Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Tubulong Update; movable frets

Well, Stevie and I have been hard at work for the past week and we
now have all 44 tubes cut and approximately tuned (to a 14 out of 22-
tet scale combining 8-note Porcupine and 10-note Pajara). It was
amazing how lucky we got; so many of our inital "random" cuts came
out perfectly in the scale, and equally many required only slight
modification. All told, we have a 4 octave range, from D1 to D4.
The bass octave is done in 3/4" M-type Copper tubing, while the two
treble octaves are done in 1". We're going to drill them this
weekend in order to mount them via 1/32" stainless steel aircraft
wire. Then comes the hard part: fine-tuning. But with any luck,
we'll have the whole set done in two to three weeks!

After that, the next project is a (not necessarily Pajara-based)
decatonic electric lyre (which I mistakenly was calling a harp
earlier...a lyre is really what I had in mind). Though before I
begin that I think I will install movable nylon frets on my nylon-
string guitar so I can sit out in the SF State Quad and spread
microtonal propaganda...any recommendations on thickness of fishing
line to use for the frets?

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

out of curiosity what is the longest length you have, you might as well give me the shortest too

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>Well, Stevie and I have been hard at work for the past week and we >now have all 44 tubes cut and approximately tuned (to a 14 out of 22-
>tet scale combining 8-note Porcupine and 10-note Pajara). It was >amazing how lucky we got; so many of our inital "random" cuts came >out perfectly in the scale, and equally many required only slight >modification. All told, we have a 4 octave range, from D1 to D4. >The bass octave is done in 3/4" M-type Copper tubing, while the two >treble octaves are done in 1". We're going to drill them this >weekend in order to mount them via 1/32" stainless steel aircraft >wire. Then comes the hard part: fine-tuning. But with any luck, >we'll have the whole set done in two to three weeks!
>
>After that, the next project is a (not necessarily Pajara-based) >decatonic electric lyre (which I mistakenly was calling a harp >earlier...a lyre is really what I had in mind). Though before I >begin that I think I will install movable nylon frets on my nylon-
>string guitar so I can sit out in the SF State Quad and spread >microtonal propaganda...any recommendations on thickness of fishing >line to use for the frets?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

usually when you get past a certain length, the higher harmonics come out higher than the fundamental. i recommend doing all you fine tuning first , although on higher tubes the drilling of the node holes can raise it slightly. try holding the tube at the point you would drill and hitting it , just to make sure that spot is correct. the smaller the hole the better. wire might make noise, i have used elastic from sewing stores pushing it through the hole just large enough to let it pass till it stick out of the end and tying a knot and pulling back, leaving what you need to tie it down . most of the time placing it on foam and putting the elastic through this into a hole in the mounting board and tying another knot

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> >
>>out of curiosity what is the longest length you have, you might as >> >>
>well > >
>>give me the shortest too
>> >>
>
>
>I'll have to get back to you tomorrow, Stevie has all our >measurements. The longest was pretty durn long, though...I think it >was close to 3 feet, though I could be mistaken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:

> 8-note Porcupine

By the way, I've been playing around with this scale a lot, trying to
wrap my ears around it and come up with some confident-sounding
music. Thanks for drawing attention to it, Igs -- it seems that only
the 7-note and 15-note varieties have gotten people's attention
before, while the 8-note version is really the most illustrative of
the Porcupine "Forms of Tonality" as in my paper of that name.

Take the triadic chord progression

F# minor (F#-A-C#)
A major (A-C#-E)
(E sus4) ((A-B-E))
E minor (G-B-E)
G major (G-B-D)
(D sus4) (G-A-D)
D minor (F-A-D)
F major (F-A-C)
F minor (F-Ab-C)

and render it in your favorite tuning system, holding common tones
constant from one chord to the next. Only one note changes from one
chord to the next if you include the optional sus chords in
parentheses. What happens? Well, in 12-equal, clearly you end one
semitone lower than you began. In JI, you end 250:243, or 49.2 cents
lower. But in 15-equal, 22-equal, 29-equal, TOP Porcupine, and other
porcupine tunings, you end right back where you began. The "F# minor"
and "F minor" end up being exactly the same chord! Thus a nice smooth
8-chord cycle is possible in these tunings that isn't possible in JI,
12-equal, meantone, or most other tunings.

What pitches do you need for this chord progression? In porcupine
tunings, you need only 8 pitches, and these form a scale with 7
identical "large" steps and 1 "small" steps. In 22-equal, the pitches
from the chord progression above fall as follows:

Initial A = Final Ab
+Small Step (1 degree of 22)
= Final A
+Large Step (3 degrees of 22)
= B
+Large Step (3 degrees of 22)
= C = C#
+Large Step (3 degrees of 22)
= D
+Large Step (3 degrees of 22)
= E
+Large Step (3 degrees of 22)
= F = F#
+Large Step (3 degrees of 22)
= G
+Large Step (3 degrees of 22)
= Initial A = Final Ab

This is the 8-note Porcupine scale Igliashon was referring to. It
works great for melody, and it works great for chord progressions.
But it's not so great for a homophonic style that plays all the notes
of the scale against chords. There aren't really any tonally stable
modes (to my ears so far). So perhaps it would be best for a kind of
modal counterpoint, where the melodic utility of the scale would be
brought out clearly, but the notes heard sounding together would
largely be restricted to belong to one of the consonant chords in the
progression above.

More on this when there's actual music to present -- and I hope
others will attempt to create some examples too!

-Paul

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Yeah, we noticed the "length-higher harmonics" phenomenon and were
careful to compensate for it...hence using lower-pitched 3/4" for the
bass range. We've found actually that drilling holes *lowers* the
pitch slightly (confused the heck out of me, but repeat experiments
verify original findings), at least on our higher bars. We've also
tested the wire for buzzy-ness and found it not to be a problem as
long as it's not too tight. We've experimented extensively and found
that using elastic or coated wire causes dampening of many of the
harmonics, as well as a decrease in volume; suspending via wire
allows the bars to ring more freely. We also cut the bars slightly
unevenly so that one side is slightly longer than the other, which
enhances the inharmonic beating of individual notes (which we
desire). The final product will look sort of like a rope-ladder
lying flat, but suspended a few inches off the base. There will be
two offset rows of bars on the higher-octave set, with the bottom row
being Porcupine-8 and the top row being various accidentals that
combine with certain notes of the Porcupine to form a symmetrical
decatonic scale. Pics will be forthcoming once we're finished...it's
a big mofo, to be sure.

