Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning hello? (also new homepage)

Dear Tuning Heads,

I've noticed the list has gotten quiet. Might be a (former?) member of the list stopping his frequent posting, or the time of year, so I'll throw some stuff out there. (A disclaimer: I'm engaging in a bit of "shamless self-promotion". I also use Last.fm to host my files now, so if you have my old link to MySpace, please make a note of the new URL in my sig.)

I'm probably an intermediate-level microtonal composer, or at least a composer who uses microtones. I'm more interested in using non-12-et tones in more accessible and conventional compositions rather than ï¿½ber-experimental works. I draw on well-established musical systems from around the world as influences, especially Middle Eastern maqams. I've mentioned that I specialize in 72-et, partly because it contains 12-et, and I do write scores that contain piano, organ, fretted guitar and such, but mainly because it approximates 11-limit so well. (My second favorite tuning is 53-et.)

When not having to perform with 12-tone instruments, I mainly use the the 41-tone "studloco" set of Miracle plus 10 and 62--this produces a sort of Partchesque 43-tone scale--and 53-tone kleismic (generator = 19). The former seems to work better for major tonalities and the latter for minor, but the scales I use are more like maqams, dastgahs or ragas/melas with a more mercuric tonality, mixing major, minor, augmented and neutral steps which notes changing a lot. They're better expressed as chains of trichords, tetrachords or pentachords than octave scales.

Using the Miracle-based tuning system, my scales tend to be the following sizes in 72-edo commas:

* major second: 12 (as whole tone), sometimes 11
* minor second: 7
* neutral second: 9, sometimes 10
* augmented second (also a "blues minor" third): 16
* diesis/quarter tone: 3, sometimes 4
* wide tone (also diminished third or "amber major" second)": 14

But in kleismic, minor seconds can easily be 8 steps, and so on. And with 12-equal instruments, I'd be forced to use generalized semitones of 6 commas, unless I can sneak something else in there.

Well enough for now; I might need to write a full treatise on all this theory, but a lot of this has been talked about long before I was born.

~D.
My music: http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/Demos
My blog: http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

actually, for me this is a great post, Danny,

I learn (as do most people) by following other

people's concrete examples.

As for threads, I'm going to start one about what gear

to get...

Could you be even more concrete about the cent values of

the Miracle-based tuning you're using?

caleb

On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Danny Wier wrote:

>
>
> Dear Tuning Heads,
>
> I've noticed the list has gotten quiet. Might be a (former?) member of
> the list stopping his frequent posting, or the time of year, so I'll
> throw some stuff out there. (A disclaimer: I'm engaging in a bit of
> "shamless self-promotion". I also use Last.fm to host my files now, so
> if you have my old link to MySpace, please make a note of the new
> URL in
> my sig.)
>
> I'm probably an intermediate-level microtonal composer, or at least a
> composer who uses microtones. I'm more interested in using non-12-et
> tones in more accessible and conventional compositions rather than
> über-experimental works. I draw on well-established musical systems
> from
> around the world as influences, especially Middle Eastern maqams. I've
> mentioned that I specialize in 72-et, partly because it contains 12-
> et,
> and I do write scores that contain piano, organ, fretted guitar and
> such, but mainly because it approximates 11-limit so well. (My second
> favorite tuning is 53-et.)
>
> When not having to perform with 12-tone instruments, I mainly use the
> the 41-tone "studloco" set of Miracle plus 10 and 62--this produces a
> sort of Partchesque 43-tone scale--and 53-tone kleismic (generator =
> 19). The former seems to work better for major tonalities and the
> latter
> for minor, but the scales I use are more like maqams, dastgahs or
> ragas/melas with a more mercuric tonality, mixing major, minor,
> augmented and neutral steps which notes changing a lot. They're better
> expressed as chains of trichords, tetrachords or pentachords than
> octave
> scales.
>
> Using the Miracle-based tuning system, my scales tend to be the
> following sizes in 72-edo commas:
>
> * major second: 12 (as whole tone), sometimes 11
> * minor second: 7
> * neutral second: 9, sometimes 10
> * augmented second (also a "blues minor" third): 16
> * diesis/quarter tone: 3, sometimes 4
> * wide tone (also diminished third or "amber major" second)": 14
>
> But in kleismic, minor seconds can easily be 8 steps, and so on. And
> with 12-equal instruments, I'd be forced to use generalized
> semitones of
> 6 commas, unless I can sneak something else in there.
>
> Well enough for now; I might need to write a full treatise on all this
> theory, but a lot of this has been talked about long before I was
> born.
>
> ~D.
> My music: http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/Demos
> My blog: http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
>
>
>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

I found the message where Carl advises about synths:

Logic can do some stuff, but to get high quality microtuning
for these exotic scales, you have to get synths that natively
support full MIDI retuning -- Logic or any other host-type thing
just won't cut it.

