EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 61, Issue 01 This issue's topics: 15,000 Patches? (3 messages) A huge collection of patches... CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY (6 messages) I AGREE, MARK Original Patches Controversy (5 messages) PATCH ART PATCHES AND ART (3 messages) PATCHY LOGIC (2 messages) PRATHFCHEZ (2 messages) Pretty much infinite (3 messages) Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em (6 messages) Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em. (3 messages) S. AWISAUS VS. N. ROTHWELL Synth Patches / Response -- Location of. the infinite ear (4 messages) To patch or not to patch: THIS is a QUESTION? :-P Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . Please send articles to emusic-d@auvm.american.edu (EMUSIC-D@AUVM for BITNet). Administrative mail should be directed to listserv@auvm.american.edu (LISTSERV@AUVM for BITNet). Digests will be distributed as time permits. For faster response to questions, subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to EMUSIC-L@AUVM (emusic-l@auvm.american.edu for Internet subscribers) with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L discussion group can also be accessed through the bit.listserv.emusic-l newsgroup on Usenet. Subscribers to this list may send articles directly to it; they will be reviewed and forwarded to EMUSIC-L. Back issues are available from the editor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 07:35:17 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: 15,000 Synth Patches (???) In response to Nick Rothwell questioning why he'd want to spend the time to collect 15,000 synth patches instead of programming his own, Steve Awiszus writes: > I can audition and organize 13,500 patches into libraries in about > 2 days and then have a multitude of sounds to choose from > without wasting my time programming. Assuming you auditioned and organized patches for two non-stop 8-hour days (and who could stand two days of such a task?), this would give you less than five seconds per patch. In this time you can play each patch throughout its range and with varying velocities, checking to see if the Mod Wheel was routed to anything interesting, archive it in some useful fashion, then remember anything at all about the sound? > One last thought: Why re-invent the wheel when you can just buy one? Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good reason. If you're composing art-music, the answer is: To keep your self-respect. William Eldridge Artistic Director, NEWCOMP New England Computer Arts Association katzja@hugse1.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:33:46 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: Re: ART OF PATCHES Joel Stern quotes my reply to Steve Awiszus' question, "Why re-invent the wheel when you can just buy one?" > Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: > No good reason. If you're composing art-music, the answer is: > To keep your self-respect. To which he responds: > hehehehehehe.... 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. analog synthesizer or a direct synthesis language such as Csound, I'm all but forced to create my own sounds. If I'm using MIDI to drive digital synths or samplers, I still feel it's important to create my own patches and samples rather than use those created by others, which in this context would feel like plagiarism to me. If my comments came across as snobbish or smug, I apologize. William Eldridge katzja@hugse1.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:01:46 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: ART OF PATCHES > forced to create my own sounds. If I'm using MIDI to drive digital synths or > samplers, I still feel it's important to create my own patches and samples > rather than use those created by others, which in this context would feel like > plagiarism to me. I'm sorry but I simply cannot understand why you feel this way. It seems to me a sound is just one of many elements which go into making music, but it is not music itself. If I write a piece for Cloud Chamber Bowls or Spoils of War, am I plagiarizing Harry Partch? If I write a piece for violin am I plagiarizing Antonio Stradivari? Heck, if I write a long rest am I plagiarizing John Cage? (parenthetically, and this is completely off the subject, I was just reminded of one of the "songs" in John Cage's "Songbook" in which the directions for the whole piece are "Make yourself a ham sandwich". Just think of all the plagiarism going on in delis across the country) Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:09:18 -0500 From: "Steven T. Awiszus" Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em. To all synth lovers on the net! I am a Electrical/Recording Engineer for System X Productions in Minneapolis Minnesota. I am currently out collecting the Roland MKS-xx series of synth modules and am looking for patches for the following: MKS-7 MKS-20 MKS-30 MKS-50 MKS-70 MKS-80 I am also looking for patches for the following: Korg M1 Korg DW-8000 Korg DS-8 Proteus MP Yamaha TX-7 I have been on the Internet and found about 10,000 sounds already. If anyone has any information for me on where I can locate Sys-Ex patch files for any of the above synths I would greatly appreciate it. I am also willing to pay individuals for their patches if they have any good ones or I can swap some of mine for yours. I currently have about 15,000 sounds for my machines and I am collecting more every day. Please resond! I will be in your debt! Thank You! Steve Awiszus Electrical/Recording Engineer 717 4th St. South Apt. #1 St. Cloud, MN 56301 --- End Included Message --- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 21:49:30 EST From: "Jason E. Geistweidt" Subject: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY OK, I have been reading and reading about it and I just have to say something! If we look at music through Cage's analysis, do we not in fact see that sound really is not the main issue in composition? I mean, what we really are doing is concentrating on form here. And it really should make no difference which cool patches we are using. If all we do as electronic musicians is get all wound up in the technology of the sound, we are overlooking what music really is: significant form. As Ronin likes to say, "It's just a machine that makes noise." Yes, yes. It makes noise. It is sound? No, the synth or piano or tuba is not the sound but rather an instrument for for creating noise. It is t the organization of these noises that is paramount to music. Also, someone mentioned that they were searching for sounds "to create an emotion or feeling. Impossible! Sounds are incapable of creating emotion. Oh you know that saying that is drilled into every composition student when they hit theory I. Minor mode sad, major mode happy!!!!! Get real, what does music have to do with emotion anyway? (Or let me rephrase for the musically sentimental) Music is nothing more than organized sound. If an enlightening or emotional feeling tha t the listener has along the way is somehow connected to that, fine. We except it and we move on. But, let's get back to patches and timbres. Patches are great! I love a new sound every now and then. But a good patch is not the key to a good organization. Look at the crap we creating in popular music today! Same old four bar phrases. Hey, let's try acoustic. Acoustic is the new buzz word. Hey, same Nirvana song, different patches. Good for a listen, but same shit. Remix this, remix that. sample this and make it rap! But, give me a new form and , hey, we might have something. Sound does nothing, music does nothing! OK, I think I have ranted and raved enough to