Re: [MMM] looking for good microtonal syhtn hardware... can anyone help?

Kevin,

I have been checking out these things over the past couple of weeks, and found that the EMU 2500 (rack synth) can do any arbitrary tuning, with any MIDI note retuneable to any pitch. Other synths seem to only go as far as giving you a set of 12 pitches to retune.

I did see a synth from Waldorf by the name of "Q" (but did not hear it, other than web demos), but is seems to have an interesting function. It is termed "HMT", not sure what it stands for, there is nothing in the manual defining it... Anyway, it does seemt o be something along the lines of "Adaptive" tuning. I could be wrong, but it does seem to offer the tuning of 3rd's and 5ths (and I think 7th) to the closest "pure" interval.

Mike

Kevin Hobby wrote:
> Are there any microtanal hardware synths that can be tuned > without the aid of a computer? One that allows for 40 or so notes > per octave?
> If anyone knows of any MIDI synths like this, that don't require > software PLEASE let me know.
> > sirdredzaknot@...
> > > [MMM info]------------------------------------------------------
> More MMM music files are at http://www.microtonal.org/music.html
> ------------------------------------------------------[MMM info] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle
<fndsnd@r...> wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> I have been checking out these things over the past couple of
weeks, and
> found that the EMU 2500 (rack synth) can do any arbitrary tuning,
with
> any MIDI note retuneable to any pitch. Other synths seem to only go
as
> far as giving you a set of 12 pitches to retune.

not all of them -- john loffink's site should give you a sense of
this.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
> not all of them -- john loffink's site should give you a sense of > this.

Paul, this is useful info, but after looking at it again, it does seem a little thin in some areas. For instance, I looked for the Roland XV series to be listed here. It't not. After reading the specs of what is said about the Roland GS synths, I realized that the specs are pretty much the same as the XV. I don't know much about the GS series, or how it compares to the XV, but it might be useful information to include on this site.

Also, what about the whole slue of newer keyboards that are coming out? I would think that there should be some mention of things like the Virus? I did not see the Waldorf Q keyboard mentioned here either, and from what I understand, it is fully retuneable on a global, part, or instrument level. Unfortunately, this keyboard does not seem to be widely available in the US yet.

As one who has looked for a new synth over the past month, I can understand why people have been posting to the list instead of looking the John's site for specific info on different models.

Mike

Information at my site is thin because information from certain keyboard
vendors is thin. I can get any Yamaha manual online and all recent Emu
ones, but not so for Roland and Korg. While it is true that GS and XG
synths in principle should support 12 note per octave microtuning, my
understanding is that there may be exceptions to this, where full GS is
not implemented. Because of this I hesitate to list new Roland GS
instruments without some corroborating information.

The Waldorf Q does not support microtuning according to the online
manual. If you're talking about the drum retuning, this is limited to
32 mappings on the keyboard.

Most newer synthesizer models are not listed because they don't support
microtuning. The Virus is a good example - no microtuning - that's why
it is not listed.

John Loffink
jloffink@...

The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

The Wavemakers Modular and Integrated Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/

> Paul, this is useful info, but after looking at it again, it does seem
a
> little thin in some areas. For instance, I looked for the Roland XV
> series to be listed here. It't not. After reading the specs of what is
> said about the Roland GS synths, I realized that the specs are pretty
> much the same as the XV. I don't know much about the GS series, or how
> it compares to the XV, but it might be useful information to include
on
> this site.
>
> Also, what about the whole slue of newer keyboards that are coming
out?
> I would think that there should be some mention of things like the
> Virus? I did not see the Waldorf Q keyboard mentioned here either, and
> from what I understand, it is fully retuneable on a global, part, or
> instrument level. Unfortunately, this keyboard does not seem to be
> widely available in the US yet.
>
> As one who has looked for a new synth over the past month, I can
> understand why people have been posting to the list instead of looking
> the John's site for specific info on different models.
>
>
> Mike
>
>

John Loffink wrote:
> Information at my site is thin because information from certain keyboard
> vendors is thin. I can get any Yamaha manual online and all recent Emu
> ones, but not so for Roland and Korg. While it is true that GS and XG
> synths in principle should support 12 note per octave microtuning, my
> understanding is that there may be exceptions to this, where full GS is
> not implemented. Because of this I hesitate to list new Roland GS
> instruments without some corroborating information.

