Melodyne DNA beta is out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp7z6yAIcws

-Carl

Thanks Carl;

Here is the link to all three videos:

http://www.celemony.com/cms/index.php?id=editor_betavideo&L=0%25252525253FL%25252525253D0%25252525253FL%25252525253D0%25252525253FL%25252525253D0

I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out the old tuning table function, so please will those interested request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune polyphonically.

If this works as well as it seems to it will make all those refretted guitars redundant for recording purposes once the tuning tables become accessible.

I am looking forward to being able to retune the individual notes of "old" 12edo performances and recordings.

On 18 Sep 2009, at 00:12, Carl Lumma wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp7z6yAIcws
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

> I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
> yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
> the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
> request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
> polyphonically.

What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
in the toolbar above.

-Carl

Yes Carl, but the other Melodynes have a function which enables users
to select tuning tables using a scl-type format.

See this page for details of the method used in earlier versions of
Melodyne, which seems to be absent in the new "DNA" version.

http://www.lucytune.com/midi_and_keyboard/pitch_bend.html

Obviously you have never used this method. I also wonder whether you
have paid your €800 for a license or even used Melodyne for
microtuning yourself.

(Or am I, also, being all mouth and no know how?)

On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
> > polyphonically.
>
> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
> in the toolbar above.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability with the new Melodyne beta.

Check out the bug report forum at this url:

http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984

and please register your protests.

On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
> > polyphonically.
>
> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
> in the toolbar above.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>
>
> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal
> capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>
> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>
> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>
> and please register your protests.
>
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>
>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>> > polyphonically.
>>
>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>> in the toolbar above.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>

So, you can manually fine-tune with cent precision, but they removed a convenient tuning table (which was restricted to 12 notes the octave, also for no apparent reason besides tradition).

Strange!

Best
Torsten

On 18.09.2009, at 13:08, Charles Lucy wrote:
> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal > capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>
>
> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>
> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>
> and please register your protests.
>
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>
>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>> > polyphonically.
>>
>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>> in the toolbar above.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

Vey are German, and do not understand British sense of humour.

We have already had two world wars, during the reign of 12edo, due to
German/Brit misunderstandings and paradoxical senses of humour.

Whatever you may feel about the EU; one of the main reasons for the
establishment of the EU was to avoid a third European war.

But to start a third war over microtuning????

;-)

May diplomacy prevail!

On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:

>
> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal
>> capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>>
>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>
>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>
>> and please register your protests.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>> > polyphonically.
>>>
>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>
>>> -Carl
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Same did Yamaha on their synthesizers about 15 years ago, from full keyboard microtonality where every key could be tuned freely to that limited one-octave-every-key-only-/+63/-64-Cents, eating more MIDI channels when we need more then 12tone in octave. Some preset JI and historical tunings can't balance user programmable tunings. A person responsible for similar decisions should come to the microtonal department of the hell (where only microtonal music is played 24/7). Or better not, I don't want to meet him.

Daniel Forro

On 18 Sep 2009, at 9:29 PM, Torsten Anders wrote:

>
> So, you can manually fine-tune with cent precision, but they removed a
> convenient tuning table (which was restricted to 12 notes the octave,
> also for no apparent reason besides tradition).
>
> Strange!
>
> Best
> Torsten
>

Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.

Hi guys

micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of
Melodyne plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature
set of Melodyne editor.
But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.

Best,
Stefan

lucytune:

Thanks Stefan;

As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature
not included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be
able to use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is
released?

For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There
has been a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some
time had failed to include microtuning capability in GarageBand,
although it was provided with Logic Pro.

It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has
evolved for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the
unanticipated consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to
those who can afford the top of range products.

One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting
the evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic
manner.

This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists
that I know
On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:

>
> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal
>> capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>>
>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>
>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>
>> and please register your protests.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>> > polyphonically.
>>>
>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>
>>> -Carl
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

In a procrustean manner rather...

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:

>
>
> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>
> Hi guys
>
> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of
> Melodyne plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the
> feature set of Melodyne editor.
> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>
> Best,
> Stefan
>
>
> lucytune:
>
> Thanks Stefan;
>
> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature
> not included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will
> be able to use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA
> is released?
>
> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There
> has been a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some
> time had failed to include microtuning capability in GarageBand,
> although it was provided with Logic Pro.
>
> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has
> evolved for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the
> unanticipated consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to
> those who can afford the top of range products.
>
> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting
> the evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic
> manner.
>
> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the
> microtonalists that I know
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
>>
>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
>> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal
>>> capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>>>
>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>
>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>
>>> and please register your protests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>>> > polyphonically.
>>>>
>>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>>
>>>> -Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>

800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.

I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and add
reasonable enhancements.
Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the coasts of
the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more money than I paid for
the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore system I use.

I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for - reasonable
prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal music to become
widespread.

Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> In a procrustean manner rather...
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>
>
> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
> Hi guys
>
> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of Melodyne
> plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature set of Melodyne
> editor.
> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>
> Best,
> Stefan
>
>
> lucytune:
>
> Thanks Stefan;
>
> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature not
> included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be able to
> use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is released?
>
> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There has been
> a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some time had failed to
> include microtuning capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with
> Logic Pro.
>
> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has evolved
> for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the unanticipated
> consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to those who can afford
> the top of range products.
>
> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting the
> evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic manner.
>
> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists that
> I know
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
>
> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had implemented a
> microtuning architecture throw it away?
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>
>
> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability with
> the new Melodyne beta.
> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>
> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>
> and please register your protests.
>
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@...m <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Charles Lucy
> <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
> > polyphonically.
>
> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
> in the toolbar above.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> wrote:
>
> So, you can manually fine-tune with cent precision, but they
> removed a convenient tuning table (which was restricted to
> 12 notes the octave, also for no apparent reason besides
> tradition).
>
> Strange!
>
> Best
> Torsten
>

Apparently they were only ever implemented in Melodyne Studio.
Looks like an intentional 'product differentiation' thing:

http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/windows-7-starter-edition.html

-Carl

It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies
from offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.

Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.

(€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line
version of Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive versions
and the prices may be lower nowadays.
I was a fairly early adopter, having been running a krak for a few
months, I was so impressed that I forked out the €€€ for the real
thing.

