EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 16, Number 1b Music Censorship Panning PAN S-770 Simmons SQ-1? (2 messages) ST midi port (3 messages) Step programming from Computer keyboard ? (14 messages) Translating hype: Lesson 1 - "awesome" (11 messages) VFX-SD (9 messages) Wavetable synth WX family instruments (5 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: Mon, 7 May 90 00:01:04 EDT From: "David A. Roth" Subject: Music Censorship In the May 1990 issue of Electronic Musician, page 122 an article appeared written by Craig Anderton called "SELL A RECORD, GO TO JAIL". The article talks about attemps at censorship of music. I thought the following info might be useful to others: "...the newsletter Rock & Roll Confidential offers a pamphlet, You've Got a Right to Rock, that summarizes courses of action ($3 from RRC, Box 15052, Long Beach, CA 90815)..." David david@david.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 09:51:16 EDT From: "George Buckner" Subject: Panning PAN A digester replies... Tim: I was a member of the PAN system for about a year. I was given free registration (a so-called $150 "value") with my purchase of Texture for my PC. Here are my observations, for what they're worth: I was only able to access it via TYMNET at 1200 baud, and that was the least of the problems. It has the most antiquated and unfriendly user interface imagineable, thus making it a major task to find your way around in it (response time can be very slow as well). A friend of mine, who is also an ex Pan user, put it best when he suggested that our most sensitive national secrets should be stored there -that way NO ONE will find them. :-) As for what I could actually find there, it consisted of product announcements and the usual forums, email, etc. which you can find most anywhere else (and a lot easier). Also certain messaging and business services which MIGHT be useful to SOME professional performers. At any rate, I was NOT impressed. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 May 90 14:06:00 EST From: "M. J. Kociscin, Subject: S-770 The following message was sent to me, rather than the net: >Subj: RE: S-770 info I paid $1495 plus $99 for the mouse for my S-330 several months ago. David [END OF MESSAGE] ------------------------------------------------------------------ Readers- Please be SURE that you are posting to the net, unless you specifically want to send the author of the message a personal note. Thanks! Mark (MJK7911@RITVAX.BITNET) ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 19:25:13 BST From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Simmons Yes indeed Simmons has gone out of business ... and back. No the first time now, this is the fifth (!) time they have gone bust ... and back. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 08:22:43 CST From: Jayson Tipp Subject: SQ-1? From the discussion here, the SQ-1 sounds like the ESQ-1 which was discontinued a couple years ago. I recall a salesman recently telling me that Ensoniq was bringing back a revamped version for low cost. Is this the SQ-1? A pumped-up ESQ-1? By the way, does anyone know the latest ESQ-1 software version? Lastly, does anyone have experience with the KORG P-3/U-3 boxes. I picked up the U-3 (also called Symphony) module recently cheap. I need to find cards for it. Does anyone know a good source, or if other KORG cards will work? Thanks.... Buzz. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 12:30:00 PDT From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: SQ-1? Re: those Korg desk top boxes... Actually, I think the Symphony box was called an O-3. But whatever it is called, the P-3 and O-3 boxes have been discontinued for a while (so what else is new...) and the cards are a little hard to come by. Only cards designed for these boxes will work. As far as I can surmise, there are no further developments for cards. At Christmas time, I called all the big stores and the ones in the back of magazines and only found one that carried them. For those interested, give Throughbred Music a call in Florida. I don't have the number handy, but they are a regular advertiser in the music rags. Sam Ash said they might carry them, but I never called them back. Good Luck finding those cards- Willis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 12:49:00 CST From: jeff beer Subject: ST midi port What is the problem with that? I have written interrupt driven Input and Output routines for it and it works great. If you don't like the Xbios calls, you can write your own routines with ease, which is what I did. With the other computers, MAC and AMIGA, you have to buy an interface. I won't comment on something I don't know, but I know there were a lot of complaints when the interfaces first came out. Apparently whatever the problems were have been fixed. Still, I would rather deal with something sitting on the bus than to have to deal with a non-MIDI port, at least from a programmer's viewpoint. