EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 38, Issue 03 This issue's topics: Equipment recommendations (7 messages) K2000 and things Once again. Question on K2000 & midi file format (3 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, 16 Mar 1992 12:05:02 EST From: David Huber Subject: Equipment recommendations First off, my apologies for making an inappropriate post. I realize that posts asking for synthesizer rec's are usually encouraged to subscribe to synth-l. Which, I would do, if I could. Somehow, I am unable to do it from my current system. With that disclaimer in mind, I would appreciate any advice anyone has (private mail only please, don't want to disturb the board any more than I already am). I'm fairly experienced with MIDI and sequencing, and sound synthesis, yet as fate would have it I am now without any synthesizers. Therefore, I'm looking for a good controller keyboard with good sounds (a nice set of orchestral patches would be great). I'd prefer to not have an onboard sequencer, since I'm going to be running one off a macintosh. Price: $1000+ (although obviously, the cheaper the better, top of the range is around 2200 unless it is something amazing). Also, I would appreciate any computer hardware/software suggestions: I'll need a MIDI interface, a sequencer (Vision?), and some notation software (Finale? or ....). While you're at it, if you know of any good mail order stores, or stores in the (this may sound wierd but...) Providence/ Boston or San Francisco/Bay Area vicinities, please pass them along. Ok. Thanks in advance!!!! ----------Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 12:34:24 EST From: metlay Subject: Re: Equipment recommendations David Huber writes: > First off, > my apologies for making an inappropriate post. I realize that posts > asking for synthesizer rec's are usually encouraged to subscribe to synth-l. > Which, I would do, if I could. Somehow, I am unable to do it from my current > system. > > With that disclaimer in mind, I would appreciate any advice anyone has > (private mail only please, don't want to disturb the board any more than I > already am). I'd LOVE to send you private mail, David, but EMUSIC-L doesn't always (ever?) retain original posters' addresses, and you didn't include it in your text, so you're s.o.l. However, I have a topic people might want to hear about here that serves as a partial answer to you.... If you do have over $2k to spend on "something amazing," look seriously at the Kurzweil K2000. I am in the lucky position of having a good friend who (a) owns one and (b) knows enough about synthesis to exploit it. He is selling off about 3/4 of his studio now; he says that with the K2000, he doesn't need all the other stuff any more. Apparently, the "distancing tools" on the 2000 are about an order of magnitude better in terms of simultaneous control than anything else out there right now, including the Oberheim Xpander (which came as a shock to Yours Truly, natch). It isn't quite the degree of control one gets with Csound, but it's pretty damned amazing, and it's organized under a UI that allows fairly fast movement and editing. And the sounds on board are incredible. I'm planning to get a look at it myself and post a note here about the architecture of the so-called VAST system; I have been able to determine so far that the 2000 can emulate in software a large number of obscure methods of synthesis; it is possible to wire a joystick to it and turn it into a perfect Prophet VS (minus the arpeggiator, but what the hey), and it can imitate a Polymoog's tuned resonators easily.... In fact, now that I think about it, it can do a meta-VS in multiple dimensions without the push/pull requirement imposed by the joystick on each degree of freedom. But I digress. -- Mike Metlay metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Atomic City, P.O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 13:29:15 EST From: "Patrick Robinson" Subject: Re: Equipment recommendations On Mon, 16 Mar 1992 12:34:24 EST metlay said: >... look seriously >at the Kurzweil K2000. > ...Apparently, the "distancing >tools" on the 2000 are about an order of magnitude better in terms of >simultaneous control than anything else out there right now, including >the Oberheim Xpander (which came as a shock to Yours Truly, natch). ...and he _ADMITS_ to it? Geez... this thing must be *really* far out! > And the sounds on board are incredible. What do you mean by this? It sounds like you mean presets, but I would think I'd know better... :-) -Patrick pgr@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:44:28 EST From: metlay Subject: Re: Equipment recommendations > On Mon, 16 Mar 1992 12:34:24 EST metlay said: > > ...Apparently, the "distancing > >tools" on the 2000 are about an order of magnitude better in terms of > >simultaneous control than anything else out there right now, including > >the Oberheim Xpander (which came as a shock to Yours Truly, natch). > > ...and he _ADMITS_ to it? Geez... this thing must be *really* far out! I haven't been a rabid Xpander supporter in years, Patrick. These days, people who know what they want own Xpanders, and everyone