EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 34, Issue 04 This issue's topics: Computer wrangling Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) (11 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: Wed, 13 Nov 1991 10:57:13 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) [Second attempt at posting...] >I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of the >week. The Amiga has much better sound Huh? What does the "sound" of the machine matter for MIDI? (Given the general areas of interest on this list, MIDI is the usual working medium.) Sure, the Mac has trashy sound facilities, but I have no use for them. >and the software, aside from the computer >itself, is so much less expensive. Sure. However, I do believe that you get what you pay for. I admit to paying a fairly huge amount of money for my system (which is a Mac with two screens and three hard disks (don't ask)) but it's worth it when it comes to building a good, high-quality, reliable, environment for sound design, sequencing, recording and performance. I have no dispute with your claims that the Amiga is a good machine for the sort of work you're presumably doing, but only a Mac will do what I need, and I'm not averse to paying for it. >Amiga : the infinitasking multimedia machine... What does "infinitasking" mean? I presume it refers to the Amiga's preemptive scheduling which sounds nice but for my purposes is largely irrelevant. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1991 22:32:32 GMT From: Ken Morton Subject: Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) I still get a good chuckle when I see Amiga posters talking about how their computers are better than others for music because of their "much better sound". Haha. I use a Mac system currently, but I believe the system to watch is the NeXT - in fact I am in the "paper" stage of developing a music expression system for it now. Anyone into music composition/recording should make it a point to take a look at the NeXT systems in the coming months. Sure they're pricey, but as Nick says, you get what you pay for.... Regards! Ken Morton -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Morton = The Universe is Digital! One sample every kmorton@panix.com = -42 ----------------------= 1 X 10 seconds! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 11:42:38 -0500 From: Dan Riley Subject: Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) [Joe, is this "over the line" for computer discussions?] > I still get a good chuckle when I see Amiga posters talking about > how their computers are better than others for music because of their > "much better sound". Haha. Sure, the 4 8-bit (+6 volume bits) Amiga internal voices don't qualify for much serious work, but they are handy if you are on a budget. I'll admit to using them now and then for a few background voices in situations where I don't mind the 8-bit grunge, or can effectively mask it. And sometimes when I'm in an experimental mood, it can be nice to have a set of low cost D/A converters that I can beat on directly from a reasonably powerful cpu. In general, I think the people advertising the internal voices as a great feature are people just getting started in e-music, not people with the serious MIDI rigs typical of this list. Seems like educating them and encouraging them would be more enlightening than laughing at 'em. > I use a Mac system currently, but I believe the system to watch > is the NeXT - in fact I am in the "paper" stage of developing a music > expression system for it now. Anyone into music composition/recording > should make it a point to take a look at the NeXT systems in the > coming months. Sure they're pricey, but as Nick says, you get what > you pay for.... The main advantage of the NeXT, as far as I can tell, is NeXTStep. The cost of a DSP board for most other platforms is comparable to the incremental cost of a NeXT, so I don't see the built-in DSP as a big advantage. NeXTStep and Objective C do provide a great environment for prototyping and building extensible systems, so it makes a natural platform for testing new ideas. For those of a more practical bent, though, I don't think the NeXT will displace Macs, IBMs, or even Amigas, as the most viable ideas from research platforms like the NeXT tend to migrate into production systems on other platforms. As examples, you might look at Max on the Macintosh, or Bars&Pipes on the Amiga (which incorporates ideas from systems like the Creation Station on the NeXT). As usual, my conclusion is that different systems have different features; the smart buyer will list her requirements first and then find the system that best satisfies those requirements. The NeXT does look to have a good chance of becoming the system of choice for cutting edge research, but there should still be lots of fun toys on other platforms for those of use with more modest or more practical requirements. I would be interested in hearing of any advantages to the NeXT specific to e-music that I may have missed, but let us try to keep the discussion factual and informative. -dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 12:33:00 EST From: wild and crazy organist Subject: computer differences O.K. I'll give you all a chance to talk about different computers. I am in the beginning stages a putting together a MIDI system. I have a D-70 as a start. My next purchase will probably be a computer along with sequencer software, music printing software, and a good patch editor package. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Macs and PC's? And what software should I look at? Don't bother mentioning Amiga's, I'm not interested in one. And follow Raybro's recently posted guidelines for talking about computers, I'm looking for data, not opinions. Thanks Kirk tutterow@uncg.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 12:46:13 GMT From: TOny M Subject: Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) In article <1991Nov16.223232.14669@panix.com> kmorton@panix.com (Ken Morton) writes: > > I still get a good chuckle when I see Amiga posters talking about > >how their computers are better than others for music because of their >"much better sound". Haha. > 'Sound' in this context means 'Built in sound-generating hardware' doesn't it?? I'm sure more or less any machine could have fantastic sound if people spent huge amounts of dosh on add-on cards, midi setups etc.... -----TOny----- -- Tony Marshall | University of Warwick |"Haha, and that's where I had you fooled because it's Coventry UK | not a ferret, it's a pig!!" - Vyvyan esucv@csv.warwick.ac.uk| ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 12:58:03 EST From: "Joseph D. McMahon" Subject: Re: Different computers > > [Joe, is this "over the line" for computer discussions?] > Nope, because you're letting us know about what possibilities exist and what limitations they have, as well as providing a springboard for further discussion on what could be done with the hardware in question. Secondarily, you've gone out of your way to be polite, too. > Sure, the 4 8-bit (+6 volume bits) Amiga internal voices don't qualify > for much serious work, but they are handy if you are on a budget. I'll > admit to using them now and then for a few background voices in situations > where I don't mind the 8-bit grunge, or can effectively mask it. And > sometimes when I'm in an experimental mood, it can be nice to have a set > of low cost D/A converters that I can beat on directly from a reasonably > powerful cpu. > Amiga owners: what kind of experimentation have you done? I get the impression that the sound subsystem has its own independent processor; this sounds like a wonderful system for experimenting with esoterica like waveforms generated by using the bit patterns generated by finite-state automata, etc. Any takers? I'd love to hear more about it, personally; I think the Amiga folks have a good cheap basis to start hacking from without having to worry if they've wasted extra money on specialized hardware. [N.B.: "See? I told you" is not an adequate followup; telling us about the neat noises you've ben getting and how you use them for your music is.] > As usual, my conclusion is that different systems have different features; > the smart buyer will list her requirements first and then find the system > that best satisfies those requirements. The NeXT does look to have a > good chance of becoming the system of choice for cutting edge research, > but there should still be lots of fun toys on other platforms for those > of use with more modest or more practical requirements. > > I would be interested in hearing of any advantages to the NeXT specific to > e-music that I may have missed, but let us try to keep the discussion > factual and informative. You've pretty much summed it up from my point of view, too; if a 4K RAM KIM-1 protyping board really trips your triggers and works with your music, who cares what anybody else has? Unless, of course, you can steal ideas from them and use them on your system. (and them tell us about what you've done!) --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 21:35:00 GMT From: Eric McCormick <0004775674@MCIMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: Different computers I have done some playing with the Amiga in the past, and it really sounds pretty good for 8bit samples. As I recall, it can sample and playback in around the 30KHz range. It has four independent voices and stereo outputs. The computer itself has 3 specialized microprocessors for controlling video, audio, peripherals, etc, and these processors can all access up to 1MB of RAM. So, you can just pass off a sample to the processor and it goes and plays it while the computer is free to do other things with its 680x0 microprocessor. While this is not enough power to use in a professional sampling application, it should be noted that when the Amiga first came out, this four voice stereo sampling machine was unlike anything in its class and amazed everyone. This was still around the time when the Ensoniq Mirage (8 bit) was very popular and even in use in professional studios. I still know people who employ 8 bit samples in conjunction with higher quality samples because the type of music they do is "industrial" and they like the "harsh" sounds they can get out of their 8 bit keyboards. (Some of you into the underground music scene will know what I mean.) Straying from the music end of things slightly (while still on the topic of the Amiga) I would just like to mention that there are products like the Video Toaster that allow the Amiga to superimpose internal graphics and animation in broadcast quality to videotape synched to SMPTE. Someone told me of a video on MTv that was done using the Amiga but I forget who did it or what the song was. (Sorry.) It has been awhile since I've used an Amiga so I may have missed some of the new technology that is currently available. Does anyone else out there have anything to add that I have missed? +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | |\/\/\/| | | | | Eric McCormick | | | \ /| | | | (-)(o) MCI Telecommunications | | C| _) | | || ,___|___o | | | / | | /____\ Internet: 0004775674@MCIMAIL.COM | | / \ | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------------ Response to: >> Sure, the 4 8-bit (+6 volume bits) Amiga internal voices don't qualify >> for much serious work, but they are handy if you are on a budget. I'll >> admit to using them now and then for a few background voices in situations >> where I don't mind the 8-bit grunge, or can effectively mask it. And >> sometimes when I'm in an experimental mood, it can be nice to have a set >> of low cost D/A converters that I can beat on directly from a reasonably >> powerful cpu. >> >Amiga owners: what kind of experimentation have you done? I get the >impression that the sound subsystem has its own independent processor; >this sounds like a wonderful system for experimenting with esoterica like >waveforms generated by using the bit patterns generated by finite-state >automata, etc. Any takers? I'd love to hear more about it, personally; I think >the Amiga folks have a good cheap basis to start hacking from without >having to worry if they've wasted extra money on specialized hardware. >[N.B.: "See? I told you" is not an adequate followup; telling us about >the neat noises you've ben getting and how you use them for your music is.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 19:34:23 GMT From: Ken Morton Subject: Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) In <01GD38UH7ACG000P1N@utrcgw.utc.com> RAYBRO%HOLON@UTRC.UTC.COM (RAY BROHINSKY) writes: >I have to object to the turn EMUSIC is taking. The recent amiga-mac >proto-rwar is unnecessary and uninteresting to me, and (I believe) >to the Emusic community at large. If you wish to indulge in amiga >or mac bashing, there are groups that love that kind of stuff. >We were supposed to be talking about electronic music from a theoretical >and practical view, not nyahhh-nyahhh. >As an instance, Ken Morton's post (by no means a personal attack on Ken, >there were others) could have easily stated the limiting parameters >of the amiga's sound (if he knows), the increase in quality available I believe it is 8-bit, four channel sound. Sampling rate I'm not quite sure of but it's probably either 22KHz or 44.1KHz. >from the mac system he uses now (indicating such things as noise, flexibility, >general cost of software, if he wants to get into nuts and bolts, or >a more objective observation of the mac's system's qualities from >a compositional/performance point of view) and even enumerate For the mac system I use I of course make no use of the onboard sound capabilites (8-bit, 22KHz, 4 channel sound (the channels being mixed in software - I'm using a LC). I feel the mac system is more mature than amiga systems, but that is not saying that the hardware is better (or cheaper - cause is isn't). But the software availible for the mac is the real deciding factor. Take a look at Finale, Performer, Vision (studio too!), *MAX*... These applications are much more mature on the Mac, and are only now being brought up to speed on the IBM side of things. Amiga, forget about it. Though Bars and Pipes has some nice conceptual ideas behind it. As for cost of hardware and software, well I think it comes down to how much you love your music. I still stand behind the old adage of "you get what you pay for". >some of the things that the NeXt does that make it better still. As for the NeXT... well, this is the *machine*! 25Mhz 040 processor, 56k DSP, Mach version of UNIX that will support true multiprocessing real soon now (It already multitasks of course). Built in stereo DACs and direct access to the DSP chip. The GUI is far and beyond most anything out there. But the rel clincher is the development environment. If, as part of your quest to express yourself musically, find that commercial software does not hold the answer, the NeXT is for you. It can do real-time synthesis, hard-disk recording, signal anaylsis, etc. You don't need anything else but a set of speakers and a input controller. And once you realize the power of an integrated music system on the NeXT, you'll find that MIDI reeks of incompetenace. The software is not there yet for the NeXT though. Certainly nothing like Cubase on the NeXT yet. But soon, and much more powerful. But a NeXT system is not cheap, but then again, it is your *music* we are talking about... >If I wanted to see blank verse on how good or bad amigas and/or macs >are, I'd still be subscribed to amiga-relay 8^( I hate the constant bickering computer users have bout who is better, etc. I had made the assumption that the readers of this group knew their stuff.... On board sound on the Amiga and the Mac is largely a joke - I don't believe anyone would actually use it for any serious work, and I thought the people on this group were *serious*. That' why I cringe slightly when I see someone posting about the "SoundBlaster" on this group. (Boy will I get flamed! :) I can't take that seriously now. I can barely take MIDI seriously anymore... Regards! Ken >raybro -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Morton = The Universe is Digital! One sample every kmorton@panix.com = -42 ----------------------= 1 X 10 seconds! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1991 19:44:49 GMT From: Ken Morton Subject: Re: Amigas and Macs (Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper) Just to clarify - I don't really want to discourage any readers of this list that use Amigas, etc. for creating music. Perhaps I was a bit harsh (sorry! :). I seem to have vivid recollections of how I used my IIGS for writing music... ah the days when my ears could stand 8-bit sound and really bad alaising distortion... :) I simply thought this group was geared towards other things. But it would be follish to promote anysort of elitist thing on this group. Just as long as you know where you stand (and your computer) stand. :) As for the NeXT, I am currently in the paper stages of an integrated music enviroment that goes way beond the norm. Not merely a MIDI sequencer, but a holistic conduit for musical expression and aural composition. I should have a cube in about two months when I can begin actual codeing. But for the most part everything is already on paper. I know my descripting (tion) is a tad vague, but you'll just have to wait and see. I'll merely say that it will be written by a musician/techno freak for a musican/techno freak. Should be interesting, no? Regards! Ken -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Morton = The Universe is Digital! One sample every kmorton@panix.com = -42 ----------------------= 1 X 10 seconds! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1991 11:35:03 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Holy Conduits (Re: Amigas and Macs) >music enviroment that goes way beond the norm. Not merely a MIDI sequencer, >but a holistic conduit for musical expression and aural composition. "Holistic Conduit" huh? Through which music emerges from the universe of noise and all that? Actually, I'm intending to build something of this sort with MAX, since I'm underimpressed with the state of the art wrt. MIDI environments for live improvisation and performance (for a number of reasons which I won't go into now, but it all comes down to the fact that playing individual notes live on a keyboard ties up too much performance resource for too little resulting material). The problems are immense: you have to deal with generic MIDI (notes and controllers) as well as abstractions which let you talk about the sound generation and alteration of the specific instruments in ways that you can guide with the performance environment. As my thoughts on this progress (and I've been thinking about it since 1986) I'll let you know. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1991 18:49:08 -0800 From: Phil Burk Subject: AMIGA 8 Bit Sound Capabilities and some Pieces AMIGA 8 Bit Sound Capabilities and some Pieces This message describes some technical details of the Amiga 8 bit sound capability intended to correct some misinformation that I have seen posted. It also discusses some wierd pieces done that take advantage of its properties. [I hope this won't be seen as a continuation of computer wars. It is not intended as such.] The Amiga provides 4 channels of 8 bit digital audio. The output is produced by a DMA (memory mover) dedicated to each of the 4 DACs. The capabilites of the system is best described by looking at the hardware registers that are used to control the sound. Each channel has: PERIOD = time between samples. The maximum period is 124 which yields a sampling rate of about 28 khz. Higher values give a lower sampling rate and thus a lower pitch. You can achieve a low pitch and still maintain a high sample rate by switching to a longer waveform. ADDRESS = starting address for waveform/sample. must be in "CHIP RAM" which is accessible by the custom processors. This is 512K, 1Meg or 2Meg depending on your Amiga. LENGTH = length of waveform, must be even, only 16 bits so length must be less then 64K. In software you can chain samples for longer times. I have played a 3 minute soundfile from disk. No real limit here. VOLUME = 0 to 64, 0 is silent. I cannot figure out why this is not 0-63, or 0-127. There is also a register that turns on and off the DMA for each channel. You can also modulate one channel by its neighbor. The neighbor can specify volume, 0-64, or period. These can be used to generate cheap envelopes or vibrato. In practice the modulation tends not to be used because you have to give up audio on that channel and you can usually do the same thing with interrupts. An interrupt can be generated, if desired, when the DMA registers have latched their inputs and are ready for the next set of values. This is used for chaining samples. I happen to love the Amiga but I will try to address the good and bad aspects of the sound as objectively as possible. 8 bits - not great when compared to the 12 to 16 which we are now spoiled by. In games, or cheap applications, they sound better than gated square waves which is what many PCs had before this. Musically they don't sound too bad in a mix with other instruments but I haven't thrown out my MIDI gear. Variable Sampling Rate - this is a complicated issue. Most systems nowadays have a fixed sample rate, CDs use 44.1 khz. To play a waveform using a fixed sample rate you have to vary the amount you move through the waveform for each sample. To get a certain pitch out of a 32 byte waveform you might have to jump by 2.9713 bytes for each sample. This can create some strange artifacts as you sweep the frequency of an oscillator. Interpolating between bytes can eliminate most of that. With a variable sample rate oscillator, this problem is eliminated because you always play each byte, never in between them. The result is that it sounds better than you might think. (But still not great). THEN WHAT GOOD IS IT? Well obviously for games and cheap drum programs its pretty nice, but there are actually some real fun things that can be done in the way of experimental music. The best thing about the Amiga sound is that you have very DIRECT control from the 68000 processor. You can change waveform addresses and