Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Efficient 22tet keyboard design.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> >
> > robert thomas martin wrote:
> > > The white notes are 0-218-436-491-709-927-1145-1200. The black
notes
> > > are 109-327-600-818-1036 and the sky blue notes are 55-164-273-
382-545-
> > > 655-764-873-982-1091. All of the figures are arranged in
ascending
> > > order with the three colors lining up. If people insist upon
having a
> > > 24tet mictotunable keyboard then there is room between 436 and
491 and
> > > room between 1145 and 1200 to add the two extra notes to make
24.
> >
> > So the white keys are a "Pythagorean" diatonic, the black
> > keys split the 4/22 steps, and the other keys fill in the
> > gaps. What's the big deal? Do you have a keyboard you
> > build like this?
> >
> >
> > Graham

> The design is non-contraversial as opposed to other designs on the
> internet.

Such as ...?

> I haven't built one but if I was ever to buy one I would
> only buy one of this design (or a microtunable 24tet one). I have a
> Kurzweil 2500R which gets me by adequately enough. The white notes
> seem more septimal to me.
> Robert.

In what way(s) is your keyboard proposal efficient?

Re effort: Does the keyboard have transpositional invariance
(requiring one to learn scales and chords in only a single key, with
all transpositions being played identically, differing only with the
starting point), or must one practice scales, arpeggios, and chords
in each of 22 different keys?

Re $$ and space: How many divisions of the octave other than 22 can
it be used for, or must I find and buy (or design and build) another
keyboard for those? Special keyboards can be expensive, if you
haven't already noticed, so if you have one that will play many
different tunings and octave divisions, then the market will be
larger and the cost per unit will be less. Furthermore, if I'm
playing a concert using multiple tunings, how many instruments must I
transport, and how much space will be required in a vehicle to
transport them?

Re controversy: Is a newly proposed keyboard for 22 less
controversial than one that's been around for over a century (and has
proved to do the job quite well)?

Would you consider the Bosanquet generalized keyboard (designed and
built c. 1875) controversial?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_keyboard

It was successfully used on the Motorola Scalatron a century later
(with a different key shape, by yours truly, in collaboration with
Erv Wilson and the Scalatron company):
/tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
Three instruments of this type were built. The instrument pictured
can be instantly retuned to 12, 19, 22, or 31, with transpositional
invariance for each of these octave divisions. I've experienced no
problem playing it in 22.

Shortly thereafter, a 19-tone clavichord was designed and built with
a generalized keyboard (last 4 pages):
http://www.anaphoria.com/xen456.PDF
Also here (search for "Hackleman"):
http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfestabstracts.html
This could very easily be redesigned for the 22 division.

More recently are the Microzone generalized keyboard controller:
http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php
and the Terpstra keyboard:
/tuning/topicId_67219.html#67219
Both of these are capable of accommodating octave divisions of
relatively large number, e.g., 41, 46, and 53, all with
transpositional invariance.

I fail to see how Bosanquet's generalized keyboard geometry might be
controversial, considering the number of times it's been used over
the past 130+ years.

--George Secor

🔗Torsten Anders <torstenanders@gmx.de>

Dear George,

thank you for this nice review on generalised keyboards etc. I would like to know which models are actually available *for purchase*. For example, you mention that only three Motorola Scalatrons where built, so that means it is hardly available :)

I am aware of the following MIDI controllers for microtonal music. Am I missing anything?

* Haken Continuum
http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/

* TONAL PLEXUS
http://www.h-pi.com/TPX28intro.html

* Wilson Generalized Keyboards from Starr Labs
http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php (below, not much details there anymore)

* Thummmer
http://www.thummer.com/

* ?? TERPSTRA generalized MIDI keyboard -- only a prototype?
http://www.cortex-design.com/body-project-terpstra-1.htm

Thank you!

Best
Torsten

On May 7, 2008, at 8:18 PM, George D. Secor wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> > >
> > > robert thomas martin wrote:
> > > > The white notes are 0-218-436-491-709-927-1145-1200. The black
> notes
> > > > are 109-327-600-818-1036 and the sky blue notes are 55-164-273-
> 382-545-
> > > > 655-764-873-982-1091. All of the figures are arranged in
> ascending
> > > > order with the three colors lining up. If people insist upon
> having a
> > > > 24tet mictotunable keyboard then there is room between 436 and
> 491 and
> > > > room between 1145 and 1200 to add the two extra notes to make
> 24.
> > >
> > > So the white keys are a "Pythagorean" diatonic, the black
> > > keys split the 4/22 steps, and the other keys fill in the
> > > gaps. What's the big deal? Do you have a keyboard you
> > > build like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham
>
> > The design is non-contraversial as opposed to other designs on the
> > internet.
>
> Such as ...?
>
> > I haven't built one but if I was ever to buy one I would
> > only buy one of this design (or a microtunable 24tet one). I have a
> > Kurzweil 2500R which gets me by adequately enough. The white notes
> > seem more septimal to me.
> > Robert.
>
> In what way(s) is your keyboard proposal efficient?
>
> Re effort: Does the keyboard have transpositional invariance
> (requiring one to learn scales and chords in only a single key, with
> all transpositions being played identically, differing only with the
> starting point), or must one practice scales, arpeggios, and chords
> in each of 22 different keys?
>
> Re $$ and space: How many divisions of the octave other than 22 can
> it be used for, or must I find and buy (or design and build) another
> keyboard for those? Special keyboards can be expensive, if you
> haven't already noticed, so if you have one that will play many
> different tunings and octave divisions, then the market will be
> larger and the cost per unit will be less. Furthermore, if I'm
> playing a concert using multiple tunings, how many instruments must I
> transport, and how much space will be required in a vehicle to
> transport them?
>
> Re controversy: Is a newly proposed keyboard for 22 less
> controversial than one that's been around for over a century (and has
> proved to do the job quite well)?
>
> Would you consider the Bosanquet generalized keyboard (designed and
> built c. 1875) controversial?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_keyboard
>
> It was successfully used on the Motorola Scalatron a century later
> (with a different key shape, by yours truly, in collaboration with
> Erv Wilson and the Scalatron company):
> /tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
> Three instruments of this type were built. The instrument pictured
> can be instantly retuned to 12, 19, 22, or 31, with transpositional
> invariance for each of these octave divisions. I've experienced no
> problem playing it in 22.
>
> Shortly thereafter, a 19-tone clavichord was designed and built with
> a generalized keyboard (last 4 pages):
> http://www.anaphoria.com/xen456.PDF
> Also here (search for "Hackleman"):
> http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfestabstracts.html
> This could very easily be redesigned for the 22 division.
>
> More recently are the Microzone generalized keyboard controller:
> http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php
> and the Terpstra keyboard:
> /tuning/topicId_67219.html#67219
> Both of these are capable of accommodating octave divisions of
> relatively large number, e.g., 41, 46, and 53, all with
> transpositional invariance.
>
> I fail to see how Bosanquet's generalized keyboard geometry might be
> controversial, considering the number of times it's been used over
> the past 130+ years.
>
> --George Secor
>
>
>
--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586227
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

🔗Carlo Serafini <carlo@seraph.it>

🔗Torsten Anders <torstenanders@gmx.de>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Torsten Anders <torstenanders@gmx.de>

OK, sure. Sorry if I didn't make myself more clear: I meant keyboards which provide more than 12 pitches per octave.

Thanks!

