Fully fledged microtonal synthesizer

There has been a tremendous amount of talk about microtonal
synthesizers recently. It is a problem that comes up again and
again and again. The truth is the major synth manufacturers do
not have are interests in mind when they are designing
machines.

I just had the idea that the microtonal community should fund
and design their own hardware/software system that does what
we want it to do. We are the only ones that care about this.

They is enough talent and technical expertise in the microtonal
community to create a commercial line of electronic synthesizers
that would sell well enough in the market place and be exactly
what we want.

The best way to do this is to have pre-orders that fund the
machine. This is the same as the restaurant that gets funded by
sales of meal tickets before the place is built.

There is also the possibility of making the macnine both a black
box and the inside of a keyboard. Starrlabs microzone does not
currently have an internal voice circuit. Here is an opportunity to
provide one!

It would be nice to see the many different talents here working
together on a such a project.

Justin

In-Reply-To: <200205210601.CAA12187@...>
Rick McGowan wrote:

> A better bet than "blind funding" could be attempting to approach one
> of the good softsynth makers who already have SOME tuning capability,
> and trying to get MORE of the same by approaching as a community
> instead of just an individual. I can tick off three suppliers right
> now:
>
> 1. Native Instruments, e.g., the FM7 or Absynth
> 2. Software Technology, e.g. the whole VAZ line
> 3. Peter Frazer, author of the "Midicode" synth

There's also this MetaSynth thing, and Kyma.

> If you have a software synth that already is tunable, it can't be all
> THAT much effort to make it REALLY tunable. If you have a synth that's
> really tunable, it might not take too much effort to make it more
> flexible...

No, but they won't make much money by doing so either. Microtonalists are
good at whining about not being supported, but not very good at laying
down the cash for a product that does the right thing.

> All of the existing software synths that are tunable seem to have their
> good & bad points.

The only bad point about Kyma is the price, and if you were serious about
tuning support, and had the money, you would have bought it 4 years ago.
Why should anybody take you seriously now when you say there's a market
for flexibly retunable synths? If you want better microtonal support, put
your money where your mouth is and pay for what's already there. Or learn
C and get working on Timidity.

Graham

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., graham@m... wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_3026.html#3030

>
> The only bad point about Kyma is the price, and if you were serious
about tuning support, and had the money, you would have bought it 4
years ago.
> Why should anybody take you seriously now when you say there's a
market for flexibly retunable synths? If you want better microtonal
support, put your money where your mouth is and pay for what's
already there. Or learn
> C and get working on Timidity.
>
>
> Graham

***Well, admittedly at $3300, it's a little stiff.

Apparently it's worth it, though. What have you written with it,
Graham? I would enjoy hearing it.

Joseph

In-Reply-To: <acdkc3+catf@...>
jpehrson2 wrote [on Kyma]:

> ***Well, admittedly at $3300, it's a little stiff.

But it isn't that expensive compared to a lot of the equipment mentioned
here, that only does part of the job. About a week ago, Jon Szanto was
asking about a $1000 for a second-hand hardware sampler. Kyma's only 3
times the cost of that, its hardware is semi-autonomous so you can
still rely on it for live work, and it also does studio quality morphing,
all the standard effects, spectral analysis, 192 partial additive
synthesis and flexible, extremely accurate tuning support.

> Apparently it's worth it, though. What have you written with it,
> Graham? I would enjoy hearing it.

Everything at <http://x31eq.com/music/> uses it one way or
another, for recording, synthesis or processing. Drone and the Elements
Suite were completely done in Kyma (the latter using a sample) in real
time. The two guitar pieces were recorded live with all the effects in
Kyma (compare with the Tuning Punks piece that uses the same guitar with
cheaper effects) and the magic demo was recorded real time with a Korg
providing the drums and a TX81Z the bass, both plugged directly into the
Capybara.