On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>
> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and
> add reasonable enhancements.
> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the
> coasts of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more
> money than I paid for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore
> system I use.
>
> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal
> music to become widespread.
>
> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com
> > wrote:
>
>
> In a procrustean manner rather...
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of
>> Melodyne plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the
>> feature set of Melodyne editor.
>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>>
>> Best,
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> lucytune:
>>
>> Thanks Stefan;
>>
>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a
>> feature not included in the other versions. So does this mean that
>> we will be able to use the microtuning tables when the studio
>> version of DNA is released?
>>
>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all
>> future versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal
>> capabilities. There has been a similar problem with GarageBand and
>> Apple, who for some time had failed to include microtuning
>> capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with Logic Pro.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has
>> evolved for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the
>> the unanticipated consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning
>> to those who can afford the top of range products.
>>
>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is
>> restricting the evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a
>> plutocratic manner.
>>
>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the
>> microtonalists that I know
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
>>> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>
>>> Oz.
>>>
>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal
>>>> capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>>>>
>>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>>
>>>> and please register your protests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>>>> > polyphonically.
>>>>>
>>>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Carl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Yes Carl you are right, although it is unfortunate for us tunaniks that they, like Apple, should choose to exclude microtonal capability as the missing/cheapening function.

Let's pester Apple and Celemony to revise their pricing policy re: microtuning.

Changing their policies could benefit all tunaniks.

I don't believe that they choose microtuning, as the enhancement differentation with any malicious intent, we are merely the victims of the "unintended consequences" of their market stratification..

On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:05, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Torsten Anders <torsten.anders@...> > wrote:
> >
> > So, you can manually fine-tune with cent precision, but they
> > removed a convenient tuning table (which was restricted to
> > 12 notes the octave, also for no apparent reason besides
> > tradition).
> >
> > Strange!
> >
> > Best
> > Torsten
> >
>
> Apparently they were only ever implemented in Melodyne Studio.
> Looks like an intentional 'product differentiation' thing:
>
> http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/windows-7-starter-edition.html
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:

http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php

that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.

Look at the prices!!

Fair Pricing
There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses, depending on how
you use it.

*$225*: full commercial license.
*$60*: discounted license.

You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:

- You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
- You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use, and
the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
- You are an educational or non-profit organization.

Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade Sonar before
I found out about this software.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

>
>
> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies from
> offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.
>
> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>
> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line version of
> Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive versions and the prices
> may be lower nowadays.I was a fairly early adopter, having been running a
> krak for a few months, I was so impressed that I forked out the €€€ for the
> real thing.
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>
> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and add
> reasonable enhancements.
> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the coasts
> of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more money than I paid
> for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore system I use.
>
> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal music to
> become widespread.
>
> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>> Hi guys
>>
>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of Melodyne
>> plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature set of Melodyne
>> editor.
>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>>
>> Best,
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> lucytune:
>>
>> Thanks Stefan;
>>
>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature not
>> included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be able to
>> use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is released?
>>
>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
>> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There has been
>> a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some time had failed to
>> include microtuning capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with
>> Logic Pro.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has evolved
>> for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the unanticipated
>> consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to those who can afford
>> the top of range products.
>>
>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting the
>> evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic manner.
>>
>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists that
>> I know
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had implemented
>> a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability with
>> the new Melodyne beta.
>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>
>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>
>> and please register your protests.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Charles Lucy
>> <lucy@...> wrote:
>>
>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>> > polyphonically.
>>
>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>> in the toolbar above.
>>
>> -Carl
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@lucytune.com
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
> Look at the prices!!

Also it happens to be one of the best DAWs out there.
However, I disagree that microtuning should be a feature
of the DAW. I mean, in theory it's a great idea. But
how might it work? There's no standard way to communicate
tunings to synths (that's widely supported by synths).

Apple can do it with Logic, I suppose, because they
control the included synths also. Charles- does Logic
microtuning work with any VST? If so, it must be
using pitch bend.

-Carl

Here is a pertinent thread on the reaper forum

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=37712&highlight=microtonal

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
>
> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
>
> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
>
> Look at the prices!!
>
> Fair Pricing
> There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses, depending on
> how you use it.
>
> *$225*: full commercial license.
> *$60*: discounted license.
>
> You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:
>
>
> - You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
> - You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use,
> and the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
> - You are an educational or non-profit organization.
>
>
> Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade Sonar before
> I found out about this software.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies from
>> offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.
>>
>> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>>
>> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line version of
>> Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive versions and the prices
>> may be lower nowadays.I was a fairly early adopter, having been running a
>> krak for a few months, I was so impressed that I forked out the €€€ for the
>> real thing.
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>
>> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>>
>> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and add
>> reasonable enhancements.
>> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the coasts
>> of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more money than I paid
>> for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore system I use.
>>
>> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
>> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal music to
>> become widespread.
>>
>> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>>
>>> Oz.
>>>
>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of Melodyne
>>> plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature set of Melodyne
>>> editor.
>>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>> lucytune:
>>>
>>> Thanks Stefan;
>>>
>>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature not
>>> included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be able to
>>> use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is released?
>>>
>>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
>>> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There has been
>>> a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some time had failed to
>>> include microtuning capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with
>>> Logic Pro.
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has evolved
>>> for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the unanticipated
>>> consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to those who can afford
>>> the top of range products.
>>>
>>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting the
>>> evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic manner.
>>>
>>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists
>>> that I know
>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had implemented
>>> a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>
>>> Oz.
>>>
>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability
>>> with the new Melodyne beta.
>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>
>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>
>>> and please register your protests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Charles Lucy
>>> <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>> > polyphonically.
>>>
>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>
>>> -Carl
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Hey all, just jumping into the fray here....

I'm always amazed, coming from the Linux world, where 99.99% of software is
free for the taking, what people pay for proprietary software. While there
are cases where proprietary software is vastly superior in capability to
open source alternatives, those gaps are quickly closing these days, and
often you will find equal or better alternatives in free and open software.

For some of you who are griping about this, it may pay to consider trying
Linux. Dual boot, or try a live CD, where you don't even have to install
anything. Can't hurt. If you don't like it, you can always go back. AND--if
you like it, you can keep it with a dual boot system, so you don't have to
give up your current world. You may find, as I did, that it meets enough of
your needs that you someday make a full switch.

The low-latency for audio possible in Linux is unsurpassed, if you have the
right hardware and setup. Usually, people report major improvements in
performance from their machines when they use the same hardware under Linux
when compared to Windows. I'm not sure how it works against Apple, but there
are those who use both Linux and OS-X on the same box.

You can run many VSTs that you already own in jack, too....some will just
fail, but these days most work. There is a page announcing the status of VST
operation in Linux. Amazingly, sometimes there is a performance increase in
Linux for a Windows native VST!

Fortunately, there's lots of professional high quality FREE software for
use. The flagship DAW is Ardour, which is a really great piece of software.

I recommend Ubuntu Linux for it's relative ease of installation, wide choice
of packaged software, and user-friendly attitude. User-friendliness in Linux
can vary wildly and widely, depending on the distribution you pick. Some
distros, will give you the impression that Linux is terrible and a pain in
the ass, which it can be---in those distros. Ubuntu versions can vary in
stability, but the current one, Jaunty, has proven quite rock-solid on my
machine.