John,

If you would like I could send you what is in the manual for the XV5050. As far as it goes, it can do retuning on a "per part" basis, as well as per instrument. Each tuning is limited to a 12 note, octave repeating set. But because it has 16 parts, each with its own table, you can set it up to have different scales spread accross different parts, and then split the midi over those channels. Still not the perfect situation, but doable...

> The Waldorf Q does not support microtuning according to the online
> manual. If you're talking about the drum retuning, this is limited to
> 32 mappings on the keyboard. Actually, I did look back at the manual and did remember why the Q stuck in my head. It seems to be attempting to do a form of Adaptive Tuning. Its HMT mode, while I have not heard it, they do claim that it attempts to retune all the intervals to purer ratios. Also, the last mode of the HMT, aptly name Import, says (page 139 of 'q_all_eng_web.pdf', I can forward the pdf if you like) "Import accommodates different note tuning formats like octave scale tuning (GM Level 2) or single note retuning through Midi. Take this setting when the Q should react to incoming tuned scales." Unless I am reading this wrong, does this sound like it will handle arbitrary tunings? Or is this something that still expects the pitch bends to accomplish?

> Most newer synthesizer models are not listed because they don't support
> microtuning. The Virus is a good example - no microtuning - that's why
> it is not listed.

Maybe you might want to start a list of instruments that should be avoided, it might save people a little time.

Mike

> > John Loffink
> jloffink@... > > The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
> http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/
> > The Wavemakers Modular and Integrated Synthesizer Web Site
> http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/
> > >>Paul, this is useful info, but after looking at it again, it does seem
> > a
> >>little thin in some areas. For instance, I looked for the Roland XV
>>series to be listed here. It't not. After reading the specs of what is
>>said about the Roland GS synths, I realized that the specs are pretty
>>much the same as the XV. I don't know much about the GS series, or how
>>it compares to the XV, but it might be useful information to include
> > on
> >>this site.
>>
>>Also, what about the whole slue of newer keyboards that are coming
> > out?
> >>I would think that there should be some mention of things like the
>>Virus? I did not see the Waldorf Q keyboard mentioned here either, and
>>from what I understand, it is fully retuneable on a global, part, or
>>instrument level. Unfortunately, this keyboard does not seem to be
>>widely available in the US yet.
>>
>>As one who has looked for a new synth over the past month, I can
>>understand why people have been posting to the list instead of looking
>>the John's site for specific info on different models.
>>
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
> > > > > [MMM info]------------------------------------------------------
> More MMM music files are at http://www.microtonal.org/music.html
> ------------------------------------------------------[MMM info] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >

John Loffink
jloffink@...

The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

The Wavemakers Modular and Integrated Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/

>
> If you would like I could send you what is in the manual for the
XV5050.
> As far as it goes, it can do retuning on a "per part" basis, as well
as
> per instrument. Each tuning is limited to a 12 note, octave repeating
> set. But because it has 16 parts, each with its own table, you can set
> it up to have different scales spread accross different parts, and
then
> split the midi over those channels. Still not the perfect situation,
but
> doable...

Thanks, I appreciate that. Much of the information at my site is
contributed by people like you.

> Actually, I did look back at the manual and did remember why the Q
stuck
> in my head. It seems to be attempting to do a form of Adaptive Tuning.
> Its HMT mode, while I have not heard it, they do claim that it
attempts
> to retune all the intervals to purer ratios. Also, the last mode of
the
> HMT, aptly name Import, says (page 139 of 'q_all_eng_web.pdf', I can
> forward the pdf if you like) "Import accommodates different note
tuning
> formats like octave scale tuning (GM Level 2) or single note retuning
> through Midi. Take this setting when the Q should react to incoming
> tuned scales." Unless I am reading this wrong, does this sound like it
> will handle arbitrary tunings? Or is this something that still expects
> the pitch bends to accomplish?

I can't find a reference to anything like that in the Q manual that I
downloaded. Is there a software upgrade that added this feature? It
sounds like a feature that was in the Waldorf Microwave, but I have not
seen that in the newer instruments.

> Maybe you might want to start a list of instruments that should be
> avoided, it might save people a little time.
>

That's a really long list.