Generally the way to go is with softsynths. They're higher
fidelity, lower-latency, and more portable than dedicated hardware
synths. And many of them have excellent microtuning support.
Even the old hardware synths that supported microtuning, they
often offered limited internal tuning resolution (they'd round
the numbers you put in). And getting the tunings in and out of
the boxes is cumbersome.

For piano, I recommend pianoteq. For heavy synth pads and
such, I recommend z3ta+ and Cameleon 5000. For orchestra,
Wusikstation or Kontakt are your best bets. They will all work
with Logic of course, but Logic won't be doing the microtuning.

It's a real shame that the Mac version of Scala is currently
in limbo -- it's great as a scale librarian.
>

-Carl

On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:07 PM, caleb morgan wrote:

>
>
>
> actually, for me this is a great post, Danny,
>
> I learn (as do most people) by following other
>
> people's concrete examples.
>
> As for threads, I'm going to start one about what gear
>
> to get...
>
> Could you be even more concrete about the cent values of
>
> the Miracle-based tuning you're using?
>
> caleb
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Danny Wier wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dear Tuning Heads,
>>
>> I've noticed the list has gotten quiet. Might be a (former?) member
>> of
>> the list stopping his frequent posting, or the time of year, so I'll
>> throw some stuff out there. (A disclaimer: I'm engaging in a bit of
>> "shamless self-promotion". I also use Last.fm to host my files now,
>> so
>> if you have my old link to MySpace, please make a note of the new
>> URL in
>> my sig.)
>>
>> I'm probably an intermediate-level microtonal composer, or at least a
>> composer who uses microtones. I'm more interested in using non-12-et
>> tones in more accessible and conventional compositions rather than
>> über-experimental works. I draw on well-established musical systems
>> from
>> around the world as influences, especially Middle Eastern maqams.
>> I've
>> mentioned that I specialize in 72-et, partly because it contains 12-
>> et,
>> and I do write scores that contain piano, organ, fretted guitar and
>> such, but mainly because it approximates 11-limit so well. (My second
>> favorite tuning is 53-et.)
>>
>> When not having to perform with 12-tone instruments, I mainly use the
>> the 41-tone "studloco" set of Miracle plus 10 and 62--this produces a
>> sort of Partchesque 43-tone scale--and 53-tone kleismic (generator =
>> 19). The former seems to work better for major tonalities and the
>> latter
>> for minor, but the scales I use are more like maqams, dastgahs or
>> ragas/melas with a more mercuric tonality, mixing major, minor,
>> augmented and neutral steps which notes changing a lot. They're
>> better
>> expressed as chains of trichords, tetrachords or pentachords than
>> octave
>> scales.
>>
>> Using the Miracle-based tuning system, my scales tend to be the
>> following sizes in 72-edo commas:
>>
>> * major second: 12 (as whole tone), sometimes 11
>> * minor second: 7
>> * neutral second: 9, sometimes 10
>> * augmented second (also a "blues minor" third): 16
>> * diesis/quarter tone: 3, sometimes 4
>> * wide tone (also diminished third or "amber major" second)": 14
>>
>> But in kleismic, minor seconds can easily be 8 steps, and so on. And
>> with 12-equal instruments, I'd be forced to use generalized
>> semitones of
>> 6 commas, unless I can sneak something else in there.
>>
>> Well enough for now; I might need to write a full treatise on all
>> this
>> theory, but a lot of this has been talked about long before I was
>> born.
>>
>> ~D.
>> My music: http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/Demos
>> My blog: http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
>>
>>
>
>
>

🔗caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_El2_enNFaI

>> Dear Tunas,
>>

First, apologies to Carl, I just searched my computer

for the e-mail where he advises me what gear to buy,

for microtones. It was an excellent list, which I intend

to follow.

What are some other opinions?

Supposing I had ten grand to spend on gear,

and my goals are:

1) to compose microtonal music with more than 12 per 2/1

2) to learn from the list here, and use the same software
some of you people are using.

3) somewhat off-topic, but not completely: to record sounds in the field,
such as birds, people, music, etc., which I then process, sample, etc., and
weave into the pieces.

4) to get sounds that are rich like acoustic sounds, but
tunable to any arbitrary tuning, anything we discuss here,
for example.

5) a rig combining a Mac (or PC, I guess) program and a synth, where
the synth and the computer talk to each other, with editor/librarian tuning-editor
functions, is desirable. I won't work on some little tiny synth screen.

6) that Melodyne software looks great. that should be included in the package.

7) I want to get back into doing background scoring, but hopefully doing

quirky music with microtones, not commercial scoring or science-doc.

