Great CronoX Patches

To follow up on patches, there are two sets of relatively inexpensive CronoX patches
for download on the LinPlug site. I bought the patches and there are hundreds of
truly miraculous sounds included-- some excellent guitar sounds, synth-piano
sounds, wind sounds and far-out sounds too... also some very fine harmonic timbres.
I set a .tun file to a repeating octave tuning of harmonics 16-32 (with 4 left out) and
amazed my ears with beautiful stacks of just chords. Thanks everyone for the help in
making this possible.

Next step... recording it... I think somebody mentioned that you can record the
output of CronoX so I'll read the manual some more to see if I can do it with my
current setup.

- Justin

Justin,

{you wrote...}
>To follow up on patches, there are two sets of relatively inexpensive >CronoX patches for download on the LinPlug site. I bought the patches and >there are hundreds of truly miraculous sounds included-- some excellent >guitar sounds, synth-piano sounds, wind sounds and far-out sounds too... >also some very fine harmonic timbres.

I'll check 'em out.

>I set a .tun file to a repeating octave tuning of harmonics 16-32 (with 4 >left out) and amazed my ears with beautiful stacks of just chords. Thanks >everyone for the help in making this possible.

Excellent! Magic happens!!

>Next step... recording it... I think somebody mentioned that you can >record the
>output of CronoX so I'll read the manual some more to see if I can do it >with my
>current setup.

Actually, if you are still using Bidule you might want to check Audio File Output, one of the builtin modules. From the description it looks like you would just add a patch to that and it would capture your audio right to disk.

I know of a great gadget that does this, even with multiple instances (Silverspike's "Tape It") but alas it is only available for PC.

Glad you're having a good time!

Cheers,
Jon

J,

{you wrote...}
>To follow up on patches, there are two sets of relatively inexpensive >CronoX patches for download on the LinPlug site. I bought the patches and >there are hundreds of truly miraculous sounds included--

Did you actually get both sets? If you got the second, you must have a broadband connection, because I didn't think you had the synth long enough to have the CD shipped to you!

Cheers,
Jon

I have cable internet. -Justin

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> J,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >To follow up on patches, there are two sets of relatively inexpensive
> >CronoX patches for download on the LinPlug site. I bought the patches and
> >there are hundreds of truly miraculous sounds included--
>
> Did you actually get both sets? If you got the second, you must have a
> broadband connection, because I didn't think you had the synth long enough
> to have the CD shipped to you!
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

>
> Actually, if you are still using Bidule you might want to check Audio File
> Output, one of the builtin modules. From the description it looks like you
> would just add a patch to that and it would capture your audio right to disk.

I've got Bidule setup now to go Roland HP-2800G --> TASCAM US-428 input -->
CronoX microtuning + patches --> mixer --> TASCAM US-428 output -->
headphones.

As far as output to Audio File goes, I'm not sure what the options are. Bidule gives me
options: Audio Buffer, Audio File Granulator, Audio File Looper, Player and Recorder:
player and recorder are subdivided into a number of channels. How do these things
work and what do they mean??

-Justin

J,

{you wrote...}
>I've got Bidule setup now to go Roland HP-2800G --> TASCAM US-428 input >--> CronoX microtuning + patches --> mixer --> TASCAM US-428 output --> >headphones.

Sounds fine.

>As far as output to Audio File goes, I'm not sure what the options are. >Bidule gives me options: Audio Buffer, Audio File Granulator, Audio File >Looper, Player and Recorder: player and recorder are subdivided into a >number of channels. How do these things work and what do they mean??

Heyheyhey - I downloaded it just before you did, so now YOU have more experience than I! but I turned on the other box, pulled up my saved first attempt. Select a new module, and choose AudioFile -> Recorder -> 02 Channels (assuming you want a stereo dump of your playing). Connect the two audio outs that go to from your mixer to the File Recorder (these are now duplicates of the ones that go to the Tascam).

Dbl click on the Audio File Recorder_1 - you'll need to pick a filename to save to before anything; do that, and then you'll see the option button that says "Start" come active. Go up and turn on the "Power Switch" (you remember that one). Press the "Start" on the recorder to start capturing the audio, and then do your playing. When done, then stop the recorder: your golden tones have been captured in the file that you named on disc.