-Igliashon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> usually when you get past a certain length, the higher harmonics
come
> out higher than the fundamental. i recommend doing all you fine
tuning
> first , although on higher tubes the drilling of the node holes can
> raise it slightly. try holding the tube at the point you would
drill and
> hitting it , just to make sure that spot is correct. the smaller
the
> hole the better. wire might make noise, i have used elastic from
sewing
> stores pushing it through the hole just large enough to let it pass
till
> it stick out of the end and tying a knot and pulling back, leaving
what
> you need to tie it down . most of the time placing it on foam and
> putting the elastic through this into a hole in the mounting board
and
> tying another knot
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>out of curiosity what is the longest length you have, you might
as
> >>
> >>
> >well
> >
> >
> >>give me the shortest too
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >I'll have to get back to you tomorrow, Stevie has all our
> >measurements. The longest was pretty durn long, though...I think
it
> >was close to 3 feet, though I could be mistaken.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> F# minor (F#-A-C#)
> A major (A-C#-E)
> (E sus4) ((A-B-E))
> E minor (G-B-E)
> G major (G-B-D)
> (D sus4) (G-A-D)
> D minor (F-A-D)
> F major (F-A-C)
> F minor (F-Ab-C)

There it is, as I live and breath. Remind me to try out that
progression when I finally get my guitar back from Carruthers. I
wonder...if you used the letters A-H for a "Porcupine alphabet" with
appropriate sharps and flats where needed, how would you spell the
above chord progression?

> More on this when there's actual music to present -- and I hope
> others will attempt to create some examples too!

Stevie made a sample patch on his Triton that is tuned up to 22, and
he's going to try to come up with something in Porcupine-8 over the
next few days. Maybe he'll post it when he's finished?

-Igs

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:
>
> > F# minor (F#-A-C#)
> > A major (A-C#-E)
> > (E sus4) ((A-B-E))
> > E minor (G-B-E)
> > G major (G-B-D)
> > (D sus4) (G-A-D)
> > D minor (F-A-D)
> > F major (F-A-C)
> > F minor (F-Ab-C)
>
> There it is, as I live and breath. Remind me to try out that
> progression when I finally get my guitar back from Carruthers. I
> wonder...if you used the letters A-H for a "Porcupine alphabet"
with
> appropriate sharps and flats where needed, how would you spell the
> above chord progression?

No sharps or flats would be needed, of course -- using A-H the way I
(and I think Herman Miller, sans the H) suggested -- with the small
step between H and A -- the progression would be notated:

F-H-C
H-C-E
(H-B-E)
G-B-E
G-B-D
G-A-D
F-A-D
F-A-C
F-H-C

Note that the chords without H have exactly the qualities you would
expect from their spelling, despite this system being incompatible
with meantone.

> Stevie made a sample patch on his Triton that is tuned up to 22,
and
> he's going to try to come up with something in Porcupine-8 over the
> next few days. Maybe he'll post it when he's finished?

Cool! Tell him that mapping A through G to their familiar locations
on the keyboard, and H to the Ab key, makes this all pretty easy.
It's a lot harder if you insist on all 22 notes being available on
the keyboard!

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Okay, here's the "correct" alphabet (in case somehow someone got the
previous post that I just deleted) Stevie and I have been using for
the 22-tone Porcupine-8 scale:

A Bb A# B Cb B# C Db C# D Eb D# E F Gb F# G Ab G# A

For the curious, we used a circle of inverse porcupine generators,
the 22-tone 3-step 165 cent interval. Like the 12-equal circle of
fifths, the first natural is F but C is the "natural" tonic.

I might eventually write a paper on this system, if anyone wants to
know more about our ideas or tell us we're missing something, please
e-mail me off-list.

-igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Paul wrote...
>
> >No sharps or flats would be needed, of course -- using A-H the way
I
> >(and I think Herman Miller, sans the H) suggested -- with the
small
> >step between H and A -- the progression would be notated:
> >
> > F-H-C
> > H-C-E
> > (H-B-E)
> > G-B-E
> > G-B-D
> > G-A-D
> > F-A-D
> > F-A-C
> > F-H-C
> >
> >Note that the chords without H have exactly the qualities you
would
> >expect from their spelling, despite this system being incompatible
> >with meantone.
>
> That's the way!
>
> -Carl

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Should have been

A Bb A# B Cb B# C Db C# D Eb D# E F Gb F# G Hb G# H Ab H# A

Always forget the dang "H".
-igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
<igliashon@s...> wrote:
>
> Okay, here's the "correct" alphabet (in case somehow someone got
the
> previous post that I just deleted) Stevie and I have been using for
> the 22-tone Porcupine-8 scale:
>
> A Bb A# B Cb B# C Db C# D Eb D# E F Gb F# G Ab G# A
>
> For the curious, we used a circle of inverse porcupine generators,
> the 22-tone 3-step 165 cent interval. Like the 12-equal circle of
> fifths, the first natural is F but C is the "natural" tonic.
>
> I might eventually write a paper on this system, if anyone wants to
> know more about our ideas or tell us we're missing something,
please
> e-mail me off-list.
>
> -igs
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > Paul wrote...
> >
> > >No sharps or flats would be needed, of course -- using A-H the
way
> I
> > >(and I think Herman Miller, sans the H) suggested -- with the
> small
> > >step between H and A -- the progression would be notated:
> > >
> > > F-H-C
> > > H-C-E
> > > (H-B-E)
> > > G-B-E
> > > G-B-D
> > > G-A-D
> > > F-A-D
> > > F-A-C
> > > F-H-C
> > >
> > >Note that the chords without H have exactly the qualities you
> would
> > >expect from their spelling, despite this system being
incompatible
> > >with meantone.
> >
> > That's the way!
> >
> > -Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
> >
> > There it is, as I live and breath.

So Ara Sarkissian (on Korg Karma) sat down and made hours of
microtonal music the other night, mostly in the three 22-equal
systems you mentioned, and David Maxwell stopped by!

http://www.davidmaxwell.com/

David really loved the "Arabic" setting on the Korg (12-equal except
E and B are a quarter-tone flat), and I suggested he play a blues in
F, for those really flat blue flat fifths on I and IV. Needless to
say, the three of us were shortly in heaven!