Best
Torsten

On May 7, 2008, at 11:13 PM, Kraig Grady wrote:
> It is still a generalized keyboard
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://> anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
> Carlo Serafini wrote:
> >
> > check this out:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyMWlBEfH_k
> > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyMWlBEfH_k>
> > Axis Midi-Controller from C-Thru
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Torsten Anders <torstenanders@...> wrote:
> > Am I missing anything?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586227
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com>

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@bigpond.com.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> > >
> > > robert thomas martin wrote:
> > > > The white notes are 0-218-436-491-709-927-1145-1200. The
black
> notes
> > > > are 109-327-600-818-1036 and the sky blue notes are 55-164-
273-
> 382-545-
> > > > 655-764-873-982-1091. All of the figures are arranged in
> ascending
> > > > order with the three colors lining up. If people insist upon
> having a
> > > > 24tet mictotunable keyboard then there is room between 436
and
> 491 and
> > > > room between 1145 and 1200 to add the two extra notes to make
> 24.
> > >
> > > So the white keys are a "Pythagorean" diatonic, the black
> > > keys split the 4/22 steps, and the other keys fill in the
> > > gaps. What's the big deal? Do you have a keyboard you
> > > build like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham
>
> > The design is non-contraversial as opposed to other designs on
the
> > internet.
>
> Such as ...?
>
> > I haven't built one but if I was ever to buy one I would
> > only buy one of this design (or a microtunable 24tet one). I have
a
> > Kurzweil 2500R which gets me by adequately enough. The white
notes
> > seem more septimal to me.
> > Robert.
>
> In what way(s) is your keyboard proposal efficient?
>
> Re effort: Does the keyboard have transpositional invariance
> (requiring one to learn scales and chords in only a single key,
with
> all transpositions being played identically, differing only with
the
> starting point), or must one practice scales, arpeggios, and chords
> in each of 22 different keys?
>
> Re $$ and space: How many divisions of the octave other than 22
can
> it be used for, or must I find and buy (or design and build)
another
> keyboard for those? Special keyboards can be expensive, if you
> haven't already noticed, so if you have one that will play many
> different tunings and octave divisions, then the market will be
> larger and the cost per unit will be less. Furthermore, if I'm
> playing a concert using multiple tunings, how many instruments must
I
> transport, and how much space will be required in a vehicle to
> transport them?
>
> Re controversy: Is a newly proposed keyboard for 22 less
> controversial than one that's been around for over a century (and
has
> proved to do the job quite well)?
>
> Would you consider the Bosanquet generalized keyboard (designed and
> built c. 1875) controversial?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_keyboard
>
> It was successfully used on the Motorola Scalatron a century later
> (with a different key shape, by yours truly, in collaboration with
> Erv Wilson and the Scalatron company):
> /tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
> Three instruments of this type were built. The instrument pictured
> can be instantly retuned to 12, 19, 22, or 31, with transpositional
> invariance for each of these octave divisions. I've experienced no
> problem playing it in 22.
>
> Shortly thereafter, a 19-tone clavichord was designed and built
with
> a generalized keyboard (last 4 pages):
> http://www.anaphoria.com/xen456.PDF
> Also here (search for "Hackleman"):
> http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfestabstracts.html
> This could very easily be redesigned for the 22 division.
>
> More recently are the Microzone generalized keyboard controller:
> http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php
> and the Terpstra keyboard:
> /tuning/topicId_67219.html#67219
> Both of these are capable of accommodating octave divisions of
> relatively large number, e.g., 41, 46, and 53, all with
> transpositional invariance.
>
> I fail to see how Bosanquet's generalized keyboard geometry might
be
> controversial, considering the number of times it's been used over
> the past 130+ years.
>
> --George Secor
> The design I posted is the best fit solution for both 22 and
24tets. Robert

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

🔗Torsten Anders <torstenanders@gmx.de>

Dear Carl,

thanks for your reply. Could you specify how 19 would be done with it?

Naturally, if you can tune your MIDI sound generator accordingly, you can use any keyboard to play more than 12 pitches per octave. However, using such a generalised keyboard layout might be more suitable than the conventional one..

Best
Torsten

On May 8, 2008, at 6:24 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torstenanders@...> > wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for this reference. However, as far as I understand it,
> > this keyboard was not designed for microtonal music (i.e. more than
> > 12 pitches per octave), as they explicitly point out in their FAQ.
> >
> > http://www.c-thru-music.com/cgi/?page=info_faq
> >
> > Best
> > Torsten
>
> However, my recollection is that it could be coaxed into
> supporting many microtonal scales. Not full-keyboard
> scales, but it looked like 19-ET was feasible for example.
>
> -C.
>
>
>
--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586227
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

🔗Torsten Anders <torstenanders@gmx.de>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@bigpond.com.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> > >
> > > robert thomas martin wrote:
> > > > The white notes are 0-218-436-491-709-927-1145-1200. The
black
> notes
> > > > are 109-327-600-818-1036 and the sky blue notes are 55-164-
273-
> 382-545-
> > > > 655-764-873-982-1091. All of the figures are arranged in
> ascending
> > > > order with the three colors lining up. If people insist upon
> having a
> > > > 24tet mictotunable keyboard then there is room between 436
and
> 491 and
> > > > room between 1145 and 1200 to add the two extra notes to make
> 24.
> > >
> > > So the white keys are a "Pythagorean" diatonic, the black
> > > keys split the 4/22 steps, and the other keys fill in the
> > > gaps. What's the big deal? Do you have a keyboard you
> > > build like this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham
>
> > The design is non-contraversial as opposed to other designs on
the
> > internet.
>
> Such as ...?
>
> > I haven't built one but if I was ever to buy one I would
> > only buy one of this design (or a microtunable 24tet one). I have
a
> > Kurzweil 2500R which gets me by adequately enough. The white
notes
> > seem more septimal to me.
> > Robert.
>
> In what way(s) is your keyboard proposal efficient?
>
> Re effort: Does the keyboard have transpositional invariance
> (requiring one to learn scales and chords in only a single key,
with
> all transpositions being played identically, differing only with
the
> starting point), or must one practice scales, arpeggios, and chords
> in each of 22 different keys?
>
> Re $$ and space: How many divisions of the octave other than 22
can
> it be used for, or must I find and buy (or design and build)
another
> keyboard for those? Special keyboards can be expensive, if you
> haven't already noticed, so if you have one that will play many
> different tunings and octave divisions, then the market will be
> larger and the cost per unit will be less. Furthermore, if I'm
> playing a concert using multiple tunings, how many instruments must
I
> transport, and how much space will be required in a vehicle to
> transport them?
>
> Re controversy: Is a newly proposed keyboard for 22 less
> controversial than one that's been around for over a century (and
has
> proved to do the job quite well)?
>
> Would you consider the Bosanquet generalized keyboard (designed and
> built c. 1875) controversial?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_keyboard
>
> It was successfully used on the Motorola Scalatron a century later
> (with a different key shape, by yours truly, in collaboration with
> Erv Wilson and the Scalatron company):
> /tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
> Three instruments of this type were built. The instrument pictured
> can be instantly retuned to 12, 19, 22, or 31, with transpositional
> invariance for each of these octave divisions. I've experienced no
> problem playing it in 22.
>
> Shortly thereafter, a 19-tone clavichord was designed and built
with
> a generalized keyboard (last 4 pages):
> http://www.anaphoria.com/xen456.PDF
> Also here (search for "Hackleman"):
> http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfestabstracts.html
> This could very easily be redesigned for the 22 division.
>
> More recently are the Microzone generalized keyboard controller:
> http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php
> and the Terpstra keyboard:
> /tuning/topicId_67219.html#67219
> Both of these are capable of accommodating octave divisions of
> relatively large number, e.g., 41, 46, and 53, all with
> transpositional invariance.
>
> I fail to see how Bosanquet's generalized keyboard geometry might
be
> controversial, considering the number of times it's been used over
> the past 130+ years.
>
> --George Secor
> It is efficient because it preserves the design and fingering
patterns of 12tet. I should imagine that this design can be used for
any tet equal or below 24tet efficiently and inefficiently for
anything higher than 24tet so long as the composer doesn't modulate
all over the place. Concerning 53tet. This was the first microtonal
system which I ever studied and its charm and elegance still
impresses me after 20years. I for one would like to have a 53tet
keyboard with all the latest bells and whistles. I have focussed on
22tet because it is not only beautiful but also in the realms of
singability. I hope that this addresses your
issues.
Robert.