That is how it works for me, about 600 mile south of you on an XP box; with minor variations it should be identical for you. Have fun.

Cheers,
Jon

You're right it was that easy! I didn't realize you could link the mixer to the output
and recorder simultaneously! This program is truly amazing-- I can highly
recommend it to anyone! -Justin

>
> Dbl click on the Audio File Recorder_1 - you'll need to pick a filename to
> save to before anything; do that, and then you'll see the option button
> that says "Start" come active. Go up and turn on the "Power Switch" (you
> remember that one). Press the "Start" on the recorder to start capturing
> the audio, and then do your playing. When done, then stop the recorder:
> your golden tones have been captured in the file that you named on disc.
>
> That is how it works for me, about 600 mile south of you on an XP box; with
> minor variations it should be identical for you. Have fun.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

J,

{you wrote...}
>You're right it was that easy! I didn't realize you could link the mixer >to the output and recorder simultaneously!

The world is a marvelous place.

>This program is truly amazing-- I can highly recommend it to anyone!

I believe Plogue (the developers) have a forum on their site; maybe you can hang out there for a while and come back with some new ideas to share here. Me, I've got a lot of time invested in the PC program AudioMulch - I hope sometime you can get a chance to check that one out. It is being used by a lot of live electronic musicians, has a very healthy group of users, and can also do a seemingly endless amount of things to sound and music.

It is really a fun time for creative people.

Cheers,
Jon

on 9/9/03 5:31, Jonathan M. Szanto at JSZANTO@... wrote:

J,

{you wrote...}
>You're right it was that easy! I didn't realize you could link the mixer
>to the output and recorder simultaneously!

The world is a marvelous place.

>This program is truly amazing-- I can highly recommend it to anyone!

I believe Plogue (the developers) have a forum on their site; maybe you can
hang out there for a while and come back with some new ideas to share here.
Me, I've got a lot of time invested in the PC program AudioMulch - I hope
sometime you can get a chance to check that one out. It is being used by a
lot of live electronic musicians, has a very healthy group of users, and
can also do a seemingly endless amount of things to sound and music.

It is really a fun time for creative people.

Cheers,
Jon

Hi folks

Apologies for using this thread to jump in and change the topic.

I'd just like to say that despite having nothing to report (yet) on software
that I'm actually using I'm following y'alls discussions and finding them to
be of immense benefit.

One thing I have established is that Steinberg's Halion 2 lets you tune
individual samples and groups of samples as you wish. You have from -5 to +5
octaves, coarse from -11 to +11 semi-tones and fine tuning from -100 to +100
cents.

To quote a user "there are no preset scales as such but using a combination
of folders and tuning you could put each group of samples i.e into
individual folders i.e "perfect fifth" and change their tuning that way or
tweak each individual samples as you see fit. When using velocity layers,
you could also assign different tunings so forte layers are sharp and piano
ones flat for instance."

I don't understand the individual folders bit fully and have asked for
clarification. But it sounds hopeful. The next step is to ask the developers
for some form of automation.

I'm ready to buy the application even if it means lots of individual key
tweaks. The 'Computer Music' review gives it 9/10 and particularly praises
the integration into Cubase SX, the excellent disk streaming protocol and
the new version 2.0 Waldorf filters.

Sincerely
a.m.

Sincerely
a.m.

Rudi

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I will say that one limitation I discovered last night with Bidule recording is that, at
least for my setup, you can't record more than a certain amount of music before the
.aiff file becomes corrupt. I can't say exactly what the time limit is, but it's somewhere
greater than 30 minutes. The five minute file I recorded was fine. -Justin

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> J,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >You're right it was that easy! I didn't realize you could link the mixer
> >to the output and recorder simultaneously!
>
> The world is a marvelous place.
>
> >This program is truly amazing-- I can highly recommend it to anyone!
>
> I believe Plogue (the developers) have a forum on their site; maybe you can
> hang out there for a while and come back with some new ideas to share here.
> Me, I've got a lot of time invested in the PC program AudioMulch - I hope
> sometime you can get a chance to check that one out. It is being used by a
> lot of live electronic musicians, has a very healthy group of users, and
> can also do a seemingly endless amount of things to sound and music.
>
> It is really a fun time for creative people.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Alison,

{you wrote...}
>Apologies for using this thread to jump in and change the topic.