I currently have a Intel-based dual-processor mac, OS X, v. 10.5.4.

I have Logic Pro Audio, it seems to work, but my chops are still limited.

I've liked Yamaha gear in the past.

Please don't envy poor Caleb, he's only going to have this budget once:

I don't have a second nest egg!

caleb

I have a Mac. Seems like much of the action

>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, caleb morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> Supposing I had ten grand to spend on gear,
> and my goals are:
>
> 1) to compose microtonal music with more than 12 per 2/1

Get a separate computer for music -- or make a partition on
your current machine that you can boot to where you have a
clean OS install dedicated to music apps and free of
distractions. You can get a laptop or desktop. If you'll
be doing acoustic recordings with it, consider the fan noise.
Macs are generally the quietest computers available. They
also have the flexibility of running either Mac OS X or
Windows. I think the Mac Mini is a nice choice for music:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini

Get the softsynths I recommended. I like REAPER for a
host (I think it has a Mac version now too). Only $60 and
you can try an unrestricted version before you buy.

So far, you're under $3000 even if you bought a new 'puter.

If you want to do vocals or some other acoustic recording,
get an Edirol UA-101 or an M-Audio Fast Track Ultra

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FastTrackUltra.html
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=703&ParentId=114

and a couple Behringer ECM-8000 mics (one of the best mics
on the planet, extremely versitile, and only $50 each)

http://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHECM8000

For monitors, try these

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/ModelSeriesDetail.html?CNTID=2317&CTID=560744&DTYP=SERIES

or for headphones, these

http://www.klipsch.com/products/details/image.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000Y556S2

Finally, you'll need a MIDI controller. I recommend:

http://www.c-thru-music.com/cgi/?page=prod_axis-64

Which is something like $2200, delivered to your door
in a flight case.

All of that should be less than $10K.

> 3) somewhat off-topic, but not completely: to record sounds
> in the field, such as birds, people, music, etc., which I
> then process, sample, etc., and weave into the pieces.

I've personally tested (almost) every solid-state handheld
recorder available. I recommend the Marantz PMD620:

http://www.d-mpro.com/users/folder.asp?FolderID=4313

Like all devices in its class, the internal mics are a
tad noisy. This guy offers a nice aftermarket mod for
that:

http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-620MODS.html

> I won't work on some little tiny synth screen.

I suggest you cleanse yourself of the notion of hardware
synths altogether.

> 6) that Melodyne software looks great. that should be
> included in the package.

Yes, that's an excellent tool for the microtonal composer.

> I currently have a Intel-based dual-processor mac, OS X, v. 10.5.4.
>
> I have Logic Pro Audio, it seems to work, but my chops are still
> limited.

Try REAPER. It's easier to use.

> I've liked Yamaha gear in the past.

I recommended their monitors, above. :)

> Please don't envy poor Caleb, he's only going to have this
> budget once:
>
> I don't have a second nest egg!

Dude, I wish I had $10K to spend on music. I'd get exactly
what I described above. For the first time since I've known
about microtonality, you really can get a studio that's
capable of real microtonal music production (with mostly
manageable limitations) for anything like $10K (or any price,
really). So you've come at the right time. Besides, if you
wait too much longer, inflation will eat your nest egg alive.

Oh, and this doesn't really fit with the studio described
above (if you really need a halberstadt controller you you
should buy a cheaper one) but this is probably the last
great keyboard workstation that'll ever be made, and I want
one soooo bad:

http://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-620MODS.html

Good luck!

-Carl

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>

Okay, will do. A step in 72-edo, which I call a "comma" as a step in 53 is called, is exactly 16 2/3 cents, so rounded to the nearest cent:

* major second: 200 (as whole tone), sometimes 183
* minor second (diatonic semitone): 117
* neutral second: 150, sometimes 167
* augmented second (also a "blues minor" third): 267
* diesis/quarter tone: 50, sometimes 63
* wide tone (also diminished third or "amber major" second)": 233

Now in 53-tone, a major second is 9 or 8 commas (each being 22.6415 cents; I'll let you do the math), a minor second 5, a neutral second either 6 or 7, an augmented second 12, and a wide tone 10, or rarely 11. The closest thing to a quarter tone would be 2 or 3, and the third tone is necessarily 3, but the third tone is better associated with 19/53/72-tone kleismic rather than 31/41/72-tone Miracle.

~D.
(and my apologies for not using the >>> to quote message; Outlook Express hates me)

----- Original Message -----
From: caleb morgan
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 05 June, 2009 12:07
Subject: Re: [tuning] hello? (also new homepage)

actually, for me this is a great post, Danny,

I learn (as do most people) by following other

people's concrete examples.

As for threads, I'm going to start one about what gear

to get...