🔗hstraub64 <straub@datacomm.ch>

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@bigpond.com.au>

🔗hstraub64 <straub@datacomm.ch>

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@bigpond.com.au>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torstenanders@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear George,

Hi Torsten,

> thank you for this nice review on generalised keyboards etc. I
would
> like to know which models are actually available *for purchase*.
For
> example, you mention that only three Motorola Scalatrons where
built,
> so that means it is hardly available :)

Yes, you're 30 years too late. :-)

> I am aware of the following MIDI controllers for microtonal music.
Am
> I missing anything?

I'm not the best person to ask, since I haven't followed this very
closely. But I can give you my impressions of what you've listed.

> * Haken Continuum
> http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/

I saw this a while back and was quite intrigued with the concept of a
3-parameter keyboard alternative. Having carefully read through most
of the explanations, my general impression is that this is a very
well-thought-out piece of hardware that deserves serious
consideration by the dedicated microtonal keyboardist. I wouldn't
recommend buying it, however, unless I first tried it out, or got
input from someone on this list who tried it (I seem to remember Carl
Lumma saying that he did). Haken cautions that it takes a lot of
practice to master it (but so does a violin), but if it delivers
what's promised, I'd say it would be well worth the effort. If I
were 30 years younger and didn't already have a Scalatron, I'd be on
my way to Champaign, IL right now to try it.

> * TONAL PLEXUS
> http://www.h-pi.com/TPX28intro.html

The verdict on this one may depend on whether you think 205
pitches/octave is overkill, but I think it has lots of
possibilities. (No point in my making any further comments, since
you can contact Aaron Hunt directly.) Again, if I were younger, I'd
be paying him a visit to try it out.

> * Wilson Generalized Keyboards from Starr Labs
> http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php (below, not much details
> there anymore)

I haven't tried the Microzone keyboard, but I've seen comments on
this list that were critical of its very shallow key travel. I
recall that when I first visited this website a few years ago, I saw
that the key distances (center-to-center) were slightly larger than
on the Scalatron generalized keyboard, making the octave reach
somewhat greater. (Since the Scalatron octave distance is the same
as C to B on a piano, a reach of a tenth is equivalent to one key
less, which is very nice!) Having used the Scalatron GK for many
years, I came to the conclusion that it would be even better if the
dimensions were a bit smaller; however, the physical size of the key
switches would not have allowed it. Monz would be able to give you
more information, since he was in close contact with Harvey Starr
during its development.

Graham mentioned the Ztar as a possibility:
/tuning/topicId_76152.html#76171

> * Thummmer
> http://www.thummer.com/

This one uses a concertina-type button arrangement that's great for
diatonic music, particularly if you want sharps that differ in pitch
from flats. It appears that it's absolutely essential to have
separate button-boards for the two hands, because otherwise the hands
would tend to get in each other's way.

However, I really can't get excited about the button arrangement,
because my experience with the conventional accordion left-hand
button arrangement makes it immediately apparent to me that a
chromatic scale on the thummer is going to require *a lot of
practice* (and a panchromatic scale in 19-equal would be even
worse). Likewise, any tuning in which 81/80 doesn't vanish is going
to be difficult with this button arrangement, because a major triad
will require a considerable reach to get the 3rd of the chord: either
C-D#-G (for 22) or C-Fb-G (for a schismatic temperament, assuming
there's an Fb available).

> * ?? TERPSTRA generalized MIDI keyboard -- only a prototype?
> http://www.cortex-design.com/body-project-terpstra-1.htm

I would prefer that Fb (key 12) and E (key 11) were aligned along the
y-axis (as they are on the Scalatron GK), so as to make it a little
easier to play C-E\-G (as C-Fb-G) in a schismatic tuning, which would
require two fingers on C and G, with the thumb crossed under to play
E\ . Otherwise, it looks pretty good.

--George

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
> >...
> > In what way(s) is your keyboard proposal efficient?
> >
> > Re effort: Does the keyboard have transpositional invariance
> > (requiring one to learn scales and chords in only a single key,
with
> > all transpositions being played identically, differing only with
the
> > starting point), or must one practice scales, arpeggios, and
chords
> > in each of 22 different keys?
> >
> > Re $$ and space: How many divisions of the octave other than 22
can
> > it be used for, or must I find and buy (or design and build)
another
> > keyboard for those? Special keyboards can be expensive, if you
> > haven't already noticed, so if you have one that will play many
> > different tunings and octave divisions, then the market will be
> > larger and the cost per unit will be less. Furthermore, if I'm
> > playing a concert using multiple tunings, how many instruments
must I
> > transport, and how much space will be required in a vehicle to
> > transport them?
> >
> > Re controversy: Is a newly proposed keyboard for 22 less
> > controversial than one that's been around for over a century (and
has
> > proved to do the job quite well)?
> >
> > Would you consider the Bosanquet generalized keyboard (designed
and
> > built c. 1875) controversial?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_keyboard
> >
> > It was successfully used on the Motorola Scalatron a century
later
> > (with a different key shape, by yours truly, in collaboration
with
> > Erv Wilson and the Scalatron company):
> > /tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
> > Three instruments of this type were built. The instrument
pictured
> > can be instantly retuned to 12, 19, 22, or 31, with
transpositional
> > invariance for each of these octave divisions. I've experienced
no
> > problem playing it in 22.
> >
> > Shortly thereafter, a 19-tone clavichord was designed and built
> with
> > a generalized keyboard (last 4 pages):
> > http://www.anaphoria.com/xen456.PDF
> > Also here (search for "Hackleman"):
> > http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfestabstracts.html
> > This could very easily be redesigned for the 22 division.
> >
> > More recently are the Microzone generalized keyboard controller:
> > http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php
> > and the Terpstra keyboard:
> > /tuning/topicId_67219.html#67219
> > Both of these are capable of accommodating octave divisions of
> > relatively large number, e.g., 41, 46, and 53, all with
> > transpositional invariance.
> >
> > I fail to see how Bosanquet's generalized keyboard geometry might
be
> > controversial, considering the number of times it's been used
over
> > the past 130+ years.
> >
> > --George Secor

> It is efficient because it preserves the design and fingering
> patterns of 12tet.

That's a short-term convenience, not true efficiency, because the
conventional keyboard is nowhere nearly as efficient as a
transpositionally invariant keyboard. I speak from experience,
having successfully learned, in short order, two different
transpositionally invariant layouts (the Scalatron GK, and the
Moschino free bass system for the accordion left hand). It's so much
quicker when you don't have to practice every scale, chord, and
arpeggio in every single key.

In fact, with the generalized keyboard, most of the 12-tone fingering
patterns of the conventional keyboard *are preserved* in all of the
natural keys (except F), and in all of the other keys (be it 19, 22,
or 31 of them) they're the same as in the key of C. And since I
don't have to remember special fingering patterns for the keys of D#
or Fb, e.g., I'm way ahead of you, even before I've begun.

> I should imagine that this design can be used for
> any tet equal or below 24tet efficiently and inefficiently for
> anything higher than 24tet so long as the composer doesn't modulate
> all over the place.