Anyway, Ara and I had some bliss of our own in 22-equal, and went
back and recorded some of our explorations in that 8-chord, porcupine-
8 progression from earlier in this thread. He felt his way through
different ways of timing the chord progression (8 equal chord lengths
isn't very expressive), and I followed along with my melodies. I
think our fingers have already begun to adjust for the very different
tension of passing notes and overlaps in this scale. There's
something very reminiscent of some Georgian choral music here. The
recording is currently saved on his computer in Nuendo format . . .
now we have to pester him to make it available to this list!

P.S. I have another question. Ara's Korg OASYS card won't work with
his computer. Should we try installing it in mine, or is it a blunt
microtonal instrument?

-Paul

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

At 11:39 AM 2/10/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
>wrote:
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Igliashon Jones"
>> >
>> > There it is, as I live and breath.
>
>So Ara Sarkissian (on Korg Karma) sat down and made hours of
>microtonal music the other night, mostly in the three 22-equal
>systems you mentioned, and David Maxwell stopped by!
>
>http://www.davidmaxwell.com/
>
>David really loved the "Arabic" setting on the Korg (12-equal except
>E and B are a quarter-tone flat), and I suggested he play a blues in
>F, for those really flat blue flat fifths on I and IV. Needless to
>say, the three of us were shortly in heaven!
>
>Anyway, Ara and I had some bliss of our own in 22-equal, and went
>back and recorded some of our explorations in that 8-chord, porcupine-
>8 progression from earlier in this thread. He felt his way through
>different ways of timing the chord progression (8 equal chord lengths
>isn't very expressive), and I followed along with my melodies. I
>think our fingers have already begun to adjust for the very different
>tension of passing notes and overlaps in this scale. There's
>something very reminiscent of some Georgian choral music here. The
>recording is currently saved on his computer in Nuendo format . . .
>now we have to pester him to make it available to this list!

>P.S. I have another question. Ara's Korg OASYS card won't work with
>his computer. Should we try installing it in mine, or is it a blunt
>microtonal instrument?

What computers are those?

I don't know anything about OASYS' microtuning capability, but
if I had to use any sound card in history, it would be the OASYS!

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >P.S. I have another question. Ara's Korg OASYS card won't work
with
> >his computer. Should we try installing it in mine, or is it a
blunt
> >microtonal instrument?
>
> What computers are those?

His is a slightly outdated PC; mine is a Dawbox with the following:

Intel D865OPERLL MB
Intel 3.0Ghz 1m cache
Silent PSU and Heatsink for CPU
512 DDR400 Ram
Radeon 9200se VGA card (I actually need a replacement for use with my
1200x1600 screen -- suggestions?)
80G Seagate S-ATA Hard Drive
160G Seagate S-ATA Hard Drive
Line-On 8x DVDRW
Windows XP-Home Edition

> I don't know anything about OASYS' microtuning capability, but
> if I had to use any sound card in history, it would be the OASYS!

Even without knowing anything about its microtuning capability?

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >P.S. I have another question. Ara's Korg OASYS card won't work
>> >with his computer. Should we try installing it in mine, or is it
>> >a blunt microtonal instrument?
>>
>> What computers are those?
>
>His is a slightly outdated PC; mine is a Dawbox with the following:
>
>Intel D865OPERLL MB
>Intel 3.0Ghz 1m cache
>Silent PSU and Heatsink for CPU
>512 DDR400 Ram
>Radeon 9200se VGA card (I actually need a replacement for use with my
>1200x1600 screen -- suggestions?)
>80G Seagate S-ATA Hard Drive
>160G Seagate S-ATA Hard Drive
>Line-On 8x DVDRW
>Windows XP-Home Edition

Any current video card will do 1600x1200 (anything called a
Radeon should... maybe you're after a DVI output?).

>> I don't know anything about OASYS' microtuning capability, but
>> if I had to use any sound card in history, it would be the OASYS!
>
>Even without knowing anything about its microtuning capability?

You bet.

Really, software synthesis is where it's at -- sound cards
are obsolete, except for Audio I/O, which is best done these
days with a FireWire device. For sound cards, the OASYS is
about the King.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >P.S. I have another question. Ara's Korg OASYS card won't work
> >> >with his computer. Should we try installing it in mine, or is it
> >> >a blunt microtonal instrument?
> >>
> >> What computers are those?
> >
> >His is a slightly outdated PC; mine is a Dawbox with the following:
> >
> >Intel D865OPERLL MB
> >Intel 3.0Ghz 1m cache
> >Silent PSU and Heatsink for CPU
> >512 DDR400 Ram
> >Radeon 9200se VGA card (I actually need a replacement for use with my
> >1200x1600 screen -- suggestions?)
> >80G Seagate S-ATA Hard Drive
> >160G Seagate S-ATA Hard Drive
> >Line-On 8x DVDRW
> >Windows XP-Home Edition
>
> Any current video card will do 1600x1200 (anything called a
> Radeon should... maybe you're after a DVI output?).

I don't know -- for some reason Control Panel only supports a range of
resolutions all lower than this.

> >> I don't know anything about OASYS' microtuning capability, but
> >> if I had to use any sound card in history, it would be the OASYS!
> >
> >Even without knowing anything about its microtuning capability?
>
> You bet.

Okay . . . why is that?

> Really, software synthesis is where it's at -- sound cards
> are obsolete, except for Audio I/O, which is best done these
> days with a FireWire device. For sound cards, the OASYS is
> about the King.

the King for what purposes?

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>I don't know if Ara is up to the task of converting Nuendo files to .mp3 >or .ogg,
>but I'll certainly get on his case about it -- any outside help is most >welcome.

Ara doesn't have to convert anything - Nuendo's native capabilities (this was 2.0):

EXPORT FORMATS
- Mixdown to AIFF, Broadcast Wave, Wave, Wave 64, MP3, MP3 Pro, RealAudio G2,
Windows Media Audio (PC), Windows Media Audio Pro (PC), SD2 (Mac), Ogg Vorbis, Dolby Digital AC-3 (optional encoder), DTS (optional encoder)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> Any current video card will do 1600x1200 (anything called a
>> Radeon should... maybe you're after a DVI output?).
>
>I don't know -- for some reason Control Panel only supports a range of
>resolutions all lower than this.

