On Software for JI

Hi

Could all the experts out there please help me decide what software
is the most extensive and usable for writing and composing music in
JI?

I hear that C-Sound is the way to go yet I understand Scala is a very
useful program as well. I understand that other programs exist as
well and to be honest, I'm overwhelmed with all the choices.

I am a member of the Just Intonation Network and enjoy studying the
science of "Tuning". I am running two computers one with Windows 2000
and the other with Windows 95. I can get a system utilizing Windows
98 if need be.

I understand that C-Sound is not an easy program to learn. However I
heard that this program is one of the most powerful out there. Before
I spend the time and energy learning a specific program, I would just
like to make sure that the choice I make is right way to go.

Thanks and Peace to All

Wally

In-Reply-To: <9p9qoi+k31o@...>
In article <9p9qoi+k31o@...>, earth7@... () wrote:

> Could all the experts out there please help me decide what software
> is the most extensive and usable for writing and composing music in
> JI?

It might help if you explained how you were planning to work -- with
samples, pure synthesis, or outboard hardware. And whether you want to
work in real-time with keyboards, or write everything down and transcribe
it into the computer. Also, how much money you have to spend.

Graham

> It might help if you explained how you were planning to work --
>with samples, pure synthesis, or outboard hardware. And whether you
>want to work in real-time with keyboards, or write everything down
>and transcribe it into the computer. Also, how much money you have
>to spend.
>Graham

Hi Graham

Thanks for your guidance. I knew your statement was going to be one
of the first responses.

Graham, I simply don't know the "lingo" of computer generated music.
I can't even ask the question intelligently due to the fact I don't
understand most applications involved.

Could you please help me and explain the definition of "How I Plan To
Work". What are samples, pure synthesis, and outboard hardware??

I'd like to work in real time but how can you use a keyboard when it
is designed to reproduce music in 12T eq?

How Much money to spend?

Well....I understand there are free programs out there and I
understand there are programs that cost in the hundreds of dollars.
Somehow it would be nice if I can learn some of the basics (with a
low cost or free program) and then build upon it with the more
expensive software that utilize the same "medium" (not a
requirement). Otherwise cost is not a concern. I really want to lean
the art of composing on the computer.

Can I purchase a program that allows me to Compose in 12 TEQ as well
as JI? This way I can install one program vs. two?? I've been looking
at Cakewalk and Cubase VST 32 as 12 tone EQ sequencers but they don't
support JI.

Maybe its best I email you about this topic as I don't want to "clog"
up the group with "basic" questions. What is your email address
please?

I really need some place to start. I've been a guitarist since 1973
and music theory/tuning/composing is my most intense interest.

Thank You Graham
Wally - New Jersy

In-Reply-To: <9p9vt0+8pfb@...>
Wally wrote:

> Could you please help me and explain the definition of "How I Plan To
> Work". What are samples, pure synthesis, and outboard hardware??

Sampling is a technique where you record a number of short sound examples
("samples") and play them back at different pitches to give the illusion
of playing a real instrument. Most standard synthesizers these days work
with samples. You can also get software that allows you to use your own
samples. It's fairly easy to get a mediocre sounding result this way.

Pure synthesis is a term I made up for any other way of synthesizing
timbres. These include analog-style, additive and FM. With a bit of
experimentation, you can get some interesting sounds out, but they tend
sound obviously electronic.

Some external synthesizers are capable of being tuned to microtonal
scales. John Loffink maintains a list at
<http://home.att.net/~microtonal/index.html>, which includes software as
well. And, as an intermediate step, most soundcards have on-board
synthesizers and some are retunable.

> I'd like to work in real time but how can you use a keyboard when it
> is designed to reproduce music in 12T eq?

All digital keyboards worth bothering with will work with MIDI. You can
plug any MIDI keyboard into your computer, and send the output to any MIDI
synthesizer. So it all depends on how comfortable you feel with the keys
mapping to unexpected pitches. There are also alternative MIDI keyboards,
see <http://catalog.com/starrlab/>.

> How Much money to spend?
>
> Well....I understand there are free programs out there and I
> understand there are programs that cost in the hundreds of dollars.

Hundreds is only the start ...

> Somehow it would be nice if I can learn some of the basics (with a
> low cost or free program) and then build upon it with the more
> expensive software that utilize the same "medium" (not a
> requirement). Otherwise cost is not a concern. I really want to lean
> the art of composing on the computer.

If you have a MIDI keyboard, or buy a cheap one, you can play microtonal
music right away with my MIDI Relay. See
<http://x31eq.com/software.htm>. Robert Walker's Fractal Tune
Smithy does the same job better, but with a more complex interface.
Hopefully, he'll chime in with the latest URL.

Otherwise, CSound is free, but it won't be easy to get started with.

> Can I purchase a program that allows me to Compose in 12 TEQ as well
> as JI? This way I can install one program vs. two?? I've been looking
> at Cakewalk and Cubase VST 32 as 12 tone EQ sequencers but they don't
> support JI.

No sequencers have alternative tunings built in, but they all have a
"piano roll" view, so it doesn't matter much.

> Maybe its best I email you about this topic as I don't want to "clog"
> up the group with "basic" questions. What is your email address
> please?

You can reach me at any microtonal.co.uk address, but I think this
discussion's best kept on the list.

> I really need some place to start. I've been a guitarist since 1973
> and music theory/tuning/composing is my most intense interest.

You know you can also refret your guitar to an alternative tuning?

Graham

Hello Wally!

{you wrote...}
>Maybe its best I email you about this topic as I don't want to "clog"
>up the group with "basic" questions. What is your email address
>please?

Other people are already starting you down the path to concerte answers (or at least concrete experimentation!), but I want to emphasize something: asking about this "on list" is not only *not* clogging this list, it's the reason the list exists!

I made this place to be a home for the discussion of actually creating new, microtonal music. This is what you want to do. This is where you should ask about how to do it!

Since you are already finding out that there are many differing paths, it would certainly be worthwhile to find out as much info as you can and try to determine how you would best like to work. Since you mention a background in guitar, I have a good suspicion that you would favor methods whereby you could either hear results literally in real-time, and play the music live, or something close to it. Working with a sequencer that can tune with pitch-bends is OK, but both Scala and Fractal Tune Smithy sound much more up your alley.