Duplicate keys (which are an integral part of a generalized keyboard)
will take care of extensive modulation. 31-equal on the Scalatron GK
is really no more difficult than 22. The fingering patterns for 29
(also similar to 41 and 53) are a bit more challenging, but still
manageable. (The GK Scalatron that Paul Rapoport obtained for
McMaster Univ. in Hamilton, Ontario has 41 and 53 capability.) OTOH,
17 and 19 are as easy as 12.

> Concerning 53tet. This was the first microtonal
> system which I ever studied and its charm and elegance still
> impresses me after 20years. I for one would like to have a 53tet
> keyboard with all the latest bells and whistles.

Yes, it's nice to dream about such things!

> I have focussed on
> 22tet because it is not only beautiful but also in the realms of
> singability. I hope that this addresses your
>
issues.
> Robert.

One other thing. You wrote:

> The design I posted is the best fit solution for both 22 and
> 24tets. Robert

I neglected to point out that this keyboard
/tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
has both 22-equal *and 24-equal* on it (as permanently hard-wired
tunings). I didn't mention 24 before, because it's not strictly
transpositionally invariant, but for this one I took a page from your
book. ;-) There are two sets of 12-ET a quartertone apart, one on
the red, white, and black keys, and the other on the blue and green
keys; each set of 12 is transpositionally invariant. (This was done
because I wanted 12-equal as one of the hard-wired tunings, and it
would have been a waste to have so many keys with only 12 different
pitches/octave.) When reading music for 24-equal, I simply pretend
that it's in 31-equal, and my fingers automatically go to the proper
keys. Now, how's that for convenience?

--George

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

> > * Haken Continuum
> > http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/
>
> I saw this a while back and was quite intrigued with the concept
> of a 3-parameter keyboard alternative. Having carefully read
> through most of the explanations, my general impression is that
> this is a very well-thought-out piece of hardware that deserves
> serious consideration by the dedicated microtonal keyboardist.
> I wouldn't recommend buying it, however, unless I first tried it
> out, or got input from someone on this list who tried it (I seem
> to remember Carl Lumma saying that he did).

dI had it in my office at Keyboard magazine for 2 months, along
with Lippold's Kyma. I subsequently published the first review
of it anywhere, in that magazine. You can read my review here:

http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/haken-audio-continuum/Aug-04/1874

I don't recommend it for 'regular paradigmers', but it is a
very well-engineered and well-made device that I'm sure will
be put to very good use in music.

> > * TONAL PLEXUS
> > http://www.h-pi.com/TPX28intro.html
>
> The verdict on this one may depend on whether you think 205
> pitches/octave is overkill, but I think it has lots of
> possibilities. (No point in my making any further comments, since
> you can contact Aaron Hunt directly.) Again, if I were younger, I'd
> be paying him a visit to try it out.

The Tonal Plexus, on the other hand, is not incredibly well
designed/built. The key have very little travel and essentially
function as click-switches. They are very small, and have varying
heights to (I believe) help the player distinguish them by feel.
However the surface of the instrument is some sort flexible plastic
sheet, and on the unit I played, some of the lower keys were so
close to the surface of the instrument that they could drop
*below* the surface when it flexes, making them unplayable. We
had to twist the instrument axially to flex the plastic surface
keybed surface so that all the keys sat above it. On the other
hand, the Plexus the cheapest designed-to-be-microtonal extended
keyboard today, and I'd choose it over the Continuum as a
regular paradigmer.

> I haven't tried the Microzone keyboard, but I've seen comments on
> this list that were critical of its very shallow key travel.

I may have made some of those. However, I want to stress that
I've never played the Microzone. More recently I've come to
suspect it might be pretty good.

> > * Thummmer
> > http://www.thummer.com/
>
> This one uses a concertina-type button arrangement that's great
> for diatonic music, particularly if you want sharps that differ
> in pitch from flats. It appears that it's absolutely essential
> to have separate button-boards for the two hands, because
> otherwise the hands would tend to get in each other's way.
>
> However, I really can't get excited about the button arrangement,
> because my experience with the conventional accordion left-hand
> button arrangement makes it immediately apparent to me that a
> chromatic scale on the thummer is going to require *a lot of
> practice* (and a panchromatic scale in 19-equal would be even
> worse). Likewise, any tuning in which 81/80 doesn't vanish is going
> to be difficult with this button arrangement, because a major triad
> will require a considerable reach to get the 3rd of the chord:
> either C-D#-G (for 22) or C-Fb-G (for a schismatic temperament,
> assuming there's an Fb available).

The Thummer isn't available yet, and has no existing schedule
for production. I have played it (courtesy of Roger Linn).
I'm pretty sure its keys can be remapped however you like.
It's a great little device and if it does see retail for under
US$1000 I would definitely buy one.

> > * ?? TERPSTRA generalized MIDI keyboard -- only a prototype?
> > http://www.cortex-design.com/body-project-terpstra-1.htm
>
> I would prefer that Fb (key 12) and E (key 11) were aligned
> along the y-axis (as they are on the Scalatron GK), so as to
> make it a little easier to play C-E\-G (as C-Fb-G) in a
> schismatic tuning, which would require two fingers on C and G,
> with the thumb crossed under to play E\ . Otherwise, it
> looks pretty good.

I hate to say that the only two of these keyboards I've never
played are my favorites, but in fact the Microzone and especially
the Terpstra seem most likely to be what I really want. However
both are out of my budget at the moment.

