes from the MTP (and being very wary of hung notes in the process). Ah, looks like our ethernet is back. Must get some work done. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 13:51:16 EST From: MICRO@MOREKYPR.BITNET Subject: Computer Software I have just started using Finale (on an SE20) is there anyone out there using Brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 14:50:38 MEZ From: Christian Teuscher Subject: Re: Computer Software Finale: I use this program for over a year now. What is your problem? --Christian T. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 01:35:00 EST From: The Silicon Junkie Subject: Lyric Server? Does anyone know the address of the lyric-server, a file server that has archives of song lyrics? I remember hearing about it last year, and now I require its service and have misplaced its address. Anyone...??... Mucho thanks, -- Tim. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 10:23:48 EDT From: Anthony Whipple Subject: Lyric Server I believe that the address of the lyric server is on a bitnet node at 'Lyrics@UMass'. I also have a copy of the message that was posted regarding the lyric server. I could repost it if people are interested. Tony ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 11:46:52 EDT From: MTG@CSI.COMPUSERVE.COM Subject: Lyrics Server Information The lyrics server's address is: LYRICS@UMASS.BITNET Send a message there with the text of your message saying "HELP". If you want to start off by getting a list of albums there, send a message saying "ALBUMS" in the text. HELP will tell you the gorey details. - Mark G. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 22:42:59 MEZ From: Christian Teuscher Subject: Re: Lyric Server Yes, there are people interested out there. --Christian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 14:58:12 EDT From: Anthony Whipple Subject: Lyric Server Here is a copy of the posting about the Lyric server that I received a year ago or so. I tried the server just recently, and it's still there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Message: 4300353, 158 lines >Posted: 7:54am EDT, Sat Apr 22/89, imported: 8:01am EDT, Sat Apr 22/89 >Subject: Lyrics server response. >To: userID=K505 >From: LYRICS@UMASS.BITNET %Hello, this is LyricServer V1.20, active. **************** LyricServer News **************** Well, I told you to prepare for some minor burps (see below) and we had a biggie! Ed "Mr Cranial Density" Egleston managed to gunge up one of the data files, so the server was down until the file got restored. (No, seriously folks, it wasn't Ed's fault at all and he's totally blameless. I mean, he gunged up the file but it was the Cyber flaking out, not him.) Kudos to folks like John Relph and Laura "L" for typing in lyrics. Wicked cool, dudes! Especially Laura, who must be chained to her terminal, she's sent so much stuff. (Good lord, woman! Get out a little! Get some sun and fresh air!) Those of you who are into XTC the band, not the drug) should check out John Relph's mailing list called "Chalkhills". You can get info by dropping the Relphster a request at chalkhills-request@presto.ig.com -- what a man! LyricServer has returned under slightly new management! I apologise in advance for any minor burps, bugs, or minor futzes you may see due to me recompiling the furshlugginer CDC Pascal source code at 4:20am and (no doubt) missing a few things here and there. Don't forget the fine UPDATE command! Please be sure you have read the available help info before using the server. To get the help, send a SUBJECTLESS message to LyricServer with only the word HELP in the body of the message. This does NOT mean you put your signature file at the end, nor does it mean you put "No subject" or "subjectless" in the subject line. NO SUBJECT means NO SUBJECT. Because of the congestion in the network, all LyricServer responses are being truncated at 700 lines. Sorry! Request: HELP Carefully read the terms and conditions of the following agreement PRIOR to sending requests to the Lyrics server. Sending additional requests to the server indicates your acceptance of these terms and conditions. YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: a. The lyrics server is providing a service at your request, acting as your authorized agent. All actions taken by the server as response to your requests are your own responsibility. b. In no event will the owner and/or author of the server be liable for direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages resulting from any use of the server, even if the possibility of such damages is known. Enjoy the Lyrics Server. Lyrics Server Help ------ ------ ---- Introduction: This program is designed to read requests from a mail file, and reply with the appropriate selections from the database. The format for a request from the lyrics server is as follows: Command/param1=option/param2=option/param3=option There are 3 commands available for requests. Lyrics - prints lyrics Albums - prints album titles and authors Songs - prints album titles, authors, and songs on albums These commands will accept 3 parameters. /Author=xx restricts command to response that is the work of author xx /Album=xx restricts command to responses contained on album xx /Song=xx restricts command to responses of song titled xx Examples: Albums/Author=Peter Gabriel -will list album titles of Peter Gabriel Lyrics/Album=So -will print lyrics of any album entitled So Songs/Album=So -will list all songs on any album entitled So Lyrics/Song=Red Rain -will list lyrics of any song entitled Red Rain Multiple parameters are also valid. Examples: Lyrics/Album=So/Song=Red Rain -will list lyrics of a song Red Rain that is contained on any album called So Albums/Author=Peter Gabriel/Song=Red Rain -will list any album by Peter Gabriel that contains the song Red Rain Commands and parameters may be abbreviated to their minimum uniqueness, thus Albums/Author=Peter Gabriel/Song=Red Rain is equivalent to Al/Au=Peter Gabriel/s=Red Rain Requesting Lyrics: To make a request to the server, simply type the appropriate command line in the body of a message to Lyrics Server or Lyrics@UMass.BITNet (BITNet) Lyrics%Umass.BITNet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (internet) If you would like to make a request from the server, a good place to start would be sending just Albums (The Albums command with no parameters) which will list all album entries. Multiple requests can be made in one letter by typing each command set on a separate line. The subject line is ignored by the server. The server checks for mail every ten minutes, so a response shouldn't take any longer than that under most circumstances. Network replies obviously depend on other factors as well. Note: Some requests may entail lengthy responses. Users with minimal file space should be aware of this. Note: a * next to a song title indicates that it is an instrumental, or no lyrics are available for it. Advanced help is available by typing HELP/option where option is one of the following available topics: FORMAT - instructions for formatting lyrics to be contributed SEARCH - describes the wildcard string search capability The lyrics server string search is very useful for abbreviating song/album titles if you aren't positive of spelling or punctuation. Contributions are always encouraged and appreciated. Please send all questions, comments, corrections, additions, and whatnot to: Lyrics Manager or Lyrman@UMass.BITNet Lyrman%UMass.BITNet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 14:23:24 +0100 From: White Rabbit Subject: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Its good to see my favourite subject come up on the lists - modular synths... including the excellent Digisound 80 stuff (what I got!)... This beastie was the first synth I bought, and confirmed in my mind a preference for TOTAL flexibility of modulation routing, etc. Thus my interest in a totally programmable digital system, and the hardware/software to operate such a creature. For my money, the ultimate synth is a digital D-80, with access to reverb, and other fx 'modules', multiple types of DCO, from FM to wavetable, 'proper' filters that sound like analogues (PPG did it on the Realizer's MiniMoog page) and the total patching flexibility of a modular system. Impossible? Nah, just not quite practical ( affordable! ) yet, unless you want to do it yourself on a delayed playback basis. I do, so I'm ignoring modern synths and saving up for a fast computer I can fit a big hard disk, DAC's ADC's and a DSP chip to... HOWEVER, I believe that the manufacturers of synths are capable of, and should be enticed to, implement a 'modular' bus for their systems... As an example, consider a situation where you have Yamaha's new AWM/FM conguration, but wanna use, say, a D50 patch instead of the AWM section. Blast it through the modular bus from the D50 into the SY77, and then maybe out again into a bank of AKAI digital filter modules. On a system like this, notes would be matched all the way through, so it would be totally polyphonic. Oh, yeah, and a bank of pots and sliders for real-time controls... Getting onto rackmounts, we could have say Valdorf wavetable DCO's fed into a Vector Synthesis 'mixer' module, and thence into Yamaha FM modules, then a choice of some micro-delay modules, ring and amplitude modulators, with feed-forward and backward paths to the control and signal inputs of the FM and VS units, then finally into Roland filter/amplifier stages, and an Alesis reverb module. Add in a dozen of your favourite envelope/LFO modules, and away you go... All this per voice, with total configuration of the modulation routings and depths... Expensive? Not in five years. Practical? Multi-processor bus systems have existed for years. Difficult to configure? YOU decide on the system, so no, not unless you want it so... 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. Why SHOULD we be tied to such things as systems with onboard fx, but only a stereo output pair stage, or nonexistent (or poor) filters on a sampler... If a manufacturer wants to provide filters on his DCO module, let him, but he should also provide 'bypasses' and inputs to the start of those filter stages... Akai tried a (proprietry) system where theire first samplers could have their outputs channelled into one of their synths filters/DCA stages, but it vanished off the S900... I want it BACK, and on ALL machines. Until then, i work on getting my own software based system. If Digidesign can run TurboSynth on their Sound Accelerator card, how far off ARE the days of the digital modular synthesiser? Well, I've managed to spout off for a good wee while, so I'll leave with a question... are we stuck with closed architecture machines, or are they a stepping stone to a more open future? White Rabbit. ******************************************************************************* 