Have you tried installing the driver provided by the video
card's manufacturer?

>> >> I don't know anything about OASYS' microtuning capability, but
>> >> if I had to use any sound card in history, it would be the OASYS!
>> >
>> >Even without knowing anything about its microtuning capability?
>>
>> You bet.
>
>Okay . . . why is that?

It's has an incredible physically-modelled EP, for one thing.

>> Really, software synthesis is where it's at -- sound cards
>> are obsolete, except for Audio I/O, which is best done these
>> days with a FireWire device. For sound cards, the OASYS is
>> about the King.
>
>the King for what purposes?

Everything a sound card is good for. Which, as I said, is
nothing.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >So Ara Sarkissian (on Korg Karma) sat down and made hours of
>> >microtonal music the other night, mostly in the three 22-equal
>> >systems you mentioned,
>> //
>> >Anyway, Ara and I had some bliss of our own in 22-equal, and went
>> >back and recorded some of our explorations
>>
>> I assume you'll post these later...
>>
>> -C.
>
>I don't know if Ara is up to the task of converting Nuendo files
>to .mp3 or .ogg, but I'll certainly get on his case about it -- any
>outside help is most welcome.

Nuendo does this. Just go to File -> Export -> Audio Mixdown and
select mp3 or ogg. Obnoxiously, you'll need to surround the part
of the file you're exporting with the left and right "locators" --
those annoying, draggable vertical lines in the waveform editor.

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> Any current video card will do 1600x1200 (anything called a
> >> Radeon should... maybe you're after a DVI output?).
> >
> >I don't know -- for some reason Control Panel only supports a
range of
> >resolutions all lower than this.
>
> Have you tried installing the driver provided by the video
> card's manufacturer?

Yes, that didn't change things.

> >> >> I don't know anything about OASYS' microtuning capability, but
> >> >> if I had to use any sound card in history, it would be the
OASYS!
> >> >
> >> >Even without knowing anything about its microtuning capability?
> >>
> >> You bet.
> >
> >Okay . . . why is that?
>
> It's has an incredible physically-modelled EP, for one thing.

OK, so does anyone know how tunable the Korg OASYS is? Oh, never
mind -- look here.

http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

The Oasys PCI looks like an absolutely ideal soundcard!! Unlimited
full-keyboard scales, *and* each key retunable across the full MIDI
range! And 1 cent accuracy, if true, would be good enough for me. I
should buy Ara a nice bottle of wine . . .

> >> Really, software synthesis is where it's at -- sound cards
> >> are obsolete, except for Audio I/O, which is best done these
> >> days with a FireWire device. For sound cards, the OASYS is
> >> about the King.
> >
> >the King for what purposes?
>
> Everything a sound card is good for. Which, as I said, is
> nothing.

Well thanks, Carl, you've been very helpful . . . (?)

Can you be a little less cryptic, please? I'm sorry I'm such an
ignoramus . . .

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

Thanks; I forwarded to Ara.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >So Ara Sarkissian (on Korg Karma) sat down and made hours of
> >> >microtonal music the other night, mostly in the three 22-equal
> >> >systems you mentioned,
> >> //
> >> >Anyway, Ara and I had some bliss of our own in 22-equal, and
went
> >> >back and recorded some of our explorations
> >>
> >> I assume you'll post these later...
> >>
> >> -C.
> >
> >I don't know if Ara is up to the task of converting Nuendo files
> >to .mp3 or .ogg, but I'll certainly get on his case about it -- any
> >outside help is most welcome.
>
> Nuendo does this. Just go to File -> Export -> Audio Mixdown and
> select mp3 or ogg. Obnoxiously, you'll need to surround the part
> of the file you're exporting with the left and right "locators" --
> those annoying, draggable vertical lines in the waveform editor.
>
> -Carl

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >> Really, software synthesis is where it's at -- sound cards
>> >> are obsolete, except for Audio I/O, which is best done these
>> >> days with a FireWire device. For sound cards, the OASYS is
>> >> about the King.
>> >
>> >the King for what purposes?
>>
>> Everything a sound card is good for. Which, as I said, is
>> nothing.
>
>Well thanks, Carl, you've been very helpful . . . (?)
>
>Can you be a little less cryptic, please? I'm sorry I'm such an
>ignoramus . . .

Is the top paragraph unclear? The current platform is software
synthesis and a FireWire i/o device, not soundcards. That said,
I'd light myself on fire for an OASYS and a computer that could
accept PCI cards.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>Go fuck yourself Jon, I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

Lighten up: you said "Everything a sound card is good for. Which, as I said, is nothing." You only later clarified, in an oblique way, that you were only looking at computer systems that didn't use cards. Lots of systems still utilize a PCI card, including the DAW box I built.

Everything a card is good for, except cards aren't good for anything. You have to pardon our puzzlement at that basic statement, unless you were being funny, which I guess you weren't.

Namasde,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >> >> Really, software synthesis is where it's at -- sound cards
> >> >> are obsolete, except for Audio I/O, which is best done these
> >> >> days with a FireWire device. For sound cards, the OASYS is
> >> >> about the King.
> >> >
> >> >the King for what purposes?
> >>
> >> Everything a sound card is good for. Which, as I said, is
> >> nothing.
> >
> >Well thanks, Carl, you've been very helpful . . . (?)
> >
> >Can you be a little less cryptic, please? I'm sorry I'm such an
> >ignoramus . . .
>
> Is the top paragraph unclear? The current platform is software
> synthesis and a FireWire i/o device, not soundcards. That said,
> I'd light myself on fire for an OASYS and a computer that could
> accept PCI cards.

If a sound card is good for nothing, as you say, then why would you
light yourself on fire for it?

Thoroughly confused,
Paul

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>{you wrote...}
>>Go fuck yourself Jon, I'm trying to be as clear as possible.
>
>Lighten up:

Sorry dude, but talking about me in the 3rd person, or whatever
that's called, chiming in apparently just to take a shot at me,
sucked.

>you said "Everything a sound card is good for. Which, as I
>said, is nothing." You only later clarified, in an oblique way,
>that you were only looking at computer systems that didn't use
>cards.