make my point. Thanks for par- ticipating! Jason E. Geistweidt 231 Nebraska Hall The American University 4400 Mass. Avenue, N.W. jg8602a@american.edu Washington, D.C. 20016 (202) 885-6762 Dept. of Performing Arts "Go ahead! Shoot the messenger" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:51:23 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY Jason Geidtweit writes: >If we look at music through Cage's analysis, do we not in fact see that sound >really is not the main issue in composition? I think that is somewhat true, as long as you are going to just emulate Cage, but I'm sure that by his very musical nature he would've disliked that concept. But Mr. Cage was interested in sound as well as the spaces between sounds. He must've been interested in timbre as well, unless the tacks, paperclips, rubberbands, etc. in his prepared piano was just for sadistic pleasure! >I mean, what we really are doing is concentrating on form here. Who are "we"? Where is "here"? If you mean all electronically minded composers in this list, I think that's a narrowly conceived statement: form could mean timbre exclusivly; that is, excluding any attempt at preconceived temporal concepts, using aleatoric methods. >And it really should make no difference which cool patches we are using. If >all we do as electronic musicians is get all wound up in the technology of the >sound, we are overlooking what music really is: significant form. I agree that some people (probably very few, though) own synths just to be able to impress their friends with "neat" patches and answering machine messages, and are unable to make a single minute of organized sound that shows musical insight. But why do you think that timbre and temporal arrangement are exclusive of each other?? I think inspired music is a happy marraige of the two. >As Ronin likes to say, "It's just a machine that makes noise." Yes, yes. It >makes noise. It is sound? No, the synth or piano or tuba is not the sound >but rather an instrument for for creating noise. Noise is a subset of sound. The synth, piano, tuba or Spoils of War are instruments for creating sounds, some of which can be noise. >It is the organization of these noises that is paramount to music. An oxymoron. If you organize noise, it is by definition no longer noise. But yes, I think I agree with what you are trying to say, but would phrase it: "It is the organization of sounds and spaces between sounds vertically (timbre) and horizontally (temporal) that is paramount to what humans call music. >Also, someone mentioned that they were searching for sounds "to create an >emotion or feeling. Impossible! Sounds are incapable of creating emotion. Have you ever been in a war zone and heard the sound (noise, in this case) of exploding bombs and mangled, dying humans? Neither have I, but have seen films of it, and if it fails to create an emotion of *some* kind in you, then I'd be quite surprised. >Oh you know that saying that is drilled into every composition student when >they hit theory I. Minor mode sad, major mode happy!!!!! True, that's not always the case; but look at the overtone series, which mimics the major mode: by reinforcing the overtone series, the major scale (particularly the M3rd and M6th) can certainly create a sense of a lack of tension, which could be interpreted as "happy". >Get real, what does music have to do with emotion anyway? Get real: if it didn't, then why make music? Just get a frontal lobotomy and listen to nothing or just chance sounds. >Sound does nothing, music does nothing! See above paragraph, second sentence. >OK, I think I have ranted and raved enough to make my point. Thanks for par- >ticipating! You're welcome. Good topic, Jason! Harry Haecker, sentimental fool (haeckerh@osprey.nwrc.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:11:30 -0500 From: Alper Kerman Subject: Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY > OK, I have been reading and reading about it and I just have to say something! > If we look at music through Cage's analysis, do we not in fact see that sound > really is not the main issue in composition?........ > > > ...... Bunch of stuff deleted!.......... > > > ............But, give me a new form and , hey, > we might have something. > > Sound does nothing, music does nothing! I'm sorry to say, that I disagree with some of what you've said above. First of all, while I agree with you on the importance of choosing and/or creating some musical form (since it happens to be some style of musical expression, more or less), however, I disagree with you when you say that the main issue, or concentration on composing music should be simply based on a musical form. I don't think there is such thing called "main issue" in writing music. There are many "main issue"s in composing a piece of music, and each one being equally important and supportive of one another. You can't just say, "But, give me a new form and, hey, we might have something.". Because, your "something" is going to be more or less a copy of what you've got in the first place. You have to do something with that "new form" to express what YOU want to say! And to do that, you need some tools (the right tools). It's just like building a house. You need the "right" type of lumber for appropriate sections of the house! Otherwise, you'll end up building a shack (unless, if it is what you wanted in the first place!) Ofcourse, its always a matter of taste, isn't it!... So, when you say "Music is nothing more than organized sound", you be carefull with what you mean with "organized"! Because, one organizes music in such a way, that in turn, the organized piece of music delivers something to the listener, and hopefully it is what you wanted to get across in the first place (whether it be humor, emotion, feel, politics, weirdness, or whatever, etc.) In the absence of "right" sound patches (tools) you may not be able to express what YOU really want to say as well, or not at all, even if you have the right form. It would be almost like listening to a piece of music that was not equalized. Thus, using the "right" sound patches is equally important as well as other components in composing (tempo, loudness, spaces,...etc.) To tie everything I said together, IMHO its okay to use somebody else's patch (I know we agree on this) if it's the "right tool" for what and how you want to say in composing your own piece of music. On the other hand, if you don't have the right sound, please don't just settle for another sound and say "that'll do!" and let that part of your musical creativity degrade. Learn how to be able to create that new sound also! Let's use every bit of technology available to our advantage, not push it away!...After all, we'll only get better!... The Young Turk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:24:50 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY > > To tie everything I said together, IMHO its okay to use > somebody else's patch (I know we agree on this) if it's the > "right tool" for what and how you want to say in composing > your own piece of music. On the other hand, if you don't > have the right sound, please don't just settle for another > sound and say "that'll do!" and let that part of your musical > creativity degrade. Learn how to be able to create that new > sound also! Let's use every bit of technology available to > our advantage, not push it away!...After all, we'll only get > better!... > > The Young Turk Certainly in an ideal world this would be the way to go. But to really master the intricacies of musical structure, that is, the "organized sound" aspect of music, requires a lifetime of experience. Learning to program those exquisite patches to make that organization come alive requires another lifetime. Most of us only have one lifetime. In non-electrified music there's a convenient division of labor that allows one group of musicians (composers) to concentrate on the organizational aspects and another group (performers) on making the sounds. Maybe if there was something analogous to this situation in the electronic realm it would lead to some improved music making. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:16:20 -0500 From: Alper Kerman Subject: Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY > Certainly in an ideal world this would be the way to go. But to really > master the intricacies of musical structure, that is, the "organized > sound" aspect of music, requires a lifetime of experience. Learning to > program those exquisite patches to make that organization come alive > requires another lifetime. Most of us only have one lifetime. I agree with you on that, except, I hope you are not suggesting that we should all pack it up and drop this endeavor, because it'll cost us a life time or more to master it! You are not, are you? Because, I think, at least for myself (perhaps for most of us), the journey that one takes to reach his/her goal is more fruitfull and enjoyable, than actually reaching the goal itself (or rather having to "master" something). If we are able to progress, why should we stop?!, why not go forward and get better, and enjoy the ride?!... > In > non-electrified music there's a convenient division of labor that allows > one group of musicians (composers) to concentrate on the organizational > aspects and another group (performers) on making the sounds. Maybe if > there was something analogous to this situation in the electronic realm > it would lead to some improved music making. I also understand what you've presented by the "division of labor" model, though how do you suppose we close the gap between these two groups, so that each group facilitate each other better, and thus leading all of us to improved music making? The Young Turk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 15:55:21 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: CAGE ON THE PATCH CONTROVERSY > > > In > > non-electrified music there's a convenient division of labor that allows > > one group of musicians (composers) to concentrate on the organizational > > aspects and another group (performers) on making the sounds. Maybe if > > there was something analogous to this situation in the electronic realm > > it would lead to some improved music making. > > > I also understand what you've presented by the "division of > labor" model, though how do you suppose we close the gap between > these two groups, so that each group facilitate each other > better, and thus leading all of us to improved music making? My first reaction is "darned if I know". I would imagine we'd have to start by being more collaborative in our music making. Musician X who's primarily interesting in programing sounds could team up with Musician Y who prefers composing to programing. Assuming their personalities and tastes mesh, they could each contribute their specialized skills to the finished product, similar to the way that lyricists and songwriters work together. Each should know enough about what the other does so that they can communicate effectively. Beyond this I think I ought to open the floor to anyone else who might have ideas about how a composer-sound designer relationship ought to work. I ought to ask Mike Metlay if any of his "team" sessions have evolved so that some people have functioned more in one capacity or the other. He once posted something to the effect (at least this is how I interpreted it) that he was designing sounds for other musicians. Is this true, Mike? Please tell us about it. Or did I misunderstand? Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:00:17 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: I AGREE, MARK Mark Simon: >I have a feeling I've wandered off the original topic. Perhaps i >much to expect a polished essay on a e-mail bulletin board. You've hit the nail on the head (at least from where I'm looking at it) . I agree, I agree, please don't make me say it again...I agreeeeeeee......... Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:11:10 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: ART OF PATCHES >Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good r >If you're composing art-music, the answer is:To keep your self-r hehehehehehe.... Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 18:59:35 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: Original Patches Controversy What at lively debate! The usual technical chit-chat on this list, valuable as it might be, fails to reveal how thoughtful and articulate are many of the subscribers... --------- A few responses: Mark Simon and Joel Stern objected to my use of the word "plagiarism" in regard to borrowed sounds. Note, however, that I had written *in this contex primarily to the late '40s and early '50s (Varese, Henry, Stockhausen, etc.). This tradition is a direct outgrowth of the modernist search for "progress" in art music ("classical" music), most obviously in the realm of timbre but also involving new approaches to pitch, rhythm, texture, and so on. Whatever the debatable merits of the notion of "progress" in music, I have to admire composers who were willing to closet themselves in the early studios for a year or more to produce a 5-minute piece, recording sounds from surplus radio test equipment or from nature, then laboriously cutting them up into short pieces of tape and hand-splicing them into a composition. When I work in this genre, I frequently think of their noble efforts, and any tendency to whine to myself about the work involved in programming my own patches is quickly squelched by my glee at not having to suffer as they did. No, I don't consider myself a plagiarist when writing for string quartet. That's a different context. -------- Mike Metlay and Joel Stern encouraged me not to apologize for writing in response to the question, "Why re-invent the wheel?" > Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good reason. > If you're composing art-music, the answer is: To keep your self-respect. I wasn't apologizing for my opinion, only for my *tone*. I try to be sensitive to the fact that, ever since Emerson, Lake and Palmer, the world of electronic music has been shared by trained composers from the "classical" tradition and musicians involved in popular styles. It behooves us to be diplomatic and attempt get along together, and besides, these days many of us have or have had feet in both camps. Having done much teaching in electronic music composition classes with a mixed population of composition students and liberal arts majors with a popular music outlook, I'm well aware of how outraged some people can become at any intimations of a hierarchy of music, with some music being "higher" than others (for the best discussion of musical hierarchies, see Leonard B. Meyers fine book, *Music, the Arts and Ideas*). Many undergraduates these days have bought heavily into a crude cultural relativism which they frequently use to attempt to rationalize their own ignorance and parochialism. The feathers really fly when they learn that noodling over a bass ostinato accompanied by a thumping backbeat from a drum machine isn't going to cut the mustard as far as class composition projects are concerned. My attitude is that they're already familiar with pop music, but that getting a college education involves broadening their horizons to confront things of which they were previously unaware (such as the tradition