All (and mostly Mike M. and John L.),

One of the bonuses of a widely dispersed community such as this is the possibility of information gathering. If we harness the possibility, we increase the value of the group by orders of magnitude; if we ignore it, we flounder in our individual ways. So let me be concrete...

Mike M. wrote:

>If you would like I could send you what is in the manual for the XV5050...

and

>'q_all_eng_web.pdf', I can forward the pdf if you like

etc. *These* are the kind of information sharing moments that can help one author (John L.) keep pages current and relevant. How many on this list actively host/manage/author web sites? If it is topical and needs to stay current, it is not always an easy proposition. The wide array of hardware/software that is available grows constantly, and it does so (mostly) ignorant of microtonal needs.

John L. has long kept his Microtonal Synthesis site as a resource for the community at large, and for this we should be grateful. We also need to be sharing and proactive, and if *you* find information about microtonal support, be it in soft or hard synths, post it with a note to John Loffink that it should be included in his survey, or at the least checked out. Paramount is experience _beyond_ merely reading marketing flack, because it certainly isn't unusual to find the real world doesn't match up with the pamphlets. Let us all help to make John's task easier!

Mike M. again:

>As far as it goes, it can do retuning on a "per part" basis, as well as
>per instrument. Each tuning is limited to a 12 note, octave repeating
>set. But because it has 16 parts, each with its own table, you can set
>it up to have different scales spread accross different parts, and then
>split the midi over those channels. Still not the perfect situation, but
>doable...

Well, this is what I'm staring at with my Roland gear, and I find it an off-putting scenario. Maybe a composer who is more interested in generating the music ahead of time and then entering it laboriously into a myriad of midi channels would be more complacent. Until and unless instruments support fully tuneable keyboards (as only a couple of mine do), I limit myself to scales/intonations that might fit into 12 slots.

I'd be curious to hear other people's reactions, and this is only my take on it, but when the muse strikes, 'perfect' (or near-perfect) is by far preferable to 'doable'.

>Maybe you might want to start a list of instruments that should be >avoided, it might save people a little time.

I was thinking along alternate lines: John, if you still are attempting to maintain a somewhat comprehensive list (in the four pages), why not have a 5th page that lists *only* the microtonal synths, and simply put them in alphabetical order, broken out into tables of those that support full keyboard tuning, those that support single/repeatable octave tunings, and any other microtonal implementations?

And whether or not, in the coming days as we see the trends, you should have a separate page/table for soft synths as opposed to hard...

Any body have any other ideas?

Thanks to John, for the pages -
Thanks to Mike, for wanting a new synth -
Thanks to MMM, for people looking beyond the norm -

Cheers,
ListMom

John Loffink wrote:
> > I can't find a reference to anything like that in the Q manual that I
> downloaded. Is there a software upgrade that added this feature? It
> sounds like a feature that was in the Waldorf Microwave, but I have not
> seen that in the newer instruments.

If you can handle it, the manual that I had downloaded for the Q (I can't find the link on their site now), it is about 7 megs. I would be more than happy to send it to you. If for no other reason, you might be interested in the description of the HMT functionality.

>>Maybe you might want to start a list of instruments that should be
>>avoided, it might save people a little time.
> > That's a really long list.

Yeah, I am sure that this would be a difficult thing to do, as most devices probably would fit into this catagory.

At the same time, it is hard to take the info on the site as being complete when you don't mention things that are out of the catagory as well. It does help to narrow the field of things that some looking for a synth needs to look at. My first thought when I looked at your site and DIDN'T find one of the synth's I was interested in was that you had not had a chance to evaluate the device, so there was nothing to say about it. Thus, I concluded that I had to check those things out for myself. A logical conclusion.

While it is difficult to include everything that is outside the criteria, not providing a list of things that don't mean the criteria might (sort of) imply that it "is" within the criteria. Does this make sense?

Do you have access to a database and PHP (or some front end)? It might be interesting to set up some sort of MIDI instrument database that lists each capability for the device. It would make the task of maintaining these web pages a lot easier, and you could provide more info on more devices.

Mike

I found the new Waldorf Q manual which has the information on HMT. It
also mentions the download function and single key tuning, but with no
mention of the download format. It does appear that you can't reprogram
scales from the user interface. I can add this to my web site, but
there will be lots of question marks.