No, I meant all PCs, and I said it at the very beginning of the
thread (or tried to).

>Lots of systems still utilize a PCI card, including the
>DAW box I built.

Sure, and like I said, I'd like that myself. But it's deprecated.

>Everything a card is good for, except cards aren't good for anything.
>You have to pardon our puzzlement at that basic statement, unless you
>were being funny, which I guess you weren't.

Hell no. I've given up on humor long ago.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >> >> Really, software synthesis is where it's at -- sound cards
>> >> >> are obsolete, except for Audio I/O, which is best done these
>> >> >> days with a FireWire device. For sound cards, the OASYS is
>> >> >> about the King.
>> >> >
>> >> >the King for what purposes?
>> >>
>> >> Everything a sound card is good for. Which, as I said, is
>> >> nothing.
>> >
>> >Well thanks, Carl, you've been very helpful . . . (?)
>> >
>> >Can you be a little less cryptic, please? I'm sorry I'm such an
>> >ignoramus . . .
>>
>> Is the top paragraph unclear? The current platform is software
>> synthesis and a FireWire i/o device, not soundcards. That said,
>> I'd light myself on fire for an OASYS and a computer that could
>> accept PCI cards.
>
>If a sound card is good for nothing, as you say, then why would you
>light yourself on fire for it?

Because I'm a nostalgic. Why do people spend $$$ on antique cars?

-Carl

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Attempting to ratchet down the heat...

{you wrote...}
>Sorry dude, but talking about me in the 3rd person, or whatever that's >called, chiming in apparently just to take a shot at me, sucked.

I didn't do it to take a shot, but to show some sympathy for Paul, who was looking for some clarity, and I honestly thought you were punning or something. Shows what I know!

> >Lots of systems still utilize a PCI card, including the
> >DAW box I built.
>
>Sure, and like I said, I'd like that myself. But it's deprecated.

The Korg? Or sound cards in general? I don't buy that at all, and I note that the Audiophile 2496 remains a top-seller, and happens to use a PCI slot. I'm not saying some day the only way we'll have to hook up a sound card is by Firewire or some other bid for us to upgrade, but users *today* can still work with sound cards in a dedicated DAW. Or at least they should know it is still an option.

I'd like to know what you mean (especially in your capacity as a reviewer) by deprecated, and how that relates to the consumer. Like Paul.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

At 03:45 PM 2/14/2005, you wrote:
>
>Attempting to ratchet down the heat...
>
>{you wrote...}
>>Sorry dude, but talking about me in the 3rd person, or whatever that's
>>called, chiming in apparently just to take a shot at me, sucked.
>
>I didn't do it to take a shot, but to show some sympathy for Paul, who was
>looking for some clarity, and I honestly thought you were punning or
>something. Shows what I know!
>
>> >Lots of systems still utilize a PCI card, including the
>> >DAW box I built.
>>
>>Sure, and like I said, I'd like that myself. But it's deprecated.
>
>The Korg? Or sound cards in general? I don't buy that at all,

Buy it. Nobody's developing new sound cards anymore. Even Echo
went FireWire.

>I'm not saying some day the only way we'll have to hook up a sound
>card is by Firewire or some other bid for us to upgrade, but users
>*today* can still work with sound cards in a dedicated DAW.
>Or at least they should know it is still an option.
>
>I'd like to know what you mean (especially in your capacity as a
>reviewer) by deprecated, and how that relates to the consumer. Like
>Paul.

FireWire devices are easier to move from machine to machine, easier
to reach when plugging in mics, can have dedicated level indicators.
And it generally makes sense to get the soundcard out of the
electrically-noisy PC case.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>Nobody's developing new sound cards anymore. Even Echo went FireWire.

Hmmm - *no* one? Well, at least people could get really good deals on this year's gear.

>FireWire devices are easier to move from machine to machine

I wonder how many people would be doing that, especially knowing how you'd have to install drivers as well. But if one had some reason to share/move them, that is definitely a plus.

>easier to reach when plugging in mics

Mine has a breakout box, which ends up having the same positives to it.

>can have dedicated level indicators.

Nice.

>And it generally makes sense to get the soundcard out of the >electrically-noisy PC case.

In general, yes, but the well-made cards are well-insulated. When I need to do an upgrade, however, this is all good to know. Can Firewire be daisy-chained, or at least use a hub? None of my current PCs (less than a year old) have more than one Firewire port.

I'll move to meta if that's best...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

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

> I'd like to know what you mean (especially in your capacity as a
reviewer)
> by deprecated, and how that relates to the consumer. Like Paul.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Me too. For example, I have an 88-key Fatar controller, and would
like to be able to use it in conjunction with a synth that can do all
the tuning things the OASYS can do. Is that impossible, for some
reason? If it's possible, and if the results are good, I'd say the
darn thing was good for something. But probably I'm just ignorant.

I plan to explore as many different avenues of making microtonal
music as I can, given the hardware I already have. I'm open-minded,
but I guess I have a sense of material economy engrained in me. For
goodness sake, I own a computer now for the first time since 1990!

Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to
replace the sound card with something better. Might this be a good
candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if I can get it to work
with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound card for any
reason?

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>Me too. For example, I have an 88-key Fatar controller, and would like to >be able to use it in conjunction with a synth that can do all the tuning >things the OASYS can do.

Perfectly do-able: you just run a midi cable to either

- a hardware synth that tunes, or
- the midi input to your computer, usually found on your audio card.

>If it's possible, and if the results are good, I'd say the darn thing was >good for something.

Yep, you can pretend you're Lizst. :)

>I plan to explore as many different avenues of making microtonal music as >I can, given the hardware I already have.

Completely sensible.

>Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to replace >the sound card with something better.

Ummm, I meant that the sound capacities built into the motherboard wouldn't suit your needs.

>Might this be a good candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if I can >get it to work with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound card >for any reason?

Ahh, again, it depends on what you want to do. To make sounds from software is one thing; to use it to record live stuff (either through line inputs or mics), which I think was one of your initial specs, is another. Doing all of that means another scenario. When you have a pretty good idea, then you can look at the options. Frinstance, Joe Pehrson doesn't need to record live stuff, so he doesn't need any kind of audio device with, say, mic preamps. But you might.

One thing is for certain: the options right now are far better than ever before for using a DAW to make music.