But that only shows you what I've had time to throw together. There are
sound examples at <http://www.symbolicsound.com/hearkyma.html> (note they
don't tell you how many expansion cards are needed to reproduce them) and
there are some commercial recordings
<http://www.symbolicsound.com/eighth-recordings.html> and films
<http://www.symbolicsound.com/eighth-films-tv.html> that use it.

Graham

Graham,

{you wrote...}
>jpehrson2 wrote [on Kyma]:
>
> > ***Well, admittedly at $3300, it's a little stiff.
>
>But it isn't that expensive compared to a lot of the equipment mentioned
>here, that only does part of the job. About a week ago, Jon Szanto was
>asking about a $1000 for a second-hand hardware sampler.

Well, that's just the start of it. Have any of you ever - *ever* - taken a look at what a concert violinist will invest in just *one* bow in a collection of bows, which is simply one component of making the violin sound?

Just the bow?

Or what a bassoonist will pay for a new, top-of-the-line Fox?

And etc, and etc.?

Fine quality musical instruments are the result of careful craftsmanship and endeavor; dedicated musicians realize that better instruments result in better music, and view the purchase as nothing more than an investment in the quality and calibre of their chosen art.

I'm not a fan of bloated and expensive software, nor am I blind to the need for no-cost to low-cost items that we could use. But the fact of the matter is that we *do* have inexpensive alternatives for getting started in making microtonal music(s), and if some of the other options are more expensive, then maybe they need to be looked at by those who consider it "an investment".

Not to mention that my Prophet-5, which was the first commercial (and easily available) microtunable polyphonic synth cost me, in 19-late-70's dollars, $2750. I considered it a good instrument and used it for years. I didn't complain, I just saved up for it.

I've got other problems with Kyma and related products, but I'll save that for another time, along with general topics of other natures.

Cheers,
Jon

In reference to the high prices of some software:

Not that I would ever do such a thing, but I heard from a friend of a friend
who talked to his step-sister's hairdresser, who overheard two old ladies on
a bus:

that you can go on the filesharing networks with Limewire etc, and get fully
functional versions of Emagic Logic 5, Cubase, Wavelab, more Directx and VST
plugins than you can shake a stick at, software samplers, etc.

Can you believe some people would acually do such a thing? whats the world
comming to?

Dante

Dante,

{you wrote...}
>Can you believe some people would acually do such a thing? whats the world >comming to?

I think I have my ideas as to what the world is coming to, but this thread really scares me as one that could take off into a flame-war and get seriously off-topic for MMM.

Any thoughts on Dante's or his hairdresser's file-sharing are OK, but let's try and keep focused, 'kay folks?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_unknown.html#3041

> Stealing music tools is no different than stealing
> someone's guitar out of the back of his truck and
> pricks who use cracked software should rot in hell and
> should not be tolerated in this community.
>

***There has actually been some progress in software development to
discourage such activities which, admittedly, will destroy software
companies and all those employed at same. For example, take the new
notation program _Sibelius_. It is absolutely *impossible* to copy,
since it registers the user's *computer number.* It can get a little
tricky, since many users have been locked out of their own software
at times (it won't save) but a call to the company will give the
numeric hocus-pocus to get it going again. Bravo to them. (I'm a
person, actually, who really *does* pay even his shareware fees out
of *encouragement!*)

J. Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020521090031.024725b0@...>
Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> I'll second that. Rick has been a quiet background voice in these
> circles, but he has done yeomans work in getting a couple of
> generations of synths to bark out the microtones. Rick, your commitment
> is not in question in my eyes, that's for sure.

I didn't mean anything against Rick, I was using "you" in its impersonal
sense.

> Oh balls. Musicians have the right to have instruments without learning
> to code! Sure, oboe players have to make reeds, but no other
> instrumental developments (correct me if I'm wrong) would expect
> someone to actually learn how to build it before they could play it!

Well, this is an example of what I disagree with. Musicians don't have a
right to anything they aren't prepared to work or pay for. If there is a
demand for microtonal support, a few personal e-mails can work wonders.
The VAZ line got its tuning support because one single user asked for it,
and it wasn't a big deal to add. If what you want isn't available, you'll
either have to make do with what is, or provide for yourself.