Could you be even more concrete about the cent values of

the Miracle-based tuning you're using?

caleb

On Jun 5, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Danny Wier wrote:

Dear Tuning Heads,

I've noticed the list has gotten quiet. Might be a (former?) member of
the list stopping his frequent posting, or the time of year, so I'll
throw some stuff out there. (A disclaimer: I'm engaging in a bit of
"shamless self-promotion". I also use Last.fm to host my files now, so
if you have my old link to MySpace, please make a note of the new URL in
my sig.)

I'm probably an intermediate-level microtonal composer, or at least a
composer who uses microtones. I'm more interested in using non-12-et
tones in more accessible and conventional compositions rather than
über-experimental works. I draw on well-established musical systems from
around the world as influences, especially Middle Eastern maqams. I've
mentioned that I specialize in 72-et, partly because it contains 12-et,
and I do write scores that contain piano, organ, fretted guitar and
such, but mainly because it approximates 11-limit so well. (My second
favorite tuning is 53-et.)

When not having to perform with 12-tone instruments, I mainly use the
the 41-tone "studloco" set of Miracle plus 10 and 62--this produces a
sort of Partchesque 43-tone scale--and 53-tone kleismic (generator =
19). The former seems to work better for major tonalities and the latter
for minor, but the scales I use are more like maqams, dastgahs or
ragas/melas with a more mercuric tonality, mixing major, minor,
augmented and neutral steps which notes changing a lot. They're better
expressed as chains of trichords, tetrachords or pentachords than octave
scales.

Using the Miracle-based tuning system, my scales tend to be the
following sizes in 72-edo commas:

But in kleismic, minor seconds can easily be 8 steps, and so on. And
with 12-equal instruments, I'd be forced to use generalized semitones of
6 commas, unless I can sneak something else in there.

Well enough for now; I might need to write a full treatise on all this
theory, but a lot of this has been talked about long before I was born.

~D.
My music: http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/Demos
My blog: http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>

----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Lumma" <carl@...>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 05 June, 2009 13:02
Subject: [tuning] Re: hello? (also new homepage)

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Wier" <dawiertx@...> wrote:

> Believe it or not, I still have your recent MMM post open in my
> e-mail client, waiting for a free moment. Life has gotten
> extremely busy for me recently...

Thanks, and I was worried about MMM; I thought it had died as well. And I won't complain; I'd fail at running a list.

>> I also use Last.fm to host my files now, so
>> if you have my old link to MySpace, please make a note
>> of the new URL in my sig.)
>
> Ah, cool. Myspace is a bit annoying as a music host (from
> my point of view as a consumer). Perhaps last.fm will
> work better.

MySpace has a ten-song limit, and before recently it was six, and I do not recommend blogging there. Plus I'm not into social networking; I feel too old for that scene.

So far, Last.fm works all right, but my low-budget laptop runs slow with the Flash scripts. If I end up with a huge number of sound files, I may just spend some money and get my own website.

>> I'm probably an intermediate-level microtonal composer, or
>> at least a composer who uses microtones.
>
> After your last 72-ET piano piece, I'd have to place you
> in the upper tier of microtonal musicians I know. But don't
> let that get to your head.

I'm honored to hear/read that, thanks. And I'll try not to let it inflate my ego. I've grown up a lot since I got interested in this kind of music. (Upper tier though? I'm no Partch or Carlos...)

I just hope I'm not known for only one piece. I really only meant to write the piano thingie as an experiment and a demonstration. ~D.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

Hi Caleb,

It's allways fun to spend someone elses money :)

But seriously, if you can only spend it once, it seems to me the wise thing
to do is to restrain yourself and spend as little of it as possible untill
you really really know what you want and need.
Secondly. Buy only second hand and only things that retain their value. So
no paying for software (and Scala is free anyhow), latest digital synth etc
etc.
I think if you follow the above guidelines you will eventually end up with
your dream studio.

One thing though that seems very important to me no matter the type of music
you'll make.
If you want it to sound professional and good on everybodys soundsystem the
main thing you'll need is good monitoring.
If you use a computer that means atleast one good DAC, like a second hand
Lavry black DA10 which costs around 600 second hand (head-fi.org
gearslutz.com)

Good headphones can be helpfull, Sennheiser HD580, HD600, HD650 are very
good, musical and cheap second hand, but are slightly veiled (will work
great from the DA10 headphone amp), AKG K701 are more clear and critical but
they make many great recordings sound unmusical, I owned both and prefer the
HD650). Around $200-250 second hand.
Sennheiser has a new topmodel that probably has the advantages of both and
then some is the HD800 but it's not yet available second hand and when it is
it'll cost close to $1000 perhaps.