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: Wed, 4 Apr 90 20:35:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Open architecture doesn't sell. It is and always will be expensive and intimidating to the untrained, WHEN compared to Black Boxes (TM). The trend in modern MI industry marketing is less real power and more perceived power to the user; give them more toys and they won't mind how constricted the whole package turns out to be.... Just feeling crispy, metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 14:40:39 EDT From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Metlay is correct and I honestly can't predict what the future will bring. I think there could be a revolution or another decade or two of Black Box (TM). The industry was making noise a while back about having all the synth/effects chains "stay in the digital domain." It would be interesting to know more of the demographics of synth buyers. Are they really a bunch of studio players who want Black Box's? Do they not have time to explore or even care about innovative routing and programming? The impression I get is that the competition among today's studio musician is all in the realm of time (i.e. how quickly they can make sound to satisfy the musician/producer) and you can't argue that a lot of today's technology DOES do well in the realm of time. There are powerful sequencing and scoring systems, third party sounds, and more and more sounds and configurations built in to the Black Box's. And yet, the reviewers in the MI mags have stated their liking for more flexibility/programming/modulation routing for YEARS. So what's going on? Do the reviewers not reflect the market? Or is the industry just "getting away with" marginally satisfying everyone with a continuous supply of Black Boxes? It would seem to me that White Rabbit's comments on digital modular hint at an industry that would do just as well: they could still come up with the latest module of the month and, in fact, probably sell even more units because every system is infinitely expandable (more so than with today's half-compatible workstations which have a poor implementation of everything in every box...) Just some thoughts, - Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 15:34:29 EDT From: "ISA-HRDD Robert N. Muth" Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? I believe there are a few reasons why the so-called 'revolution' to digital modular synths might not take place for awhile. 1) Profit. The main reasons these synth companies exist. It doesn't matter if the MI mags or other out-spoken knowledgable hobbists would die for more creative sound manipulation. It just depends on who constitutes the synth buying population and what they're interested in. This would especially guarantee the black box's existence if there exists a 'silent majority' of synth owners whose idea of sound synthises is 'play with all of the neat buttons, nobs, and sliders until you get a nice sound'. Unfortunatly, I perceive that such a majority exists and that they are indirectly creating a substantial influence to the type of equipment being produced. I'm not trying to insinuate that the majority of all synth owners are ignorant or lazy; rather that they are satisfied with the type of equipment produced and only look forward to improvements in existing equipment, rather than new types of equipment. 2) Compatibility. Some-how, some-way, there will surely be a time when problems arise from trying to integrate modules. If some substanial effort and thought is not put into a 'standard' for industry-wide compatibility, then the dream of an infinitely expandable system could easily turn into a nightmare of dead-ends, entrapment within a certain company's products and/or systems not upwardly compatible. 3) User-interface. A poor user interface can (and sometimes should) kill a system. Is it possible to achieve a workable user-interface when working at a lower level of synthises? Moreover, would a better interface ultimatly curtail the capability of a modular system, thereby wasting the potential so sought after? Just some more thoughts. ------------------------------== Robert N. Muth rmuth@cor1.pica.army.mil ------------------------------== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 14:35:38 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? 3 Apr 90 14:23:24 +0100 <24145.9004051130@lfcs.ed.ac.uk > HOWEVER, I believe that the manufacturers of synths are capable of, and >should be enticed to, implement a 'modular' bus for their systems... As an >... > Other advantages - built-OUT redundancy of modules. Total flexibilty... Which is why, I suspect, it'll never happen. Right now, Roland, Yahaha and company can bring out a new D-20/D-70/SY-77/22/55/whatever every year, and people flock to buy it, discarding the (year-)old as worthless. Have a quick scan through rec.music.synth to see what I mean. (And, yes, I'm guilty of this too, to an extent, tempered somewhat by European pricing.) Why should Yahaha bring out an FM-DCO unit for a modular system when they can bring out an entire new keyboard, screen-print some pretty graphs and a new buzzword on the front, and sell huge quantities of those for a huge amount more? I've heard the term "open-ended, future-proof" used by Japanese manufacturers in the past, most notably Roland with the MC-500 (now obselete, there's a Mark II) and the W-30 (ptui). Bear in mind, also, that the market is dominated by big Japanese corporations, and the Japanese society is a throw-away one. [A friend of mine who worked there for a few years said that you only have to wander around the rubbish dumps to pick up most of the components of a hi-fi, pretty new and totally functional. Some kind-thoughted consumers even label the units they're throwing out if they're actually broken. See also my comments on r.m.s. about the current Yahaha TG-55 advertising angle.] True, there was MIDI, but that's essentially a dirt-cheap add-on to a complete unit anyway, and at the time ('83) there were no good modular comms architectures, and nobody thought MIDI was going to lead the way into a new "super-modular" (if you like) approach with networks of complete instruments (who, me?)