Go dig some peat as penance.

>... I'm following y'alls discussions and finding them to be of immense >benefit.

Good - I hate to waste electrons!

>One thing I have established is that Steinberg's Halion 2 lets you tune >individual samples and groups of samples as you wish. You have from -5 to >+5 octaves, coarse from -11 to +11 semi-tones and fine tuning from -100 to >+100 cents.
>
>To quote a user "there are no preset scales as such but using a combination
>of folders and tuning you could put each group of samples i.e into
>individual folders i.e "perfect fifth" and change their tuning that way or
>tweak each individual samples as you see fit.

Well, there are a *lot* of things one can do. But this kind of routine involves a *lot* of work, and the only thing that would mitigate that is if you have really locked into a couple of tunings, can spend a lot of time getting samples of what instruments you want set up in those tunings, and then forget about it.

Alison, have you downloaded a demo and really played around with samplers? I ask for a very specific question: the aesthetic success of samplers is highly dependent on the up-front work you do, especially in the area of multi-sampling. Unless you want the 'munchkinization' effect (where one sample in the mid-range is used, and you get groany, grainy sounds in the low range and R2D2 bleeps in the upper), you need to prepare notes, if not for every pitch, then for a broad range up and down. And that is only *one* kind of sound. If you want any kind of nuance from an instrument besides simply louder and softer, you need to do samples for differing dynamics that capture the timbral changes that occur in playing that changes from loud to soft.

Not to say you shouldn't buy a sampler!

>I don't understand the individual folders bit fully and have asked for >clarification. But it sounds hopeful. The next step is to ask the >developers for some form of automation.

Yes, and the bigger the company the harder it is, from what I've observed.

>I'm ready to buy the application even if it means lots of individual key >tweaks. The 'Computer Music' review gives it 9/10 and particularly praises >the integration into Cubase SX, the excellent disk streaming protocol and >the new version 2.0 Waldorf filters.

I trust your musical ears to make a good choice. If it is at *all* possible, get a demo version and take it for a test ride. Samplers are instruments that can yield really wonderful end results, but a lot of the success rides on both the implementation of the software, and the skill and time involved in preparing good samples (and of course the other route to go is to purchase a commercial sample library of good quality...).

Cheers,
Jon

on 9/9/03 20:51, Jonathan M. Szanto at JSZANTO@... wrote:

Alison,

Alison, have you downloaded a demo and really played around with samplers?
I ask for a very specific question: the aesthetic success of samplers is
highly dependent on the up-front work you do, especially in the area of
multi-sampling. Unless you want the 'munchkinization' effect (where one
sample in the mid-range is used, and you get groany, grainy sounds in the
low range and R2D2 bleeps in the upper), you need to prepare notes, if not
for every pitch, then for a broad range up and down. And that is only *one*
kind of sound. If you want any kind of nuance from an instrument besides
simply louder and softer, you need to do samples for differing dynamics
that capture the timbral changes that occur in playing that changes from
loud to soft.

Not to say you shouldn't buy a sampler!

I haven't used softsamplers but I've used an ASR-10 for about 8 years and am
familiar with spreading a sample across the keyboard. The first thing I'm
trying to do is to get a reasonable, no, let's say a good emulation of my
hand built instruments and then tune them up so that I can compose some
music, let the players hear parts, offer options to theatre producers, etc.
All from a laptop.

A sampler seems to be the best idea, but as you and others have suggested, a
lot of work in the preparation UNLESS we can get the buggers to support
Scala or LMSO or offer a similar method of microtuning.

Perhaps a tweaked preset from z3ta+ or Rhino would do the job as well (and
for less than half the price and effort).

I trust your musical ears to make a good choice. If it is at *all*
possible, get a demo version and take it for a test ride. Samplers are
instruments that can yield really wonderful end results, but a lot of the
success rides on both the implementation of the software, and the skill and
time involved in preparing good samples (and of course the other route to
go is to purchase a commercial sample library of good quality...).