else doesn't, so what's the point? > > And the sounds on board are incredible. > > What do you mean by this? It sounds like you mean presets, but I > would think I'd know better... :-) No, I mean incredible in terms of raw material to work with. 64 Meg of RAM for the cost of cheap SIMMs, and a SCSI port that lets you fill them up in a few seconds from a hard drive. And that's on top of the architecture itself. If the Xpander can do so much with only three or four waves, and sample players fall flat because they have dozens or hundreds of waves with no way to manipulate same, then the K2000 has the potential to beat out both kinds of machine on their own turf: 32 times the sample memory of the 01/wPro, and ten times the architecture of the Matrix-12, for about the same price as either. Now if only they put it in a real case or a rack rather than the cheesoid plastic case it's in now....|-P -- Mike Metlay metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Atomic City, P.O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 13:47:39 CST From: "Jonathon Simon" Subject: Re: Equipment recommendations On Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:44:28 EST metlay said: >> On Mon, 16 Mar 1992 12:34:24 EST metlay said: >> > ...Apparently, the "distancing >> >tools" on the 2000 are about an order of magnitude better in terms of >> >simultaneous control... O.K., I've talken the worm, but I'm not yet hooked. I'll have to check out the K2000. Is it new - I haven't been following Kurzeil products for a while, now. It is a Kurzweil, right? When you say distancing tools, are you referring to effects processing? Does the K2000 have a built in stereo effect processor? >No, I mean incredible in terms of raw material to work with. 64 Meg >of RAM for the cost of cheap SIMMs, and a SCSI port that lets you >fill them up in a few seconds from a hard drive. Is the K2000 a sampler or are we loading someone else's samples from this disk drive. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jonathon Simon Trinity University Computing Center JSimon@Trinity.edu San Antonio, Tx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 15:49:16 EST From: metlay Subject: Re: Equipment recommendations > O.K., I've talken the worm, but I'm not yet hooked. I'll have to check > out the K2000. Is it new - I haven't been following Kurzeil products > for a while, now. It is a Kurzweil, right? Yes. > When you say distancing tools, are you referring to effects processing? > Does the K2000 have a built in stereo effect processor? Yes it does, but NO that is NOT what I am referring to. "Distancing tools" is a Rothwellism for architectural capability to transform original sound material into something that sounds very different from what it started out as in a controllable manner. The Xpander has more distancing tools than any non-modular analog synth; it has only three waveforms and noise, but the ability to do a lot with them. By contrast, the U-20 has a lot of good sounds in memory, but no distancing tools to speak of. The K2000 has a lot of both. > Is the K2000 a sampler or are we loading someone else's samples from > this disk drive. Both. Right now it loads S1000 samples and its own samples available from certain manufacturers of third-party stuff, but later this year a sampling board will be available as an option for a few hundred bux. -- Mike Metlay metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Atomic City, P.O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 15:51:02 EST From: Frank Cunningham Subject: Equipment recommendations <9203172006.AA25878@ursa-major.spdcc.com> From: "Jonathon Simon" On Mon, 16 Mar 1992 17:44:28 EST metlay said: >> On Mon, 16 Mar 1992 12:34:24 EST metlay said: >> > ...Apparently, the "distancing >> >tools" on the 2000 are about an order of magnitude better in terms of >> >simultaneous control... O.K., I've talken the worm, but I'm not yet hooked. I'll have to check out the K2000. Is it new - I haven't been following Kurzeil products for a while, now. It is a Kurzweil, right? It is basically the same engineering team. The company is now officially a division of Young Chang America. When you say distancing tools, are you referring to effects processing? Does the K2000 have a built in stereo effect processor? Yes, a fairly comprehensive one, including all sorts of tunable resonant filters, delay, and reverb. >No, I mean incredible in terms of raw material to work with. 64 Meg >of RAM for the cost of cheap SIMMs, and a SCSI port that lets you >fill them up in a few seconds from a hard drive. Is the K2000 a sampler or are we loading someone else's samples from this disk drive. It has ROM samples built in to work from, both of instruments and waveforms. You can also load lots more into RAM. I haven't used one, but the local AES chapter received a presentation from two Kurzweil engineers. -frank ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 10:33:46 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: K2000 and things I'm not jumping up and down about the K2000 (even given Metlay's and Rossi's comments), whereas a couple of years ago I probably would have been. I'm wondering why. Maybe