I should start a list of synthesizers that have been ruled out of the
microtonal category, but this will only include new stuff as I check it
out. I'm not going back to cover the last 30 plus years of
synthesizers.

I don't have the means to provide a true database search engine. Some
things would have to change, such as the low budget usage of free
Roadrunner web space with my ISP account.

John Loffink
jloffink@...

The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

The Wavemakers Modular and Integrated Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/

> If you can handle it, the manual that I had downloaded for the Q (I
> can't find the link on their site now), it is about 7 megs. I would be
> more than happy to send it to you. If for no other reason, you might
be
> interested in the description of the HMT functionality.
>
> >>Maybe you might want to start a list of instruments that should be
> >>avoided, it might save people a little time.
> >
> > That's a really long list.
>
> Yeah, I am sure that this would be a difficult thing to do, as most
> devices probably would fit into this catagory.
>
> At the same time, it is hard to take the info on the site as being
> complete when you don't mention things that are out of the catagory as
> well. It does help to narrow the field of things that some looking for
a
> synth needs to look at. My first thought when I looked at your site
and
> DIDN'T find one of the synth's I was interested in was that you had
not
> had a chance to evaluate the device, so there was nothing to say about
> it. Thus, I concluded that I had to check those things out for myself.
A
> logical conclusion.
>
> While it is difficult to include everything that is outside the
> criteria, not providing a list of things that don't mean the criteria
> might (sort of) imply that it "is" within the criteria. Does this make
> sense?
>
> Do you have access to a database and PHP (or some front end)? It might
> be interesting to set up some sort of MIDI instrument database that
> lists each capability for the device. It would make the task of
> maintaining these web pages a lot easier, and you could provide more
> info on more devices.
>
> Mike
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael McGonagle

/makemicromusic/topicId_4379.html#4411

My first thought when I looked at your site and
> DIDN'T find one of the synth's I was interested in was that you had
not had a chance to evaluate the device, so there was nothing to say
about it. Thus, I concluded that I had to check those things out for
myself. A logical conclusion.
>

***Wouldn't it be just as easy to write an e-mail to John and ask him
whether he's evaluated your device or knows something about it?? I
notice that John asks for *comments* on his page; maybe he should
have a sentence saying that one could ask questions about any synth
that was *not* listed.

I doubt there would be so many requests that it would take too much
of John's time...

best,

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "John Loffink" <jloffink@a...>

/makemicromusic/topicId_4379.html#4422

wrote:
> I found the new Waldorf Q manual which has the information on HMT.
It
> also mentions the download function and single key tuning, but with
no
> mention of the download format. It does appear that you can't
reprogram
> scales from the user interface. I can add this to my web site, but
> there will be lots of question marks.
>
> I should start a list of synthesizers that have been ruled out of
the
> microtonal category, but this will only include new stuff as I
check it
> out. I'm not going back to cover the last 30 plus years of
> synthesizers.
>
> I don't have the means to provide a true database search engine.
Some
> things would have to change, such as the low budget usage of free
> Roadrunner web space with my ISP account.
>
> John Loffink
> jloffink@a...
>

***Hi John,

Couldn't you just make a simple database in MS Access and link it??
Access makes nice webpages "in a jiffy..." The webpage can then be
easily searched... I do that with a little performance database:

http://users.rcn.com/jpehrson/prog.html

J. Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>>DIDN'T find one of the synth's I was interested in was that you had > > not had a chance to evaluate the device, so there was nothing to say > about it. Thus, I concluded that I had to check those things out for > myself. A logical conclusion.
> > > ***Wouldn't it be just as easy to write an e-mail to John and ask him > whether he's evaluated your device or knows something about it?? I > notice that John asks for *comments* on his page; maybe he should > have a sentence saying that one could ask questions about any synth > that was *not* listed.
> > I doubt there would be so many requests that it would take too much > of John's time...

Hi Joseph,

Even thou it would not really take that much of John's time, it would probably take just as much time to put something up on the web. Even if that comment were to be "Didn't test", or "Tested with limited abilities", or "Just stay away".

I really was only offering these comments as constructive criticism, and not a complaint.

Mike