Monitors. From nearfealds to full range.
I can really suggest the very cheap AppleDesign powered speakers model
M6082. They are used by many big mixing engineers including Bob
Clearmountain who made them famous. Costs around $10 to $100 second hand and
very worth it, they tell you things about the mix other speakers wont
(except perhaps auratones which are more expensive but do basically thesame
thing with a bit less bass) and mixes you make on them translate very well
to any other speaker (if it sounds good on these it'll sound good on
anything)
Nearfealds like the Yamaha NS10, don't know what a good cheap nearfeald is
these days, could do some research on Gearsultz.com)
You'll probably work most on these, so they may not have to be super
critical and revealing as long as they do have a proper sound balance for
making rough mixes / compositions.
(If you do classical you need something else like ATC monitors but they're
very expensive and you can't get real quality with sample libraries anyhow
no matter how good your ears and monitors are.)
Midfeald/fullrange speakers. I like old Tannoys with dual concentric drivers
myself but there are a zillion options here and it also depends on what's
available second hand in your area as shipping is problematic it seems to
me. Gearslutz.com could help you out again.
Amps, for cheap I like the old Samson servo amps, plenty available second
hand very cheap. For less cheap Bryson for instance, also plenty of those
second hand.

And I don't know what kind of room your studio is located but expensive full
range / mid range speakers are a waste of money unless your room sounds good
and you place them properly.
If it doesn't then just settle for lesser full range / mid range speakers
and amp and spend a little more on good nearfealds (no ns10 then) or
headphones (HD800?).

If you spend your money carefull you can get your sound monitoring (dac amps
speakers headphones) done for under $2000.
If you go a bit more expensive for under $3000
And you'll never regret it, and even if you do if you did good second hand
deals you can sell things again for thesame or even make some profit.
You can make amazing music out of cheap crap equipment as long as you have
the skills and your monitoring is good.
No way to do it when you can't hear what you're doing and have no idea how
it'll sound on the thousands of different audio systems other people around
the world have.

Lol this ended up as much more typing on monitoring than I thought :)

For computer I'd get a second hand PC running windows XP (should even leave
over some extra money after selling your MAC)
If only because you can get all the software / sequencers / plugins / sample
libraries / virtual instruments for free on the pirate bay for instance.
This alone will give you anything like $10.000 worth, that if you were to
buy it all would then be worthless after a few years.
Ohyeah and make sure the PC is dead quit! Nothing more disturbing than noisy
fans in your studio.
You could put windows xp on your intel mac too i think.

If you want to do quirky music that may mean you also like effects?
The only thing I'd do on the computer is clean delays and Altiverb reverb
(available as a free torrent).
But Altiverb sounds a bit dead. for truly acoustic music it's great but for
electronic music I'd go outboard for reverbs, even cheap outboard sound much
better than any plugin reverb.
You could get a lot of cheap effects processors, like yamaha spx900, ensoniq
dp2, boss se50. And for more money a great Eventide H3000.
And to interface these effects to your computer something like a yamaha i88x
which sounds great, 8ch ADC, 8ch DAC, works stable on the PC now, and is so
cheap ($300) for the quality it's a steal (better than all current new sub
$1000 ADA converters like m-audio emu etc) (and if you want to stay cheap
use it as your main monitoring dac too, though it's offcourse not as good as
the lavry). Ohyeah and you get 2 really good clean mic preamps thrown in too
:)

For mirotonal midi keyabord I second Carl on the Axis 64. I saw one go
second hand for about Euro 600 in Holland a few weeks ago.

For mixing I'd do that in the box with something like reaper or sonar (which
unlike cubase which gives trouble, is available on the priate bay in a
stable version)
For compression and EQ download a big Waves bundle or something, again
pirate bay.

Now for things that actually make sound :)
Which is what it's all about haha.
I can't give you much advice on this, since there are a zillion options and
I don't know what you want to make.
There are many sample libraries / virtual instruments with microtonal
support.
Omnisphere, East/west Silk, The new Garritan stuff based on the Aria engine,
I think Vienna symphonic library has some support for microtuning aswell but
not sure on this, and many many more.
Northernsounds.com has a great forum where you can find a lot of sample
libraries and ask questions about them.
Though perhaps you find it easyer working on a workstation synth. The new
yamaha Motif XS has support formicrotuning, so do some others.
Scala webpage and microtonal-synthesis.com have lists of synths that support
microtuning.
If you like electronic sounds you may also like the Yamaha SY99 which is
going very cheap these days.
It has PCM (awm2, like the new motif xs still has) and FM combined, and
supports microtuning. But you must be willing to really put the time into
getting to know this synth, it's very deep.
Ah there are a zillion options here.