periods so fast that you can create some very interesting timbres. You can write algorithms that grind away on a waveform while you are playing it so that you hear a continuous effect. This is difficult to do with MIDI based samplers that are restricted to sample dump. [That was not a flame.] Robert Marsanyi and Nick Didkovsky have written pieces that do unusual synthesis, eg. granular, using HMSL. Nick has also written a piece that connects 4 Amigas in a network where performers vote on the timbre using a lottery system. The winners spectrum is used to generate a waveform using an inverse FFT and played on one of the 4 channels. John Bischoff has written pieces that involve extremely rapid manipulation of samples captured live. The Amiga also provides a fairly good system for experimentation involving intonation. Larry Polansky used HMSL to write a piece that evolved from a complex tuning involving 17 as its highest number, eg. 13/17 15/8, to a simpler tuning. As the piece evolved, the waveforms also became less twisted and eventually ended up as sine waves. He is now working on a piece that does live processing of audio based on his mutation algorithms described at the 1991 ICMC in MOntreal. To summarize, I find the Amiga great for pieces involving fast direct manipulation of sound and where extremely high fidelity is not required. Of course it does MIDI too but it has not been as well supported by the software industry so there is nothing like Vision from the Mac. Then again it can output directly to a VCR so for video, oops I'm slipping into computer wars!! I'd better stop here. Phil Burk, Center for Contemporary Music, Mills College phil@mills.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 08:53:49 EST From: Jon Crystal Subject: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper I could use some advice on two counts. Owning a PC, and not wanting just yet to make the major investment in a Mac, I'm thinking of buying the top of the line Voyetra sequencer and their new interface (about $260 combined). Any thoughts on this low cost solution? Secondly, exactly how much more can the JLCooper Nexus plus do than the simple Nexus patchbay. I need one or the other, and can't decide between them. Thanks in advance for any help. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 15:58:00 EST From: KINGD@WABASH.BITNET Subject: Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of the week. The Amiga has much better sound and the software, aside from the computer itself, is so much less expensive. An Amiga 500P with 1MB RAM and a midi interface would run all of $450 if you go to the right places, and for $270 more and stereo RGB monitor. The software available is incredible inexpensive for the price also. DMCS(Deluxe music construction set) run $65 or so and the least expensive professional quality software Dr. T's runs around $250. Now doesn't that sound better? The compatibility is there also because of the wide range of PD patches, there are very few keyboards that are not supported. I run a PD sequencer program known as MED and the amount of instruments you can use is limited only by RAM, and currently I can use 15 26K+ samples. Well, I hope that I can save yet another from the vile clutches of the Macintosh illusion. Amiga : the infinitasking multimedia machine... Doug King ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:34:56 MST From: Adam Schabtach Subject: Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper > I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of the > week. The Amiga has much better sound and the software, aside from the computer I disagree. True, the Amiga has better internal sound generators than the Mac, and has more software available to support this hardware. However, there is much, much more MIDI software for the Mac than the Amiga. If my memory serves me, the author of the posting that started this thread was interested in MIDI software and hardware, rather than sound synthesizers internal to computers. There is relatively little MIDI software available for the Amiga, and the number of programs available seems not to be growing. (Although I do not own an Amiga, I have paid some attention to the MIDI software market for the Amiga for several years, and know three musicians who use Amigas. Two of them are planning to get rid of their Amigas to purchase other systems, due to the lack of MIDI software.) --Adam ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 18:39:14 -0500 From: Dan Riley Subject: Re: Voyetra Sequencer, JLCooper >I must say that I would recommend the Amiga over a mac for music any day of the >week. The Amiga has much better sound and the software, aside from the computer >itself, is so much less expensive. *sigh*. "My computer is better than your computer" does not belong on emusic-l. Please. As far as the Amiga goes, there is a limited choice of MIDI software available for the machine. If that software happens to do what you want, then it is a nice machine. I happen to own an Amiga that I run Bars&Pipes Pro on, and rather like it, but that certainly doesn't mean that I don't occasionally find myself lusting after a friends Mac IIx with MOTU Performer and Digidesign ProTools. One more thing, while I'm at it: >The software available is incredible inexpensive for >the price also. DMCS(Deluxe music construction set) run $65 or so and is buggy, and essentially unsupported (EA has so far refused to upgrade the Amiga version, or even fix the blatant bugs). Get what you pay for, I guess... -dan ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************