-Carl

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@bigpond.com.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@> wrote:
> > >...
> > > In what way(s) is your keyboard proposal efficient?
> > >
> > > Re effort: Does the keyboard have transpositional invariance
> > > (requiring one to learn scales and chords in only a single key,
> with
> > > all transpositions being played identically, differing only
with
> the
> > > starting point), or must one practice scales, arpeggios, and
> chords
> > > in each of 22 different keys?
> > >
> > > Re $$ and space: How many divisions of the octave other than
22
> can
> > > it be used for, or must I find and buy (or design and build)
> another
> > > keyboard for those? Special keyboards can be expensive, if you
> > > haven't already noticed, so if you have one that will play many
> > > different tunings and octave divisions, then the market will be
> > > larger and the cost per unit will be less. Furthermore, if I'm
> > > playing a concert using multiple tunings, how many instruments
> must I
> > > transport, and how much space will be required in a vehicle to
> > > transport them?
> > >
> > > Re controversy: Is a newly proposed keyboard for 22 less
> > > controversial than one that's been around for over a century
(and
> has
> > > proved to do the job quite well)?
> > >
> > > Would you consider the Bosanquet generalized keyboard (designed
> and
> > > built c. 1875) controversial?
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_keyboard
> > >
> > > It was successfully used on the Motorola Scalatron a century
> later
> > > (with a different key shape, by yours truly, in collaboration
> with
> > > Erv Wilson and the Scalatron company):
> > >
/tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
> > > Three instruments of this type were built. The instrument
> pictured
> > > can be instantly retuned to 12, 19, 22, or 31, with
> transpositional
> > > invariance for each of these octave divisions. I've
experienced
> no
> > > problem playing it in 22.
> > >
> > > Shortly thereafter, a 19-tone clavichord was designed and built
> > with
> > > a generalized keyboard (last 4 pages):
> > > http://www.anaphoria.com/xen456.PDF
> > > Also here (search for "Hackleman"):
> > > http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/microfestabstracts.html
> > > This could very easily be redesigned for the 22 division.
> > >
> > > More recently are the Microzone generalized keyboard controller:
> > > http://www.starrlabs.com/keyboards.php
> > > and the Terpstra keyboard:
> > > /tuning/topicId_67219.html#67219
> > > Both of these are capable of accommodating octave divisions of
> > > relatively large number, e.g., 41, 46, and 53, all with
> > > transpositional invariance.
> > >
> > > I fail to see how Bosanquet's generalized keyboard geometry
might
> be
> > > controversial, considering the number of times it's been used
> over
> > > the past 130+ years.
> > >
> > > --George Secor
>
> > It is efficient because it preserves the design and fingering
> > patterns of 12tet.
>
> That's a short-term convenience, not true efficiency, because the
> conventional keyboard is nowhere nearly as efficient as a
> transpositionally invariant keyboard. I speak from experience,
> having successfully learned, in short order, two different
> transpositionally invariant layouts (the Scalatron GK, and the
> Moschino free bass system for the accordion left hand). It's so
much
> quicker when you don't have to practice every scale, chord, and
> arpeggio in every single key.
>
> In fact, with the generalized keyboard, most of the 12-tone
fingering
> patterns of the conventional keyboard *are preserved* in all of the
> natural keys (except F), and in all of the other keys (be it 19,
22,
> or 31 of them) they're the same as in the key of C. And since I
> don't have to remember special fingering patterns for the keys of
D#
> or Fb, e.g., I'm way ahead of you, even before I've begun.
>
> > I should imagine that this design can be used for
> > any tet equal or below 24tet efficiently and inefficiently for
> > anything higher than 24tet so long as the composer doesn't
modulate
> > all over the place.
>
> Duplicate keys (which are an integral part of a generalized
keyboard)
> will take care of extensive modulation. 31-equal on the Scalatron
GK
> is really no more difficult than 22. The fingering patterns for 29
> (also similar to 41 and 53) are a bit more challenging, but still
> manageable. (The GK Scalatron that Paul Rapoport obtained for
> McMaster Univ. in Hamilton, Ontario has 41 and 53 capability.)
OTOH,
> 17 and 19 are as easy as 12.
>
> > Concerning 53tet. This was the first microtonal
> > system which I ever studied and its charm and elegance still
> > impresses me after 20years. I for one would like to have a 53tet
> > keyboard with all the latest bells and whistles.
>
> Yes, it's nice to dream about such things!
>
> > I have focussed on
> > 22tet because it is not only beautiful but also in the realms of
> > singability. I hope that this addresses your
> >
>
issues.
> > Robert.
>
> One other thing. You wrote:
>
> > The design I posted is the best fit solution for both 22 and
> > 24tets. Robert
>
> I neglected to point out that this keyboard
> /tuning/files/secor/GenKbd.jpg
> has both 22-equal *and 24-equal* on it (as permanently hard-wired
> tunings). I didn't mention 24 before, because it's not strictly
> transpositionally invariant, but for this one I took a page from
your
> book. ;-) There are two sets of 12-ET a quartertone apart, one on
> the red, white, and black keys, and the other on the blue and green
> keys; each set of 12 is transpositionally invariant. (This was
done
> because I wanted 12-equal as one of the hard-wired tunings, and it
> would have been a waste to have so many keys with only 12 different
> pitches/octave.) When reading music for 24-equal, I simply pretend
> that it's in 31-equal, and my fingers automatically go to the
proper
> keys. Now, how's that for convenience?
>
> --George
> Ideally I'd be happy with a Kurzweil with 22 or 24 notes to the
octave with the same tuning capabilities as the ones now. I prefer
playing in the key of C with chromatics and do all of my research in
C which is less confusing on paper. Your postings are interesting and
full of information and worth revisiting.

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > > * Haken Continuum
> > > http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/
> >
> > I saw this a while back and was quite intrigued with the concept
> > of a 3-parameter keyboard alternative. Having carefully read
> > through most of the explanations, my general impression is that
> > this is a very well-thought-out piece of hardware that deserves
> > serious consideration by the dedicated microtonal keyboardist.
> > I wouldn't recommend buying it, however, unless I first tried it
> > out, or got input from someone on this list who tried it (I seem
> > to remember Carl Lumma saying that he did).
>
> dI had it in my office at Keyboard magazine for 2 months, along
> with Lippold's Kyma. I subsequently published the first review
> of it anywhere, in that magazine. You can read my review here:
>
> http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/haken-audio-continuum/Aug-04/1874
>
> I don't recommend it for 'regular paradigmers', but it is a
> very well-engineered and well-made device that I'm sure will
> be put to very good use in music.

Thanks, Carl. That was very helpful.

I have one question: You say that the "round initial pitches" mode
snaps notes to their nearest 12-ET values when you attack them. Is
there a setting to change the snap-to grid to something else, e.g.,
19-, 22-, 31-, or 34-ET, or a user-definable tuning (via .scl file)?
(Or if not, did you happen to ask Mr. Haken if he considered adding
such a feature?) If so, I would think that this could be the
ultimate polyphonic microtonal instrument.

--George

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > > > * Haken Continuum
> > > > http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/
> > >
> > > I saw this a while back and was quite intrigued with the concept
> > > of a 3-parameter keyboard alternative. Having carefully read
> > > through most of the explanations, my general impression is that
> > > this is a very well-thought-out piece of hardware that deserves
> > > serious consideration by the dedicated microtonal keyboardist.
> > > I wouldn't recommend buying it, however, unless I first tried it
> > > out, or got input from someone on this list who tried it (I seem
> > > to remember Carl Lumma saying that he did).
> >
> > dI had it in my office at Keyboard magazine for 2 months, along
> > with Lippold's Kyma. I subsequently published the first review
> > of it anywhere, in that magazine. You can read my review here:
> >
> > http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/haken-audio-continuum/Aug-
04/1874
> >
> > I don't recommend it for 'regular paradigmers', but it is a
> > very well-engineered and well-made device that I'm sure will
> > be put to very good use in music.
>
> Thanks, Carl. That was very helpful.
>
> I have one question: You say that the "round initial pitches" mode
> snaps notes to their nearest 12-ET values when you attack them. Is
> there a setting to change the snap-to grid to something else, e.g.,
> 19-, 22-, 31-, or 34-ET, or a user-definable tuning (via .scl
file)?
> (Or if not, did you happen to ask Mr. Haken if he considered adding
> such a feature?) If so, I would think that this could be the
> ultimate polyphonic microtonal instrument.
>
> --George

Carl, never mind. I just looked at the Continuum website, and the
answer is a resounding "yes":

<< The Rounding Grid

Precisely correct pitches correspond to certain finger positions.
These fixed positions form a grid; the grid may be spaced evenly (as
in equal-tempered tuning) or unevenly (for example as used by Just
Intonation tunings). Esoteric and downright bizarre tunings and grids
can be user specified. The Round Rate mechanism also allows you to
control the rate at which finger position correction drifts toward
the rounding grid, anywhere from instantaneous to glacial.

Division of the Octave into "N" Parts Grid

In this alternate tuning there is an even relationship between
location and pitch, and all rounding positions are equally spaced,
reflecting the division of each octave into "N" equal parts.

The normal octave can be divided into anywhere from 1 to 50 equal
parts. For instance quarter tone music would use a division of 24.

Custom Tuning Grids

The Continuum Fingerboard has 8 user-definable downloadable tuning
grids. The grid points in a tuning are used for Round Initial
Pitches, for Round Rate, and for nonuniform pitch-warping of the
playing surface without any rounding. Each grid point is defined by
two numbers: a position on the surface (specified by equal tempered
note number with fractional value, shown in yellow), and the pitch
for that position (specified by note number with fractional value,
shown in blue). For most tunings, the pitch matches the position at
each grid point; if not, the number of cents per inch will vary
across the surface. These tuning grids can be created by sending NRPN
values to the Continuum as described in the Configuration page, or by
using on online Tuning Downloader web application. >>

Did you spend much time trying out microtonal grids?