Cheers,
Jon

>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>Carl,
>
>{you wrote...}
>>Nobody's developing new sound cards anymore. Even Echo went FireWire.
>
>Hmmm - *no* one?

Creative still is, I suppose. We won't see the equal of the OASYS,
though, that's for sure.

>>FireWire devices are easier to move from machine to machine
>
>I wonder how many people would be doing that, especially knowing how
>you'd have to install drivers as well. But if one had some reason to
>share/move them, that is definitely a plus.

And you can use them with laptops, which is increasingly a great way
to make live recordings.

>>easier to reach when plugging in mics
>
>Mine has a breakout box, which ends up having the same positives
>to it.

Only if the connection from the box to the card is digital. In
which case -- why bother with the card at all?

>>And it generally makes sense to get the soundcard out of the
>>electrically-noisy PC case.
>
>In general, yes, but the well-made cards are well-insulated.

This won't convince people looking for a pro-grade mic pre.

>When I need to do an upgrade, however, this is all good to know.
>Can Firewire be daisy-chained,

Yes, though many FireWire audio devices balk when you do (M-Audio,
or so I'm told).

>None of my current PCs (less than a year old) have more than
>one Firewire port.

Actually, I'm about to buy an Edirol UA1000.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>Me too. For example, I have an 88-key Fatar controller, and would
>like to be able to use it in conjunction with a synth that can do all
>the tuning things the OASYS can do. Is that impossible, for some
>reason? If it's possible, and if the results are good, I'd say the
>darn thing was good for something. But probably I'm just ignorant.

Yes, it's possible! Despite the popularity of this approach, though,
it's nice to have dedicated hardware, leaving the CPU free for other
stuff. So fire up that physically-modeled EP! (Actually, I'd be
surprised if it had that kind of tuning flexibility on the physicallly-
modeled instruments...)

>Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to
>replace the sound card with something better. Might this be a good
>candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if I can get it to work
>with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound card for any
>reason?

I thought you already owned an OASYS???? In fact, didn't you
have one in your computer at work?

Um, can you restate the question?

-Carl

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>And you can use them with laptops, which is increasingly a great way to >make live recordings.

Yep, very agreed. But about the Edirol (see below).

>Only if the connection from the box to the card is digital. In which case >-- why bother with the card at all?

It's not, but is easy to plug into, which is what I was saying.

>This won't convince people looking for a pro-grade mic pre.

Right. I think this area has had more to do with the out-of-the-box experience than anything else.

>Yes, though many FireWire audio devices balk when you do (M-Audio, or so >I'm told).

Aha. So what do you do to have video and audio into Firewire simultaneously?

>Actually, I'm about to buy an Edirol UA1000.

Looks veeerrrry nice. But this is what you're going to carry around because "it makes it easy to plug into different computers"? You're still carting a lot of gear around. Oh well, one day it will all be implants...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >Me too. For example, I have an 88-key Fatar controller, and would
like to
> >be able to use it in conjunction with a synth that can do all the
tuning
> >things the OASYS can do.
>
> Perfectly do-able: you just run a midi cable to either
>
> - a hardware synth that tunes,

I've gone that route, but I need at least the Oasys's tuning
capabilities, and good sounds are a must too of course.

> or
> - the midi input to your computer, usually found on your audio card.

So the OASYS has MIDI inputs? Honestly, I haven't even looked at it
long enough to know. And I'm sure it seems obvious to everyone
else . . .

> >If it's possible, and if the results are good, I'd say the darn
thing was
> >good for something.
>
> Yep, you can pretend you're Lizst. :)

> >I plan to explore as many different avenues of making microtonal
music as
> >I can, given the hardware I already have.
>
> Completely sensible.
>
> >Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to
replace
> >the sound card with something better.
>
> Ummm, I meant that the sound capacities built into the motherboard
wouldn't
> suit your needs.

Did you mean I would want to get a sound card, or did you mean
something different (I honestly don't know)?

> >Might this be a good candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if
I can
> >get it to work with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound
card
> >for any reason?
>
> Ahh, again, it depends on what you want to do. To make sounds from
software
> is one thing; to use it to record live stuff (either through line
inputs or
> mics), which I think was one of your initial specs, is another.
Doing all
> of that means another scenario. When you have a pretty good idea,
then you
> can look at the options. Frinstance, Joe Pehrson doesn't need to
record
> live stuff, so he doesn't need any kind of audio device with, say,
mic
> preamps. But you might.

I'm sure I want to record live stuff; I'm also sure I want to attempt
stuff that would be impossible live. But I guess I'll read the f*ing
manual and stop bugging you guys :)

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>>Yes, though many FireWire audio devices balk when you do (M-Audio,
>>or so I'm told).
>
>Aha. So what do you do to have video and audio into Firewire
>simultaneously?

If you're using them both at once, you crash, apparently (I haven't
tried it).

>>Actually, I'm about to buy an Edirol UA1000.
>
>Looks veeerrrry nice. But this is what you're going to carry around
>because "it makes it easy to plug into different computers"? You're
>still carting a lot of gear around. Oh well, one day it will all be
>implants...

Unfortunately, it's the smallest USB 2 device on the market.

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Me too. For example, I have an 88-key Fatar controller, and would
> >like to be able to use it in conjunction with a synth that can do
all
> >the tuning things the OASYS can do. Is that impossible, for some
> >reason? If it's possible, and if the results are good, I'd say the
> >darn thing was good for something. But probably I'm just ignorant.
>
> Yes, it's possible! Despite the popularity of this approach,
though,
> it's nice to have dedicated hardware, leaving the CPU free for other
> stuff. So fire up that physically-modeled EP!

Which one? (Looking around)

Wait, the OASYS has physically-modeled instruments? And that's what I
should fire up? But I thought you were saying that the approach of
using the soundcard as a synth module uses up CPU cycles. So once
again, I'm thoroughly confused.

How can I make sense of your comments above, Carl? Let that be the
only question, for now.

> (Actually, I'd be
> surprised if it had that kind of tuning flexibility on the
physicallly-
> modeled instruments...)

Why is that?

> >Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to
> >replace the sound card with something better. Might this be a good
> >candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if I can get it to work
> >with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound card for any
> >reason?
>
> I thought you already owned an OASYS????

It's Ara's, and won't work with his computer . . .