of electronic art music). They're not required to love it, only to engage it seriously. I want them to stretch their minds and try to expand their conceptions of form beyond 32-bar song form or ostinato-forms. They must create original sounds and find ways to sculpt them into meaningful, extended forms. I can't help but believe that doing so will enrich their lives even if they stay oriented exclusively toward pop music after completing the course. I try to lesson the sting by acknowledging how much fun it is to rock out in the studio with all the groovy toys, that I do it myself from time to time, and that they're welcome to sign up for open time-slots to play around any way they wish, as long as it's "on their own time." ------------ Thom Cox writes: > I can't help but feel the need to express my opinion that the most > organic and expressive electronic music tends to be that which uses > sounds that were created to express the motivic and orchestral needs > of the material. That's one approach, with the "material" (equal-tempered pitches in a metrical matrix?) preceding the sounds. Another approach, one that I often employ, is to do some sound design and consider the *sounds* my starting material. Then these sounds suggest other, related sounds for me to design and may imply or suggest melodic and rhythmic material, which may point me toward ideas for structuring the form of the work. Each aspect of the compositional process influences all the others. This approach can provide a sense of organic interrelatedness I find very satisfying. ----------- Jason Geistweidt writes: > Sounds are incapable of creating emotion. and > Sound does nothing, music does nothing! Jason, try telling that to the folks on FILMUS-L@IUBVM.UCS.INDIANA.EDU, the film music discussion list! ------------ In the feisty Steve Awiszus' latest posting, he writes: > I am looking for a Roland PG-200 programmer for my MKS-30 > Planet-S (the same as for a JX-3P). I am sick of trying to create new > patches for my machine one parameter a time! Wait a minute... Isn't this the same Steve Awiszus who only a few days ago wrote: > ...without wasting my time programming. I agree one should know > how to program their own machine modules but I have better and > more important things to do with my time... ??? Now I'm confused... William Eldridge ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 14:29:03 -0500 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: Original Patches Controversy > > Mark Simon and Joel Stern objected to my use of the word "plagiarism" in regard > to borrowed sounds. Note, however, that I had written *in this contex > primarily to the late '40s and early '50s (Varese, Henry, Stockhausen, etc.). > This tradition is a direct outgrowth of the modernist search for "progress" in etc. > No, I don't consider myself a plagiarist when writing for string quartet. That's > a different context. Now if I get you right, you're saying that one essential difference between electronic and acoustic music are that in electronic music, the sound itself is an essential part of the compositional concept and is therefore just as much a part of the creator's intellectual property as a melody. Well, give me some time to process this one, and I'll tell you later if I agree or disagree. But if I do accept your reasoning then it follows that something like "Plunderphonics" is totally bogus, morally reprehensible, wholesale theft, and that its creator ought to be hung by his balls for such a misdeed. Now I've never heard Plunderphonics and cannot myself make such a statement, nor can issue any similar condemnation of anyone who would criticize Plunderphonics. But I do remember that last time the Plunderphonics issue came up that a lot of people were adamant that all sounds be free for all to use. How will you face their wrathful flames? Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:51:31 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: Re: Original Patches Controversy Mark: You wrote: > Now if I get you right, you're saying that one essential > difference between electronic and acoustic music is that > in electronic music, the sound itself is an essential part of > the compositional concept... Yes. > ...and is therefore just as much a part of the creator's intellectual > property as a melody. Whoa... I hadn't meant to get into that one. I was talking more about feeling like I wasn't shirking an artistic duty to myself in terms of what I want to do with my electronic music. And I guess there's an element of judgement of other works involved. If I knew in advance that a work of purported "art" electronic music used borrowed sounds, I'm sure it would affect how I thought of it. When I hear a piece that contains some really amazing sound, I want to be able to give credit where credit is due. As far as intellectual property goes, that's something for the legal system. Has anyone ever heard of such a case? Sampling law seems to be taking some comprehensible shape, but as far as I'm concerned patch-theft law would going way too far and probably unworkable in any form. Although I do notice that only some Csound composers share their instrument designs on the Csound mailing list and in books, and only some of the time. Of course, Csound instruments are not only patches but instrument architectures -- and Stanford patented Chowning's FM algorithms. What is Plunderphonics? The name is suggestive, but I'm ignorant on this one -- and probably disadvantaged in the face of the P-phonics fans' "wrathful flames." Help me out here... I do enjoy Carl Stone's incredible sampling pieces in which he plunders Motown and other sources. I might like Plunderphonics as well. This stuff probably constitutes a sub-genre of electronic music that should be judged on its own terms. -- William Eldridge ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 17:09:32 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: Re: Original Patches Controversy Mark: I forgot to mention that I once designed an automated plundering machine: a simple voltage-controlled Serge patch named "Carl Stone Is Not Alone" that could rapidly flick between multiple audio inputs (Motown, Beethoven, whatever) and route them to multiple outputs. I wish I owned a MIDI-controlled mixer so I duplicate the patch in Max with realtime control. -- William Eldridge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:10:09 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: PATCH ART Thom Cox: >Joel, I agree for the most part but I can't help but feel the ne >express my opinion that the most organic and expressive electron >music tends to be that which uses sounds that were created to ex >the motivic and orchestral needs of the material. Oh, alright:) Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:43:11 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: PATCHES AND ART >If my comments came across as snobbish or smug, I apologize. > > > William Eldridge > katzja@hugse1.harvard.edu No, no, no...no apology needed or wished for. However, I rest on my belief that it's not necessary to create new sounds to create new music. I like new sounds as much as the next person. But using a preset or a patch designed by someone else = plagarism?? This whole thing of getting a "new" sound really goes to extremes. And the manufacturers use it to sucker the more gullible the same way car makers sucker people into buying a new car every 3 years. Sure, new synths and new sounds are attractive and desirable, but they're not necessary to create good, personal, original, artistic music, even in the electronic realm. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:50:38 -0500 From: Thom Cox Subject: patches and art > I rest on > my belief that it's not necessary to create new sounds to create > new music. I like new sounds as much as the next person.... > .................. Sure, new synths and new sounds are attractive and desirable, but they're not necessary to create good, personal, original, artistic music, even in the electronic realm. Joel Stern Joel, I agree for the most part but I can't help but feel the need to express my opinion that the most organic and expressive electronic music tends to be that which uses sounds that were created to express the motivic and orchestral needs of the material. Often, matching pre-existing sounds to the music produces a "tail wagging the dog" effect. There is also the reality that synth patches hve a very limited tessitura, hence several versions of a patch are often required to produce a convincing legato. Thom Cox New England Conservatory of Music nec_twc@flo.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:11:21 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: PATCHES AND ART > This whole thing of getting a "new" sound really goes to > extremes. And the manufacturers use it to sucker the more > gullible the same way car makers sucker people into buying a new > car every 3 years. There's a dead horse here that's waiting for a beating, but there's one point here: manufacturers "sucker" buyers by offering them sounds which are new but common to all purchasers; this is why people are locked into the buying cycle since if I buy a Morpheus (say) and use factory preset #21 "MorphDigiWaveSurfAnalogPadFlangeMegaBass1" and everyone else does, then we're back to square one, like in any arms race, and it's back to the chequebook for the next round. The issue of composers creating their *own* sounds is one that manufacturers do not address (the JD-800 took a dive, market-wise), and that's a different gether altothing. I agree with you anyway on the other points. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:34:11 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: PATCHY LOGIC Nick: >...without a FAR more expressive controller which would allow me >of freedom to work on personal expression through just "one" sou >guess. Good point Nick. Still the expressive range of the violin family (and most other "accoustic" instruments) has been limited and codified in practice so that what was acceptable during the 300 year heyday of those instruments was pretty much a narrow variety of amplitude envelopes, a couple of different types of oscillation (pitch and amplitude), and a bit of frequency modulation achieved by position of the bow in relation to the bridge. Nevertheless, the amount of music written for string quartet, etc., is for practical purposes infinite (not all good)...my point remaining that the means don't determine the end and that I don't need 15,000 or infinite possibilities. The other thing is that in my vision of the the "shared community of patch creation" most of us are doing some patch creation some of the time, and perhaps some of us all the time. New sounds get created and used: it doesn't matter to me if someone else uses my patch or I use theirs. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov j tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 19:04:41 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: PATCHY LOGIC > The other thing is that in my vision of the the "shared community > of patch creation" I don't see any difference between the "shared community of patch creation" and that of music creation (and as for the latter, I have the T-shirt). But then, as you know, I don't differentiate that strongly between what is sound design and what is music composition. > New sounds get > created and used: it doesn't matter to me if someone else uses my > patch or I use theirs. Other people have used my patches in the past. I know; I get sporadic email asking me how to download them, even for D-50 sounds that I did five years ago. But I still don't have any particular desire to use anyone else's sounds, any more than I want to compose other people's music. If I was into that, I'd buy a copy of Bland-in-a-Box. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:43:11 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: PRATHFCHEZ Nick: >this is why people are locked into the >buying cycle since if I buy a Morpheus (say) and use factory pre >MorphDigiWaveSurfAnalogPadFlangeMegaBass1" and everyone else doe >we're back to square one, like in any arms race, and it's back t >chequebook for the next round. The issue of composers creating t >sounds is one that manufacturers do not address (the JD-800 took >dive, market-wise), and that's a different gether altothing. I agree with you here too. Quick, say something I disagree with or all is lost. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:11:25 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: PRATHFCHEZ > I agree with you here too. Quick, say something I disagree with > or all is lost. Er... "Macs are superior to PC's?" No, I'm not getting into that, except to note that a PowerBook 170 running MAX and driving a Radius fullpage greyscale screen via a PowerView is an absolute joy to use. MAX in colour (or even 8-bit grey) on a good screen is incredibly sweet. Does anyone out there have Vision 2.0 yet? How much does it make use of colour? I'm planning to dedicate the fullpage display to the PowerBook for MAX and get a second portrait display (a Pivot if I can afford it) for the SE/30 to run Vision. Would be nice to use Vision in landscape mode, certainly. Colour pivots are pricey, so I could do with an excuse for needing one. Sorry, this is getting too gearheady. Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 08:39:02 GMT From: "Steven D. Bramson" Subject: Pretty much infinite Just thought I would add my spark to this small flame. Suppose I have an arbitrary synthesizer with 16 digital parameters which each have 8 bit values. Now assume due to my limited human ears I can only really hear 4 bits so that it makes any difference. Then my theoretical synth has 2 to the power 64 settings = 2 with 19 noughts after it (approx) This number comes up in the grains of wheat on the chess board problem and although it is finite, it is certainly more combinations than a human being can worry about in his or her lifetime. On a slightly different but not totally unconnected track, I am sometimes amazed that even with 12 notes in the (western) scale and a similar number of notelengths, people still come up with some good new tunes. I guess if you think about it, for a 6 note tune you have 12 notes x (say) 12 lengths raised to the power 6 = 9 with 12 noughts (approx) so I guess some of the combinations have to sound good. Steven D Bramson Data Management Group JET Joint Undertaking Abingdon Oxfordshire OX14 3EA United Kingdom E-mail sdb@jet.uk Voice 0235 465 013 Fax 0235 465 399 ------------------------------------------------------------------ JET is Europe's fusion research project Disclaimer: Any views expressed are mine and do not represent those of JET ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:48:09 EST From: David Lunney Subject: Re: Pretty much infinite Steven Bramson calculates the number of possible synth settings and the number of possible simple tunes. In his book _The Infinite Variety of Music_ Leonard Bernstein (God rest his soul) said that a mathematician had shown that the number of possible pieces of music was equal to aleph-null, a transfinitely denumerable number. -- David Lunney ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 23:18:51 PST From: Mike Friesen Subject: Re: Pretty much infinite Steven D. Bramson suggests: >Just