... Hmm. Care to comment, Metlay? (you know more about this kind of thing than I do.) Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 18:36:00 EST From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Care to comment? ME? You WOUND me, Nick. As if I had anything to say...|-> In 1983, the e-music industry was rapidly throttling itself. Turnaround time was down to a year or less on new technology, and people refused to buy new gear; after all, there'd be something better out in a month, anyway, right? The industry had at least three proprietary standards (the Roland DCB, the Yamaha interface, and the Oberheim System). Things were competitive to the point of strangulation, and something HAD to be done. What was done, was MIDI. Its magic was that it made synthesizers resist obsolescence; everything else was gravy. If you think that the industry adopted MIDI due to higher principles, you're nuts. Does anyone here remember the incredible resistance to MIDI at first, especially from the American companies? Oberheim flatly refused to support it; their parallel interface was faster. Fairlight said it was too slow and clunky to bother with. Octave-Plateau put cannon plugs on its synths because it didn't like 5-pin cables. And so on. It was by no means guaranteed that MIDI would change everything about the way we make e-music. But it has. Why? Because, in the long run, it sells more gear. And now that things have come full circle and people are complaining about too much connectivity, too many complications, and so on, the industry repsonds with The Black Box. Where we go from here is anyone's guess, but I can assure you of one thing; it'll be the path toward maximum profit. cynically metlay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 22:46:08 EDT From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? "ISA-HRDD Robert N. Muth" writes: > 2) Compatibility. Some-how, some-way, there will surely be a time when > problems arise from trying to integrate modules. If some substanial effort > and thought is not put into a 'standard' for industry-wide compatibility, > then the dream of an infinitely expandable system could easily turn into > a nightmare of dead-ends, entrapment within a certain company's products > and/or systems not upwardly compatible. Despite common perceptions, the technology industries take standards pretty seriously these days and they are likely to improve. Take the care with which HDTV and CEBus are being handled for examples. I think the industry accomplished what they set out to with MIDI in a big way. The only problem is that, like most other industries, the standard is always behind the state-of-the-art. I think MIDI does a remarkable job and demonstrates what a successful standard can do today (there certainly wasn't anything like it before) and what could be done in the future. One drawback of such standards is they make it even harder to innovate. There already exists standards for real-time digital audio connections, but I believe that such a dream as the digital modular will be a LONG way off because no consumer is going to shed his hard-earned gear for the expensive next generation of networkable equipment, and hence no supplier will consider it. I believe such systems will appear in the high end such as video post production houses. Indeed, it already has to some extent, with things like the Synclavier going "open architecture" for both its computer bus and its audio bus. The best we can hope for is precisely what happened with the Synclavier and the Fairlight: as more and more studios realized how much fun the high-end post production houses were having with such equipment, benefits pioneered by them eventually trickled down to low-end pro gear. Meanwhile, the one who suffers is the serious electronic musician: one who wants modularity, programmibility, open architecture, and better user interfaces- essentially platforms for exploring sound rather than playing with it. He has to make do with current gear in a sea of music where the gear is everywhere and he/she finds it much harder to become distinguished amongst other black boxes and third party sounds. Still, everything is programmable to SOME extent and there is still a lot of very flexible gear out there (like the Xpander and the VS! :-) ) and we can get by and consider it a challenge (and remain aloof of all those other morons! :-) ) - 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: Thu, 5 Apr 90 21:39:42 EDT From: "S. Krusee" Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? As a fanatical knob turner and home-slider, I would like to remind X here that method of play does not define the art of playing. I find it impractical to compose in real time on digital equipment.