Cheers,
Jon

Thanks for the advice.

BTW - has anyone demo'ed Tassman? It's supposed to be very good at emulating
acoustic instruments.

Sincerely
a.m.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:13:08 +0100
Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...> wrote:

> time involved in preparing good samples (and of course the other route to
> go is to purchase a commercial sample library of good quality...).

Then your stuff can sound just like everyone elses.

Sample libraries aren't that hard to put together.

> BTW - has anyone demo'ed Tassman? It's supposed to be very good at emulating
> acoustic instruments.

I own it... I've never tried to emulate anything with it.

I like the sound of synths. It's pretty nice as far as softsynths
go... and it's pretty easy to use. They have all sorts of additions
and synthesizer modules, for registered users, on their page.

http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm

You can build all sorts of nifty stuff with it as well.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick Taylor <ricktaylor@s...>
wrote:
> http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm

I emailed them a while back asking about microtuning capabilities, if
any. I got no response.

Apparently, microtuning physical models is quite a bit different from
just uploading a tuning table. If you're working on a modeled flute,
you have to tune the virtual holes and such, for example.

Paolo

Rick,

{you wrote...}
> Then your stuff can sound just like everyone elses.

In most cases I agree. However, I know a little bit about Alison's original acoustic instruments (tuned metal and wood percussion, struck/plucked/strummed strings), and since I already knew she was trying to emulate her own 'orchestra' this would be a quick way to go.

> Sample libraries aren't that hard to put together.

I bow to anyone's in-depth experience.

> I own it... I've never tried to emulate anything with it. like the sound > of synths.

You got any music floating around, Rick? :)

Cheers,
Jon

A,

{you wrote...}
>I haven't used softsamplers but I've used an ASR-10 for about 8 years and am
>familiar with spreading a sample across the keyboard.

I'm sorry that I didn't either know or remember that. You're already a number of rungs up on the experience curve.

>A sampler seems to be the best idea, but as you and others have suggested, >a lot of work in the preparation UNLESS we can get the buggers to support >Scala or LMSO or offer a similar method of microtuning.

Right.

>Perhaps a tweaked preset from z3ta+ or Rhino would do the job as well (and >for less than half the price and effort).

Boy, I don't know. You could at *least* try CronoX, and here's why: Although Rhino can import a waveform, from Rick M's description it mainly serves the kind of function like an attack transient in an envelope; the z3 synth, can, in a convoluted way, access user waveforms, but it is far from straight-forward.

CronoX, while not a sampler per se, can work with at least two samples loaded in at once, and it might come closer than other synths (assuming we don't find a sampler solution) to getting parts played that sound similar enough to your instruments to use for training.

I did something the other night with some notes from my marimba that I had recorded for someone else, and it was fun finding the variations I could get from it. Naturally, this setup gets pretty whacked when you to high and low in the ranges (which is why the sampler is a best scenario). I'll see if I can't get something together in a day or two for you to listen to.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon S wrote:

> Although Rhino can import a waveform, from Rick M's description it mainly
> serves the kind of function like an attack transient in an envelope

Mmmm... Not exactly. There are two things being mixed up here: the
built-in waveforms and the additive waveform generator.

1. Rhino has a huge set of pre-cooked waveforms that you can use as basic
oscillator waves, just by selecting them from a lsit. This includes sine,
saw, pulse, etc. The traditional analog synth bunch, plus a long list of
other more complicated waveforms.

2. There is an additive waveform generator utility that allows you to
"draw" a waveform based on harmonics and phase. Incidentally, this utility
allows you to "import" one cycle of a waveform as a WAV file, which it
turns into harmonics that you can then manipulate. This allows you to
expand the basic set of waves above.

3. Some of the basic pre-cooked waveforms in Rhino are one-shot "attack"
waveforms that are sampled from things like syllables, taps, clinks,
clanks, etc. You can't expand this set of things; it's built-in.

Rick

> http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm
> You can build all sorts of nifty stuff with it as well.

The Tassman looks very cool and flexible. But I gather that it's not
microtonal, and the company doesn't answer microtonal queries, right?

Paolo wrote...

> Apparently, microtuning physical models is quite a bit different from
> just uploading a tuning table. If you're working on a modeled flute,
> you have to tune the virtual holes and such, for example.