--George

🔗Torsten Anders <torstenanders@gmx.de>

Dear Carl,

thanks for these valuable details. Concerning the price of the Thummer, I heard in one of the video presentations by its author Plamondon that they intend selling the model "Freedom Thummer" (7 continuous controllers, other models have up to 13) at ~ $ 500, expected to be released in 2008.

Concerning the TERPSTRA: is this actually available?

Thank you!

Best
Torsten

On May 8, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > * Haken Continuum
> > > http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/
> >
> > I saw this a while back and was quite intrigued with the concept
> > of a 3-parameter keyboard alternative. Having carefully read
> > through most of the explanations, my general impression is that
> > this is a very well-thought-out piece of hardware that deserves
> > serious consideration by the dedicated microtonal keyboardist.
> > I wouldn't recommend buying it, however, unless I first tried it
> > out, or got input from someone on this list who tried it (I seem
> > to remember Carl Lumma saying that he did).
>
> dI had it in my office at Keyboard magazine for 2 months, along
> with Lippold's Kyma. I subsequently published the first review
> of it anywhere, in that magazine. You can read my review here:
>
> http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/haken-audio-continuum/Aug-04/1874
>
> I don't recommend it for 'regular paradigmers', but it is a
> very well-engineered and well-made device that I'm sure will
> be put to very good use in music.
>
> > > * TONAL PLEXUS
> > > http://www.h-pi.com/TPX28intro.html
> >
> > The verdict on this one may depend on whether you think 205
> > pitches/octave is overkill, but I think it has lots of
> > possibilities. (No point in my making any further comments, since
> > you can contact Aaron Hunt directly.) Again, if I were younger, I'd
> > be paying him a visit to try it out.
>
> The Tonal Plexus, on the other hand, is not incredibly well
> designed/built. The key have very little travel and essentially
> function as click-switches. They are very small, and have varying
> heights to (I believe) help the player distinguish them by feel.
> However the surface of the instrument is some sort flexible plastic
> sheet, and on the unit I played, some of the lower keys were so
> close to the surface of the instrument that they could drop
> *below* the surface when it flexes, making them unplayable. We
> had to twist the instrument axially to flex the plastic surface
> keybed surface so that all the keys sat above it. On the other
> hand, the Plexus the cheapest designed-to-be-microtonal extended
> keyboard today, and I'd choose it over the Continuum as a
> regular paradigmer.
>
> > I haven't tried the Microzone keyboard, but I've seen comments on
> > this list that were critical of its very shallow key travel.
>
> I may have made some of those. However, I want to stress that
> I've never played the Microzone. More recently I've come to
> suspect it might be pretty good.
>
> > > * Thummmer
> > > http://www.thummer.com/
> >
> > This one uses a concertina-type button arrangement that's great
> > for diatonic music, particularly if you want sharps that differ
> > in pitch from flats. It appears that it's absolutely essential
> > to have separate button-boards for the two hands, because
> > otherwise the hands would tend to get in each other's way.
> >
> > However, I really can't get excited about the button arrangement,
> > because my experience with the conventional accordion left-hand
> > button arrangement makes it immediately apparent to me that a
> > chromatic scale on the thummer is going to require *a lot of
> > practice* (and a panchromatic scale in 19-equal would be even
> > worse). Likewise, any tuning in which 81/80 doesn't vanish is going
> > to be difficult with this button arrangement, because a major triad
> > will require a considerable reach to get the 3rd of the chord:
> > either C-D#-G (for 22) or C-Fb-G (for a schismatic temperament,
> > assuming there's an Fb available).
>
> The Thummer isn't available yet, and has no existing schedule
> for production. I have played it (courtesy of Roger Linn).
> I'm pretty sure its keys can be remapped however you like.
> It's a great little device and if it does see retail for under
> US$1000 I would definitely buy one.
>
> > > * ?? TERPSTRA generalized MIDI keyboard -- only a prototype?
> > > http://www.cortex-design.com/body-project-terpstra-1.htm
> >
> > I would prefer that Fb (key 12) and E (key 11) were aligned
> > along the y-axis (as they are on the Scalatron GK), so as to
> > make it a little easier to play C-E\-G (as C-Fb-G) in a
> > schismatic tuning, which would require two fingers on C and G,
> > with the thumb crossed under to play E\ . Otherwise, it
> > looks pretty good.
>
> I hate to say that the only two of these keyboards I've never
> played are my favorites, but in fact the Microzone and especially
> the Terpstra seem most likely to be what I really want. However
> both are out of my budget at the moment.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586227
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

🔗robert thomas martin <robertthomasmartin@bigpond.com.au>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torstenanders@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> thanks for these valuable details. Concerning the price of the
> Thummer, I heard in one of the video presentations by its author
> Plamondon that they intend selling the model "Freedom Thummer" (7
> continuous controllers, other models have up to 13) at ~ $ 500,
> expected to be released in 2008.
>
> Concerning the TERPSTRA: is this actually available?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best
> Torsten
>
>
> On May 8, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > * Haken Continuum
> > > > http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/
> > >
> > > I saw this a while back and was quite intrigued with the concept
> > > of a 3-parameter keyboard alternative. Having carefully read
> > > through most of the explanations, my general impression is that
> > > this is a very well-thought-out piece of hardware that deserves
> > > serious consideration by the dedicated microtonal keyboardist.
> > > I wouldn't recommend buying it, however, unless I first tried it
> > > out, or got input from someone on this list who tried it (I seem
> > > to remember Carl Lumma saying that he did).
> >
> > dI had it in my office at Keyboard magazine for 2 months, along
> > with Lippold's Kyma. I subsequently published the first review
> > of it anywhere, in that magazine. You can read my review here:
> >
> > http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/haken-audio-continuum/Aug-
04/1874
> >
> > I don't recommend it for 'regular paradigmers', but it is a
> > very well-engineered and well-made device that I'm sure will
> > be put to very good use in music.
> >
> > > > * TONAL PLEXUS
> > > > http://www.h-pi.com/TPX28intro.html
> > >
> > > The verdict on this one may depend on whether you think 205
> > > pitches/octave is overkill, but I think it has lots of
> > > possibilities. (No point in my making any further comments,
since
> > > you can contact Aaron Hunt directly.) Again, if I were younger,
I'd
> > > be paying him a visit to try it out.
> >
> > The Tonal Plexus, on the other hand, is not incredibly well
> > designed/built. The key have very little travel and essentially
> > function as click-switches. They are very small, and have varying
> > heights to (I believe) help the player distinguish them by feel.
> > However the surface of the instrument is some sort flexible
plastic
> > sheet, and on the unit I played, some of the lower keys were so
> > close to the surface of the instrument that they could drop
> > *below* the surface when it flexes, making them unplayable. We
> > had to twist the instrument axially to flex the plastic surface
> > keybed surface so that all the keys sat above it. On the other
> > hand, the Plexus the cheapest designed-to-be-microtonal extended
> > keyboard today, and I'd choose it over the Continuum as a
> > regular paradigmer.
> >
> > > I haven't tried the Microzone keyboard, but I've seen comments
on
> > > this list that were critical of its very shallow key travel.
> >
> > I may have made some of those. However, I want to stress that
> > I've never played the Microzone. More recently I've come to
> > suspect it might be pretty good.
> >
> > > > * Thummmer
> > > > http://www.thummer.com/
> > >
> > > This one uses a concertina-type button arrangement that's great
> > > for diatonic music, particularly if you want sharps that differ
> > > in pitch from flats. It appears that it's absolutely essential
> > > to have separate button-boards for the two hands, because
> > > otherwise the hands would tend to get in each other's way.
> > >
> > > However, I really can't get excited about the button
arrangement,
> > > because my experience with the conventional accordion left-hand
> > > button arrangement makes it immediately apparent to me that a
> > > chromatic scale on the thummer is going to require *a lot of
> > > practice* (and a panchromatic scale in 19-equal would be even
> > > worse). Likewise, any tuning in which 81/80 doesn't vanish is
going
> > > to be difficult with this button arrangement, because a major
triad
> > > will require a considerable reach to get the 3rd of the chord:
> > > either C-D#-G (for 22) or C-Fb-G (for a schismatic temperament,
> > > assuming there's an Fb available).
> >
> > The Thummer isn't available yet, and has no existing schedule
> > for production. I have played it (courtesy of Roger Linn).
> > I'm pretty sure its keys can be remapped however you like.
> > It's a great little device and if it does see retail for under
> > US$1000 I would definitely buy one.
> >
> > > > * ?? TERPSTRA generalized MIDI keyboard -- only a prototype?
> > > > http://www.cortex-design.com/body-project-terpstra-1.htm
> > >
> > > I would prefer that Fb (key 12) and E (key 11) were aligned
> > > along the y-axis (as they are on the Scalatron GK), so as to
> > > make it a little easier to play C-E\-G (as C-Fb-G) in a
> > > schismatic tuning, which would require two fingers on C and G,
> > > with the thumb crossed under to play E\ . Otherwise, it
> > > looks pretty good.
> >
> > I hate to say that the only two of these keyboards I've never
> > played are my favorites, but in fact the Microzone and especially
> > the Terpstra seem most likely to be what I really want. However
> > both are out of my budget at the moment.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Torsten Anders
> Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
> University of Plymouth
> Office: +44-1752-586227
> Private: +44-1752-558917
> http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
> http://www.torsten-anders.de
> I just tried to download your Strasheela but was
unsuccessful.
Robert