I did find, when I was a student with little money but access to a
computer, that the only way of making microtonal music was to buy a
Fortran compiler and write a MIDI file generator. This isn't an approach
that would suit most people, but it did suit me at the time. CSound would
have suited me better, but I didn't know about it then. Real time
software synthesizers have improved enormously since then, so nobody
should have to do this today. There's also MIDI Relay and FTS, of course.

> Graham, we need to keep our disciplines straight in this regard; the
> community is deeply enriched by those people who have both musical and
> software skills (you and Robert Walker spring to mind right away), but
> coding in C is not a burden I'd put on any musician - they should be
> practicing, playing, or composing.

Carpentry isn't a burden I'd put on any musician. But some musicians find
it's a useful route to get the result they want. A few of us do have the
C skills to add tuning support to Timidity if we could be bothered. It
shouldn't be that difficult, I've already posted my first impressions.
One of the rules of open source software (which did get mentioned in the
thread) is that you don't complain about it if you aren't prepared to work
on it.

Yes, making music is the most important thing, and it's what we're all
here to do. We're already well provided for given how few of us there
are.

Graham

Graham,

{you wrote...}
>I didn't mean anything against Rick, I was using "you" in its impersonal >sense.

Right! I didn't sense anything personal as well.

>Well, this is an example of what I disagree with.

Yes, I noticed. :)

>Musicians don't have a right to anything they aren't prepared to work or >pay for.

Of course. But how much do you think is required before you are allowed to actually get down to purpose, which in this case is to compose/perform music? If, throughout our history, ever musician had not only had to focus on the musical aspect but would have been required to build their own instruments, what then? (very hypothetical, with fascinating possibilities...)

>If there is a demand for microtonal support, a few personal e-mails can >work wonders.

Absolutely. I think the ideal situation would be for a group letter of some fashion, accompanied by a CD of works representing the wide diversity of music by some/all of the 'undersigned', sent to those entities that you want to give impetus to developing microtonal resources.

>If what you want isn't available, you'll either have to make do with what >is, or provide for yourself.

Which is what has been *mostly* the case up to now. If some people can push it a little further, that would be a good thing.

>This isn't an approach that would suit most people, but it did suit me at >the time.

Right. I think that there are a fair number in your boat, but not all, and I'm just trying to keep a pluralistic focus on the search for resources. I've always been impressed by those who develop their own resources...

> > Graham, we need to keep our disciplines straight in this regard; the
> > community is deeply enriched by those people who have both musical and
> > software skills (you and Robert Walker spring to mind right away), but
> > coding in C is not a burden I'd put on any musician - they should be
> > practicing, playing, or composing.
>
>Carpentry isn't a burden I'd put on any musician. But some musicians find >it's a useful route to get the result they want.

Heh - clever boy.

>A few of us do have the C skills to add tuning support to Timidity if we >could be bothered. It shouldn't be that difficult, I've already posted my >first impressions. One of the rules of open source software (which did >get mentioned in the thread) is that you don't complain about it if you >aren't prepared to work
>on it.

Right, yes, I know that, but try to keep in mind that in a diverse group such as this, you can't *expect* that everyone will have those kind of skills, or even the aptitude for them. My wife is a spectacular musician, but she is also spectacularly ill-suited for programming, a very conceptual thing. People should not whine, but it shouldn't be the case that everyone needs to abandon one discipline for another.

And if you are proposing C code put together by weekend amateurs, I'd rather they stick with their instruments, thank you! :)

>Yes, making music is the most important thing, and it's what we're all >here to do. We're already well provided for given how few of us there are.