I hope the above is in some ways useful to you.
It the advice I can give after a long time trying to find my perfect studio.
I used to be rich after 2 succesfull internet companies and bought all the
most expensive equipment, almost 20.000 euro italian speakers (M. acoustics
- Coherence Stage), hi-end Manley tube amp, lexicon 960L new when it just
came out, studer mixing desk, custom analogue modular synths, many vintage
analogue synths etc etc.
Though never was happy with what I had.
I partied a lot (a LOT) and my companies went downhill, I spent all my
money, sold all my studio equipment (along with everything else) and now am
on welfare. (but ok with that for now and happy in life :)
My complete studio is now: Yamaha SY99, Yamaha V50, Ensoniq dp2 (comming
soon so don't know it'll stay), Yamaha i88x, Sennheiser HD650, Appledesign
powered speakers, Samson servo 260, big old Tannoy speakers (forgot the
model name and not going to move them now to find out), and a lot of free
software on an IBM T60 laptop.
I paid less than $2000 for everything together.
I bought it all second hand with good deals and I think I could sell
everything again for more than I paid.
I'm in heaven as far as I'm concerned :) If money weren't a concern and I
had to choose between my old studio and my current one I'd choose my current
one without thinking.
This one just fits me, it has the sound I love and I know how to make it
make the music the way I want it.
Only my monitoring is a bit on the weak side, just enough as far as I'm
concerned (yes, I miss the 20.000 euro speakers lol)

Good luck with sorting out your studio, and hope you can enjoy it (with some
selling and buying other gear again) for the rest of your life :)
Marcel

Btw sorry for openly saying to download software / plugins etc.
I realise there may be some people on this list who take offense on this.
However I personally feel most software is way too expensive to begin with
and lose their value in no time.
I dont consider it stealing since nobody is losing their copy. I personally
wouldn't buy the software I use so no loss to the creator of the software
either.
For reasonably priced software I use a lot, I pay. (not a lot of reasonably
priced software out there though)
If I ever make good money off my music I'll buy all the software I use.
I wrote the recomendation above to dowload expensive software for free
because it's what I see as good advice, won't write anything else.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> Generally the way to go is with softsynths. They're higher
> fidelity, lower-latency, and more portable than dedicated hardware
> synths.

Sorry but I have to object here.
Yes portability is better with softsynths.
But fidelity?
Offcourse this is very subjective, but hardware synths more often have
better soundquality than softsynths, and they have character.
This goes for analogue synths, digital FM synths, and sample based synths /
romplers.
Again, subjective. But I'm certainately not alone in this.
And I've seen many of my music heroes go from great sounding albums to imho
terrible sounding albums and when I look at what changed in their studio it
is because they abandoned their hardware synths and used softsynths instead.

> And many of them have excellent microtuning support.
> Even the old hardware synths that supported microtuning, they
> often offered limited internal tuning resolution (they'd round
> the numbers you put in).

Yes, but most of those support around 1 cent tuning resolution. For actual
music this is good enough as far as our ears are concerned.

> And getting the tunings in and out of
> the boxes is cumbersome.
>

Scala supports many hardware synths and it takes only one click to send a
scale you just made in scala to your synth through midi.

For piano, I recommend pianoteq.

I recommend pianoteq too for playability.
But never ever release music with pianoteq when you want it to sound like a
real piano because it it severely worse sounding than most sample libraries
(no matter the preset / model used in pianoteq)
Though no sample library sounds as good as a real piano. Maybe the new
Vienna Imperial will come close (no demos yet, though should be released
soon)

For heavy synth pads and
> such, I recommend z3ta+ and Cameleon 5000.

Try an SY99 for pads :)
No software will ever come close.
But for software and a different kind of pads I can also recommend
omnisphere.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Wier" <dawiertx@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Tuning Heads,
>
> I've noticed the list has gotten quiet. Might be a (former?) member of
> the list stopping his frequent posting, or the time of year, so I'll
> throw some stuff out there. (A disclaimer: I'm engaging in a bit of
> "shamless self-promotion". I also use Last.fm to host my files now, so
> if you have my old link to MySpace, please make a note of the new URL in
> my sig.)
>
> I'm probably an intermediate-level microtonal composer, or at least a
> composer who uses microtones. I'm more interested in using non-12-et
> tones in more accessible and conventional compositions rather than
> über-experimental works. I draw on well-established musical systems from
> around the world as influences, especially Middle Eastern maqams. I've
> mentioned that I specialize in 72-et, partly because it contains 12-et,
> and I do write scores that contain piano, organ, fretted guitar and
> such, but mainly because it approximates 11-limit so well. (My second
> favorite tuning is 53-et.)
>
> When not having to perform with 12-tone instruments, I mainly use the
> the 41-tone "studloco" set of Miracle plus 10 and 62--this produces a
> sort of Partchesque 43-tone scale--and 53-tone kleismic (generator =
> 19). The former seems to work better for major tonalities and the latter
> for minor, but the scales I use are more like maqams, dastgahs or
> ragas/melas with a more mercuric tonality, mixing major, minor,
> augmented and neutral steps which notes changing a lot. They're better
> expressed as chains of trichords, tetrachords or pentachords than octave
> scales.
>
> Using the Miracle-based tuning system, my scales tend to be the
> following sizes in 72-edo commas:
>
> * major second: 12 (as whole tone), sometimes 11
> * minor second: 7
> * neutral second: 9, sometimes 10
> * augmented second (also a "blues minor" third): 16
> * diesis/quarter tone: 3, sometimes 4
> * wide tone (also diminished third or "amber major" second)": 14
>
> But in kleismic, minor seconds can easily be 8 steps, and so on. And
> with 12-equal instruments, I'd be forced to use generalized semitones of
> 6 commas, unless I can sneak something else in there.
>
> Well enough for now; I might need to write a full treatise on all this
> theory, but a lot of this has been talked about long before I was born.
>
> ~D.
> My music: http://www.last.fm/music/Danny+Wier/Demos
> My blog: http://ludwigvan-tx.livejournal.com
>
Hi Danny,