Actually, I don't think that is necessarily true. It must depend on the
kind of physical modelling you're doing. Take a look at the CCRMA
synthesizer STK here:

http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/software/stk/

The physical models in that kit just take a frequency -- you can feed them
any frequency and they work fine. There is a MIDI module in there that
uses a frequency table to convert from MIDI note numbers to frequency. You
can replace the table with anything. Very simple.

Rick

Hi Rick,

{you wrote...}
>Mmmm... Not exactly. There are two things being mixed up here: the >built-in waveforms and the additive waveform generator.

Thanks for the clarifications - I think I may have been confused when you had talked about some of your percussion waveforms in use with Rhino.

>3. Some of the basic pre-cooked waveforms in Rhino are one-shot "attack"
>waveforms that are sampled from things like syllables, taps, clinks, >clanks, etc. You can't expand this set of things; it's built-in.

Well, I was close! But if you can't expand it then it certainly is not an area to explore...

Cheers,
Jon

on 10/9/03 16:22, Jonathan M. Szanto at JSZANTO@... wrote:

You could at *least* try CronoX, and here's why:
Although Rhino can import a waveform, from Rick M's description it mainly
serves the kind of function like an attack transient in an envelope; the z3
synth, can, in a convoluted way, access user waveforms, but it is far from
straight-forward.

CronoX, while not a sampler per se, can work with at least two samples
loaded in at once, and it might come closer than other synths (assuming we
don't find a sampler solution) to getting parts played that sound similar
enough to your instruments to use for training.

I did something the other night with some notes from my marimba that I had
recorded for someone else, and it was fun finding the variations I could
get from it. Naturally, this setup gets pretty whacked when you to high and
low in the ranges (which is why the sampler is a best scenario). I'll see
if I can't get something together in a day or two for you to listen to.

Cheers,
Jon

Actually CronoX is on my list. It's quite simple really - the Scala website
has everything listed and the ones that popped out for me were z3, Rhino and
CronoX. I've looked at this and that and asked many questions and apart from
the FM7 I can't find much else. Still, plenty to be getting on with.

Interesting info about the sampling function of CronoX.

I look forward to hearing something soon.

Sincerely
a.m.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

on 10/9/03 11:40, Rick Taylor at ricktaylor@... wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:13:08 +0100
Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...> wrote:

> BTW - has anyone demo'ed Tassman? It's supposed to be very good at emulating
> acoustic instruments.

I own it... I've never tried to emulate anything with it.

Oh well.

I like the sound of synths. It's pretty nice as far as softsynths
go... and it's pretty easy to use. They have all sorts of additions
and synthesizer modules, for registered users, on their page.

http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm

You can build all sorts of nifty stuff with it as well.

thanks Rick

does it have any possibilities for making microtonal music?

Sincerely
a.m.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
> > http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm
> > You can build all sorts of nifty stuff with it as well.
>
> The Tassman looks very cool and flexible. But I gather that it's
not
> microtonal, and the company doesn't answer microtonal queries,
right?

When I asked them by email, it was about a year and a half ago, so
maybe someone can try contacting them again.

> Paolo wrote...
>
> > Apparently, microtuning physical models is quite a bit different
from
> > just uploading a tuning table. If you're working on a modeled
flute,
> > you have to tune the virtual holes and such, for example.
>
> Actually, I don't think that is necessarily true. It must depend on
the
> kind of physical modelling you're doing. Take a look at the CCRMA
> synthesizer STK here:
>
> http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/software/stk/

I stand corrected. I got my initial impressions from the website I
found on microtuning physical models on the Yamaha VL70m module.

Paolo

Alison Monteith wrote:

>A sampler seems to be the best idea, but as you and others have suggested, a
>lot of work in the preparation UNLESS we can get the buggers to support
>Scala or LMSO or offer a similar method of microtuning.
> >
What about those Unity things? There's a page here:

http://www.bitheadz.com/prod/DS1/main.htm

which says they're keeping up with Windows and Macintosh versions, but nothing about tuning. I thought we'd established before that they supported tuning tables. The website's in a mess, so I can't check the manuals. Anyway, you should theoretically be able to download a demo, so contact them if the links don't work.