I am available for advice in this area for anyone interested....I have 12
years experience with it--the good, bad and ugly, and I can help you avoid
the latter two!

AKJ

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
>
> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
>
> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
>
> Look at the prices!!
>
> Fair Pricing
> There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses, depending on
> how you use it.
>
> *$225*: full commercial license.
> *$60*: discounted license.
>
> You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:
>
>
> - You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
> - You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use,
> and the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
> - You are an educational or non-profit organization.
>
>
> Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade Sonar before
> I found out about this software.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies from
>> offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.
>>
>> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>>
>> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line version of
>> Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive versions and the prices
>> may be lower nowadays.I was a fairly early adopter, having been running a
>> krak for a few months, I was so impressed that I forked out the €€€ for the
>> real thing.
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>
>> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>>
>> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and add
>> reasonable enhancements.
>> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the coasts
>> of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more money than I paid
>> for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore system I use.
>>
>> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
>> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal music to
>> become widespread.
>>
>> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>>
>>> Oz.
>>>
>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of Melodyne
>>> plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature set of Melodyne
>>> editor.
>>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>> lucytune:
>>>
>>> Thanks Stefan;
>>>
>>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature not
>>> included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be able to
>>> use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is released?
>>>
>>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
>>> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There has been
>>> a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some time had failed to
>>> include microtuning capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with
>>> Logic Pro.
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has evolved
>>> for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the unanticipated
>>> consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to those who can afford
>>> the top of range products.
>>>
>>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting the
>>> evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic manner.
>>>
>>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists
>>> that I know
>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had implemented
>>> a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>
>>> Oz.
>>>
>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability
>>> with the new Melodyne beta.
>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>
>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>
>>> and please register your protests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Charles Lucy
>>> <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>> > polyphonically.
>>>
>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>
>>> -Carl
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@lucytune.com
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

On 18.09.2009, at 21:06, Carl Lumma wrote:
> Apple can do it with Logic, I suppose, because they
> control the included synths also. Charles- does Logic
> microtuning work with any VST? If so, it must be
> using pitch bend.

The microtonal capabilities of Cubase only work for a very limited range of software instruments, because Steinberg extended the VST interface for this purpose, it is not done by MIDI.

However, the nice thing about the Cubase microtuner is that it works for instruments like their sampler and -- in contrast to Logic -- you can change the tuning on the fly. The tuning of the 12 pitch class can be changed individually by automations :)

By contrast, advantages of Logic seem to be that they support the scala file format, and that they implemented (5-limit) adaptive JI.

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

You have a good point....

But have they got the sound problems worked out?

The *only* time I got Rosegarden to make literally one note was with Ubuntu
studio version and frankly the UI that is so good in Ubuntu is, IMHO,
destroyed in studio.

I like linux - the prices can't be beat - the stuff looks good - but I've
had less than happy experiences like when I upgraded from 7.10 to 8.04 the
wireless broke in the middle of the fraking upgrade over the net and left me
with a DOA machine. I reported it - did all of the diagnostic stuff they
asked - and they never got back to me... until 8 months later to asked me if
I fixed it.

Sorry - I really like linux - great software - but sometimes I just want to
use my computer and not fix it.

If its better - like no need for the "real time" kernal - the ALSA and JACK
interfaces actually work now...

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Aaron Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Hey all, just jumping into the fray here....
>
> I'm always amazed, coming from the Linux world, where 99.99% of software is
> free for the taking, what people pay for proprietary software. While there
> are cases where proprietary software is vastly superior in capability to
> open source alternatives, those gaps are quickly closing these days, and
> often you will find equal or better alternatives in free and open software.
>
> For some of you who are griping about this, it may pay to consider trying
> Linux. Dual boot, or try a live CD, where you don't even have to install
> anything. Can't hurt. If you don't like it, you can always go back. AND--if
> you like it, you can keep it with a dual boot system, so you don't have to
> give up your current world. You may find, as I did, that it meets enough of
> your needs that you someday make a full switch.
>
> The low-latency for audio possible in Linux is unsurpassed, if you have the
> right hardware and setup. Usually, people report major improvements in
> performance from their machines when they use the same hardware under Linux
> when compared to Windows. I'm not sure how it works against Apple, but there
> are those who use both Linux and OS-X on the same box.
>
> You can run many VSTs that you already own in jack, too....some will just
> fail, but these days most work. There is a page announcing the status of VST
> operation in Linux. Amazingly, sometimes there is a performance increase in
> Linux for a Windows native VST!
>
> Fortunately, there's lots of professional high quality FREE software for
> use. The flagship DAW is Ardour, which is a really great piece of software.
>
> I recommend Ubuntu Linux for it's relative ease of installation, wide
> choice of packaged software, and user-friendly attitude. User-friendliness
> in Linux can vary wildly and widely, depending on the distribution you pick.
> Some distros, will give you the impression that Linux is terrible and a pain
> in the ass, which it can be---in those distros. Ubuntu versions can vary in
> stability, but the current one, Jaunty, has proven quite rock-solid on my
> machine.
>
> I am available for advice in this area for anyone interested....I have 12
> years experience with it--the good, bad and ugly, and I can help you avoid
> the latter two!
>
> AKJ
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
>>
>> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
>>
>> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
>>
>> Look at the prices!!
>>
>> Fair Pricing
>> There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses, depending on
>> how you use it.
>>
>> *$225*: full commercial license.
>> *$60*: discounted license.
>>
>> You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:
>>
>>
>> - You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
>> - You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use,
>> and the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
>> - You are an educational or non-profit organization.
>>
>>
>> Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade Sonar
>> before I found out about this software.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies from
>>> offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>>>
>>> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line version of
>>> Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive versions and the prices
>>> may be lower nowadays.I was a fairly early adopter, having been running
>>> a krak for a few months, I was so impressed that I forked out the €€€ for
>>> the real thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>>
>>> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>>>
>>> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and add
>>> reasonable enhancements.
>>> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the coasts
>>> of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more money than I paid
>>> for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore system I use.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
>>> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal music to
>>> become widespread.
>>>
>>> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>>>
>>>> Oz.
>>>>
>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>>> Hi guys
>>>>
>>>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of Melodyne
>>>> plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature set of Melodyne
>>>> editor.
>>>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> lucytune:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Stefan;
>>>>
>>>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature not
>>>> included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be able to
>>>> use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is released?
>>>>
>>>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
>>>> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There has been
>>>> a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some time had failed to
>>>> include microtuning capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with
>>>> Logic Pro.
>>>>
>>>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has evolved
>>>> for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the unanticipated
>>>> consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to those who can afford
>>>> the top of range products.
>>>>
>>>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting the
>>>> evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic manner.
>>>>
>>>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists
>>>> that I know
>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
>>>> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>>
>>>> Oz.
>>>>
>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability
>>>> with the new Melodyne beta.
>>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>>
>>>> and please register your protests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Charles Lucy
>>>> <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>>> > polyphonically.
>>>>
>>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>>
>>>> -Carl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
>

On 18.09.2009, at 22:00, Aaron Johnson wrote:
> I'm always amazed, coming from the Linux world, where 99.99% of > software is free for the taking, what people pay for proprietary > software. While there are cases where proprietary software is vastly > superior in capability to open source alternatives, those gaps are > quickly closing these days, and often you will find equal or better > alternatives in free and open software.