(Though not impossible, it's a pain.) In light of this I am looking for a working A.R.P. 2600. Does anyone know of one, can anyone help? How much does it cost? Please let me know. I wait with baited breath. Stephanie ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 10:59:05 +0100 From: White Rabbit Subject: Re : The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Yeah, but wont some people be prepared to pay for the flexibility? I mean look at the money people fork out for closed-architecture systems like Synclaviers etc... And the advantage of a modular system is that you can pay for what you want, as you want it... take the example of a synth with only a few modulation sources ie LFO's and envelopes... these, in hardware and software costs are minimal, so a box providing 64 or 128 would be relatively cheap, and provide a LOT more modulation facilities than just about any system available at present... from two boxes! Do you really want to be marketing-driven in your choice of next year's synth, or do you want some choice...? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 10:52:56 EDT From: Dean Swan Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Well, here's a thought on the subject of "Black Boxes" (by the way, the original "Black Box", the DX-7, was really Brown. "Brown Boxes" anybody? :-) ). Considering the time factor which Kurt mentioned, which is very real, where is all the music that must be produced so rapidly? Proportional to the number of Black Boxes available, shouldn't there be more music to show for it? -Dean Swan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 17:31:53 EDT From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Dean Swan asks: where is all the music from increased productivity? I didn't say it was all quality. But I think there is increased productivity. Have you looked at the "New Age" bin in your record store lately? I am utterly surprised at how more often the New Age and/or electronic artist releases new albums these days! Maybe I'm wrong- I haven't done a statistical study or anything, but it seems that way on the surface. Of course, the market doesn't always allow everything to get pressed and distributed. I think there is much more "personal" music out there as a result. Many musicians I know are taking the route of just distributing among exclusive mailing list networks and friends. Gone are the days when I'd wait a year or two before the next electronic music album would show its face. Now I don't have the budget to keep up. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that my latest incarnation of MIDI studio gives me far more productivity than before MIDI was around! I miss some of the elements of "classic" electronic music production, but I don't think I'd give of MIDI sequencing and arranging now... - Kurt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 11:34:21 EDT From: Cecilia Tan Subject: Re: Re : The way forward? Or just nostalgia? Another thing about the MIDI standard. Back when it was implemented they built in all kinds of things to allow it to improve and upgrade. (Like those extra two pins in the 5 pin DIN... only three are currently being used. Woudn't it be great if the other two could be used for two-way communication or some such...?) Once the MIDI I standard was in place, it seems people lost interest in the MIDI II idea. Have any of you better-informed people heard about work on MIDI 2? -ctan Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 23:27:07 EDT From: Andy Silverman Subject: All this MIDI talk... Well, I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in here. MIDI's been great for standardizing the industry and avoiding obsolescence, for which we are all duly grateful, but I gotta tell you, whoever said the interface was klunky was DEAD on. All semester I've been doing a microprocessor-based MIDI hi-hat/filter pedal as an independent study (if anybody wants more details let me know, but otherwise I won't get into the lengthy description here. It basically implements a hi-hat function for a data stream going from a pad set to some other MIDI device, in my case a Yamaha PTX-8 brain sending note info to a Roland R-5). But the point of this rambling is that the more in-depth I look at this interface the more something in the front of my mind (not even the back) screams "Kludge!" at me! I dunno, maybe I'm just jaded from those hours of code optimization and poring over the MIDI spec... +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Andy Silverman | Internet: silver@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | | "All stressed out and | Compu$erve: 72261,531 | | nobody to choke." | | +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 11:47:27 +0100 From: White Rabbit Subject: Thanks for Books By the way, thanks to everyone that recommended books to me... just got a copy of 'Foundations of computer Music' by Roads and Strawn, and it should keep me busy for a while... Roads' second book of CMJ reprints don't seem to be available int the UK yet, or at least it wasn't on the shop i tried 's lists, but if anyone knows beter can they tell me? Thanks again White Rabbit. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 13:51:56 BST From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Hello ! Hi ! Just nipped down to France for a couple of days and guess what ? I have received 88 pieces of mail from Emusic. Thanks guys and gals, you are all lovely ! Anyway, while wondering near the George Pompidou centre I accidentally discovered IRCAM, popped in and had a look at some of the published research papers that have there ---- one dated back in 1976 by a certain Mr. Chowning about this FM synthesis of his --- I even heard a demo tape containing the most distressing noises I have ever heard --- apparently it was FM synthesis done on the DEC mainframe they had then. They have also ran a few tests on people using re-synthesised sounds of Trumpets and Violas etc. and totally confused the audience from recognising what the sounds are. I suspect the result of which led to the LA synthesis concept where the body of many instruments can be replaced by simple waveforms. IRCAM seems to be very proud of the MIDI flute they built, basically this is like a WX-7 built onto a real flute, and in turn drives a their 4X computer synthesiser. I wonder if this has in anyway contributed to the development of the WX-7. I won't be surprised if Yamaha is found to be sponsoring IRCAM all these years. Well, as always, the French, British and Americans invent the technology, and the Japanese picks it up and make a fortune of it ! Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 13:55:42 -0500 From: James Scott Subject: moog prodigy can anyone in netland give me the rundown on the capabilities of the moog prodigy? also, what could i expect to pay for one used? thanks ... james jscott@PEMRAC.space.swri.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 15:29:02 +0100 From: White Rabbit Subject: Theremin Society? Can Jonah (JCE8080@TAMVENUS) tell me if he ever did get in touch with the Theremin Society, and maybe also where he got his schematics, tips etc from? Thanks... White Rabbit. ******************************************************************************* 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, 5 Apr 90 15:45:00 CDT From: JCE8080@TAMVENUS.BITNET Subject: mmmmmhhhhrrrrmmmmmzzzz (Theremin noises) Theremin update: I got the frequency antenna working just yesterday. It sounds a little harsh because I opted for the easy two-chip method (a 7555 oscillator and a 4046 PLL chip to generate the variable tone and mix) which uses square waves throughout. I'm beginning to think that sine (tubes & transistors) may be the way to go... The method I am using is described in a Hands-On Electronics somewhere back in time...Their approach is sans (handwaving) volume control, which is pretty essential, so I am kludging onwards... hmmmmmmrrrrnnnnnnnhhhhhh...brrrrrnnnh Jonah ( No, I never found the Theremin Society's address...Anyone? ) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 19:38:46 EDT From: "Kurt A. Geisel" Subject: Re: mmmmmhhhhrrrrmmmmmzzzz (Theremin noises) Well, I can't seem to find the bloody address, but if all else fails why not drop a note to Bob Moog, who runs his own little group. Big Briar Route 3 Box 115A1 Leicester, North Carolina 28748 He is currently selling a CD of Clara Rockmore's best called _The Art of the Thereamin_. It is $16.00 postpaid. - 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, 6 Apr 90 13:28:00 EDT From: CHRIS@FANDMA.BITNET Subject: San Francisco MacWorld Is anyone on this list planning to attend the MacWorld Expo in San Francisco next week? I'm going to be out there Thursday through Sunday, and would be interested in meeting fellow emusic-ians... -chris [BITNET%"CHRIS@FANDM"] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 17:56:00 EST From: "M. J. Kociscin, R.I.T.'s Apple Student Representative" Subject: Brother Hardware Sequencers Has anyone had any experience with Brother's (the typewriter company) MIDI sequencers? How much are they selling for on the market? I realize that this question was asked before, but the resulting replies never properly addressed this issue. Thanks! Mark J. Kociscin Apple (Macintosh) Student Representative Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 23:48:50 EDT From: "Kevin R. Weiner" Subject: MIDI file question There is an ambiguity in the MIDI file spec regarding the handling of tempo changes. It is not specified whether event deltas should refer to a time interval computed at the time of the previous event and in the current time base, or whether the time interval must account for any tempo changes (and thus delta unit size changes) during the time span preceding the event. For example, say at time 0 an event delta is given as 8 units, with a unit defined as 10 microseconds. If after 4 units the tempo is doubled (halving the unit size), should the event occur at time 80, or 60? Does anyone know whether this has ever been clarified, or know what the original intention was? I suspect that both interpretations may have been used in programs which write MIDI files. -- Kevin Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 08:28:00 EDT From: FNELSON@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: RE: MIDI file question I think the delta times are expressed as ticks per beat. Changes in tempo should effect the clock that drives the software so the midi file should not have to be edited if you decide to change the tempo. Think of it this way: you write a score in quarter notes and a tempo of 60. Later you decide that you want to double the speed. You simply erase the tempo marking at the beginning of the score - you don't change all the quarters to 8ths. Gary Nelson Oberlin College ------------------------------ ---------------------- End of EMUSIC-L Digest **********************