On the other extreme would be Csound, whereby you would literally have to compose the piece first (and not in anything resembling standard music notation, mind you) and then let the program compile it before you could hear anything. Extremely powerful results, and not always "science-fiction"-sounding electronic stuff, either; if you'd like to hear very convincing pieces composed utilizing only Csound and some samples of instruments, check out Prent Rodgers work (in JI) at:

http://www.mp3.com/PrentRodgers

But in any event, please feel free to ask questions right here -- I am warm in the knowledge that among this list are some of the people making big strides, both technically and musically, in the new era of microtonal music.

Cheers,
Jon (sometimes known as "list-mom")

Dear Alison, Graham, Jonathan and of course Monz

Thank you so much for your timely responses to my question on JI
software. Now that I have the attention of the

"Heavy Hitters" of the MakeMicroMusic group, I can better explain and
better present my question.

Thanks for the advice on re-fretting but at this point I am not
interested in re-fretting any of my guitars for

JI. I chopped up a Gibson Les Paul back in 1987 and was never able to
put it back together properly. "Properly"

has a definition that's different to most people. I recently sold it
for a fraction of what I paid for it. I

swore I would never attempt such a project again until I acquired the
tools and knowledge to do the job properly.
Unfortunately, I am a perfectionist. This is nothing to be proud of
and the older I become the more I am aware

that being a perfectionist has its downside. Downsides which include
stress overload and many unfinished

projects. Hopefully I will deal with this eventually and find a happy
medium. Anyway, over the past few years I

have been studying guitar construction and plan on building my own
acoustic as well as electric JI guitars. I am

currently building a solid workbench and have (almost) all the tools
needed to construct guitars. I am a member

of A.S.I.A. which publishes a magazine called "Guitar Maker". I
highly recommend it to all builders. Please see

http://www.guitarmaker.org/ For now, if I really need a JI guitar, I
would consider Freenote/G&L Guitars. Please

see http://microtones.com/gtr01.htm

David Canright has loads of information with respect to how to fret a
guitar for JI. Please see

http://www.mbay.net/~anne/david/

I have a band and at some point would like to perform JI
compositions "Live". I study JI whenever I can but still

considered a novice in this most interesting field. I am currently
studying The Just Intonation's David Doty's

book called 'The JI PRimer" and forging ahead as best I can.

Getting back to my original question, I'd like to learn how to
compose and write music on the computer using all

aspects of JI and of course 12-tET or 12-EDO (thanks for the
clarification Monz).

Everyone has given me some great ideas.

Monz - I like your idea about cakewalk and have been tossing the idea
around about purchasing the program. I believe their top of the line
product is called "Sonar". Cubase VST32 is the competition to
Cakewalk and is probably known worlwide for its add on features.

Id like to help you with your program called "Just Music". It sounds
great! What programming language do you recommend I learn to help you
with this?

Graham - Thanks for all the ideas. I went to your Home page and found
it incredibly helpful. Aside from the fact of being hard to start
with, is C-Sound the most powerful of all software out there? I'd
like to be able to have access to the source code this way I'm not
limited in the event I'd like to write an add on. You said,"All
digital keyboards worth bothering with will work with MIDI. You can
plug any MIDI keyboard into your computer, and send the output to any
MIDI synthesizer. So it all depends on how comfortable you feel with
the keys
mapping to unexpected pitches." Graham, you mean that I can
map/assign any pitch to a specific key on the keyboard? And the
distance between each key can be any frequency I desire???

Jon - I listened to Prent Rodgers work and found it very, very
interesting. I'd like to learn C-Sound but since you say it does not
resemble anything like standard music notation, then I just assume
that if I want to write music on the computer I essentially have Two
choices. 1) Write and Compose in a programming language medium like
C-Sound and send the file into a score program like Finale so the
piece converts to standard music notation or 2) Compose and write
music using software that essentially does the conversion from
programming language to standard music notation. OR I can write using
a keyboard (controller I believe its called?) or NOT use a keyboard
(C-Sound) and utilize a programming language.Is this true? This gets
more confusing as I go along but I'm learning alot.

Alison - You said, "The best software for cooking up tunings and
sending them to your synth is definitely (and without a doubt) Jeff
Scott's L'il Miss Scale Oven (LMSO). It won't help you write or
compose and in fact I don't think any software can help with that."
Alison, I thought Cubase VST32 was a sequencer/multiTrack/editor and
composer in one package!? I sorry. I think I didn't make myself
clear. I'm not looking for a program that "tells" me how to write
music but rather a program that allows me to insert notes (melodies
and chords) in music notation form with editing capabilities and play
back capabilities so I can hear how the song is progressing. I own a
version of PG Music's "Power Tracks Pro Audio" that's a real
inexpensive software that allows me to do this but so far I'm having
a tough time getting thru their manual. Alot of these programs assume
you know the lingo and such of computerized music.

Alison, please tell me why I would want to "cook up tunings"??? Maybe
I need to start with exploring tunings before I write in JI??? Thanks
for your input. It was very helpful.

Thank You
Wally
http://members.aol.com/duanelives/

Wally,

{you wrote...}
>Jon - I listened to Prent Rodgers work and found it very, very
>interesting.

He makes math swing.

>I'd like to learn C-Sound but since you say it does not
>resemble anything like standard music notation, then I just assume
>that if I want to write music on the computer I essentially have Two
>choices. 1) Write and Compose in a programming language medium like
>C-Sound and send the file into a score program like Finale so the
>piece converts to standard music notation or 2) Compose and write
>music using software that essentially does the conversion from
>programming language to standard music notation. OR I can write using
>a keyboard (controller I believe its called?) or NOT use a keyboard
>(C-Sound) and utilize a programming language.Is this true? This gets
>more confusing as I go along but I'm learning alot.

Yes, it is weird until you know more about the territory. Look, Csound is the least like traditional music writing/composition of all of your previously stated possible paths. What you essentially do (correct me if I'm wrong, friends) is prepare two different text files, one that defines the sound resources (the "orchestra", or .orc file) and the instructions for making the sounds (the "score", or .sco file).

However, neither will look like any description of music you have ever seen before! The only thing that could possibly help you, in terms of a real-time feel for it, would be to use a midi-to-Csound program to take a sequencer file that you would record and convert it to a text file for Csound to process into a wave file to listen to.

Yep, it is that convoluted. For many people, it is the perfect way to work, but not for all.

I would sincerely have you consider, for now, a modest keyboard/synth setup and working with Scala, FTS, and/or Calkwalk, and start getting this stuff in your ears instead of just your eyes and your head! The Cakewalk route (now Sonar) may be a very valid way to go, but maybe moreso after you've done some listening to what this sounds like. With Scala or FTS, you can sit down with a keyboard and hear these harmonies and start to find what you like (and don't like!) in the world of JI music. Or other tunings, which you may very well be inspired to explore (Scala contains a very large collection of tunings, and Scala and FTS work well together, after you figure out some stuff -- and both the authors/programmers of the programs are here to answer your questions!)