OK, I really like Linux -- I have been it daily for more than 10 years (1994-2005, BTW). However, I do not agree with the view that open source software is always competitive.

Open source software is indeed better than commercial alternatives if you are a programmer and want programmability: then Csound, SuperCollider, PD etc are your friends.

If you want a pre-cooked solution that is relatively easy to use, then you better spend some money. For example, I just bought Cubase 5, because (among other things) I really like their idea of VST expression.

http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/musicproduction/cubase5_product/cubase5_newfeatures/cubase5_newfeatures_4.html

Of course, I could in principle program something like this myself (e.g., with PD). But I would spend quite some time, and it would not really be as convenient.

Best
Torsten

I use Cameleon 2000, as a "live" plug-in and have to set the microtuning to match the microtuning that I am using in Logic.

I have yet to attempt to use other third party sampler/synth plug-ins with Logic, yet some do have there own table implementations e.g. Reason, Absynth, MetaSynth etc.

This is one of the reasons that I insist that A=440Hz in Lucytuned coding, so that various platforms are compatible.

Of course now that DNA is functioning, it should be possible to retune synth tracks from any approximate tuning using Melodyne.

Previously this had only been possible with single voices, but DNA entirely changes the game.

Nowadays I avoid pitchbend like the plague, due to the latency, MIDI channel restrictions and crude resolution.

On 18 Sep 2009, at 21:06, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
> > http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
> > that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
> > Look at the prices!!
>
> Also it happens to be one of the best DAWs out there.
> However, I disagree that microtuning should be a feature
> of the DAW. I mean, in theory it's a great idea. But
> how might it work? There's no standard way to communicate
> tunings to synths (that's widely supported by synths).
>
> Apple can do it with Logic, I suppose, because they
> control the included synths also. Charles- does Logic
> microtuning work with any VST? If so, it must be
> using pitch bend.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

>
>
> You have a good point....
>
> But have they got the sound problems worked out?
>

Um, I've been composing and using sound in Linux for 12 years...depends on
what you mean by problems--can you be a little more specific? Mind, you,
there HAVE been bumps in the road, but my experience as that every year
Linux makes huge strides in out-of-the-box usability.

>
> The *only* time I got Rosegarden to make literally one note was with Ubuntu
> studio version and frankly the UI that is so good in Ubuntu is, IMHO,
> destroyed in studio.
>
>
Can't speak for Ubuntu Studio---I just use Ubuntu and get audio packages I
need. I also have a ThinkPad with Arch Linux installed

> I like linux - the prices can't be beat - the stuff looks good - but I've
> had less than happy experiences like when I upgraded from 7.10 to 8.04 the
> wireless broke in the middle of the fraking upgrade over the net and left me
> with a DOA machine. I reported it - did all of the diagnostic stuff they
> asked - and they never got back to me... until 8 months later to asked me if
> I fixed it.
>
>
Well, there is that issue of not having paid-for tech support. I'm a
complete techie geek, so I don't need it...ussually figure stuff out myself.

> Sorry - I really like linux - great software - but sometimes I just want to
> use my computer and not fix it.
>
>
Ok, carry on then.

> If its better - like no need for the "real time" kernal - the ALSA and JACK
> interfaces actually work now...
>
>
The realtime kernel is there for a purpose---to decrease the audio latency
to above industry standard performance.

You are making vague statements about 'jack actually working'...what were
your problems....I haven't had any issues with Jack recently. There are
times where things were poorly documented, and I had to snoop for an answer
on Google---like having to make sure PAM authentication permissions were
correct, etc, and rebooting/logging out. But anyway, I'm by now an *expert*
so if you ever want to take the plunge again...call on me for help.

AKJ.

> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Aaron Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey all, just jumping into the fray here....
>>
>> I'm always amazed, coming from the Linux world, where 99.99% of software
>> is free for the taking, what people pay for proprietary software. While
>> there are cases where proprietary software is vastly superior in capability
>> to open source alternatives, those gaps are quickly closing these days, and
>> often you will find equal or better alternatives in free and open software.
>>
>> For some of you who are griping about this, it may pay to consider trying
>> Linux. Dual boot, or try a live CD, where you don't even have to install
>> anything. Can't hurt. If you don't like it, you can always go back. AND--if
>> you like it, you can keep it with a dual boot system, so you don't have to
>> give up your current world. You may find, as I did, that it meets enough of
>> your needs that you someday make a full switch.
>>
>> The low-latency for audio possible in Linux is unsurpassed, if you have
>> the right hardware and setup. Usually, people report major improvements in
>> performance from their machines when they use the same hardware under Linux
>> when compared to Windows. I'm not sure how it works against Apple, but there
>> are those who use both Linux and OS-X on the same box.
>>
>> You can run many VSTs that you already own in jack, too....some will just
>> fail, but these days most work. There is a page announcing the status of VST
>> operation in Linux. Amazingly, sometimes there is a performance increase in
>> Linux for a Windows native VST!
>>
>> Fortunately, there's lots of professional high quality FREE software for
>> use. The flagship DAW is Ardour, which is a really great piece of software.
>>
>> I recommend Ubuntu Linux for it's relative ease of installation, wide
>> choice of packaged software, and user-friendly attitude. User-friendliness
>> in Linux can vary wildly and widely, depending on the distribution you pick.
>> Some distros, will give you the impression that Linux is terrible and a pain
>> in the ass, which it can be---in those distros. Ubuntu versions can vary in
>> stability, but the current one, Jaunty, has proven quite rock-solid on my
>> machine.
>>
>> I am available for advice in this area for anyone interested....I have 12
>> years experience with it--the good, bad and ugly, and I can help you avoid
>> the latter two!
>>
>> AKJ
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
>>>
>>> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
>>>
>>> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
>>>
>>> Look at the prices!!
>>>
>>> Fair Pricing
>>> There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses, depending on
>>> how you use it.
>>>
>>> *$225*: full commercial license.
>>> *$60*: discounted license.
>>>
>>> You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:
>>>
>>>
>>> - You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
>>> - You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use,
>>> and the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
>>> - You are an educational or non-profit organization.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade Sonar
>>> before I found out about this software.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies
>>>> from offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>>>>
>>>> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line version
>>>> of Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive versions and the
>>>> prices may be lower nowadays.I was a fairly early adopter, having been
>>>> running a krak for a few months, I was so impressed that I forked out the
>>>> €€€ for the real thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and add
>>>> reasonable enhancements.
>>>> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the
>>>> coasts of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more money than
>>>> I paid for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore system I use.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
>>>> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal music to
>>>> become widespread.
>>>>
>>>> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>>>>
>>>>> Oz.
>>>>>
>>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>>>> Hi guys
>>>>>
>>>>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of
>>>>> Melodyne plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature set of
>>>>> Melodyne editor.
>>>>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> lucytune:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Stefan;
>>>>>
>>>>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature
>>>>> not included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be able
>>>>> to use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is released?
>>>>>
>>>>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
>>>>> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There has been
>>>>> a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some time had failed to
>>>>> include microtuning capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with
>>>>> Logic Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has
>>>>> evolved for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the
>>>>> unanticipated consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to those who
>>>>> can afford the top of range products.
>>>>>
>>>>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting
>>>>> the evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists
>>>>> that I know
>>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
>>>>> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oz.
>>>>>
>>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability
>>>>> with the new Melodyne beta.
>>>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>>>
>>>>> and please register your protests.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Charles Lucy
>>>>> <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>>>> > polyphonically.
>>>>>
>>>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Carl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Torsten Anders <
torsten.anders@...> wrote:

> On 18.09.2009, at 22:00, Aaron Johnson wrote:
> > I'm always amazed, coming from the Linux world, where 99.99% of
> > software is free for the taking, what people pay for proprietary
> > software. While there are cases where proprietary software is vastly
> > superior in capability to open source alternatives, those gaps are
> > quickly closing these days, and often you will find equal or better
> > alternatives in free and open software.
>
>
> OK, I really like Linux -- I have been it daily for more than 10 years
> (1994-2005, BTW). However, I do not agree with the view that open
> source software is always competitive.
>
> Open source software is indeed better than commercial alternatives if
> you are a programmer and want programmability: then Csound,
> SuperCollider, PD etc are your friends.
>
> If you want a pre-cooked solution that is relatively easy to use, then
> you better spend some money. For example, I just bought Cubase 5,
> because (among other things) I really like their idea of VST expression.
>
>
> http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/musicproduction/cubase5_product/cubase5_newfeatures/cubase5_newfeatures_4.html
>

This is a generality that I basically agree with. But don't forget the
wonderful and useful software that is basically out-of-the-box fun for
Linux: ardour, audacity, ams, zynaddsubfx, fluidsynth, timidity, jack-rack,
whysynth, lmms, aldrin.....the list goes on. plus, there's doing VSTs with
Wine and VST-host or whatever. Of course, the milage with that varies.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

Personally, I think it is fabulous that Linux is there for everybody,
with every sort of great and free stuff that has been developed by
generous programmers - all experts in their fields.

Linux is the greatest thing in computer technology since the Internet.
It's accessible by all and it packs quite a punch.

And truth be told, the world of computing needs the edge against multi-
million dollar conglomorations that think they can get away with so
many bugs in their overly-priced boxed OSes and software whileconsidering it the greatest of favours to implement the most trivial
yet equally needed "bonus" features.

By boxed OSes, I mean, mostly, dreaded Microsoft products, including
the counter-intuitive Windows XP and that "useless" Windows Vista.

As for software, the nightmarish "Finale" comes to my mind, for
instance. Version 2006 was a total waste of my money.

See, if it weren't for Scala and a few other marvelous microtuning
gadgets, I would completely steer clear of Windows.

In short, Linux is a wisp of fresh breath in an arena of capitalistic
techno-giants giving so little in return for so much money paid.

I've never before heard of Ardour till Aaron mentioned it. I took a
peek, and it dazzled me. Good ol' Linux programmers are going so far
ahead, proving that more can be done with less!

However, the customizability, scalability, stability and user-
friendliness of Mac OS X Leopard coupled with the portability and
power of Macbook Pro is simply too awesome for me to ignore. With
Logic, with Sibelius, with Scordatura, new horizons open before me.

But This setup is not for the penny-pincher. For music-makers with
little to spend, the obvious choice with minimal compromise is Linux.

Unless of course, you are into pirated software...

Besides, my past experience with Linux was not so good. I would
perhaps reconsider using Linux with Parallels Desktop after it has
become more settled and less complication-demanding. I hate
programming and compilation. That is one reason why I could never use
Csound or MusicXML.

But with such great software as Logic, VocalWriter, Melodyne, GPO,
Synful Orchestra... Leopard is the way to go.

How can we compare the audio latency of a Linux machine with a Macbook
Pro, I wonder? I am confident that few commercial computers can
surpass the performance of Macbook Pro.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