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 14:31:00 EST From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: RE: ST midi port OK! I'm glad to hear that the midi port is working well on the ST. I am only just starting to program in C, (and I have not done any amiga programming in assembler, for lack of a good one) so I still carry some of my old biases from elsewhere. I find the bus on the only other machine I've programmed for recently (the bloody PC) to be hopeless. Of course, the serial port on a PC won't do 32.5Kbaud correctly, either... For information's sake, the MIDI adapter on the amiga consists of a few opto-isolators. Period. (Ok, I lied---There's some resistors, too). Otherwise, for the programmer, it acts like a modem, and you access it like any other serial device attached to SER:. If you're in for time problems, you might not like the fact that everything needs to be passed off to the EXEC operating system, and you can't be sure that it'll go out immediately, but in practice, it can handle 12-note chords (on 8 MIDI channels) easily. I haven't done more with it because of the limitations of DMCS and my reluctance to dump a few more hundred dollars on more software that'll make my machine play like a machine. The upshot of this, is that, somewhere along the line, I'd like to write some music software for the Amiga which allows some real tailoring of the output, but in a better sense than `record it in a sequencer and edit each number'. Like something graphical: the notes appear on a staff (or on a `music space' if you like less definite displays) and you move lines above and below the staff to make graphical displays of tempo variations, in-tuneness, attack strength, stuff like that. To this end, I will throw my head open to all comers: What have you always wanted in music comp/transcription/score-manipulation software; what would you like it to look like; how would you prefer to manipulate it? Mauro seems to prefer computer keyboard input, and that will always be there. What else? If there's any mouse stuff, it'll all have to be do-able with the mouse alone. This one-hand-on-the-keyboard, one-hand-on-the-mouse, one-hand-on-the-instrument stuff has got to stop! I look forward to the responses! raybro ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 08:39:00 N From: Max Subject: RE: ST midi port Raybro, Just nudging in again on the computer keyboard input stuff, which I started out....... The C-Lab Notator package is really more MOUSE than keyboard oriented. You get pull-down windows which contain all the symbology, all you do is pick a symbol and drag it onto the score sheet (then click it into place). The program supports just about all the classical musical symbols and...... it is directly interfaced (as if it were one single program) to the Creator part (a 64 track sequencer). All the music which is typed in (or clicked-in to be more precise) is directly converted into MIDI messages, including all the expression symbols!!!! (one can also choose whether to work on the score sheet or on the MIDI events page of course!). Notator does a pretty good job of printing musical scores as well. P.S. Don't know if I'm doing the right thing yet.... but I'm determined to go through with it...... (silly Eyetie.......). -Mauro- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 09:37:00 N From: Max Subject: good, bad or just ugly???? Any comments on the following set-up ? : rack module FM-synth......Yamaha TX81Z " " PCM module....Roland U110 Computer Atari Mega1 + C-Lab Notator SL On the sideline: Fostex X-26 4-track. That's my sort of idea of a semi-economical set-up to compose music directly from the computer keyboard (remember my request for advice some time ago ??). Well yes I am hard headed and I want to be able to punch in my scores directly (no keyboards or controllers involved!!!!!!!). There are a lot of people out there who certainly have a lot more experience than I do!!!!!!! Thanx a lot for any help....... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mauro A. Zordan Dept. Biology, University of Padova Chemical and Environmental Mutagenesis Laboratory Via Trieste, 75 35131 Padova (ITALY) tel: 049-8286276 Bitnet: biolev@ipdunivx ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 07:58:00 EST From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: RE: good, bad or just ugly???? Mauro- I mostly want to comment on the computer, and get a general clarification: First, the clarification. When you say you `want to be able to punch in my scores directly (no keyboards or controllers involved!!!!!!!)' you confuse me. How, then, will you `punch [them] in', since all input to synthesizers come from a keyboard or controller of some sort, and if the controller is a computer, it also has a keyboard or controller? I have been doing some transcription of renaissance music to modern notation, using an Amiga [1000] and two FB-01's for output. Although I had to buy a MIDI interface, It was not expensive (and there are versions with multiple outs available). The ST's midi port has been described as an afterthought, and my limited experience with the machine leads me to agree. (Other points of view are encouraged, net!) The Amiga has a fair amount of music/MIDI software available for it, and Two very good implementations of each of the major (fast) programming languages, in case you want to roll-your-own: Lattice/Aztec C and JFORTH/Multi-Forth. (JFORTH also has some tie-ins to a music composing language, but I've never been able to afford the extra software). Size-wise, there is not much difference between the Amiga500 and the ST's footprint. You can still get 2Meg into the 500 box. What you get with the Amiga that you can't get with an ST is real multitasking. The benefit of this is that you can get to other functions of the computer (like work-processors, program editors, sequencers, etc.) while something else is going on. As an example: Mimetics has software for a multi-track Midi sequencer and also for making their sampler work. The sequencer is part of a system called SoundScape, which implements a MIDI patch-panel. Electronic Arts has a (fair) music editor/player with MIDI capabilities called Deluxe Music Construction Set (which is available for other computers, including the ST). One day, I fired up DMCS while SoundScape was running, and found that the authors had included the necessary code hooks, and DMCS had installed itself on the SoundScape patchpanel. I connected