on the contrary. Thanks for posting your compositions. They sound great!

-Rick

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

>
> By any objective measure, softsynths have far higher fidelity.
> They're also much more convenient, more microtonally-capable,
> and cheaper.
>

Any objective measure?
What would be an objective measure for an instrument?
Instruments make noise. A violin is not more perfect when it's a pure band
limited csound saw-wave.
The most objective measure would be what people like.
And probably one of the best ways to find this out is by looking what the
people who make music professionally like most.
And they think the real analogue synths sound better than their virtual
copies.
Look at the prices for a second hand minimoog or tb303 or Arp2600 etc.

And what to measure for exactly? Signal to noise? This is not what sound is
about.
I'll happily take a bit of noise with real synths.
It's the soundquality and character of a real synth that is very complex.
The better sounding softsynths even try to emulate this! But still a saw
from for instance an Oberheim SEM you're not going to get from a softsynth.
It'll simply sound different, thinner. Yes it may measure more like a
perfect saw or have almost no noise etc, but this is not what makes
something sound good.

Where measurements in music like signal to noise and distortion are more
aplicable is in music recording.
If your goal is to capture perfectly the sound of a real instrument these
kinds of measurements apply to the microphone and microphone preamp and
analogue to digital converter etc.
But wait, even here the best sounding things are not the best measureing
things!
The best microphones are anything but best measuring. Very old AKG and
Neumann mics that measure terribly are still considered the best microphones
by the top producers precicely because they have a certain sound that people
prefer over better measuring microphones.
Same for the mic preamp, a Neve preamp is anything but perfectly measuring,
yet it's greatly prefered over preamps measuring better.
As for the ADC, it's usually preferred to measure best as possible when
recording a voice like in the example above.
But there's a whole rap / hiphop / house scene that loves old samplers like
emu sp1200, ensoniq eps, old akai samplers etc.
These machines would be worthless if they'd had converters like those used
today, who measure a lot better but most often sound cheap and tiny. They're
preferred and demand a high price today precicely because they have a sound
that the computer cannot replicate. (no you can't get even close by simply
making wav files lower bitrate / samplerate and add fake distortion etc)

You know, another example, just today I downloaded native instruments fm8 to
see if it perhaps improved over fm7 and if perhaps i remebered wrong in
thinking it sounded like crap back when i tried it.
But no, it still sounds like crap. It sounds tiny and thin and cheap
compared to my SY99 and V50. And this is after recording my synths, so the
sound is out of thesame converters.
How can this be? The SY99 and V50 are digital FM synths. Forget emulating
analogue, this is digital it should be able to replicate perfectly on the
computer right? only with modern code and better resolution improving signal
to noise and reducing distortion etc.
But either native instruments wrote horrible code, or (what i think is the
case) yamaha wrote not prerfect code but musical code.
They built custom chips for their synths that sounded right, selected the
right DAC with their ears etc. Something like that I think.
Anyhow, in the end my SY99 and V50 sound huge and musical. And the FM8
sounds like a toy / plugin.

Same story for effects. There isn't a single dsp based reverb plugin for the
computer that sounds really great.
Somehow this is apparently still done better by dedicated hardware. For
instance the new bricasti reverb.
And there are many many great sounding vintage reverbs that have a sound no
plugin comes even remotely close to. Lexicon 224, EMT 250 etc.

Perhaps one day the computer will be powerfull enough and the programmers
good enough to emulate convincingly the things that makes certain hardware
sound so good, and then make virtual synths and effects etc that are unique
/ have no hardware equal, that sound even better than any hardware has ever
sounded.
But right now this is certainately not the case.
So untill then saying softsynths sound better than harware synths is simply
wrong. It's the other way around most of the time.