>
>
> You have a good point....
>
> But have they got the sound problems worked out?
>
> The *only* time I got Rosegarden to make literally one note was with
> Ubuntu studio version and frankly the UI that is so good in Ubuntu
> is, IMHO, destroyed in studio.
>
> I like linux - the prices can't be beat - the stuff looks good - but
> I've had less than happy experiences like when I upgraded from 7.10
> to 8.04 the wireless broke in the middle of the fraking upgrade over> the net and left me with a DOA machine. I reported it - did all of
> the diagnostic stuff they asked - and they never got back to me...
> until 8 months later to asked me if I fixed it.
>
> Sorry - I really like linux - great software - but sometimes I just
> want to use my computer and not fix it.
>
> If its better - like no need for the "real time" kernal - the ALSA
> and JACK interfaces actually work now...
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Aaron Johnson <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey all, just jumping into the fray here....
>
> I'm always amazed, coming from the Linux world, where 99.99% of
> software is free for the taking, what people pay for proprietary
> software. While there are cases where proprietary software is vastly
> superior in capability to open source alternatives, those gaps are
> quickly closing these days, and often you will find equal or better
> alternatives in free and open software.
>
> For some of you who are griping about this, it may pay to consider
> trying Linux. Dual boot, or try a live CD, where you don't even have
> to install anything. Can't hurt. If you don't like it, you can
> always go back. AND--if you like it, you can keep it with a dual
> boot system, so you don't have to give up your current world. You
> may find, as I did, that it meets enough of your needs that you
> someday make a full switch.
>
> The low-latency for audio possible in Linux is unsurpassed, if you
> have the right hardware and setup. Usually, people report major
> improvements in performance from their machines when they use the
> same hardware under Linux when compared to Windows. I'm not sure how
> it works against Apple, but there are those who use both Linux and
> OS-X on the same box.
>
> You can run many VSTs that you already own in jack, too....some will
> just fail, but these days most work. There is a page announcing the
> status of VST operation in Linux. Amazingly, sometimes there is a
> performance increase in Linux for a Windows native VST!
>
> Fortunately, there's lots of professional high quality FREE software
> for use. The flagship DAW is Ardour, which is a really great piece
> of software.
>
> I recommend Ubuntu Linux for it's relative ease of installation,
> wide choice of packaged software, and user-friendly attitude. User-
> friendliness in Linux can vary wildly and widely, depending on the
> distribution you pick. Some distros, will give you the impression
> that Linux is terrible and a pain in the ass, which it can be---in
> those distros. Ubuntu versions can vary in stability, but the
> current one, Jaunty, has proven quite rock-solid on my machine.
>
> I am available for advice in this area for anyone interested....I
> have 12 years experience with it--the good, bad and ugly, and I can> help you avoid the latter two!
>
> AKJ
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Chris
> Vaisvil<chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
>
> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
>
> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
>
> Look at the prices!!
>
> Fair Pricing
> There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses,
> depending on how you use it.
>
> $225: full commercial license.
> $60: discounted license.
>
> You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:
>
> You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
> You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use,
> and the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
> You are an educational or non-profit organization.
>
> Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade Sonar
> before I found out about this software.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy<lucy@...>
> wrote:
>
> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies
> from offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.
>
>
> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>
> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line
> version of Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive
> versions and the prices may be lower nowadays.
> I was a fairly early adopter, having been running a krak for a few > months, I was so impressed that I forked out the €€€ for the
> real thing.
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
>> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>>
>> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and
>> add reasonable enhancements.
>> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the
>> coasts of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more
>> money than I paid for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore>> system I use.
>>
>> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
>> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal
>> music to become widespread.
>>
>> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>>
>>> Hi guys
>>>
>>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of
>>> Melodyne plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the
>>> feature set of Melodyne editor.
>>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future
>>> updates.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>>
>>> lucytune:
>>>
>>> Thanks Stefan;
>>>
>>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a
>>> feature not included in the other versions. So does this mean that
>>> we will be able to use the microtuning tables when the studio
>>> version of DNA is released?
>>>
>>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all
>>> future versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal
>>> capabilities. There has been a similar problem with GarageBand and
>>> Apple, who for some time had failed to include microtuning
>>> capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with Logic Pro.
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has
>>> evolved for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the
>>> the unanticipated consequence of limiting the growth of>>> microtuning to those who can afford the top of range products.
>>>
>>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is
>>> restricting the evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a
>>> plutocratic manner.
>>>
>>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the
>>> microtonalists that I know
>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
>>>> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>>
>>>> Oz.
>>>>
>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal
>>>>> capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>>>
>>>>> and please register your protests.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>>>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>>>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>>>>> > polyphonically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>>>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>>>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Carl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Charles Lucy
>>> lucy@...
>>>
>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>
>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>
>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
>
>
>

Dear Torsten,

What Logic needs is note triggers to change instrument tunings on the
fly. It was my suggestion to Aaron Andrew Hunt that Scordatura be made
to handle the switching of tunings in realtime playback. He
implemented the note-trigger function and it works just fine. You
simply insert a silent note in your track in the extreme end of the
compass of an instrument to let the assigned tuning kick in from that
particular point in time.

It would be a piece of cake to implement this in Logic whatwith EXS
architecture, but will the developers listen?

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:13 AM, Torsten Anders wrote:

> On 18.09.2009, at 21:06, Carl Lumma wrote:
>> Apple can do it with Logic, I suppose, because they
>> control the included synths also. Charles- does Logic
>> microtuning work with any VST? If so, it must be
>> using pitch bend.
>
>
> The microtonal capabilities of Cubase only work for a very limited
> range of software instruments, because Steinberg extended the VST
> interface for this purpose, it is not done by MIDI.
>
> However, the nice thing about the Cubase microtuner is that it works
> for instruments like their sampler and -- in contrast to Logic -- you
> can change the tuning on the fly. The tuning of the 12 pitch class can
> be changed individually by automations :)
>
> By contrast, advantages of Logic seem to be that they support the
> scala file format, and that they implemented (5-limit) adaptive JI.
>
> Best
> Torsten
>
> --
> Torsten Anders
> Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
> University of Plymouth
> Office: +44-1752-586219
> Private: +44-1752-558917
> http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
> http://www.torsten-anders.de
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Dear Charles,

On 18.09.2009, at 22:25, Charles Lucy wrote:
> Of course now that DNA is functioning, it should be possible to > retune synth tracks from any approximate tuning using Melodyne.

I would be curious to know how well the polyphonic Melodyne works for various timbres. I spoke with some DSP guys the other day who -- when I told them about Melodyne -- where considering approaches how this could be realised. However, according to them it would best work when limited to specific timbres (e.g., guitar or piano).

Hence, if you try other timbres I would like to hear what your experience is.

Thanks!

Best
Torsten

--
Torsten Anders
Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
University of Plymouth
Office: +44-1752-586219
Private: +44-1752-558917
http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
http://www.torsten-anders.de

On 18.09.2009, at 22:42, Aaron Johnson wrote:
> This is a generality that I basically agree with. But don't forget > the wonderful and useful software that is basically out-of-the-box > fun for Linux: ardour, audacity, ams, zynaddsubfx, fluidsynth, > timidity, jack-rack, whysynth, lmms, aldrin.....the list goes on. > plus, there's doing VSTs with Wine and VST-host or whatever. Of > course, the milage with that varies.

Yep. Because I want the free UNIX software (and the programming environment UNIX offers) plus commercial sound software side by side I switched to MacOS. I am still using Emacs and the commandline daily :)

Best
Torsten

I have been using twelve string guitar at present, and will try out some other timbres over the weekend and let you know what I find on the tuning list next week.
On 18 Sep 2009, at 23:37, Torsten Anders wrote:

> Dear Charles,
>
> On 18.09.2009, at 22:25, Charles Lucy wrote:
> > Of course now that DNA is functioning, it should be possible to
> > retune synth tracks from any approximate tuning using Melodyne.
>
> I would be curious to know how well the polyphonic Melodyne works for
> various timbres. I spoke with some DSP guys the other day who -- when
> I told them about Melodyne -- where considering approaches how this
> could be realised. However, according to them it would best work when
> limited to specific timbres (e.g., guitar or piano).
>
> Hence, if you try other timbres I would like to hear what your
> experience is.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best
> Torsten
>
> --
> Torsten Anders
> Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research
> University of Plymouth
> Office: +44-1752-586219
> Private: +44-1752-558917
> http://strasheela.sourceforge.net
> http://www.torsten-anders.de
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

>
> However, the customizability, scalability, stability and user-friendliness
> of Mac OS X Leopard coupled with the portability and power of Macbook Pro is
> simply too awesome for me to ignore. With Logic, with Sibelius, with
> Scordatura, new horizons open before me.
>

One of the nice things about Mac is that recent versions have really created
a nice hybrid of propreitary and open-source design. Many Linux programs
will run on a Mac.