🔗Torsten Anders <torstenanders@gmx.de>

On May 8, 2008, at 8:36 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > * Haken Continuum
> > > http://www.hakenaudio.com/Continuum/

> I had it in my office at Keyboard magazine for 2 months, along
> with Lippold's Kyma.

BTW: what is so special about its connection to Kyma compared to sending data to arbitrary other sound synthesis software? I read that it connects to Kyma via a firewire cable instead of MIDI -- what mass of controller data is send there that firewire is needed (instead of, say, ethernet), or is that not only controller data?

> I subsequently published the first review
> of it anywhere, in that magazine. You can read my review here:
>
> http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/haken-audio-continuum/Aug-04/1874
>
> I don't recommend it for 'regular paradigmers', but it is a
> very well-engineered and well-made device that I'm sure will
> be put to very good use in music.

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'regular paradigmers' here?

I feel, for exploring chords or even chord progressions in tune is just more easy pushing multiple buttons. As George already asked before: have you tried any rounding mode beyond 12 ET? How easy is it to play chords that way?

But, man, listening to the Continuum demos just made me feel envy -- you can not do such detailed and expressive melodies with buttons...

Thanks!

Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586227
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

Hi George,

> Thanks, Carl. That was very helpful.
>
> I have one question: You say that the "round initial pitches" mode
> snaps notes to their nearest 12-ET values when you attack them. Is
> there a setting to change the snap-to grid to something else, e.g.,
> 19-, 22-, 31-, or 34-ET, or a user-definable tuning (via .scl file)?

It had no such built in feature at the time I reviewed it.
I did ask Lippold about snap-to-19, and he said it could be
done quickly in Kyma.

> (Or if not, did you happen to ask Mr. Haken if he considered adding
> such a feature?) If so, I would think that this could be the
> ultimate polyphonic microtonal instrument.

I don't think it would be as great as you think. Even playing
polyphonically in 12-ET with the snap feature is pretty difficult.

One of the things I tried to get across in my review is that
one has to press pretty hard to get the notes. It doesn't
engender fast playing. It's kinda like being underwater.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

Torsten wrote...

> > I had it in my office at Keyboard magazine for 2 months, along
> > with Lippold's Kyma.
>
> BTW: what is so special about its connection to Kyma compared to
> sending data to arbitrary other sound synthesis software?

It does MIDI-over-IEEE1394 (aka firewire). That isn't
supported by many synths, but Lippold wrote stuff in
Kyma to support it. It also has MIDI out and I tested
it as well with a Roland module. At the time, Lippold
was really pushing the better performance of 1394. I
don't know what he's up to now.

> > I don't recommend it for 'regular paradigmers', but it is a
> > very well-engineered and well-made device that I'm sure will
> > be put to very good use in music.
>
> Sorry, but what do you mean by 'regular paradigmers' here?

People interested in creating polyphonic music in
extended just intonation (or an approximation of it)
based on the "regular mapping paradigm" established
here and on the tuning-math list. That includes
generalized diatonicity and a host of loosely related
concepts in the spirit of common practice Western
music.

> I feel, for exploring chords or even chord progressions in tune is
> just more easy pushing multiple buttons.

I agree.

> As George already asked
> before: have you tried any rounding mode beyond 12 ET? How
> easy is it to play chords that way?

x = performer's left-right
y = performer's direction of sight
z = down into the keyboard

Weell... it's fairly easy to play chords with the 12-ET snap
enabled. But it isn't easy to play them quickly. And it
would be harder with higher ETs because your x accuracy would
have to be that much better.

There are generally two problems with the Continuum
vs. a keyboard:

1. A generalized keyboard makes good use of the y axis to
store extra notes. I gather from the term "tuning grid"
that Haken lets you do this too. However, the Continuum
isn't as deep as most generalized keyboards. AND, as
stated in my article, the Continuum is not truly y-polyphonic.
It is the Gillette razor approach -- underneath the playing
surface is a single row of metal rods parallel to y, each
one mounted on springs at both ends. The angle of a rod
in the y-z plane is converted into y position on the surface.
Therefore, one cannot play two tones on with the same y
coordinates, as there is only one rod and it will again
become parallel to the floor, and you get a single note of
the x pitch corresponding to the rod with a greater z
displacement (usually: louder).

2. It is much easier to play quickly and control z forces
than it is to control z displacement. On a mechanical
keyboard (piano especially), the player's finger need not
be touching a key when it begins sounding, due to the
momentum of the action. The player imparts an initial
velocity to the key by applying a precise amount of force
very quickly, and then forgets about it. But the Continuum
does not measure z force. It measures z displacement, and
it measures it continuously. Therefore one must hold his
finger at a constant position (against the force of a spring)
to maintain a static z value. He must be able to precisely
'measure' the depth of his finger into the playing surface
to get a desired z value, and this is difficult because the
spring can not be tight enough to produce big differences in
force between subtlety different z depths.
The Terpstra keyboard, on the other hand, is even better than
a conventional MIDI keyboard because it does not measure
the velocity at key bottom, but rather more like a piano
measures the velocity *during* the keystroke.

Hopefully this makes some sense.

> But, man, listening to the Continuum demos just made me
> feel envy -- you can not do such detailed and expressive
> melodies with buttons...

No. Then again, the Continuum is nothing new in this
sense. The guitar is both polyphonic and allows one to
touch the notes. Orchestral strings are less polyphonic
but even more expressive than the Continuum.

That said, when you've heard the masters swing a miniMoog
'round it is quite amazing. Then again, the mini was
also monophonic!!

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>

I wrote...