thought I would add my spark to this small flame. > >Suppose I have an arbitrary synthesizer with 16 digital parameters which each >have 8 bit values. Now assume due to my limited human ears I can only really >hear 4 bits so that it makes any difference. Then my theoretical synth has > >2 to the power 64 settings = 2 with 19 noughts after it (approx) I actually tried this with my V50. Not including sound effects or performance effects (delay, pan, & chord), the instrument has a sufficient quantity of parameters and values to yeild 2*10^84 possible values. Granted, Steven's point re. the limitations of hearing (and the high likelihood that MANY combinations will be sonically irrelevant or indistinct from each other) remains valid. But the experiment does offer real-world verification of the point made by Steven (and Nick, I think). Me, I've adamantly resisted the impulse to buy patches. The closest that I've come is to try to find a source for the original bank of TX802 performances (the doofus who owned the one I've got loaded all the RAM with FM drum sounds. Yikes!) Every time I've felt the impulse to buy patches, I've been forced to conclude that I'm looking for a way to kick-start the creative process. Then I force myself to either program something new OR approach an old sound in an entirely new manner. I would also like to address the point made by William Eldridge, who wrote: >Well, if you're doing commercial music, the answer is: No good reason. If >you're composing art-music, the answer is: To keep your self-respect. I'm of much the same opinion. I'll use the tools that I've got. If they're not up to the task at hand, I'll put something together that DOES do the trick. Of course, I've got a day job, so I can afford the luxury of minimal compromise. Mind you, I've never walked away from a client yet, so it's not as though I'm always taking the easy road. I guess the real reason for my creating my own patches is that I am committed to the concept of CRAFT. It's like weaving the canvas on which you paint. Or making the clay from which you create pottery... As Margaret Atwood might say - "It's the essential DOING of the thing that matters." Pax. Michael Friesen North Peace Secondary School Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yeild."-Tennyson ********************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 18:27:13 -0500 From: "Steven T. Awiszus" Subject: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em Thanks to all synth lovers on the net! I have received many helpful responses to my query entitled "Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em" and will respond in time to those of you who asked for information from me. I would like to specifically address a response I received from Mr. Nick Rothwell of CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance who questioned why anyone would go about collecting 3rd party sounds for synths and ( after assuming that I'm a brain dead, uncreative engineer ) just spend the time wasted chasing after sounds to just program my own ( assuming of course that I, a Computer Engineer, would actually know how to program a microprocessor based device ). It appears Mr. Rothwell that we have a fundamentally different philosophy on approaching sound synthesis ( which is fine ). I have read some of your other responses and you appear to have knowledge about synths and programming them. This is good and you should be able to identify with my philosophy also. Of the 15,000 sounds that I currently have collected, approximately 13,500 are FM sounds ( aka DX/TX-7 & TX81Z/DX21/27/100 ) which, as you already know, utilize Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier's discovery that an 'infinite' ( more about this term later ) number of sinusoid waves can be summed to produce a periodic waveform. In layman's terms the FM synthesis technique developed at Stanford University is very theoretical and requires a certain amount of Dirichlet mathematics to produce desired waveforms, therefor it is somewhat difficult to program ( at least to some of us ). My philosophy with FM machines is to take the labors of some other patch programmer and 'Tweak' their sound to my preference instead of starting from scratch. By "knowing my machine" and taking this approach I have become more efficient by saving time for writing and producing versus patch programming. I can audition and organize 13,500 patches into libraries in about 2 days and then have a multitude of sounds to choose from without wasting my time programming. I agree one should know how to program their own machine modules but I have better and more important things to do with my time ( maybe I could hire you to do this tedious busy work? ). Just extend this philosophy to my other synths and you have my approach. As a producer it is vital to have a multitude of sounds at my disposal so that the artists I work with don't end up sounding the same ( and of the 13,500 FM sounds I have collected I probably use under 100, I keep the rest for others who want sounds for their machines ). By the way, 'infinity' is a concept and not a number. It is very astute of you to note that infinity is >> ( much greater than ) 15,000 but I question your claim that "If you learn a machine well enough, then the potential sound library for it is pretty much infinite...". I would like you to show to me how you are able to get "pretty much infinite.." number of sounds from a synth with a FINITE sound generating capability. If you've ever taken a course on Statistics, which I'm sure you have, you should know that the number of possible sounds a synth is capable of generating is the product of the total range of all programmable parameters. Which, as I and every other Engineer knows, is definitely NOT "pretty much infinite...". By the way, the guy sitting next to me wants to know just exactly what "pretty much infinite..." means anyway? Sounds like a true oxymoron to him also. One last thought: Why re-invent the wheel when you can just buy one? Steve Awiszus Electrical / Recording Engineer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:43:29 EST From: ronin Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em oh horseshit. spare us the lecture on fourier, which has less to do with fm than does basic radio technology. fourier is simply an analysis technique, and while is the actual 'basis' for some machines like the k5 and the old gds/synergy, is a poor model for what happens in fm, in which interesting sounds often have inharmonic components. and wherever did you get the idea that programming a synth had anything to do with programming a computer? or that you had to know jack shit about math (bessel functions, actually, my dear) to do anything worthwhile on an fm synth, or for that matter any damn synth at all? don't attempt to mystify it, man... it's just a box making noise, not a goddamn telecom satellite. now, i do have to say, first, that as a teacher i consider it important that my students know everything relevant to the subject so i do in fact pump them through the math... it's my job. and second, that 'tweaking' has a long and venerable history, even (especially?) among us 'experts'. if you want to approach your instruments gingerly, nervously, and without patience, fine... i for one cannot criticize. but don't make excuses. your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by 'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) Voice:202-885-2748 American University Physics Dept., 4400 Mass.Ave.,NW, Wash.,DC 20016-8058 "Entropy eventually wins... and I like to be on the winning side" --------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:54:45 MEZ From: Thomas Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em Eric Harnden wrote: >your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by >'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism. As a German I wonder what "a smokescreen of ersatz technoism" might be and why it uses German Thomas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 12:20:53 EST From: David Lunney Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em Thomas asks about "ersatz technoism." Technoism is a coinage I have never seen before. I don't think it's standard English. The German word "ersatz" was adopted by English a long time ago, (probably during WW II). English, especially American English, is a shameless thief of other people's words. -- David Lunney ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 12:58:58 -0600 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em > Eric Harnden wrote: > >your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by > >'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism. > > As a German I wonder what "a smokescreen of ersatz technoism" might be > and why it uses German > > Thomas As another German i might remark that words such as angst and ersatz just had that cool ring to it and got adopted into English. I believe that it all started with Jung and Freud, and had nothing to do with my mother... Long live the Eigenvector! ObligSynthContent: Anyone actually play with a Morpheus yet, or still only slinging spec sheets? -- Arne F. Claassen |"In cows we trust | EPS Classic * D4 | E pluribus Moo" | Juno 106 | MTV for eMpty minds | Mac Centris 650 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 11:14:28 +0100 From: Rick Jansen Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches / Where to get 'em In article <9402161858.AA14261@ebs330>, Arne Claassen ISE writes: |> > Eric Harnden wrote: |> > >your method is your method. don't back yourself into a corner by |> > >'justifying' your approach with a smokescreen of ersatz technoism. |> > |> > As a German I wonder what "a smokescreen of ersatz technoism" might be |> > and why it uses German |> As another German i might remark that words such as angst and ersatz just |> had that cool ring to it and got adopted into English. I believe that it |> all started with Jung and Freud, and had nothing to do with my mother... |> |> Long live the Eigenvector! As a Dutchman I might remark that 'Eigen value' in Dutch is the word for 'self esteem'. I never quite got the hang of what it had to do with *me*... Rick Jansen -- rick@sara.nl S&H's a module and s&h's looking good ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 22:15:53 -0700 From: GREEN JOHN CRAIG Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em. Are there any FTP sites which contain synth patches? I am new to this group and would be very happy to learn more about this. Thanks. John ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 13:17:00 CST From: Jesse Traynham Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em. There are several places you can FTP to get MIDI files. You may try cs.uwp.edu for all kinds of music in general (tab for guitar, lyrics, GIF's)...Specific MIDI sites are:ucsd.edu; louie.udel.edu; ussprinceton.princeton.edu; xcf.berkele y.edu; ux1.cso.uiuc.edu; archive.cs.ruu.nl. have fun! P.S. I got this imfomation from a list at cs.uwp.edu /pub/music/lists ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:22:19 +0000 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Request Synth Patches/Where to get 'em. > I currently have about 15,000 > sounds for my machines and I am collecting more every day. But why? How many of these 15,000 sound have you actually listened to? In the time it would take to audition every one of them, you could become proficient enough at programming your MKS machines to be able to design new sounds as and when required. In the time it would take to find a particular library sound for a piece of music, you could program it from scratch. I find that there are few things which dampen creativity so much as trawling through third-party sounds (or onboard sounds for that matter; my Wavestation SR has over five hundred of them in ROM, and I think I listened about a dozen of them when I first bought it). If you learn a machine well, then the potential sound library for it is pretty much infinite, and infinity is much bigger than 15,000. \end{rant} Nick Rothwell | cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance | cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 09:59:09 GMT From: JOEL STERN Subject: S. AWISAUS VS. N. ROTHWELL In the developing Awiszus vs. Rothwell debate I think I'm a bit more on Steve's side. 15,000 patches IS an absurdly large number of patches, bu I agree with the philosophy of sharing the effort of patch creation among the synth community to leave more individual time for music creation . Among synth-l-ers there is a faction who, judging by their posts, definitely are more into the art of creating sounds than that of creating music. I don't think Nick is one, but he can get on a bit of a high horse about his personal creative abilities or intentions, and one can see that he highly values building his works absolutely from the ground up. That's fine, but I wouldn't be angered or intimidated by it. Personally, I'm glad that there are people who enjoy creating patches more than I do and who are generous enough to share their creations with others. I love the nearly infinite palette of synth colors and textures, but even if there were just a few sounds, all programmed by someone else, I think I could write decent music with them. Some time back many folks spent their lifetimes writing pretty good stuff for a kind of wooden box in three sizes with gut strings that they had no part in designing. Joel Stern stern@mail.loc.gov tel:301-588-8061 fax:301-585-7642 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jan 1980 18:09:27 CST From: "Steven T. Awiszus" Subject: Synth Patches / Response -- Location of. To all synth lovers on the net: I have been receiving mail about these 13,500 patches I have collected. What a stir this posting has made. Hopefully most of you have found this humurous and informative! Just for the record, here's what they are: approx. 9,000 of the sounds are DX/TX-7 6-op. some of these are quite good and they are already organized into libraries. Just download the sound file type you want and violla! These were found at: ucsd.edu /midi/Patches/DX7 Many of these files are headerless Sys-Ex dumps. I have written a dump utility for the Atari-St that works fine for these. If anyone wants it just E-mail me. approx. 