> In fact, didn't you
> have one in your computer at work?

At work I have . . . let's see . . . SoundMAX Digital Audio and
Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth.

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>So the OASYS has MIDI inputs? Honestly, I haven't even looked at it long >enough to know. And I'm sure it seems obvious to everyone else . . .

Whoa - I was speaking of a newer audio card (as in "audio cards these days"). I at no point caught the drift that your intention was to mount the OASYS in your brand new computer and use that.

Check to see if it has midi input; if not, USB midi inputs are very inexpensive and work fine. However, using an older sound/audio card has some difficult problems, usually with driver (software) compatibility. If you go the OASYS route, I may just have to wish you the best of luck.

> > Yep, you can pretend you're Lizst. :)
>
>?

Fingers on the 88s, as opposed to being a guitar slinger...

>Did you mean I would want to get a sound card, or did you mean something >different (I honestly don't know)?

When you were casting about for opinions on getting a new computer built for your music purposes, I (think) mentioned that while many motherboards have audio support built into them, for most music and recording needs you would need a dedicated audio card, chosen for the kind of things you wanted to do.

We may be getting fuzzy with the terms "audio card" and "sound card". I am treating them basically the same, but most cards these days are built for audio i/o; the OASYS, OTOH, apparently has a built-in synthesis engine, which makes it more of a 'sound' card.

>I'm sure I want to record live stuff; I'm also sure I want to attempt >stuff that would be impossible live. But I guess I'll read the f*ing >manual and stop bugging you guys :)

That thing Carl was looking at (Edirol UA1000) would probably do all that, but it isn't cheap. The one other aspect to discuss (and I'd be happy to do it off-list) is what is the _software_ platform you are planning to use to do this live/impossible combination. THAT could have an effect on what will work best for you.

Cheers,
Jon

P.S. Lucky you - at least when you get fed up with all the computer nonsense you can turn around and pick up an acoustic guitar. I guess I can pick up a djembe! And did my mention of John Schneider make any sense on the fretting stuff, did you miss it, or did you just not bother to reply?

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> >Me too. For example, I have an 88-key Fatar controller, and would
>> >like to be able to use it in conjunction with a synth that can do
>> >all the tuning things the OASYS can do. Is that impossible, for some
>> >reason? If it's possible, and if the results are good, I'd say the
>> >darn thing was good for something. But probably I'm just ignorant.
>>
>> Yes, it's possible! Despite the popularity of this approach,
>> though, it's nice to have dedicated hardware, leaving the CPU free
>> for other stuff. So fire up that physically-modeled EP!
>
>Which one? (Looking around)

http://www.korg.com/oasyspci_synth_pm.htm

>Wait, the OASYS has physically-modeled instruments?

I said that like, 20 posts ago.

>And that's what
>I should fire up? But I thought you were saying that the approach of
>using the soundcard as a synth module uses up CPU cycles. So once
>again, I'm thoroughly confused.
>
>How can I make sense of your comments above, Carl? Let that be the
>only question, for now.

You asked: "I ... would like to be able to use [an 88-key Fatar
controller] in conjunction with a synth that can do all the tuning
things the OASYS can do." I said, yes, there are softsynths that
can do this! And yes, that is the recommended approach, because
it's far more flexible than using a hardware synth. However, as I
said, a good hardware synth like the OASYS can still be nice in
certain cases because they free up CPU cycles.

>> (Actually, I'd be
>> surprised if it had that kind of tuning flexibility on the
>physicallly-
>> modeled instruments...)
>
>Why is that?

Because physical models are usually as hard to tune as real
instruments.

>> >Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to
>> >replace the sound card with something better. Might this be a good
>> >candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if I can get it to work
>> >with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound card for any
>> >reason?
>>
>> I thought you already owned an OASYS????
>
>It's Ara's, and won't work with his computer . . .

Oh. So, he's selling it, or...? Tell me your quandry, and I may
have some advice.

>> In fact, didn't you
>> have one in your computer at work?
>
>At work I have . . . let's see . . . SoundMAX Digital Audio and
>Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth.

You used to have a Korg soundcard... I remember you remarking
how good it sounded.

-Carl

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

If you want to know why people get confused at times, here is an example:

{you wrote...}
>You asked: "I ... would like to be able to use [an 88-key Fatar >controller] in conjunction with a synth that can do all the tuning things >the OASYS can do." I said, yes, there are softsynths that can do >this! And yes, that is the recommended approach, because it's far more >flexible than using a hardware synth. However, as I said, a good hardware >synth like the OASYS can still be nice in
>certain cases because they free up CPU cycles.

"a good hardware synth like the OASYS". I'm willing to bet that Paul equates a hardware synth with a box in a rack, or more likely a box with a kbd built onto it. You know: hardware. I'm willing to bet that whatever custom chipset on an OASYS PCI card would *not* enter his mind (or a lot of other people's) as a "hardware synth".

Just letting you know that once it is inside the computer, as a PCI card is, I'll bet a few people don't recognize the difference between that and a softsynth being run by the CPU. This is part of good communication, and we should strive to make it clear for those who don't speak this stuff or work with it on a regular basis.

As an aside, "freeing up CPU cycles", to those who aren't aware, refers to how (most) softsynths work: they are applications that use the main CPU to calculate a sound on the fly. When you do this in realtime, either through playing or having a softsynth play a part in a sequencer, it is using the CPU to create the sound patches in realtime (unlike an external synth, where a midi stream with relatively little data, tells it what to do - in this instance, the computer's CPU is hardly straining). If you have very complex sounds programmed, or you have many tracks with softsynths, you start bulking up the workload on the CPU. Eventually, you either run into problems (glitches, drop-outs), the system stops or crashes, or you avoid the problem with various tricks (bouncing a track to an audio file, 'freezing' tracks [an automated version of the former], etc.).