> The Tonal Plexus, on the other hand, is not incredibly well
> designed/built. The key have very little travel and essentially
> function as click-switches. They are very small, and have
> varying heights to (I believe) help the player distinguish them
> by feel. However the surface of the instrument is some sort
> flexible plastic sheet, and on the unit I played, some of the
> lower keys were so close to the surface of the instrument that
> they could drop *below* the surface when it flexes, making them
> unplayable. We had to twist the instrument axially to flex the
> plastic keybed surface so that all the keys sat above it. On
> the other hand, the Plexus is the cheapest designed-to-be-
> microtonal extended keyboard available today, and I'd choose
> it over the Continuum as a regular paradigmer.

Aaron Hunt wrote me off-list to let me know that the issue
described above with Kurt Bigler's Plexus (excessive flex in
the keybed cover) was due to an assembly error, whereby
polycarbonate reinforcements were not installed in Kurt's
instrument. Aaron says he's fixing this for Kurt for free.

Kurt's instrument was one of the first Plexus keyboards sold,
so it is understandable that there was an oversight.

So I'd like to put my comments on hold until Kurt's instrument
is repaired and I've had a chance to play it more.

-Carl

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi George,
>
> > Thanks, Carl. That was very helpful.
> >
> > I have one question: You say that the "round initial pitches"
mode
> > snaps notes to their nearest 12-ET values when you attack them.
Is
> > there a setting to change the snap-to grid to something else,
e.g.,
> > 19-, 22-, 31-, or 34-ET, or a user-definable tuning (via .scl
file)?
>
> It had no such built in feature at the time I reviewed it.
> I did ask Lippold about snap-to-19, and he said it could be
> done quickly in Kyma.
>
> > (Or if not, did you happen to ask Mr. Haken if he considered
adding
> > such a feature?) If so, I would think that this could be the
> > ultimate polyphonic microtonal instrument.
>
> I don't think it would be as great as you think. Even playing
> polyphonically in 12-ET with the snap feature is pretty difficult.
>
> One of the things I tried to get across in my review is that
> one has to press pretty hard to get the notes. It doesn't
> engender fast playing. It's kinda like being underwater.
>
> -Carl

Oh, my! That's something I didn't pick up as being that serious a
problem. I can see now that the Continuum isn't something I would be
particularly interested in as an alternative to a special microtonal
keyboard. As an adjunct, yes, but for exploring, composing, and
performing microtonal music, I think a preoccupation with
instrumental technique would keep me from concentrating on the tonal
relationships and the music itself.

--George

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aaronhunt@...>

This is something I feel OK commenting on as it does not
have to do with H-Pi stuff directly...

I'm glad to see that Lippold finally implemented microtonal pitch
maps on the continuum. I take credit as the person who told him
he should do this years ago, when I visited him in Champaign
to show him the first Tonal Plexus prototype and take a look at the
Continuum. I've told this story before on TL.. I offered to write
software for microtonal maps on the continuum, and although
initially he was intrigued by the idea, after some thought he
decided firmly against it, telling me the continuum was designed
as a continuous pitch instrument, and that's what it was going
to remain. He said people who wanted discrete pitches should
get something like the Plexus. I guess enough people have
asked for microtonal maps on the continuum now that he has
finally conceded, maybe even taking to the idea
finally. I'm glad to see this development and I'll definitely be
asking him about it!

I disagree with Carl about the feel of the instrument being so
prohibitive of fast playing. Lippold whipped up a 19ET map for
me that day in Kyma when I suggested the possibilty for the
first time. I played the thing pretty easily and frankly I was
blown away. Sliding across the surface in parallel 19ET thirds
was pretty darn cool. It is a bit on the spongy side, but this
doesn't mean it can't be played quickly. The Z direction
sensitivity is adjustable anyway. It's a great instrument.
Very expensive, but very nice.

Yours,
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments
http://www.h-pi.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi George,
> >
> > > Thanks, Carl. That was very helpful.
> > >
> > > I have one question: You say that the "round initial pitches"
> mode
> > > snaps notes to their nearest 12-ET values when you attack them.
> Is
> > > there a setting to change the snap-to grid to something else,
> e.g.,
> > > 19-, 22-, 31-, or 34-ET, or a user-definable tuning (via .scl
> file)?
> >
> > It had no such built in feature at the time I reviewed it.
> > I did ask Lippold about snap-to-19, and he said it could be
> > done quickly in Kyma.
> >
> > > (Or if not, did you happen to ask Mr. Haken if he considered
> adding
> > > such a feature?) If so, I would think that this could be the
> > > ultimate polyphonic microtonal instrument.
> >
> > I don't think it would be as great as you think. Even playing
> > polyphonically in 12-ET with the snap feature is pretty difficult.
> >
> > One of the things I tried to get across in my review is that
> > one has to press pretty hard to get the notes. It doesn't
> > engender fast playing. It's kinda like being underwater.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> Oh, my! That's something I didn't pick up as being that serious a
> problem. I can see now that the Continuum isn't something I would be
> particularly interested in as an alternative to a special microtonal
> keyboard. As an adjunct, yes, but for exploring, composing, and
> performing microtonal music, I think a preoccupation with
> instrumental technique would keep me from concentrating on the tonal
> relationships and the music itself.
>
> --George
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

"Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@...> wrote:
> I disagree with Carl about the feel of the instrument being so
> prohibitive of fast playing. Lippold whipped up a 19ET map for
> me that day in Kyma when I suggested the possibilty for the
> first time. I played the thing pretty easily and frankly I was
> blown away. Sliding across the surface in parallel 19ET thirds
> was pretty darn cool. It is a bit on the spongy side, but this
> doesn't mean it can't be played quickly. The Z direction
> sensitivity is adjustable anyway.

I stand by my original statement, though it's hard to
convey in a post exactly how fast is fast. The Z direction
sensitivity is adjustable, but you can't not use it. The
playing surface of the Continuum is not touch sensitive,
which I think is a common misconception people have when
they first learn about the instrument. You must push into
the surface to fire a note (though you don't have to push
very far). Presently I'm aware of exactly no examples of
what I'd call polyphonic keyboard technique on a Continuum.
Of the examples currently on Haken's site, only the Fender
Rhodes example by Mark Smart contains an inkling. I'm sure
some young person will come along and shock us with what
is possible, but when you see something like this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rtt1msnwlZQ

it can be said that it would be MUCH harder on a Continuum.
Not that the Continuum should be judged by its ability to
render pianistic music. But for those interested in
such music the difference is something to note. You've
got a much better chance of doing something like this with
a Plexus than a Continuum.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I laid out the 22 tone scale that is based around 1-3-7-9-11-15 eikosany in 3 different ways and did extended playing on each. The reviewer seems to find that the most conventional things are not the easiest to play. But i found that using the one that made the major scale the hardest to play out of the 3 was the one i ended up preferring. for one if you have people improvise, it is nice that some of the less conventional but good progressions are easy to stumble into, no one ever seemed to complain. most player are much more interested in what it does that other tuning/keyboards can't or don't do. All were delighted

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> I guess the C-thru AXiS didn't make it into this thread,
> though we've been discussing it offlist. I just discovered
> than my colleague Jim Aikin reviewed it in Keyboard last
> year.
>
> http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/c-thru-music/apr-07/27426 > <http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/c-thru-music/apr-07/27426>
>
> I'm just about to read it...
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

no, i did this with my vibraphone instrument. true mallets are different than fingers but the thinking part is the same.
That instrument BTW i added another jenco set to fill out the full CPS so it is now 36 pitches. It is still in the states being finished by a cory beers.
All that is left to be done is to slide and secure in the resonators.

i haven't had a chance to work with the Starr instrument here at Univ. of Wollongong. It is sharing a room as Warren Burt's office at the moment too.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Kraig > Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >
> > I laid out the 22 tone scale that is based around 1-3-7-9-11-15
> > eikosany in 3 different ways and did extended playing on each.
>
> Do you own an AXiS?
>
> -Carl
>
>