Hey, if it were slam-dunk easy it might not have the mystery about it. Someday read about the history of Harry Partch, who read something about ancient Greek tunings, and ended up spending his life building instruments and composing music just to get these intonations back into the world. We've got it *easy* these days, we do...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., graham@m... wrote:
<snip>
>
> Graham

There is one other level that I hav explored only a little, and that
is mods. Halfway between midi and sampling, this technique uses
samples of instruments triggered by midi signals. Seems like this
would be an ideal medium for microtonality, in that you could record
pitches to your liking and trigger with midi code. Hope I don't have
this completely wrong. Some info can be found here:
http://www.modmusic.com/
http://www.modarchive.com/
http://www.maz-sound.com/

John Starrett

Hi Wally,

The latest beta preview for FTS is
http://members.tripod.com/~robertinventor/ftsbeta.htm

This is the one to use for midi relaying -
the most recent release is from last year,
and the most recent beta proper is nearly a
year old too. A lot has happened since then!

Basically, show the midi relaying view from
the view menu. Then choose which scale and mode
you want to relay the notes to from Midi in.

If using it for midi relaying, one can tick to
Open the Midi in at the start of the session.

If you want the usual octave on the keyboard to correspond
to an octave when midi relayed, then you need to choose
a scale with seven notes to an octave for the mode to be
played on the white notes, obviously. However, if you
are happy to spread it out, you can use any map of music
keyboard keys to the scale; e.g. in 96-tet an entire 88
note keyboard will be less than an octave, etc.

The download page has some help on this, which is more
up to date than the help that comes with the program,
which needs to be updated.

I _hope_ it is reasonably bug free now -
had no bug reports for midi relaying for
quite a few weeks. Reports are that
it is very stable.

One feature which I gather is entirely new to FTS - you can now relay
in monophonic legato mode in any of the scales / modes,
if your synth / soundcard supports monophonic legato mode, by ticking
Out | Options | Monophonic legato tracks.

It works by sending an appropriate pitch bend just before the
next legato note gets played when you release the second key
of the two keys held down simultaneously when playing
a legato trill.

Definitely still needs testing; works okay here.
(thanks to Jacky for suggesting this idea :-)).

For examples of fts in use for composition and
improvisation, see my tunes page
http://members.tripod.com/~robertinventor/tunes/tunes.htm

For composing, I use a normal 12-tet score, but retune it so that
the c d e f g etc play successive notes of the mode of the
scale you want to use, instead of playing successive
12-tet diatonic notes. Using Midi Yoke, I can
retune the output of the play button for the sequencer
/ score writing program I use, so whenever you press the play
button of the sequencer to hear a bar you have been editing,
you hear it tuned as you wish it, instead of in 12-tet.

So that's a good second best for a microtonal sequencer
- the playback is exactly as you would want it, but the notation is of
course still 12-tet, with that notation re-interpreted microtonally.
I add a text or lyric line to the score to say how it is to be
interpreted, with the ratios / cents value of the scale, so that
one can cut / paste it into FTS for relaying whenever one plays
that particular piece.

Of course, one could use the same technique with any
retuning midi relaying software and any midi sequencer.

It will be some time before
i make a release of it as the program has many
other elements in it - it isn't just for midi relaying,
in fact was originally an algo-comp type program
and that is still a strong element. Also has new
feature of a highly experimental retuning midi
player, and some sections for FFT, and for extracting
midi from a wave file of a single voice to high
resolution pitch wise (very much work in progress
at present).

Many of these need some work before ready
to release and the newer options will certainly still
have bugs in them. Also the help is very incomplete
at present.

It is freeware / shareware instead of just free.

One can use it as much as one likes in freeware mode,
with no need to register.

For free, you get unlimited play using the p.c. keyboard
mapped to notes of the scale.

The new retuning midi player will retune a midi file (rather than relay
from midi in) and is completely free at present - I may keep that
part of the program free. It's highly experimental at present and
needs polishing - just gives a first taste of what it is going to be
like, and something for anyone interested to comment on if they have
ideas about things they'd like it to be able to do etc.

You can also midi relay in freebie mode for ten minutes per session, after which you
have to exit and start a new session (or else, unlimited, with pauses
of ten seconds every minute).

Registration at present is $20. (Or $15 if you want to use it for midi relaying
only, and not for playing fractal tunes).

FTS is for Win 95/98. Prob. okay for ME. I haven't yet tested it for
NT / 2000 - plan to do so soon.

May find it is okay for 2000 - if you run
it in 2000 and find a bug, let me know, and any bug found could be
fixed by remote debugging with exchange of log file, though
that can require you to re-download a number of times.
There are small differences between an NT class OS such as 2000
and 95/98 which can trip a program up if not debugged for it.
I've tested an earlier version of FTS in NT and only turned up one
bug, which was quite a serious one (a crash), but it has now
been fixed - thanks to Carl Lumma helping to debug it :-).

Robert

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi Wally,
>
> The latest beta preview for FTS is
> http://members.tripod.com/~robertinventor/ftsbeta.htm
<snip>
> Robert

Robert- Thanks for working so hard on this wonderful program. I will
download the new version and try it out. This is a great example of
what this new kind of community can accomplish with the almost
instantaneous communication and exchange of materials, not to mention
the original inspiration.

John Starrett

Wally wrote:

> Graham - Thanks for all the ideas. I went to your Home page and
found
> it incredibly helpful. Aside from the fact of being hard to start
> with, is C-Sound the most powerful of all software out there? I'd
> like to be able to have access to the source code this way I'm not
> limited in the event I'd like to write an add on.

I use Kyma, which does the same kind of thing as CSound but in real
time and with graphical editing. It does cost a lot of money, and
you don't get the source code. See
<http://www.symbolicsound.com/brochure/index.html>.

I haven't seen a point by point comparison between CSound and Kyma.
But I expect CSound can do most things, and the problem with either
is that they don't have shrink-wrapped modules to emulate cathedrals
or Marshall stacks.

One advantage of CSound is that there's a good book about it. It's
called, imaginatively, "The CSound Book". You may find working
through that a good way of learning about computer music.

> Graham, you mean that I can
> map/assign any pitch to a specific key on the keyboard? And the
> distance between each key can be any frequency I desire???