the DMCS out to the sequencer input, and was able to record 8 tracks from DMCS, which I could then (laboriously) edit to include velocity information that did exactly what I wanted it to. Additionally, I didn't like the Mimetics sampler software as much as another program I'd gotten. I was able to use the other sampler at the same time as Soundscape, even though they didn't have a direct interface, because the machine is multi-tasking. (Multi-tasking allowed programs that were written to communicate to run together, and programs that weren't written to communicate directly to run at the same time, and communicate by other means, like saving a file to hard disk and then pulling that file into the other program.) The whole point is that I was using the Amiga's internal sound generators to make samples of my voice, using DMCS to play a transcription of Randall Thompson's `Alleluia', and using the Mimetic's patch panel at the same time. This is not possible in anything other than a true multi-tasking machine. (even OS-2 will not be truly multi-tasking, when it finally becomes `multi-tasking' at all.) ------------------------------------------- OK, I'm done hyping the amiga. Now, on to another point about computers used for music: I can' can't imagine using a computer without at LEAST a 20Meg hard disk when doing music. Floppys become such a bottle-neck to getting something creative done in such a short time. Please consider this BEFORE laying out cash (or mortgaging your estate) on any computer hardware. Also---Determine what you'll need for a computer from a music store; buy the computer from a computer store. (I don't know what it's like in Europe now, I haven't been there since '79). In America, music stores will sell computers, but the people who sell them don't know enough about them to help you choose one properly, and can't begin to service them. [If you are a computer wizard, you wouldn't have been reading these ravings at all, so I'm not too afraid of insulting anyone...] The only exception to this rule might be if you settle on a computer made by a music instrument company. (I wouldn't recommend it...) I hope this has been helpful, and not just unnecessary BS. I'm not trying to sell you anything, but I'd really like to save you some of the hours of frustration I've already paid to buy this information. -raybro ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 16:50:11 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: good, bad or just ugly???? >The whole point is that I was using the Amiga's internal sound generators >to make samples of my voice, using DMCS to play a transcription of >Randall Thompson's `Alleluia', and using the Mimetic's patch panel >at the same time. This is not possible in anything other than a true >multi-tasking machine. You can do it on a Macintosh with MIDI Manager. But, I don't want to start this war again. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 19:48:46 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: Re: good, bad or just ugly???? Well, the TX is a good all-around FM unit, but the U-110 is absolutely horrible! I would strongly suggest either a U-220 or Proteus for your PCM module. As for the computer side, I can't help you too much there; I'm an Amiga user :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 14:07:00 EST From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: RE: The good, bad or ugly again I have no familiarity with C-lab's Notator package. My experience is with DMCS in the amiga format. DMCS allows using the mouse to place notes, and allows computer keyboard shortcuts. It also allows using a midi keyboard to input note and duration values (you can set a time period, say .5sec. Then, a short midi keypress gives the current note duration, >.5sec hold gives current value,dotted; >1sec gives next larger duration value, etc.) I tried using the mouse for everything. It got so bad... that I ran out and bought a DX-100. Now, when I'm doing much transcriptions, I use the DX and the comp keyboard: I choose duration with my left hand and pitch with my right. If the passage goes out of my keyboard range, I just transpose by an octave and edit it later. I have done this for the first 25 pieces in Petrucci's Odhecaton A, Randall Thompson's `Alleluia' (which I also did some neat tricks so the amiga `sings' the words!) and started work on Tschaikowski's `Little Russian' symphony and Nielson's 4th (the Inextinguishable). The techniques work best when you don't have to think. If you want to do anything creative, it's out of the question, unless you can keep the creative flow up for hours, unabated. That's what I've been doing. As for the ST midi port, The wide spread availability of a machine says nothing for it's limitations nor lack thereof. IBM-clones are the perfect example. The question is more ``what will you do with it, and will it do that?'' My info on the ST midi port is second hand, from: AVideo (a pro-video techhie mag) Amiga World (hardly unbiased) some net gossip (see above-hardly, etc.) The specifics ran to difficulties when you tried to output many channels, I think. If you have one, press it, and see if it squeals... -raybro ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 12:02:51 BST From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Step programming from Computer keyboard ? > Any comments on the following set-up ? : > rack module FM-synth......Yamaha TX81Z > " " PCM module....Roland U110 > Computer Atari Mega1 + C-Lab Notator SL > On the sideline: Fostex X-26 4-track. I think typing in your music note by note will soon become a nightmare for you, seriously. Benjamin Ellis used to do this on his BBC Music 500 and if you want to know how it is ... ha ha ... ask him. You really should consider having one of the modules in a keyboard. Either have the DX-11 instead of the TX-81Z, or the U-20 instead of the U-110, especially given the excellent sequencer package, you should be able to input real-time performance like pitch bend, modulation and aftertouch, ... etc to enhance your music. I am sure this is not the first mail you got telling you NOT to do this, but my word ... do you REALLY have too much spare time at your disposal ? Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 09:43:11 EDT From: "ISA-HRDD Robert N. Muth" Subject: Re: Step programming from Computer keyboard ? >> Any comments on the following set-up ? : >>rack module FM-synth......Yamaha TX81Z >>" " PCM module....Roland U110 >>Computer Atari Mega1 + C-Lab Notator SL >>On the sideline: Fostex X-26 4-track. .... you should be >able to input real-time performance like pitch bend, >modulation and aftertouch, ... etc to enhance your >music. If you even think of punching in pitch bends, modulation, etc. from a computer, you might as well take a coat-hanger and insert it 6 inches into your ear. It is such a pain to even edit these when I've played them on my board (that's why I usually just do the track over, instead of messing around with things like that). But to punch them in??! Do yourself a favor and get at least one board. It will save you *alot* of time (and enhance your music to boot). |=============================================================================| | Robert N. Muth | INTERNET: rmuth@cor1.pica.army.mil | | Engineering Coop Student | u91_rmuth@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu | | Stevens Tech/Picatinny Arsenal | BITNET: u91_rmuth@sitvxc | |=============================================================================| ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 09:00:00 PDT From: Willis Dair Subject: RE: Step programming from Computer keyboard ? I thought I'd point out a few things about step entering from my experiences. Step entering is a great tool to get some music in that is hard to play or to get music in if one does not play the keyboards well. I have used step entry in fast 16th note arpeggio sections. It would be close to impossible for me to play. Step entry allows me to get it in quicker than if I were to make a bunch of "takes." However, I have found a few down sides to step entry. The music is very sterile. Every note always falling exactly on the beat is very mechanized. It is very hard to get some "feel" to the music. Another fault is the inability to control the velocity of the notes. I have heard of people working from a musical scoring program and converting it to a sequencer program. In most cases, the programs defaults to a velocity of 64 and there are no dynamics to the music. Step entering from a keyboard presents another problem; inconsistency of velocity information. Without playing in a fluid motion at the correct tempo, one cannot judge the relationship of the "loudness" of the notes. I may have wanted something to be soft-soft-Soft-Loud-LOUD, and have gotten something like soft-Soft-Soft-Soft-Loud. It is hard to tell from note to note. My recommendation is to get a keyboard or controller of some sort. Play the music in real-time and resort to step entry if need be. I guess it all depends on what you want in your music. For example, "industrial" type music sounds better in a rigid, monotone style, and lends itself to step entering or quantizing. I think the decision to play real-time or step entering is a compromise of time, playing ability, rigid note durations, and dynamics. Willis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 14:27:35 BST From: "Benjamin M. J. Ellis :->" Subject: Step programming Yeah, To back up what Patrick says: (But also to throw a little salt in) I used to compose and write that way, using a programming language called Ample... you enter tunes like: ABCDEFGfedcba Is a scale, going up, then down again... capitals make the synth go up to the next note, small ones go down, duration is set with a ',' command, and octave by ':', and chords are put in brackets... ie a typical tune part might look like this: "Pianopart" [ 0:24,CDEcbCbC(E) ( )E(G)G(C)c(EG) ( ) ] Bad news huh??? but having said that, I composed some very complex and some cool stuff... its a different way of writing, so you get different music... after that I used sequencers, but still using step time. I still usually use step time to this day, although less and less as my piano playing improoves, and as I have opertunities to use MIDI guitars... BUT without a keyboard, editing and entering stuff onto a score is a PAIN! Using the (I think its called:) Stienberg 12 software, trying to survive without a key board means everything takes five times the time (?!?) to enter, o.k. fine, enter every thing in step time, that's fine by me, but using a keyboard means you can enter chords for example at about 3-5 times the speed!!! I think Patrick and I will time how long it is before a keyboard of some description is added to the set up! the guy is BRAVE though, I'll give him that! Benjamin. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 16:17:21 LCL From: ERL@SARA.NL Subject: Re: step programming Hi list. > I think typing in your music note by note will soon > become a nightmare for you, seriously. Benjamin Ellis > used to do this on his BBC Music 500 and if you want > to know how it is ... ha ha ... ask him. Depends on several things. What kind of music do you make? What instruments are you used to? What software do you use? Do you use any other input devices (eg, drum pads, light pen, joy stick, paddles)? Keyboardless composing doesn't have to imply typing in music note by note. Given the right tools, I think a keyboardless setup can be very useful/friendly/easy/... Example: If you compose rhythmic, percussive music, a piano keyboard is just as adequate as a row of function keys. If you're studying AI and computer-generated music and music programs, a keyboard is of even less use. If you have a wind controller, you don't even need a keyboard. Ask Nick. (:-) Of course, many of us couldn't do without the piano layout. But making music is certainly not limited to this layout. Suggested reading is Mike Metlay's series on this subject, posted about nine months ago. Treats *all* man-machine interfaces that don't involve a computer screen. > Patrick. Cheers, Edo Roos Lindgreen, SARA, Amsterdam (erl@sara.nl) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 15:46:00 N From: Max Subject: The good, bad or ugly again >I mostly want to comment on the computer, and get a general clarification: >First, the clarification. When you say you `want to be able to punch in >my scores directly (no keyboards or controllers involved!!!!!!!)' you >confuse me. How, then, will you `punch [them] in', since all input >to synthesizers come from a keyboard or controller of some sort, and >if the controller is a computer, it also has a keyboard or controller? Yes, well, the software I was thinking of makes it possible for one to edit scores (type in music characters) directly, the Creator part of the Notator package (by C-Lab) then does the rest (e.g midi channel routing and transmission of messages which are translated directly from the music sheet into midi messages. The midi sequencer works with 64 tracks and is fairly powerful, as far as I know........ By the way the Notator+Creator package is know in its SL (soft link) version which means multitasking should be possible with various packages.... Have to try though first!!!!!!!!!! >The ST's midi port has been >described as an afterthought, and my limited experience with the >machine leads me to agree. (Other points of view are encouraged, net!) Doesn't work well ?????? or what. I'm sorry but I didn't quite get this part. Strange that the ST should be such a widely diffused machine and yet be limited..............? In any case, my plans are more or less the ones you initially had in mind: transcription of Baroque and other classicals, with an eye to peculiar instrumental arrangements etc............. Thanx for clubbing in, very much appreciated the comments and advice!!! Ciao Mauro ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 10:23:30 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Step programming from Computer keyboard ? >However, I have found a few down sides to step entry. The music is very >sterile. Every note always falling exactly on the beat is very mechanized. You have to mix step-entry stuff with real "played" sequences. I use both, and generally cover fast rigid sequencing with looser pads and things to get a fluid effect (which *is* possible). >another problem; inconsistency of velocity information. Without playing >in a fluid motion at the correct tempo, one cannot judge the relationship >of the "loudness" of the notes. I may have wanted something to be >soft-soft-Soft-Loud-LOUD You can do this, but it takes practice and a reasonable staccato keyboard technique. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 16:21:00 N From: Max Subject: RE: Step programming from Computer keyboard ? >>However, I have found a few down sides to step entry. The music is very >>sterile. Every note always falling exactly on the beat is very mechanized. >You have to mix step-entry stuff with real "played" sequences. I use >both, and generally cover fast rigid sequencing with looser pads and >things to get a fluid effect (which *is* possible). The software I have just started using permits a definition of events up to 1/768 th of a click! Now it should be possible to select MIDI events to be processed (on an attribute basis..let's say, select all events which have a certain pitch or any other attribute) and then increase or decrease their timing "micrometrically". This should be one way of "Humanizing" the otherwise very mechanical feel "programmed" music would otherwise have. -Mauro- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 13:31:08 EDT From: Joe McMahon Subject: Step-entry vs. Keyboard Having now done both, I can say that a comparison (from my point of view) comes out this way: Step-entry is great if you don't play well and you already know what you'll be wanting to enter. It allows you to be very accurate in the specification of what you play, but it is time consuming to figure out where the "right" spot is for a note without having to tweak it a lot. Step-entry is death to improvisation. Keyboard entry allows you to experiment more while putting in the various lines. If you are not a "write-it-out-first" composer, the keyboard gives you a lot more flexibility. If you are not very good at playing, though, you'll either have to slow it down to nearly a stop to get it played right, or go mad in the process of playing the same five-note figure for the ten-thousandth time, and getting it wrong *again*... From what you were saying, you plan in general to do transcriptions. Step-entry may serve you very well here. The problem that you may have is injecting enough "feel" from the keyboard. It's difficult to break the emotions associated with what one is playing on the keyboard into specific numerical representations of pressure, dynamics, etc. Still, good luck! Maybe you'll have something for Magnetic Filings II this winter... --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 10:19:50 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: AWEsome sound? >Or possibly, >Ching-aaaaahh-tiddlyping-tiddlyping-tiddlyping ... Actually, the D-50's Ching-aaaaahh-tiddlyping-tiddlyping-tiddlyping (-swish, don't forget the -swish) has received a lot of use in TV commercials and incidental music. People are actually *using* the D-50 flashy presets (including Tangerine Dream, and Schmoelling and Vangelis both use the Chiff sounds). Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 09:47:00 EDT From: "b.klassen" Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? >I have a number of "awesome" sounds on my four synthesizers, all of which >are old and decrepit by today's standards. Among these are a string pad >that practically massages your shoulders and pours you a cup of hot cocoa >laced with amaretto, the sound of a bolt of lightning striking and detonating >an improperly-grounded liquid oxygen storage tank, and an indescribable >noise that has induced an uncontrollable orgasm in at least one young >woman after some 30 to 45 seconds of exposure at moderate volume. These are Yeah, but I *know* that practically everything that comes out of an Xpander sounds "awesome". I remember the first (and only, unfortunately) time I heard/played one ... I was looking at the Matrix-6 at the time, getting off on that OB sound, and then the guy starts playing a "similar" patch on the Xpander ... not hard to imagine aurally induced orgasms. As far as the VS is concerned, I've never knowingly heard one. And what's the fourth? A Korg DW-something-or-other, wasn't it? >metlay brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 12:09:00 EDT From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? Brian: The oozing sweetness string pad, believe it or not, comes from the VS. (I turned off the vector capabilities and tried to see what it could do as a straight wavetable synth...and boy, did I find out, too! |-> ) The two sound effects I mentioned *are* Xpander patches. I didn't mention anything that my poor little Korg can do, because I'm still teaching myself how to make it jump through hoops; surprisingly powerful little box! (If only it could do splits or multitimbral stuff, sigh) My fourth synthesizer is not yet a topic for discussion here. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 17:01:00 EDT From: "b.klassen" Subject: Translating hype: Lesson 1 - "awesome" I was just browsing through the recent postings in rec.music.synth and saw someone's mini-review of the new Yamaha SY77. The word awesome was used repeatedly to describe its sound. Since every new synth that comes out these days (maybe excepting the uWave) sounds, to me, like a D50, if figure I can replicate the sound on my beat up ol' axe. Since I can't reply to r.m.s (don't ask me why ... something to do with the way I'm obtaining my read-access;-), I though I'd ask you people, in your opinions, what exactly it is that awesome sounds like ... brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 18:06:41 EDT From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? Well, I can't comment too much on the sound, because the front panel is so non-intuitive that I couldn't figure out how to change patches -- I got stuck in some weird mode or another and couldn't find patch select. The only sound I did get to hear was a clarinet which struck me as no large deal. The reviewers seem to be most interested in the unpredictability of the beast. The Keyboard reviewer went on about the neat sounds it could make, sometimes several different kinds in the same patch :-). --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 08:54:17 SST From: Gan Seum-Lim Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? Joe, Well, maybe you just have to get used to the SY-77 and its setup formats. Once you know them, it is quite easy to get anywhere you want. I must say that it is a great machine though I've got a bit of problem with the built-in sequencer 8-) . Seum-Lim Gan Acoustics Control Room Department of Physics National University of Singapore. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 09:46:35 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: AWEsome sound? >though I'd ask you people, in your opinions, what exactly it is that awesome >sounds like ... Anything which goes CHIFF. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 11:45:52 BST From: Tony Jewell Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? > > >though I'd ask you people, in your opinions, what exactly it is that awesome > >sounds like ... > > Anything which goes CHIFF. > Or possibly, Ching-aaaaahh-tiddlyping-tiddlyping-tiddlyping ... (Like all those awesome D50 and K1 patches - they sound so good when you play with them in the shop, but are absolutely useless in any musical context - e.g. native dance on the D50 or terminator on the K1) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 2 May 90 14:51:00 EDT From: "b.klassen" Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? >Ching-aaaaahh-tiddlyping-tiddlyping-tiddlyping ... Hey, that's like right on. >(Like all those awesome D50 and K1 patches - they sound so good when you play >with them in the shop, but are absolutely useless in any musical context - >e.g. native dance on the D50 or terminator on the K1) Why do companies do that? (To sell synths, of course, stupid ...) The D-50 has quite a few such PCM loops taking up precious ROM. The worst is that there was actually a song that got a lot of airplay a while back that featured that famous D-50 IntruderFX patch ... end of chorus, bass and drums vamp to make enough white space for ... aaarrrgggeeeoooowww-ssppprrriiinggg-CHINGGGG ... wha? Come on guys ... > Tony J Jewell brian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:06:00 EDT From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? Brian: I have a number of "awesome" sounds on my four synthesizers, all of which are old and decrepit by today's standards. Among these are a string pad that practically massages your shoulders and pours you a cup of hot cocoa laced with amaretto, the sound of a bolt of lightning striking and detonating an improperly-grounded liquid oxygen storage tank, and an indescribable noise that has induced an uncontrollable orgasm in at least one young woman after some 30 to 45 seconds of exposure at moderate volume. These are all either full-analog or analog with digital oscillators (no samples); they comprise the reason why I walk through music stores these days with mild but passing interest. metlay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 17:58:40 MDT From: schabtac@SPOT.COLORADO.EDU Subject: Re: AWEsome sound? Actually, the D-50 PCM loops don't take up any ROM -- they're just a bunch of the attack transients that are already in ROM played in sequence. The story goes that one of the engineers set up a couple of start/end points (i.e. addresses) in the ROM sample memory wrong, and got the infamous tiddlyping- tiddlyping effect. He was going to fix it, but Roland decided it was kind of nifty (or rather, they decided it was a unique, innovative feature that would put more power in the hands of the musician) (me? sarcastic? nah... :-) so they left it in, and DigitalNativeDance was born. ( (Truth be told, I thought it was pretty nifty the first time I heard it, too. It would be hard to do anything useful with, though.) --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 15:03:00 EST From: D_NOLAN@UNHH.BITNET Subject: Re: VFX-SD Dean Writes: >Buy the Vfx. The Peavey is just plain icky. I can't tell you how true this is... I walked into a "music" store in Portsmouth N.H. and walked pawed to DEATH by a salesman that LOVED the new Peavey synth. Think of it as the Yugo of the Automotive Industry. Or Emerson of Electronics fame. Or the Tops-20 of today's operating systems. Again.. I cannot say enough bad things about the Peavey (including the fact that it doesn't even deserve to be capitalized) BLECCH .................................................................Shadow ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 10:43:28 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: VFX problems... > Any info that you could give me regarding those "VFX problems" >would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Well, there's not a lot to say other than that the version 1 VFX software is very buggy, so you *must* have version 2.0 or greater. Even so, some VFX's are a bit prone to crashing, so I believe. This may be hardware-related; my colleague has a VFX (firmware 1.63, now updated to 2.1) and has had very few problems with it, even at version 1; other folks on the net have had their machines going back to Ensoniq with their legs in the air (that includes the machine my dealer got in for me to try out; I never saw it). My *personal* feeling about this, based on the articles: there are many stable (V2) VFX's out there now. If you get one, good for you. But, I'd only buy one on a satisfaction-or-complete-change-of-machine agreement (well, this is what my consumer rights are about, but you know what sales staff are like...). Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 12:35:27 EDT From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: VFX problems... I've been torture-testing the VFXsd as much as I can this week. Worst I can do it blow it out with an "error 193" in the sequencer. This makes it restart, but that's all. It happened while I was trying to flip through a bunch of different displays, change patches, and record something at the same time. I've just been making sure that my patches are set before I start to record and I haven't had that problem again, or any others. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 May 90 13:41:29 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: VFX >You wrote to the emusic-l list that you have info on VFX on-line. >Could you possibly send a copy for me? I'm especially interested >in knowing how I could use it with my Mac (software, etc?). No hard info, really, just comments about reliability, upgrades/fixes, and so on. If I get a VFX, I'll be adding librarian support (probably not editor support, since the front-panel interface is pretty good) to Anodyne, (which is the (spacey) name of my generic editor/librarian for the Mac). I'll have to do *something* constructive to take my mind off the sad fact that Metlay will have stopped talking to me. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 May 90 13:11:22 +0300 From: aku@TKO-SONY-21.HUT.FI Subject: VFX Hi! You wrote to the emusic-l list that you have info on VFX on-line. Could you possibly send a copy for me? I'm especially interested in knowing how I could use it with my Mac (software, etc?). Thanks in advance, //aku Jaakko Siuko Helsinki University of Technology, Finland aku@niksula.hut.fi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 15:24:49 EDT From: "Rob Klamka (RSK4) Taylor A112" Subject: VFX problems... Nick, Any info that you could give me regarding those "VFX problems" would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Rob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 08:26:47 EST From: Wild Bill Subject: VFX-SD I have been shopping for a work station as of late and have settled into either the peavey DPxxxx or the Ensoniq vfx-sd. Does anyone have any input that may sway me one way or the other.........any info on these products will be greatly appriciated.....Oh yeah, the price on the vfx-sd with the 75,000 memory expansion stands at $2,300 .......how low can they go????? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 19:01:02 EDT From: Dean Swan Subject: Re: VFX-SD Buy the VFX/sd. The Peavey is just plain icky. -Dean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:36:43 CST From: Jason Keeler Subject: Re: VFX-SD Actually, before you commit yourself to either the Peavy or Ensoniq, I'd take a serious look at the T3....although price may be another factor to consider here; the T3, although fantasic sounds (in my opinion anyway) is a little pricey. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 15:56:33 BST From: "Patrick C.K.Tsang" Subject: Wavetable synth Hello, As I understand it, a wavetable synth works by scannig an array table of a waveform in memory, is that right ? So what makes the P.P.G. so interesting ? Is there something it does that digital synths of today won't do ? For months now a friend of mine has been designing a very fast DSP add-on board for the PC and I wish to write some DSP code for it to perform digital additive synthesis, using on-board memory for wavetables. The PC is mainly used for timbre design, control and downloading. What I cannot understand is the difference between a wavetable synth and a digital additive synth. Both of them would need to scan through a waveform table of some sort, don't they ? This is an area that I have been interested in, but know very little about, and I would much appreciate any advice. Patrick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 08:07:00 EST From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: WX family instruments It's been three days since I tried to post this, and I haven't seen the post nor any replies, so I'm trying again to a differing address. Please forgive me if this is redundant. (at least the verbiage will be different...) I am considering buying a WX7. Now, I hear (read) that there is also a WX11. What is the difference? How much should I expect to pay. Are there any that someone knows of in stock at a store near me? How about you? I am a bassoonist and recorder player. I do not play sax nor clarinet very well. How difficult is it to set the fingering to recorder (which I believe is a preset-fingering) or program the fingerings to someting a bassoonist could understand? What control information can it send, and which sensors does this controller information come from? (for instance, does breath pressure come as velocity or breath controller or loudness sysEX readable by FB01s? If it comes as breath controller, where does velocity come from?) Any answers to any of these questions will be better than what I've got now. I trashed two years of Keyboard/Music Technology/Guitar Player when I stopped playing rock (also sold my Charvel Guitar controller, but kept the FB01's, and I have an old Mirage now). I haven't a chance of getting to Caruso's in the near future, since I have to stay close to my wife. Our next child should have been here by now... -raybro ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 16:47:49 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: WX family instruments >I am considering buying a WX7. Now, I hear (read) that there is also >a WX11. What is the difference? How much should I expect to pay. Are there >any that someone knows of in stock at a store near me? How about you? I don't know anything about the WX11, just the WX7. Do you really want to know where you can get one in Edinburgh? >What control information can it send, and which sensors does this controller >information come from? (for instance, does breath pressure come as velocity >or breath controller or loudness sysEX readable by FB01s? If it comes as >breath controller, where does velocity come from?) The WX7 sends one of (i) breath control (cont. controller 2), volume (cont. controller 7), aftertouch. Also, the velocity of the transmitted notes increases as the breath pressure increases, so you get dynamics even on instruments which don't respect volume, BC or aftertouch. I have a WX7, but it took three months to arrive, and it's broken. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 90 14:10:00 EST From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: RE: WX family instruments Nick- I'll admit that prices in Edinburgh may only be of academic interest to me, but I would like to know. However, if they're all like yours...I may not. What are you planning to do about it? Is it used (i.e., not under warrentee)? Maybe a local electronic repairman could look inside it. When you remove the crickets, electronics work better! On the other hand, if it is under warrantee, the factory's in Japan... Good luck, raybro ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 90 10:24:46 BST From: Nick Rothwell Subject: WX family instruments >I'll admit that prices in Edinburgh may only be of academic interest to >me, but I would like to know. I paid around 300 quid mail-order from a place in England. >What are you planning to do about it? Give them hell (and get my money back) if they keep giving me the run-around like this. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 May 90 09:50:00 EST From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: wx-family synths Out side of the postings about the apparently-faulty WX7, What do you folks know about the WX family. I just saw an `article' (I use the term lightly) in Music Technology about alternate fingerings for WX7 and WX11's. I'd not heard of the WX11. What are the differences from WX7? Also, How hard is it to use a WX7 with recorder fingerings? I am a bassoonist with 20 years of recorder experience, but no sax and only little clarinet. Does anyone know of a shop with a WX7 for sale? How much? Thanks raybro ------------------------------ End of EMUSIC-L digest ******************************