Originality

On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Johnny Reinhard wrote:
> Forms do need to
> be original. More than ever, staying in established convention is
> sounding square.

I have reservations about this. I think sometimes there's _too_ much
pressure to be original, which can lead people to abandon or reinvent
things prematurely. Schoenberg gave up on tonality a century ago, and
yet in the past century a huge number of styles have developed that are
totally unlike anything Schoenberg could have ever heard, but tonal.
(I really need to find that Bernstein sonnet!) So what if every
possible chord has already been followed by every other possible chord?
I don't see writers complaining that they can't write in English anymore
because "it's already been done" (I'm talking English and American
writers, of course). Well, not many. 8-)>

> If it sounds like something else it is derivative, good
> for the immediate short term but inadequate for the long term. IMHO.

Does it have to sound unlike anything else in all ways possible? What
if it sounds like something else in most ways, but there's one
particular way in which it is distinctive? Or two? Half and half?
Where is the line? If you can plant one flag and claim a continent, you
run out of room to explore pretty quickly.

--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "You just ran nine racks but you won't give me a spot?"
-\-\-- o "I can't; I haven't seen you shoot yet."

NOTE: dehyphenate node to remove spamblock. <*>

>So if you were me, what
>synth would give me the most bang for the buck?

Just generally speaking, Ensoniq probably has the best microtonal
provisions. As far as the most musical capability is concerned, it seems
like the K2500 could be your best bet, but its microtonal capabilities
aren't as flexible or intuitive as Ensoniq's.

I have lots of Ensoniq gear, but my K2500 information is based upon a
friend trying to use his microtonally. He describes it as "designed by
Martians", but very powerful.

> From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)
> Subject: Re: delurking
>
> >So if you were me, what
> >synth would give me the most bang for the buck?
>
> Just generally speaking, Ensoniq probably has the best microtonal
> provisions. As far as the most musical capability is concerned, it seems
> like the K2500 could be your best bet, but its microtonal capabilities
> aren't as flexible or intuitive as Ensoniq's.
>
> I have lots of Ensoniq gear, but my K2500 information is based upon a
> friend trying to use his microtonally. He describes it as "designed by
> Martians", but very powerful.
>

I can't agree that Ensoniq has the best microtonal provisions. It depends
on your application.

If 12 note per octave scales are sufficient and you don't mind working in
MIDI sysex codes, then Roland GS instruments are very affordable and
available in just about any format: sound card, sound module, keyboard,
digital piano, stand alone sequencer, etc. Instruments like the XP-60 and
XP-80 provide very complete workstations (sequencer, synthesis, effects and
mixing bus) and front panel microtonal scale editing as well.

Ensoniq synths and samples are good if you need 1-4 full keyboard scales
with any number of notes per octave. The samplers are good workstations,
but the ASR-10/88 are weak in the sampling department compared to other
current samplers. The ASR-X is an updated sampler/synth that looks like a
good value if you don't need a piano style keyboard.

I could not disagree more about the Kurzweil's being non-intuitive. Unlike
every other synth I've used, all parameters are in REAL values, not decimal
coded binary. Filter cutoff frequencies are given in notes and cents,
amplifiers are calibrated in dB, etc. The architecture is more like a
modular analog synthesizer than a fixed one, so it is correspondingly more
powerful. A Kurzweil K2000 or K2500 is especially adept at modulating just
intonation scales since it has 255 user programmable intonation tables that
can be switched in real time. These scales are limited to 12 notes per
octave. However, nTET scales can be easily created at the program level.

Another consideration is sound quality. Ensoniq samplers and all wavetable
synthesizers (just about everything else) use linear interpolation for
frequency shifting. This introduces distortion in the form of inharmonic
overtones when a note is transposed from its sampled pitch. While it may
not be as important for nTET, it makes a big difference for just
intonation, where the inharmonic overtones stick out like a sore thumb.
The K2000 and K2500 use an improved interpolation scheme that greatly
reduces the transposition distortion. Recent Emu samplers are the only
ones to exceed the Kurzweils in that department, which is a good enough
reason to lobby Emu to add microtonal capability to their samplers.

If you want the maximum sound sculpting capability and frequency
resolution, then CSOUND on a fast MAC or Pentium PC system, or Kyma with a
Starr Labs Microzone keyboard would be excellent.

John Loffink
jloffink@pdq.net

>> Just generally speaking, Ensoniq probably has the best microtonal
>> provisions. ...
>I can't agree that Ensoniq has the best microtonal provisions. ...
>If 12 note per octave scales are sufficient and you don't mind working in
>MIDI sysex codes, then Roland GS instruments...
>Ensoniq synths and samples are good if you need 1-4 full keyboard scales
>with any number of notes per octave.

Uhmmm, I must be missing something here: Why do you disagree that
Ensoniq has the best microtonal povisions, if you have to limit yourself to
12-tone scales and use SysEx codes on the Roland instruments?

My information may be out of date, but I'm not personally aware of any
other machines with greater tuning flexibility than 8 (4 easily switchable
at a time) completely arbitrary pitch tables (any key may play any pitch
within the sound generator's range and pitch resolution) per
instrument-sound.

But I'm glad to hear an independent confirmation of my comment that
Ensoniq doesn't have as much purely musical or synthesis capability as, say
the K2500.

I'll see if I can convince my K2500-playing friend do write up a summary
of why he finds the K2500 to have been designed by martians. I've heard
lots of little bits and pieces, but I'd certainly be interested to hear a
summary, if he has the time.