This is called a full keyboard tuning table. Some devices support
them, some don't, so check John Loffink's list.

> Jon - I listened to Prent Rodgers work and found it very, very
> interesting. I'd like to learn C-Sound but since you say it does
not
> resemble anything like standard music notation,

I think you can exaggerate the importance of this. CSound is as
close to standard notation as you can reasonably expect given that it
expects text files, and is highly flexible. You feed it a list of
notes, giving the time of onset, pitch, duration, and any other
parameters you want to define. It should be a routine job to convert
a score into such parameters, if that's the way you like working.

> then I just assume
> that if I want to write music on the computer I essentially have
Two
> choices. 1) Write and Compose in a programming language medium
like
> C-Sound and send the file into a score program like Finale so the
> piece converts to standard music notation or

Can Finale read CSound files? The usual way would be to use the MIDI
to CSound convertor because everything works with MIDI (it is indeed
the standard).

> 2) Compose and write
> music using software that essentially does the conversion from
> programming language to standard music notation.

This would be using a sequencer? Working with standard notation can
be a mixed blessing anyway. The rhythms that work best tend not to
be the simplest ones in notation. Until you have a computer playing
exactly what you tell it, this isn't really important. But if you
want to view a MIDI file that swings it usually means approximating
the rhythm to make it comprehensible. Some sequencers
have "humanizers" which take simple notation and make it swing.
Apparently, they're coming on well.

> OR I can write using
> a keyboard (controller I believe its called?) or NOT use a keyboard
> (C-Sound) and utilize a programming language.Is this true? This
gets
> more confusing as I go along but I'm learning alot.

Yes. You can record to MIDI and convert the MIDI to CSound. But
that means you're not getting correct feedback when you record, so I
don't know how you'll control the performance. I think I've deleted
my Elements Suite, so you don't have to listen to it, but that's the
kind of thing I couldn't have done without a real-time system.

There are packages that get CSound working in real-time, but I don't
have experience with them, so somebody else is going to have to chime
in.

Some MIDI controllers aren't keyboards. For example, you can get
MIDI wind instruments.

> Alison, please tell me why I would want to "cook up tunings"???
Maybe
> I need to start with exploring tunings before I write in JI???
Thanks
> for your input. It was very helpful.

You can certainly spend a lot of time exploring tunings, JI or not,
and this is where it's good to have a real-time keyboard setup. But
the danger is that you're always trying out the next tuning and don't
get round to writing any music. So you could discipline yourself to
get something written with the first tuning you like if you want
instant results.

Graham

Hi Jon

Okay I'm convinced. I'll start with Scala and FTS (are they both
needed?) but I would appreciate it if you can put me in touch with a
Csound expert who is patient with beginners. I feel as I really get
into this I'll want to learn Csound and programm my own ideas. I've
searched the internet last night and came up with a bunch of links
but they are basically geared towards the seasoned programmer. I'm
even having trouble finding which version to download at the FTP
site. There are many different versions. Csound is going to take me
along time to learn therefore I figure I'll get up and running with
Scala and FTS and start learning Csound on the side.

Like you said, I should start with something that will get me up and
going fast so I can get this stuff into my head!

You mentioned that I should eventually get Cakewalk Sonar. What about
their competition that is world known - Steinberg's Cubase VST32 ??

Thanks
Wally

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Wally,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >Jon - I listened to Prent Rodgers work and found it very, very
> >interesting.
>
> He makes math swing.
>
> >I'd like to learn C-Sound but since you say it does not
> >resemble anything like standard music notation, then I just assume
> >that if I want to write music on the computer I essentially have
Two
> >choices. 1) Write and Compose in a programming language medium like
> >C-Sound and send the file into a score program like Finale so the
> >piece converts to standard music notation or 2) Compose and write
> >music using software that essentially does the conversion from
> >programming language to standard music notation. OR I can write
using
> >a keyboard (controller I believe its called?) or NOT use a keyboard
> >(C-Sound) and utilize a programming language.Is this true? This
gets
> >more confusing as I go along but I'm learning alot.
>
> Yes, it is weird until you know more about the territory. Look,
Csound is
> the least like traditional music writing/composition of all of your
> previously stated possible paths. What you essentially do (correct
me if
> I'm wrong, friends) is prepare two different text files, one that
defines
> the sound resources (the "orchestra", or .orc file) and the
instructions
> for making the sounds (the "score", or .sco file).
>
> However, neither will look like any description of music you have
ever seen
> before! The only thing that could possibly help you, in terms of a
> real-time feel for it, would be to use a midi-to-Csound program to
take a
> sequencer file that you would record and convert it to a text file
for
> Csound to process into a wave file to listen to.
>
> Yep, it is that convoluted. For many people, it is the perfect way
to work,
> but not for all.
>
> I would sincerely have you consider, for now, a modest
keyboard/synth setup
> and working with Scala, FTS, and/or Calkwalk, and start getting
this stuff
> in your ears instead of just your eyes and your head! The Cakewalk
route
> (now Sonar) may be a very valid way to go, but maybe moreso after
you've
> done some listening to what this sounds like. With Scala or FTS,
you can
> sit down with a keyboard and hear these harmonies and start to find
what
> you like (and don't like!) in the world of JI music. Or other
tunings,
> which you may very well be inspired to explore (Scala contains a
very large
> collection of tunings, and Scala and FTS work well together, after
you
> figure out some stuff -- and both the authors/programmers of the
programs
> are here to answer your questions!)
>
> Hey, if it were slam-dunk easy it might not have the mystery about
it.
> Someday read about the history of Harry Partch, who read something
about
> ancient Greek tunings, and ended up spending his life building
instruments
> and composing music just to get these intonations back into the
world.
> We've got it *easy* these days, we do...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Graham

Thanks again for taking the time to help me. please see my post #866.
If it all came down to a simple start, what software would you say I
start with to explore what JI is about. In other words, what would be
a good place to start based on all we've discussed.

I eventually would like to learn Csound but the learning curve is
HIGH. In the meantime I'd like to get to work and put my hands on
something that will get me up to speed right away.

Thanks
Wally

Hi Wally,

{you wrote...}
>Okay I'm convinced. I'll start with Scala and FTS (are they both needed?)

Good move, get's the ears going. I would use both: Scala can certainly be stand-alone, but I believe FTS can utilize Scala for some functions (look, I have them both downloaded and ready to set up on a new system, just waiting for... time!). Robert Walker can give you direct input, and if it is very specific, like how to install on your personal system, then you guys can just take it off-list.