Graham

> What about those Unity things? There's a page here:
>
> http://www.bitheadz.com/prod/DS1/main.htm
>
> which says they're keeping up with Windows and Macintosh versions,
but
> nothing about tuning. I thought we'd established before that they
> supported tuning tables.

Yes, Unity does have microtuning tables. The latest version has a way
to save them
to/from text files so that you dont have to enter them for each
instrument (a huge
improvement!).

It's not a cheap program, but it sounds great and you can have as
many instruments
playing simultaneously as your CPU speed allows.

G,

{you wrote...}
>What about those Unity things? There's a page here:
>
>http://www.bitheadz.com/prod/DS1/main.htm
>
>which says they're keeping up with Windows and Macintosh versions, but >nothing about tuning.

Except another page says: "Note: None of our products currently support Windows XP or 2000 yet. This will be a feature of the 3.0 PC line coming in 2003. Thanks for your patience!"

2003 is almost over. This isn't a solution for me...

Cheers,
Jon

Bill,

Hey, hi!

{you wrote...}
>Yes, Unity does have microtuning tables. The latest version has a way to >save them
>to/from text files so that you dont have to enter them for each instrument >(a huge
>improvement!).
>
>It's not a cheap program, but it sounds great and you can have as many >instruments
>playing simultaneously as your CPU speed allows.

Then maybe I should write them and see where they are in their W2K/XP development. Text isn't hard to manipulate.

All this fooling around with 'samples' and using varying kinds of sound synthesis in various tunings made me realize something: it's time to get your book! Any new music lately, or are you just trying to get things rolling with the school year?

Cheers,
Jon

"Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@...> wrote:
> Rick,

> {you wrote...}
> > Then your stuff can sound just like everyone elses.

> In most cases I agree. However, I know a little bit about Alison's original
> acoustic instruments (tuned metal and wood percussion,
> struck/plucked/strummed strings), and since I already knew she was trying
> to emulate her own 'orchestra' this would be a quick way to go.

I suppose that if you seriously want to emulate acoustic stuff it's probably
just as good to go with something commercial. That seems horribly limiting
to me though.

Some of the better stuff I've heard came from here {or links from these pages}:

http://www.thejazzpage.de/index1.html
http://www.personalcopy.com/sfarkfonts1.htm

> > Sample libraries aren't that hard to put together.
>
> I bow to anyone's in-depth experience.

I do stuff with, mostly, tuned noise and sounds that I make from it.
It is pretty unique. I'm not really interested in emulating anything.
It does take time to put together an entire library of samples. Most
of it's just tedious... no real work involved.

> > I own it... I've never tried to emulate anything with it. like the sound
> > of synths.
>
> You got any music floating around, Rick? :)

Tons of it. Tho' none of it's floating and none of it's anything that I'd
publish, I have hours of Lustmord sounding noise/soundscapes... that still
lack the sort of precision and delicacy that I want from them. I'm still
trying to learn enough theory to do stuff that folk might actually take
seriously.

I'm doing video/sound collage stuff... Video/animation I know inside and out...
I've only been taking the music side of things seriously for a few year
now.

Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...> wrote:
> on 10/9/03 11:40, Rick Taylor at ricktaylor@... wrote:
> Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...> wrote:
>
> > BTW - has anyone demo'ed Tassman? It's supposed to be very good at emulating
> > acoustic instruments.
>
> I own it... I've never tried to emulate anything with it.
>
> Oh well.
>
> I like the sound of synths. It's pretty nice as far as softsynths
> go... and it's pretty easy to use. They have all sorts of additions
> and synthesizer modules, for registered users, on their page.
>
> http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm
>
> You can build all sorts of nifty stuff with it as well.
>
> thanks Rick
>
> does it have any possibilities for making microtonal music?

I imagine you could build something from it to do just about anything...
I'll assume that there are better alternatives.

>Yes, Unity does have microtuning tables. The latest version has a way
>to save them
>to/from text files so that you dont have to enter them for each
>instrument (a huge improvement!).

Hi William, would there be interest in Scala support for this
format? If so, I'd need an example from you.

And a great piece Aaron, thanks!

Manuel