Hope this clarifies a couple of areas...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >> >Me too. For example, I have an 88-key Fatar controller, and
would
> >> >like to be able to use it in conjunction with a synth that can
do
> >> >all the tuning things the OASYS can do. Is that impossible, for
some
> >> >reason? If it's possible, and if the results are good, I'd say
the
> >> >darn thing was good for something. But probably I'm just
ignorant.
> >>
> >> Yes, it's possible! Despite the popularity of this approach,
> >> though, it's nice to have dedicated hardware, leaving the CPU
free
> >> for other stuff. So fire up that physically-modeled EP!
> >
> >Which one? (Looking around)
>
> http://www.korg.com/oasyspci_synth_pm.htm
>
> >Wait, the OASYS has physically-modeled instruments?
>
> I said that like, 20 posts ago.
>
> >And that's what
> >I should fire up? But I thought you were saying that the approach
of
> >using the soundcard as a synth module uses up CPU cycles. So once
> >again, I'm thoroughly confused.
> >
> >How can I make sense of your comments above, Carl? Let that be the
> >only question, for now.
>
> You asked: "I ... would like to be able to use [an 88-key Fatar
> controller] in conjunction with a synth that can do all the tuning
> things the OASYS can do." I said, yes, there are softsynths that
> can do this!

Ah, but I never mentioned softsynths, and neither did you in your
direct reply (see above)! When you said "despite the popularity of
this approach," I had no way of knowing you meant the approach that
uses softsynths -- if you re-read the above you'll see I only
said "synth", specifically meaning the Oasys itself or something
similar, and your reply was "despite the popularity of this
approach," leading me to think that the Oasys would soak up CPU
cycles and that the Oasys was not dedicated hardware. Like I said,
I'm ignorant, but I think I was being perfectly logical here, given
my ignorance.

Anyway, it's now clear to me that the Oasys, far from being good-for-
nothing, is going to be a terrific asset for my microtonal music-
making. So thanks!

> >> (Actually, I'd be
> >> surprised if it had that kind of tuning flexibility on the
> >physicallly-
> >> modeled instruments...)
> >
> >Why is that?
>
> Because physical models are usually as hard to tune as real
> instruments.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever, but I'm prepared to eat my hat
once I get my hands dirty with the Oasys. I'll let you know!

> >> >Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to
> >> >replace the sound card with something better. Might this be a
good
> >> >candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if I can get it to
work
> >> >with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound card for
any
> >> >reason?
> >>
> >> I thought you already owned an OASYS????
> >
> >It's Ara's, and won't work with his computer . . .
>
> Oh. So, he's selling it, or...?

Giving it away, as I said like 20 posts ago :)

> >At work I have . . . let's see . . . SoundMAX Digital Audio and
> >Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth.
>
> You used to have a Korg soundcard... I remember you remarking
> how good it sounded.

Maybe that was the previous work computer. Actually, they have an
even newer one ready for me, I just need to organize my files
first . . .

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Carl,
>
> If you want to know why people get confused at times, here is an
example:
>
> {you wrote...}
> >You asked: "I ... would like to be able to use [an 88-key Fatar
> >controller] in conjunction with a synth that can do all the tuning
things
> >the OASYS can do." I said, yes, there are softsynths that can do
> >this! And yes, that is the recommended approach, because it's far
more
> >flexible than using a hardware synth. However, as I said, a good
hardware
> >synth like the OASYS can still be nice in
> >certain cases because they free up CPU cycles.
>
> "a good hardware synth like the OASYS". I'm willing to bet that
Paul
> equates a hardware synth with a box in a rack, or more likely a box
with a
> kbd built onto it. You know: hardware. I'm willing to bet that
whatever
> custom chipset on an OASYS PCI card would *not* enter his mind (or
a lot of
> other people's) as a "hardware synth".

On the contrary, Jon, I did consider it a hardware synth. I know that
a software synth is a piece of code, a computer program. And that the
Oasys is no such thing. But Carl managed to confuse me anyway, since
his actual response did not in fact use the word "softsynth" at all --
he only inserted that in his later synopsis (quoted above). Rather,
after describing what I hoped to do with the Fatar and the Oasys, and
asking if it's possible, he wrote, "Yes, it's possible! Despite the
popularity of this approach, though, it's nice to have dedicated
hardware, leaving the CPU free for other stuff." And that's why I was
confused, because it looked like he was saying that the Oasys would
*not* leave the CPU free for other stuff.

> Just letting you know that once it is inside the computer, as a PCI
card
> is, I'll bet a few people don't recognize the difference between
that and a
> softsynth being run by the CPU. This is part of good communication,
and we
> should strive to make it clear for those who don't speak this stuff
or work
> with it on a regular basis.

You're certainly right, Jon, but in this case, the communication fell
off the tracks for a different reason.

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>On the contrary, Jon, I did consider it a hardware synth. I know that a >software synth is a piece of code, a computer program. And that the Oasys >is no such thing. But Carl managed to confuse me anyway...

Look, I'm just going to stay out of this. If you want advice from Carl and have time to burn figuring out what he means over vast numbers of posts, go for it. I want to be helpful, sincerely, but I'll do it in a one-to-one email exchange with you; I guarantee it will be productive. But I don't have time for all this insane miscommunication.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> Because physical models are usually as hard to tune as real
>> instruments.
>
>This makes no sense to me whatsoever, but I'm prepared to eat my hat
>once I get my hands dirty with the Oasys. I'll let you know!

My understanding is that changes in parameters don't always give
a linear response in tuning. Probably this depends on the model.
Kurt has to tune his organ empirically, with a feedback loop.
BigTick told me Ticky Clav does not support microtuning for this
reason.

>> >> >Besides, when I first got the computer, Jon told me I'd want to
>> >> >replace the sound card with something better. Might this be a
>> >> >good candidate, Carl (or anyone)? Should I see if I can get it
>> >> >to work with my computer? Or should I avoid using any sound card
>> >> >for any reason?
>> >>
>> >> I thought you already owned an OASYS????
>> >
>> >It's Ara's, and won't work with his computer . . .
>>
>> Oh. So, he's selling it, or...?
>
>Giving it away, as I said like 20 posts ago :)

As I thought -- so there's nothing to do but plug it in!

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@...>

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

> P.S. Lucky you - at least when you get fed up with all the computer
> nonsense you can turn around and pick up an acoustic guitar. I
guess I can
> pick up a djembe!

I'm actually *really* lucky in that I can turn around an pick up an
acoustic guitar, an electric guitar, a djembe (real one from W.
Africa), or play (but not pick up) an upright piano or two. OK, no
one rob my house now, please! :) But multitrack recording is going to
be really, really fun . . . I'll update you when I have more
questions on what do get for my computer, and thanks for all the help
so far!