>but I would appreciate it if you can put me in touch with a Csound expert >who is patient with beginners.

I wouldn't really know a 'person' that would be good here, but as someone else suggested a *great* way to learn Csound is with "The Csound Book", edited by Boulanger. You get a huge book, two CDs with Csound and lots of examples, and all you supply is the computer and spare time. What little I've done with Csound I've done via that book; search on Amazon.com or someplace to find detailed info.

>I've searched the internet last night and came up with a bunch of links >but they are basically geared towards the seasoned programmer.

Well, this *is* computer music we're talking about here, and Csound is _not_ user-friendly. You are going to have to wrap your head around some programming concepts, unless you can find stuff similar to what you want to do and then just tweak it.

>I'm even having trouble finding which version to download at the FTP site. >There are many different versions. Csound is going to take me along time >to learn therefore I figure I'll get up and running with Scala and FTS and >start learning Csound on the side.

Very smart idea. Csound has so many versions because of it's genesis: it is open source software, with many ongoing revisions, not to mention having versions for different operating systems. Think nerd.

>Like you said, I should start with something that will get me up and going >fast so I can get this stuff into my head!

Yep.

>You mentioned that I should eventually get Cakewalk Sonar. What about >their competition that is world known - Steinberg's Cubase VST32 ??

I think it was Monz that suggested it, and it mainly revolves around the fact that he has written a microtonal routine that will add pitch-bends to notes to give you microtonal sequences. CAL is a 'scripting' language that runs within Cakewalk, allowing you to automate or add new functions to the program. I don't know how well current versions still support this, but I imagine they do. Otherwise, there are many sequencer/digital audio programs out there (not many plain sequencers anymore, the market has turned to digital audio recording).

HTH,
Jon

In-Reply-To: <9pd9ns+te88@...>
Wally wrote:

> If it all came down to a simple start, what software would you say I
> start with to explore what JI is about. In other words, what would be
> a good place to start based on all we've discussed.

FTS and Scala should be perfect. But get yourself a MIDI input keyboard
as well.

Graham

Hi Jon

Please tell me if FTS will operate okay under Windows 2000. I
installed Scala on my win2000 plateform and need to know if FTS will
work on win2000. I already emailed Robert with this question as well.

Thanks
Wally

Hi

Can anyone please give me an example of how to bring up a scale
in "Scala" and be able to hear it using Fractal Tune Smithy (using
Fractal Tune Smithy's player). I don't have a keyboard yet.

Thanks
Wally

Hi Wally,

> Can anyone please give me an example of how to bring up a scale
> in "Scala" and be able to hear it using Fractal Tune Smithy (using
> Fractal Tune Smithy's player). I don't have a keyboard yet.

To get a scale from scala to FTS in one step, you use @smithy,
which you type into the SCALA command line (beneath the output
window in the Windows gui version of SCALA).
This shows the current SCALA scale you are working on in FTS.

The smithy.cmd that comes with SCALA is set up for FTS in the
release default folder.

To remake it for your program wherever it is (e.g. beta preview folder)
click

FTS | Buttons | Scales Options | Scala Scales | Update smithy.cmd
(this is the FTS 1.09 beta preview location)

Buttons | Scales Options | Scala Scales has other options.

You can add SCALA buttons to the arpeggio and
scale windows - then when working on a scale in FTS you can
click on the SCALA button to start SCALA up with that as
the scale.

Or go to the SCALA scales window at any time and click on the button here.

For this to work, FTS needs to know where to find SCALA, so you
need to fill in the Location of Scala application
box with the path to the file scala.exe.

You can also use this window to make a drop list of all the scales
in the scala archive, which you can then search using
Buttons | Scales Options | Search scales or modes list

You can also make drop lists of modes from the SCALA list of modes
modename.html

Before making these, tick the box to add them to the More Scales..
drop list - this is the drop list you get from
FTS main window | Scales drop list | More Scales...

You can also configure the way you want SCALA set up when it starts
up when you click the SCALA button in fts, and what you want it to
do when it starts up.

To do this, edit the show_xxx.cmd SCALA command file. This uses
the SCALA command syntax - when you start up SCALA from FTS

That should be enough to get started.

Robert

Hi Members

Can anyone please tell me what Soundblaster Live card will do the job
to work with Scala and Fractal Tune Smithy.

Creative makes a bunch of different SoundBlaster Live audio cards
(for PCI slots).Please tell me which card works best for making music
in midi as well as the above mentioned.

Thank You
Wally

Hi Wally,

Sorry, the one you've got already, the Soundblaster Awe64 gold,
is a good card, and I was confused. I know David Finnamore
recommended the Awe64 as one he uses, some time back on the
main tuning list.

In fact may be better than the SB Live! The soundfonts that
one uses with SBLive! also work with the Awe64.

Robert

In-Reply-To: <003101c14f8e$84f9d380$a5a869d5@e0b9e6>
Robert Walker wrote:

> Sorry, the one you've got already, the Soundblaster Awe64 gold,
> is a good card, and I was confused. I know David Finnamore
> recommended the Awe64 as one he uses, some time back on the
> main tuning list.

It's good enough to get started with, anyway.

> In fact may be better than the SB Live! The soundfonts that
> one uses with SBLive! also work with the Awe64.

Oh no, the Live! is definitely better. It's DirectX compatible, much less
noise, and doesn't need an ISA slot (my motherboard only has 1, some don't
have any). It also uses the PC's RAM for storing samples, which is good
seeing how cheap RAM is these days. But for hearing what microtonal music
sounds like, there shouldn't be any problems with the AWE64, unless you're
using software that insists on DirectX. With the Gold, you have a digital
out for the synthesizer, which gets round the noise problem, so long as
you've something to plug it in to.

When you come to upgrade, you may want to skip over the Live! to a
professional card anyway, do don't be in too much of a hurry.

Oh, another thing, I found my AWE64 to be terrible for playing DVDs.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Can you please supply me with some links to company's that are
selling "professional" sound cards.

If in fact I do start with the Soundblaster Live card, which one
should I get? There are quite a few different models.

Thanks Graham

Wally

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To:

Graham wrote:

> Oh no, the Live! is definitely better. It's DirectX compatible,
much less
> noise, and doesn't need an ISA slot (my motherboard only has 1,
some don't
> have any). It also uses the PC's RAM for storing samples, which is
good
> seeing how cheap RAM is these days. But for hearing what
microtonal music
> sounds like, there shouldn't be any problems with the AWE64, unless
you're
> using software that insists on DirectX. With the Gold, you have a
digital
> out for the synthesizer, which gets round the noise problem, so
long as
> you've something to plug it in to.
>
> When you come to upgrade, you may want to skip over the Live! to a
> professional card anyway, do don't be in too much of a hurry.