I'm getting a little jaded and remain to be convinced... but even if it *did* do everything under the sun, I wouldn't rush out and buy one. I think it's because I'm slowly realising that (i) music-making isn't made easy by choice of tools (it's made *easier* sometimes - that's an important distinction), and that (ii) added sophistication and power *always* carries a price in terms of integration with an existing hardware/software environment, apart from the learning curve of the instrument itself. I learnt how a D-70 works in a day, but it's taken me weeks to work round the MIDI spec and get the machine under full control as as keyboard and as a slave. Or maybe I'm getting enough self-confidence as a musician, and getting comfortable enough with my existing instruments, not to care. I have several projects on the go now and am quite happy programming up the Wavestation to get the effects I want. Right now I have absolutely no need for a bold new synthesiser, and certainly don't have the time and energy to devote to one. This attitude worries me, though. Am I going to turn into a me-too M1 artist? Where is my insatiable curiosity and desire for new technology and ways of working with sound and music? Perhaps we can only take on new technology at a certain rate, and since I'm spending several hours a day on MAX programming right now, I haven't got the energy for anything else. Well, maybe I'll check out K2000 rackmounts in a year or so, when the machine has slumped in the market (like the WS, and for the same reasons) and there are blow-out sales. By then I may have the energy to stay awake long enough to play with one... Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 19:24:29 EST From: David Huber Subject: Once again. Wow, my second post! Guess I'm no longer the lurker from hell. Thanks for the synth/software recomendations I've already received. I really appreciate the advice. For those of you who wished to respond.....and fired up the K2000 discussion.. but didn't have my node/address. Well, here it is: ST702257 at brownvm.bitnet (unfortunately, if this passes through any other nodes, I don't know them so I can't list them) -----------Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 11:06:28 CST From: "Jonathon Simon" Subject: Question on K2000 & midi file format Can anyone (briefly) tell me the difference between Type 0 and Type 1 midi files? Is it just a different format? Is there any advantage to one over the other? The K2000 has a realtime sequencer with Type 0 play (according to the info I have). I assume that means I can not edit measures within a track? Or is the concept of a track eliminated with this type of sequencer? Can I lay down and remove a single track without affecting what I've recorded, so far. Any idea how may total tracks the K2000 is capable of. And finally the grand prize question! Can the K2000 read an IBM or Mac formated diskette, locate a midi file, and load the sequence. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 12:42:21 EST From: metlay Subject: Re: Question on K2000 & midi file format > Can anyone (briefly) tell me the difference between Type 0 and Type 1 > midi files? Is it just a different format? Is there any advantage to > one over the other? Type 0 files contain 16 channels of MIDI in one stream. Type 1 files separate the channels into separate tracks. Type 0 files are simpler by nature, and more universally usable by dumber machines. (That data is experiential in nature and not a quote fromthe MMA, BTW. Corrections?) > The K2000 has a realtime sequencer with Type 0 play (according to the > info I have). I assume that means I can not edit measures within a track? > Or is the concept of a track eliminated with this type of sequencer? > Can I lay down and remove a single track without affecting what I've > recorded, so far. Any idea how may total tracks the K2000 is capable of. File type and sequencer capability are unrelated. I will ask my friend exactly what the K2000's sequencer can do. I will guarantee, though, that it will NOT be suitable as a standalone unit. > And finally the grand prize question! > Can the K2000 read an IBM or Mac formated diskette, locate a midi file, > and load the sequence. I believe it groks MSDOS format. -- Mike Metlay metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Atomic City, P.O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1992 14:57:57 GMT From: Kevin Weiner Subject: Re: Question on K2000 & midi file format >Can anyone (briefly) tell me the difference between Type 0 and Type 1 >midi files? Is it just a different format? Is there any advantage to >one over the other? Format 0 files always contain a single track. Format 1 files can contain any number of tracks, but track 1 is reserved (by convention) as a tempo map. There is no restriction on the channels which may appear in a track in either format. Most MFF-capable software can read format 0, but it's typical for sequencers to use a track-oriented view of the data, so format 1 is a better choice for multi-part music. A third type, format 2, is defined ambiguously and is seldom supported. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************