1000 of these sounds are TX81Z/DX21/27/100 4-op sounds. They are at ucsd.edu and also louie.udel.edu /pub/midi/Patches The remaining 3,500 sounds are assorted types. The M1 patches are killer! Here are the other FTP sites that I know of: ussprinceton.princeton.edu xcf.berkeley.edu ux1.cso.uiuc.edu archive.cs.ruu.nl cs.uwp.edu info lists I also know of FTP lists for other synths/samplers: Roland JV-80 EPS-16+ Samples Kurzweil K2000 TX16W Samples EMAX I & II Roland D-70 If you need these IP addresses let me know. I'm working to get patches for the Roland MKS-xx: ------------------------------------------------- MKS-7 SUPER QUARTET: Like a JUNO-106(sort of) no RAM, mus t send any patches you want to use to its buffer. Nick Rothwell told me this? Apparently you can use an HS-60 to program this module. I have an excellent JUNO-106 editor for the Atari-ST that should also do the trick. Let me know if you want it. MKS-10 PLANET-P: I don't own this module and I've never heard anything good about it. If any of you know otherwise please let me know. MKS-20 DIGITAL PIANO: Not much for patches, but this machine can do some awesome Rhodes sounds (ex. Chicago(David Foster), etc...) MKS-30 PLANET-S: This is the rack version of the JX-3P without the sequencer. Nice sounds. MKS-50 xxxxxxxx: I haven't got this one in the mail yet so I don't know its name. This is the rack mount of the Alpha Juno 1. This machine is supposed to sound great. MKS-70 SUPER-JX: This is the rack of the JX-10 with the exception of the sequencer. Very nice sounds. A powerful module. MKS-80 SUPER JUPITER: This is the rack of a type of JUPITER 8. I have to buy this one yet. I've been told it's the Holy Grail of the MKS-xx series! That's all the info for now. I'll keep you posted when I find out more on patches or editing utilities for these. If any of you know of any patches for these machines PLEASE let me know. By the way, the debate between Nick Rothwell and I wasn't meant to be too hostile. We all have our views! Some of your responses though were quite entertaining. Try not to argue(debate) subjects on which you may not possess all of the facts. Ha Ha Ha Ha at some of you! Steve Awiszus Electrical/Recording Engineer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:19:44 CST From: bq Mackintosh Subject: the infinite ear >Subject: Re: Pretty much infinite >Steven D. Bramson suggests: > >>Just thought I would add my spark to this small flame. >> >>Suppose I have an arbitrary synthesizer with 16 digital parameters which each >>have 8 bit values. Now assume due to my limited human ears I can only really >>hear 4 bits so that it makes any difference. Then my theoretical synth has >> >>2 to the power 64 settings = 2 with 19 noughts after it (approx) > >I actually tried this with my V50. Not including sound effects or >performance effects (delay, pan, & chord), the instrument has a sufficient >quantity of parameters and values to yeild 2*10^84 possible values. >Granted, Steven's point re. the limitations of hearing (and the high >likelihood that MANY combinations will be sonically irrelevant or >indistinct from each other) remains valid. For a time, i thought that the limits of human hearing (20-20,000 Hz) meant that all frequencies beyond that spectrum were irrelevant in sound generation and recording. Thus, i was skeptical when i heard that some CDs are now being recorded at 40 MHz. Hm, well. The advantages of a sub-woofer in a speaker set-up are quite well-known (semantic note: three hyphenated words in one sentence: wow). Anyway, it not only generates frequencies that are felt with the body, but the resultant overtones make for clearer, crisper sound. Does it not therefore stand to reason that the resultant undertones of frequencies above 20K Hz would as well make for a clearer, crisper, more marketable (irony) sound? >As Margaret Atwood might say - "It's the essential DOING of the thing that >matters." Atwood references? The presence, purpose and function of German in English? Semantic asides? Ah, well, it's only menschlich. bq Mackintosh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 20:28:45 -0600 From: Ken Fansler Subject: Re: the infinite ear >For a time, i thought that the limits of human hearing (20-20,000 Hz) meant >that all frequencies beyond that spectrum were irrelevant in sound generation >and recording. Thus, i was skeptical when i heard that some CDs are now being >recorded at 40 MHz. Hm, well. The advantages of a sub-woofer in a speaker >set-up are quite well-known (semantic note: three hyphenated words in one >sentence: wow). Anyway, it not only generates frequencies that are felt >with the body, but the resultant overtones make for clearer, crisper sound. >Does it not therefore stand to reason that the resultant undertones of >frequencies above 20K Hz would as well make for a clearer, crisper, more >marketable (irony) sound? If I am not mistaken, and according to Nyquist, an accurate sample can NOT be achieved unless the sample is recorded at twice the Hz of the original sound. Anything less than that will prove to be an inadequate reproduction. (Thus the CD sampling rate of 44,100 times per second.) But I also have been led to believe that in the analog to digital conversion process, all frequencies above the range of human hearing 20kHz are _removed_ via a low-pass filter (the process is called anti-aliasing). This means that all overtones over 20kHz are nonexistent. But then a question crosses my mind - Why do "professionals" sample at 48kHz, and everyone else (CD, DAT) sample at 44.1? If we couldn't hear the overtones to begin with at 44.1, why sample at 48? Lots more questions, but my wife's here, so I have to go. Please clear me up if you can. Ken Fansler kwfansle@ilstu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 01:02:54 -0400 From: William Eldridge Subject: Re: the infinite ear Ken: 1) Low-pass filters cannot be "brick walls" that pass all frequencies below the cutoff and none above. They roll off frequencies on a slope (adding their own coloration to the sound). 2) Thus, the higher the sampling rate, the better. 3) While the 48k sampling rate is superior, "professionals" who record digital audio at 48k had better be prepared for a painful sample-rate conversion (which takes time and produces unfortunate artifacts) if they ever want their music to appear on CD. I hope this helps. William Eldridge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:47:20 +0200 From: Kostas Moshos-IEMA Subject: Re: the infinite ear Well the problem is not so mutch the 20KHz but lower frequences such as 10KHz where with SR 40KHz you have only 4 points (samples) to discribe the waveform. That meens that foreign overtones are possibly added to the reproduction that the lowpass filter dont cut and that is why the digital recording sounds "harder". The SF of 48KHz doas an improovement of 20%. The Nyiquist theorem says not twice but "at least" twice the Hz of the original sound. A good help is the "Introduction to Digital Signal Processing" Roman Kuc, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore, 1988 Kostas Moschos I.E.M.A. Greece kmos@leon.nrcps.ariadne-t.gr ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 08:39:32 -0800 From: metlay Subject: To patch or not to patch: THIS is a QUESTION? :-P William Eldridge writes: >If my comments came across as snobbish or smug, I apologize. Don't apologize; there's no point to it. This particular debate surfaces again and again on these lists and news groups, and people state their positions and some of them flame each other and no one changes his mind. So don't be sorry for having a position you believe in. I used to sling mud in these debates with the best of them, but it all develops a certain grey sameness after a while. In brief: Some people use other people's sounds and concentrate their musical energies on traditional compositional endeavours (meaning melody, harmony, etc. but not necessarily timbre) and are happy. Some subset of them call timbre-creators anal-retentive snobbish control freaks who perch on their sonic vaults like tumblebugs on cowflop, crowing about their purity of vision to hide their musical incompetence. Some people believe strongly in the creation of new timbres, either for their own sake or as a subset of more traditional compositions, and are happy. Some subset of them call patch-borrowers wet-brained imaginationless geeks who hide their ignorance and timbral impotence behind a wall of shrill yammer about "sharing" and should have their synths taken away, since they don't appreciate them. This is life. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Connellion to the nutput jaek." (o.c.r. attempting to grok xpander manual) ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************