Funny, that is close to my impression as well. But having spent the last 6 months experimenting around with what is available, the work environment for microtonal music can still stand a lot of improvement...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Graham,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I didn't mean anything against Rick, I was using "you" in its
impersonal
> >sense.
>
> Right! I didn't sense anything personal as well.
>
> >Well, this is an example of what I disagree with.
>
> Yes, I noticed. :)
>
> >Musicians don't have a right to anything they aren't prepared
to work or
> >pay for.
>
> Of course. But how much do you think is required before you
are allowed to
> actually get down to purpose, which in this case is to
compose/perform
> music? If, throughout our history, ever musician had not only
had to focus
> on the musical aspect but would have been required to build
their own
> instruments, what then? (very hypothetical, with fascinating
possibilities...)
>
> >If there is a demand for microtonal support, a few personal
e-mails can
> >work wonders.
>
> Absolutely. I think the ideal situation would be for a group letter
of some
> fashion, accompanied by a CD of works representing the wide
diversity of
> music by some/all of the 'undersigned', sent to those entities
that you
> want to give impetus to developing microtonal resources.

I was going to suggest this. You beat me to the punch. What we
should do is what Rick suggested i.e approach those
companies that already are doing the micro thing. The
companies seem to be the following:

U&I software [creators of Metasynth]
Native Instruments [creators of Reaktor etc]
Steinberg [creators of VST]
Bit Headz [creators of Unity DS-1]
Cycling 74 [MSP and MAX]
Ensoniq/EMU
General Music
Korg
Kurzweil
Midicode [midicode synth]
Oberheim
Roland
Soltan
Software-technology [ VAZ]
Symbolic Sound [Kyma is actually already quite good]
Technics
Turtlebeach [sound cards]
Waldorf
Yamaha

What we need to do is come up with a wishlist. Then we can
approach the comapnies as a group.

> >If what you want isn't available, you'll either have to make do
with what
> >is, or provide for yourself.
>
> Which is what has been *mostly* the case up to now. If some
people can push
> it a little further, that would be a good thing.

Exactly the reason I started this thread.

Justin
> >This isn't an approach that would suit most people, but it did
suit me at
> >the time.
>
> Right. I think that there are a fair number in your boat, but not
all, and
> I'm just trying to keep a pluralistic focus on the search for
resources.
> I've always been impressed by those who develop their own
resources...
>
> > > Graham, we need to keep our disciplines straight in this
regard; the
> > > community is deeply enriched by those people who have
both musical and
> > > software skills (you and Robert Walker spring to mind right
away), but
> > > coding in C is not a burden I'd put on any musician - they
should be
> > > practicing, playing, or composing.
> >
> >Carpentry isn't a burden I'd put on any musician. But some
musicians find
> >it's a useful route to get the result they want.
>
> Heh - clever boy.
>
> >A few of us do have the C skills to add tuning support to
Timidity if we
> >could be bothered. It shouldn't be that difficult, I've already
posted my
> >first impressions. One of the rules of open source software
(which did
> >get mentioned in the thread) is that you don't complain about
it if you
> >aren't prepared to work
> >on it.
>
> Right, yes, I know that, but try to keep in mind that in a diverse
group
> such as this, you can't *expect* that everyone will have those
kind of
> skills, or even the aptitude for them. My wife is a spectacular
musician,
> but she is also spectacularly ill-suited for programming, a very
conceptual
> thing. People should not whine, but it shouldn't be the case
that everyone
> needs to abandon one discipline for another.
>
> And if you are proposing C code put together by weekend
amateurs, I'd
> rather they stick with their instruments, thank you! :)
>
> >Yes, making music is the most important thing, and it's what
we're all
> >here to do. We're already well provided for given how few of
us there are.

That is true, but all special interests groups get noticed alot
more if they are organised and work together.

> Funny, that is close to my impression as well. But having spent
the last 6
> months experimenting around with what is available, the work
environment
> for microtonal music can still stand a lot of improvement...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

In-Reply-To: <ackhh8+924m@...>
justintonation wrote:

> What we need to do is come up with a wishlist. Then we can
> approach the comapnies as a group.

We have a wishlist.
<http://www.microtonalsynthesis.com/architectures.html>

Graham

Oh look, a straight piece of wood