🔗cpertsinides <cpertsinides@...>

Interesting discussion here on hardware vs software. Normally I'd just stay out of it, but I happen to own several of the instruments that were named.

Comparing the FM8 to the SY99 isn't really a direct comparison, they are totally different instruments. The SY99 has both AFM and AWM synthesis, you can stack 4 sounds together per patch, you can use sampled waveforms as AFM operator sources (RC&M), it's 16 part multitimbral, you have looping panning envelopes, and you have a very sophisticated effects engine.

The FM8 has not a single feature listed above. It's a DX7 emulator with some but not all of the features of the DX7II added in. Notably, it's not duotimbral like the DX7II.

It's not legally possible to emulate the SY series instruments in software because the RC&M is still under patent, and the AWM sample sets are not available for licensing.

Compare to a stock DX7, the FM8 is a very worthy contender and has many features not available, as well as substantially better sound quality. The noise floor on the DX7 is LOUD and it doesn't have much of a high end. Only thing is the FM8 does not always import DX7 patches perfectly, special effects patches that depend on the DX7's original aliasing don't work well in particular.

On to the ARP2600 that was mentioned, I have two of them, and also own both of the ARP2600 softsynths. I would say that the WayOutWare version is closer than the Arturia one, the oscillators and filters are pretty much identical to my hardware, minus the noise and adding complete MIDI and plugin parameter control of every knob and cable.

Now that is great, but I will put the hardware ARP on stage because I can tweak it right on the stage and although it sounds scratchy and noisy, it looks great. But I certainly wouldn't want to have to be recabling a patch in the middle of a performance, which is why I have to have two of them, and I am limited to one patch per performance.

In the studio though, for recording work, I'll use the plugins.

Now that's for a couple ones that were mentioned, I have a fairly large collection and I will say there is a place for both hardware and software.

The big advantage I see of hardware is there are no version upgrades to pay for when a new computer operating system comes out, hardware keeps working. It's also usually just one button press to get it running, which means a couple seconds going from idea to recording. The SY99 is great for this because it has a built in sequencer. I can turn it on and two seconds later I am recording. With the computer, turning it on, getting a sequencer running, plugins loaded, and all that stuff can take 10-15 minutes to get going from a dead start, and by that time I can't remember what I was thinking. For retaining the muse, software sucks big time.

Another huge advantage of the SY99 and the ARP2600 is latency. I don't care what people say, I can hear and feel the difference. The timing on the instruments themselves is tight. Run it all through the computer and the timing starts to get sloppy and there is an interminable delay.

Software instruments have their advantages of course. I wouldn't say that cost is really one of them though once you start to factor in updates over time. There are many interesting hardware synths in the $500-$1000 range right now, which is not too different from buying a high end soft synth and keeping up with paid bug fixes for a couple years.

As far as which sounds better, I don't think it is so cut and dried. For one thing, many of the modern hardware instruments are just a bunch of virtual instrument software running on a chip inside, so they are not really so different from the computer. To make either of them sound more warm you need to work with the sound with effects and post processing.

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

🔗Aaron Andrew Hunt <aaronhunt@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

This thread is going pretty far off topic, but I allowed
this message through and will contribute a few more remarks.

Naturally, it is hard for one thing to exactly mimic
another. Whenever an instrument is invented, some great
musician will use it to great effect, complete with all
its quirks and shortcomings, and the result will be a "sound"
that is remembered. Had the software instruments come
first, I doubt anyone would be trying to get them to
emulate particular hardware synths. Despite this, some
circuit-modeling softsynths sound very close indeed to the
hardware synths they proxy.

We might also mention that there was never a hardware synth
with 9GB piano samples.

I feel somewhat differently about electroacoustic instruments
like the clavinet, but here the problem is mostly down to
the shortcomings of MIDI keyboard controllers. I find it
a bit funny that anyone would defend post-1985 digital MIDI
instruments just because their algorithms were run on ASICs
and their output shunted through crappy aluminum RCA jacks.

With regard to latency, there's no reason a software synth
can't respond as fast or faster than a digital hardware
synth. Or a grand piano for that matter:
http://www.ofai.at/cgi-bin/get-tr?paper=oefai-tr-2003-15.pdf
Granted, this does depend on your ability to configure your
software environment.

Of course, for us what matters most is microtonal support.
And there softsynths reign supreme. Precious few hardware
synths supported full-keyboard retuning -- the selection is
much greater with softsynths. Sending tunings over sysex
is a big kludge. And if you need > 128 notes, compare
ganging four rack synths together with MIDI cables to running
four instances of your favorite softsynth in REAPER.

-Carl