> But This setup is not for the penny-pincher. For music-makers with little
> to spend, the obvious choice with minimal compromise is Linux.
>

I have had money for a Mac in my past (not now) but everytime I've said "is
it really necessary? Do I want for anything in my current setup?" and my
answer has been, "no"... I's so used to the "linux way" that even thought
Mac is now posix-compliant, it seems like there are annoying proprietary
layers that get in the way of true open-hacking spirit.

>
> Unless of course, you are into pirated software...
>
> Besides, my past experience with Linux was not so good. I would perhaps
> reconsider using Linux with Parallels Desktop after it has become more
> settled and less complication-demanding. I hate programming and compilation.
> That is one reason why I could never use Csound or MusicXML.
>
>
What about Csound front-ends like Blue? But hey, if it's not your thing,
stick with what you know and enjoy. Csound is certainly very "manual" and
modular in it's design. This allows a great deal of flexibility for
microtonalists, however

How can we compare the audio latency of a Linux machine with a Macbook Pro,
> I wonder? I am confident that few commercial computers can surpass the
> performance of Macbook Pro.
>
>
I honestly don't know the answer for this...maybe there are Google-able
benchmarks?

Best,
AKJ

>>>
>>> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
>>>
>>> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
>>>
>>> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
>>>
>>> Look at the prices!!
>>>
>>> Fair Pricing
>>> There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses, depending on
>>> how you use it.
>>>
>>> *$225*: full commercial license.
>>> *$60*: discounted license.
>>>
>>> You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:
>>>
>>>
>>> - You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
>>> - You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use,
>>> and the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
>>> - You are an educational or non-profit organization.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade Sonar
>>> before I found out about this software.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy<lucy@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software companies
>>>> from offering microtuning only for the top end versions of software.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>>>>
>>>> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line version
>>>> of Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive versions and the
>>>> prices may be lower nowadays.I was a fairly early adopter, having been
>>>> running a krak for a few months, I was so impressed that I forked out the
>>>> €€€ for the real thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and add
>>>> reasonable enhancements.
>>>> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the
>>>> coasts of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more money than
>>>> I paid for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore system I use.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
>>>> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal music to
>>>> become widespread.
>>>>
>>>> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>>>>
>>>>> Oz.
>>>>>
>>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>>>> Hi guys
>>>>>
>>>>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of
>>>>> Melodyne plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the feature set of
>>>>> Melodyne editor.
>>>>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future updates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> lucytune:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Stefan;
>>>>>
>>>>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a feature
>>>>> not included in the other versions. So does this mean that we will be able
>>>>> to use the microtuning tables when the studio version of DNA is released?
>>>>>
>>>>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all future
>>>>> versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal capabilities. There has been
>>>>> a similar problem with GarageBand and Apple, who for some time had failed to
>>>>> include microtuning capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with
>>>>> Logic Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has
>>>>> evolved for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the the
>>>>> unanticipated consequence of limiting the growth of microtuning to those who
>>>>> can afford the top of range products.
>>>>>
>>>>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is restricting
>>>>> the evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a plutocratic manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the microtonalists
>>>>> that I know
>>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
>>>>> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oz.
>>>>>
>>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal capability
>>>>> with the new Melodyne beta.
>>>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>>>
>>>>> and please register your protests.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Charles Lucy
>>>>> <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left out
>>>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>>>> > polyphonically.
>>>>>
>>>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent, displayed
>>>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Carl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>
>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@...
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

I'm personally digging the shift towards web applications and away
from the traditional paradigm altogether. I've been seeing online
notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
DAW/sequencer pop up lately. These are obviously no match for Logic
and Photoshop right now, but I think that's more of a limitation of
the current web architecture that we have than a fundamental rule of
technology.

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone fundamentally redesigns
the architecture of all of this so that web applications can be more
fundamentally tied in with the operating system the better (Isn't this
the goal of what Google wants to do?). Maybe this will never be
practical for something like a DAW, but it's a great idea for
something like an online notation editor. There isn't really much
intensive realtime DSP work going on there.

(And if you're as eternally optimistic about the future as I am, then
there might even be an online DAW someday too.)

-Mike

I get scared by the whole cloud computing thing. What do we know about who
uses this stuff and who is spying on us, and how do we know our data is
safe.

Sure, good for backup, but I wouldn't want my whole system to be
'cloud'...yikes!

AKJ

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> I'm personally digging the shift towards web applications and away
> from the traditional paradigm altogether. I've been seeing online
> notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
> DAW/sequencer pop up lately. These are obviously no match for Logic
> and Photoshop right now, but I think that's more of a limitation of
> the current web architecture that we have than a fundamental rule of
> technology.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone fundamentally redesigns
> the architecture of all of this so that web applications can be more
> fundamentally tied in with the operating system the better (Isn't this
> the goal of what Google wants to do?). Maybe this will never be
> practical for something like a DAW, but it's a great idea for
> something like an online notation editor. There isn't really much
> intensive realtime DSP work going on there.
>
> (And if you're as eternally optimistic about the future as I am, then
> there might even be an online DAW someday too.)
>
> -Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

I don't think it would even really require cloud computing. It would
just require coming up with a web platform that can run code at
lightning speeds and can interact with your host system to the same
extent that a locally run program would. Something where you could put
inline ASM in your online code, and it would run on all x86 machines
viewing the page. And if you want your page to hit the mobile
platforms as well, then you could put inline ASM for a few different
processors for select functions and it would figure out which to run
on the fly. Or something like that.

It would also be pretty essential for this web platform to be able to
communicate with your firewire audio interface, or your outboard video
gear, or whatever if you wanted it to be able to really do everything
that a locally run program could do. You would also need to let these
programs access your hard drive, and so on.

As you might have noticed, there are huge, gargantuan, colossal, ugly,
fat and hairy security issues of catastrophic proportions that would
have to be worked out before any progress is made on this front. There
would also have to be some radical architectural redesigns to
eliminate some of the existing bottlenecks that make the ideal of
"lightning speed" less than feasible for the moment. Well, let's get
on with it, shall we?

(Google claims to be doing just this with its new OS. Let's see if they do.)