> Graham

In-Reply-To: <9psd9e+b8c5@...>
Wally wrote:

> Can you please supply me with some links to company's that are
> selling "professional" sound cards.

The list of GigaSampler compatible cards might be a good place to start:

<http://www.nemesysmusic.com/support/hardware.html#GSIFHW>

(Note that the data on AWExx cards is wrong on that page. They don't have
S/PDIF inputs and run at 44.1kHz.)

> If in fact I do start with the Soundblaster Live card, which one
> should I get? There are quite a few different models.

I don't know. I got one with my PC, but passed it on to my brother
because it was conflicting with Kyma (a problem which as apparently been
resolved with the new SB drivers). So I've never had to check the product
line. I suggest you wait and see what you really wish the AWE64 could do,
and buy a card that does that.

Graham

Hi Graham

I in fact do have the AWE 64 card on another computer running win95.
I'm running Scala and FTS on another system running Win2k and the AWE
64 uses an ISA slot so I can't put it on this motherboard (that's
using win2k)

FTS has an oscilloscope that lets you test how accurate your sound
card is reproducing frequencies. Do you know how to find it and use?

Thanks
Wally

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <9psd9e+b8c5@e...>
> Wally wrote:
>
> > Can you please supply me with some links to company's that are
> > selling "professional" sound cards.
>
> The list of GigaSampler compatible cards might be a good place to
start:
>
> <http://www.nemesysmusic.com/support/hardware.html#GSIFHW>
>
> (Note that the data on AWExx cards is wrong on that page. They
don't have
> S/PDIF inputs and run at 44.1kHz.)
>
> > If in fact I do start with the Soundblaster Live card, which one
> > should I get? There are quite a few different models.
>
> I don't know. I got one with my PC, but passed it on to my brother
> because it was conflicting with Kyma (a problem which as apparently
been
> resolved with the new SB drivers). So I've never had to check the
product
> line. I suggest you wait and see what you really wish the AWE64
could do,
> and buy a card that does that.
>
>
> Graham

Hi Graham,

The reason I'm asking is simply that I'm running Scala and FTS on an
iWill Motherboard that use two P3 1 ghz cpu's and 512MB of DDR memory.
This motherboard has onboard sound and I need to know if its
reproducing frequencies correctly.

I recently built this computer for another purpose such as trading
stocks. it utilizes a VIA chipset which is not the best for music
reproduction. I heard the best chipset for music is the Intel 815EP
chipset. But I knew this already before I built this system. There
are no motherboards out there that support Two P3 prcessors and allow
you to go beyond 512 MB ram for memory. This motherboard I have will
allow me to go up to 4 gig's of DDR Ram.

The software I use to trade stocks is multi-threaded which means it
can utilize the functions of dual processors.

Anyway, not to get off track, But I plan on building another system
that will run Win 98 and a motherboard using the Intel 815EP chipset.
Then I can install the soundcard of my choice.

I think for now I'm going to re-install FTS and Scala on my other
win95 machine so I can see how it runs with the AWE 64 audio card.
The only thing is that the GUI version of Scala ver. 2.02 does not
run on win 95 so I have to use an older version.

Thanks
Wally

In-Reply-To: <9psfji+ob8m@...>
Wally wrote:

> I in fact do have the AWE 64 card on another computer running win95.
> I'm running Scala and FTS on another system running Win2k and the AWE
> 64 uses an ISA slot so I can't put it on this motherboard (that's
> using win2k)

Okay, well, a Live! should do the trick. I don't see what you get extra
with the Platinum, so don't bother.

> FTS has an oscilloscope that lets you test how accurate your sound
> card is reproducing frequencies. Do you know how to find it and use?

FTS is a mystery to me. Hopefully Robert can help you out.

Graham

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_844.html#861
>
> I use Kyma, which does the same kind of thing as CSound but in real
> time and with graphical editing. It does cost a lot of money, and
> you don't get the source code. See
> <http://www.symbolicsound.com/brochure/index.html>.
>

Well... this is very, very cool... but $3,000 is a tad on the pricy
side. (Particularly in *today's* economy...)

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_844.html#871

>
> Very smart idea. Csound has so many versions because of it's
genesis: it is open source software, with many ongoing revisions,
not to mention having versions for different operating systems.
Think nerd.
>

Not only that, but some of the versions don't seem to work right...
at least that was *my* experience. I got things to "render" properly
about 40% of the time... (whoops, that's worse than a D- ...)

________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

In-Reply-To: <9r2n8v+4jf5@...>
Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> > <http://www.symbolicsound.com/brochure/index.html>.
> >
>
> Well... this is very, very cool... but $3,000 is a tad on the pricy
> side. (Particularly in *today's* economy...)

If you add up the cost of a synthesizer, sampler, 24-bit soundcard, and
effects unit, the difference is probably what Mary spends on cable ties in
a week.

Graham

, the difference is probably what Mary spends on cable ties in
> a week.
>

Thanks Graham. I wish I were that neat that all my cables were
properly tied and bundled.

Actually cable management is not something we have discussed on this
forum, but it is probably one of the most important subjects in
making electronic music.

The biggest lesson I've learned from my current studio is not to make
any cables difficult to access. It really kills creativity to have to
squeeze hands into tiny spaces and pull cables blindly....

I'm playing with a design for the next studio that would be U shaped
about 20 inches out from the wall on all sides so that cables could
easily be accessed.

Any other thoughts?

Peace,
Mary

>
> Graham

Mary,

{you wrote...}
>I'm playing with a design for the next studio that would be U shaped about >20 inches out from the wall on all sides so that cables could easily be >accessed.
>
>Any other thoughts?

None other than that seems like an eminently sensible design!

Cheers,
Jon

[Mary wrote:]
>I'm playing with a design for the next studio that would be U shaped
>about 20 inches out from the wall on all sides so that cables could
>easily be accessed.

>Any other thoughts?

The back of my computer table is also the pathway from the living room
to the kitchen. The table divides the room into a computer nook + the
rest, and it works great!

I rubber band and packing tape the cables to keep the cats from yanking
them into oblivion. Breakdown and reconnection is as easy as crouching
in the hallway and fiddling with the plugs. Couldn't be better!

JdL

John,

{you wrote...}
>The back of my computer table is also the pathway from the living room...

...and etc. I predict you'll need an oral surgeon of considerable skill to remove your tongue from it's position just inside your cheek! :)

Cheers,
Jon

[I wrote:]
>>The back of my computer table is also the pathway from the living
>>room...

[Jon:]
>...and etc. I predict you'll need an oral surgeon of considerable skill
>to remove your tongue from it's position just inside your cheek! :)

? Did it sound as if my post was tongue-in-cheek? Not so. The way
to the kitchen _is_ past the back of my computer table. Works great!
I don't currently have the luxury of a separate studio, but we cope
pretty well.

JdL

John,

{you wrote...}
>? Did it sound as if my post was tongue-in-cheek? Not so.

Then again, I'm sure all of us have had setups that were right in the midst of the nerve center of the living spaces, so I'm still chuckling. Someday I'll upload a pic of some of the setups I've had over the years that would be put up and taken down in a couple of days, right in the thick of things.

>The way to the kitchen _is_ past the back of my computer table. Works great!

Don't eat too much!

>I don't currently have the luxury of a separate studio, but we cope pretty >well.

I'm sure of it, hope I didn't offend...

Cheers,
Jon

P.S. I had a friend who was an electonic musician / percussionist, who had an *intense* amount of gear on a modest sized room, and was always having cable and ergonomics difficulties. He one day had a student of his, who was somewhat autistic, reorganize his studio, and the fellow organized it in 3 concentric rings, which gave access to all areas in front and behind the gear while maximizing the room space. Stayed that way for years...

[I wrote:]
>>The way to the kitchen _is_ past the back of my computer table. Works
>>great!

[Jon wrote:]
>Don't eat too much!

Always a danger; I am lucky enough to have breakfast handed to me each
morning across the table.

[JdL:]
>>I don't currently have the luxury of a separate studio, but we cope
>>pretty well.

[Jon:]
>I'm sure of it, hope I didn't offend...

Not at all, but I'm still rather confused. A more or less constant
state of mind in this life! ;->

[Jon:]
>P.S. I had a friend who was an electonic musician / percussionist, who
>had an *intense* amount of gear on a modest sized room, and was always
>having cable and ergonomics difficulties. He one day had a student of
>his, who was somewhat autistic, reorganize his studio, and the fellow
>organized it in 3 concentric rings, which gave access to all areas in
>front and behind the gear while maximizing the room space. Stayed that
>way for years...

Kyool! I don't have room for concentric rings, but plenty for a basic
U-shaped area. My web page still says "basement studio", which was
literally true in Longmont CO. We've downsized a bit here in Georgia,
but it mostly shows in the garage, which is bursting at the seams with
boxes (both cars outside, not a chance of making it through the doors).
Now my "basement studio" is in the middle of the house, right next to
the back door where the cats go in and out. Very handy for them!

JdL

Hi Everyone

Thanks for some good ideas (especialy getting breakfast handed to you
across a table . that sounds really good:-))

He one day had a student of
>his, who was somewhat autistic,
autistic or artistic. Sounds interesting but what kind of tables did
he use to make the rings.

Alison you certainly are speaking from experience. Its the banged
skull which always happens at least once no matter how often I say "I
will remember to raise my head slowly" that has really gotten to me.

How are the curtains hung. Do they separate the equipment from the
wall, or do they actually hide the equipment so that you see only the
desk. Sounds like an excellent idea. Are they hung off the ceiling?

I wonder if anyone has ever studied the replication habits of
cables. I swear they replicate like Fibonnacci bunnies, especially
when tangled around each other. However the one adapter you actually
need to connect two pieces of gear at midnight has always just gone
on the endangered species list....

Peace,
Mary

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

/makemicromusic/topicId_844.html#1113

> In-Reply-To: <9r2n8v+4jf5@e...>
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > > <http://www.symbolicsound.com/brochure/index.html>.
> > >
> >
> > Well... this is very, very cool... but $3,000 is a tad on the
pricy
> > side. (Particularly in *today's* economy...)
>
> If you add up the cost of a synthesizer, sampler, 24-bit soundcard,
and
> effects unit, the difference is probably what Mary spends on cable
ties in
> a week.
>
>
> Graham

Well... I suppose that's a good point, Graham... but do you really
get the same sound quality with this software synth as you would get
with a bunch of boxes??

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Well... I suppose that's a good point, Graham... but do you really
> get the same sound quality with this software synth as you would
get
> with a bunch of boxes??

You can get high quality for free; for instance Timidity and Lame are
both excellent. They come out of the Unix/open source world, but have
been ported to Windoze as well. They work, and they are very good.

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>You can get high quality for free; for instance Timidity

Timidity has been discussed here before, but IIRC it does not adequately support microtonality. Gang?

>...and Lame are both excellent.

Lame is _fine_, but other mp3 encoders get better results. Certainly good for *free*, but the ear can hear the difference. Then again, most mp3 files are played off a computer with a lousy couple of little speakers being driven by dorky sound cards. What we *eventually* want to hear is great music mastered with the best of tools and preserved into a loss-less medium.

Does great music deserve less?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Timidity has been discussed here before, but IIRC it does not
adequately
> support microtonality. Gang?

There's always a problem with too many microtonal voices on midi, and
it's nothing especially to do with Timidity so far as I know. It
seems fine to me.

> >...and Lame are both excellent.

> Lame is _fine_, but other mp3 encoders get better results.

Not according to the reviews I checked on the web:

http://www.r3mix.net/

Lame the best.

http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-4.html

Frauenhofer the best, Lame second.

http://www.airwindows.com/encoders/index.html

Frauenhofer best at low bit rates, Lame at 128K and high bit rates;
at high bit rates Frauenhofer is simply bad, but Blade has its merits.

> Does great music deserve less?

What's better, and at what price?

Gene,

Well, hey, I didn't say Lame was 'lame', did I? Nope, I didn't.

{you wrote...}
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>There's always a problem with too many microtonal voices on midi, and it's >nothing especially to do with Timidity so far as I know. It seems fine to me.

Maybe the more complex the music (i.e., many voices) the more the different programs handle this, and the strengths and weaknesses show up. For most of what I do, reassigning multiple channels to get microtonal is not a very good option, because I like a lot of 'orchestration' along with my tuning, and the only alternative is to do multiple passes of sequences that get burned to audio tracks, which then get mixed later in a larger digital mixdown. It would all be so much easier if the instruments themselves could be more microtonally flexible, but that isn't the case today (and I doubt it will be at any point...).

>Not according to the reviews I checked on the web:

Thanks for those links, I'll take a browse at them; much of this also depends on source material. Not having *gone* to the links yet, I can't tell, but a lot of the writing on mp3 stuff comes from the public/popular arena, and I don't think the differences between encoders is as big a deal on a blink-182 tune as it might be on music with more... subtleties. And I *don't* mean to be elite at all, as I use them for a lot of my rock-and-roll, too, but some musics, in their delicacy and transparency, can show up flaws in the lossy compression routines.

Not to mention that different encoders take longer than others, though ultimately that is not the important point.

> > Does great music deserve less?
>
>What's better, and at what price?

What is better is what *my* ears judge, and the price is the lowest you will afford to go for the quality reproduction of your music. If it means a great deal to you, then the sacrifice (of tool cost) is worth it. If you just tinker, you can get by with a lot of stuff.

So that you know that I'm not against these tools, early on this list I posted 3 free programs to digitize and encode files, for those who were saying "How can I get into this?". Lame was one, and I still use it for quite a few things, mainly because I like the Razor front-end I use with it...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> Well, hey, I didn't say Lame was 'lame', did I? Nope, I didn't.

You did indicate it was far from being the best, which raises the
question of what *is* the best, and at what price.

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>You did indicate it was far from being the best

I said that others produced better results. IMHO, that is the case.

>which raises the question of what *is* the best, and at what price.

Discussed in my last post: best is what renders the music you are squishing most faithfully *to _your_ ears*, not to reviews or arbitrary numbers, and price is simply a matter of what you are willing to pay to be satisfied with the outcome. If a free encoder/synth/recording program, or any other music widget, satisfies my needs, then I don't have any reason to search further (i.e. look into paying for something).

I am guessing that the Lame encoder suits the needs for *your* music, and this is very well and good. You do make music, don't you?

Cheers,
Jon

some mp3 codec-geek friends of mine swear up and down that LAME is
the best mp3 codec out there. i've been using it via "dropmp3"
on the macintosh. the results sound great to me -- better than
anything i had previously tried (a relatively small sample set).
dropmp3 is rather lacking in 'features', but it does the job,
sounds great, is free, and is non-corporate. i like that. :)

just two cents... paul

--
. . . p f l y . . .
http://www.neuron.net/~pfly/
...music and graphics for the 3rd millennium...

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>some mp3 codec-geek friends of mine swear up and down that LAME is
>the best mp3 codec out there. i've been using it via "dropmp3"
>on the macintosh

This is actually *great* to know, as I had been scouring the resources for a friend of mine (Mac only) and had recommended dropmp3, in spite of not being able to test it.

BTW, sometime ask your friends if the codebase for Lame is platform-independent enough that it gets equally good compression/quality across those platforms. I imagine if coded in C or similar the results would be good on all platforms.

Considering the quality of your music, it may pass muster in most accounts, which is a good thing to know...

Your $.02 has accrued interest!

Cheers,
Jon

> BTW, sometime ask your friends if the codebase for Lame is
> platform-independent enough that it gets equally good compression/quality
> across those platforms. I imagine if coded in C or similar the results
> would be good on all platforms.

it should be platform-independent... i was just told by one of these
codecheads :) that lame isn't so good at lower bitrates down around
and below 64kbps, and gave me a url to explore,
http://www.r3mix.net/

but i'm out of my league already.. :)

--
. . . p f l y . . .
http://www.neuron.net/~pfly/
...music and graphics for the 3rd millennium...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I said that others produced better results. IMHO, that is the case.

What others?

> >which raises the question of what *is* the best, and at what price.

> Discussed in my last post: best is what renders the music you are
squishing
> most faithfully *to _your_ ears*

This doesn't give us the benefit of your experience here; if doing so
is a problem, then so be it, I suppose, but I wonder why then you
brought the matter up at all.

> I am guessing that the Lame encoder suits the needs for *your*
music, and
> this is very well and good.

It seems to work well, which is what I said. I am open to the
possibility of something being better, but so far no candidates have
been put forward.

>You do make music, don't you?

Why do you ask?

Hey there,

{you wrote...}
>What others?

The Frauenhofer (sp?) codec as encapsulated in Cakewalk Professional 9.0. If I'm not mistaken, that is the same 'engine' that is used in the Sound Forge mp3 plug-in as well. Both of these seem to get better results on music that has high-frequency material with a lot of attack transients. No doubt my being a percussionist has something to do with my focus on this...

>This doesn't give us the benefit of your experience here; if doing so is a >problem, then so be it, I suppose, but I wonder why then you brought the >matter up at all.

Sorry, don't want to come across as a thug. I only mentioned it in light of finding other results I liked, as shown above. And my experience is using the mp3 encoders for a very wide variety of music, with encoding my own music the place that I probably listen most critically.

>It seems to work well, which is what I said. I am open to the possibility >of something being better, but so far no candidates have been put forward.

I still use the Xing encoder as well, occasionally, as it appears in Audio Catalyst. But my guess is that Lame is going to suit pretty much all your purposes. Maybe others on the list can mention what codecs are used in other digital audio products that are now offering mp3 as a "file: save as" option.

> >You do make music, don't you?
>
>Why do you ask?

From the Home Page:

"Welcome to Creating Microtonal Music, a forum dedicated specifically to the act of making microtonal music based on, or departing from, a rich assortment of world traditions, styles, tuning systems, and theoretical approaches. As our name suggests, our special focus is on the creation of new music, with mutual encouragement and enthusiasm as we share passages, pieces, and bits of supportive criticism or lively dialogue."

So, assuming the above may have brought you here, it would be fun to hear some of your music wrapped up in an mp3 bow! :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> So, assuming the above may have brought you here, it would be fun
to hear
> some of your music wrapped up in an mp3 bow! :)

Mp3.com is pondering the suitability of one piece now; however Lame
really shows its stuff in VBR at high bit rates, and mp3.com insists
on 128k and CBR. I tried uploading to this group once, as a way of
getting something to Starrett, and it wouldn't upload. I could try
again, I suppose.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> > Gene,
> >
> > Well, hey, I didn't say Lame was 'lame', did I? Nope, I didn't.
>
> You did indicate it was far from being the best, which raises the
> question of what *is* the best, and at what price.

The CDEX ripper also takes wav-->mp3, and offers the user his choice
of encoding engines, including lame. It is free, and can be found
here:
http://www.cdex.n3.net/

You can try the different engines and decide for yourself.

John Starrett