As for your data being secure, I always liked the paradigm where your
personal data was just stored on your computer or netbook, and the
application was online. Portions of the application code would be
downloaded on a strictly-by-need basis. Get all of the essential stuff
first, so the program can run. Then, when some special guy finally
decides he wants to use the step sequencer SMPTE time sync video view,
only then will the needed code be downloaded, etc. And why download
every single loop in the loop library right away, rather than just
wait for someone to actually need one? etc.

It becomes a game of balance and program optimization, and some clever
guy has probably already written a 700 page Ph. D dissertation on it.
Time to make it happen, eh?

-Mike

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Aaron Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I get scared by the whole cloud computing thing. What do we know about who uses this stuff and who is spying on us, and how do we know our data is safe.
>
> Sure, good for backup, but I wouldn't want my whole system to be 'cloud'...yikes!
>
> AKJ
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm personally digging the shift towards web applications and away
>> from the traditional paradigm altogether. I've been seeing online
>> notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
>> DAW/sequencer pop up lately. These are obviously no match for Logic
>> and Photoshop right now, but I think that's more of a limitation of
>> the current web architecture that we have than a fundamental rule of
>> technology.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone fundamentally redesigns
>> the architecture of all of this so that web applications can be more
>> fundamentally tied in with the operating system the better (Isn't this
>> the goal of what Google wants to do?). Maybe this will never be
>> practical for something like a DAW, but it's a great idea for
>> something like an online notation editor. There isn't really much
>> intensive realtime DSP work going on there.
>>
>> (And if you're as eternally optimistic about the future as I am, then
>> there might even be an online DAW someday too.)
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
>> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
>>  tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
>>  tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
>>  tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
>>  tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
>>  tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
>>  tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>

Mike could you point out the notation editor and DAW?

This sounds cool!

" I've been seeing online
notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
DAW/sequencer pop up lately."

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> I'm personally digging the shift towards web applications and away
> from the traditional paradigm altogether. I've been seeing online
> notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
> DAW/sequencer pop up lately. These are obviously no match for Logic
> and Photoshop right now, but I think that's more of a limitation of
> the current web architecture that we have than a fundamental rule of
> technology.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone fundamentally redesigns
> the architecture of all of this so that web applications can be more
> fundamentally tied in with the operating system the better (Isn't this
> the goal of what Google wants to do?). Maybe this will never be
> practical for something like a DAW, but it's a great idea for
> something like an online notation editor. There isn't really much
> intensive realtime DSP work going on there.
>
> (And if you're as eternally optimistic about the future as I am, then
> there might even be an online DAW someday too.)
>
> -Mike
>
>

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 19, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Aaron Johnson wrote:

>
>
>
>
> However, the customizability, scalability, stability and user-
> friendliness of Mac OS X Leopard coupled with the portability and
> power of Macbook Pro is simply too awesome for me to ignore. With
> Logic, with Sibelius, with Scordatura, new horizons open before me.
>
> One of the nice things about Mac is that recent versions have really
> created a nice hybrid of propreitary and open-source design. Many
> Linux programs will run on a Mac.
>

Indeed? What music programs designed for Linux do you suggest for us
Mac-users?

>
> But This setup is not for the penny-pincher. For music-makers with
> little to spend, the obvious choice with minimal compromise is Linux.
>
> I have had money for a Mac in my past (not now) but everytime I've
> said "is it really necessary? Do I want for anything in my current
> setup?" and my answer has been, "no"... I's so used to the "linux
> way" that even thought Mac is now posix-compliant, it seems like
> there are annoying proprietary layers that get in the way of true
> open-hacking spirit.
>

Having never delved into Linux and always having been a Windows-man, I
naturally made the jump to Macbook Pro, what with its superior
integrated audio architecture.

>
>
> Unless of course, you are into pirated software...
>
> Besides, my past experience with Linux was not so good. I would
> perhaps reconsider using Linux with Parallels Desktop after it has
> become more settled and less complication-demanding. I hate
> programming and compilation. That is one reason why I could never
> use Csound or MusicXML.
>
>
> What about Csound front-ends like Blue? But hey, if it's not your
> thing, stick with what you know and enjoy. Csound is certainly very
> "manual" and modular in it's design. This allows a great deal of
> flexibility for microtonalists, however
>

For traditionalist people like myself, who prefer to see the
beautifully engraved notes and dynamics on the screen and have
individual control over their pitch in the background, Sibelius
+Scordatura seems to be the way to go.

>
> How can we compare the audio latency of a Linux machine with a
> Macbook Pro, I wonder? I am confident that few commercial computers
> can surpass the performance of Macbook Pro.
>
>
> I honestly don't know the answer for this...maybe there are Google-
> able benchmarks?
>

Check this out:

http://mixonline.com/recording/applications/audio_outer_limits_portability/

To compare, my Macbook is dualcore intel 2.5 Ghz, has 4GB of ram, 200
GB Hardisk of 7200 RPM, runs Leopard 10.5.8 and Logic 8.

What is your Linux setup?

> Best,
> AKJ

Oz.

>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a better approach is to convince someone like this:
>>
>> http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
>>
>> that including microtonal capability is a competitive advantage.
>>
>> Look at the prices!!
>>
>> Fair Pricing
>> There is only one version of REAPER. We offer two licenses,
>> depending on how you use it.
>>
>> $225: full commercial license.
>> $60: discounted license.
>>
>> You may use the discounted license if any of the following is true:
>>
>> You are an individual, using REAPER only for personal use.
>> You are an individual or business, using REAPER for commercial use,
>> and the yearly gross revenue does not exceed USD $20,000.
>> You are an educational or non-profit organization.
>>
>> Have I switched yet? - no, but I paid lots of money to upgrade
>> Sonar before I found out about this software.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Charles Lucy<lucy@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It looks as though we need to lobby to discourage software
>> companies from offering microtuning only for the top end versions
>> of software.
>>
>>
>> Maybe we should start with Apple for GarageBand.
>>
>> (€800 Euros not pounds) is what I paid for the top of the line
>> version of Melodyne a few years ago. There are less expensive
>> versions and the prices may be lower nowadays.
>> I was a fairly early adopter, having been running a krak for a few
>> months, I was so impressed that I forked out the €€€ for the
>> real thing.
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 20:03, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>>
>>> 800 pounds for a license is beyond ridiculous.
>>>
>>> I'm going to delve deeper into using the tools I already have and
>>> add reasonable enhancements.
>>> Perhaps in part it is because I live in the midwest and not on the
>>> coasts of the US that this seems so incredibly high. That's more >>> money than I paid for the HP 2.4 ghz, 6 gig ram, 1 tb quadcore
>>> system I use.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry - but not only is their microtonal support to ask for -
>>> reasonable prices too if you truly want the tools for microtonal
>>> music to become widespread.
>>>
>>> Lets see.... celemony DNA or down payment on a car?.... hmmmm.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> In a procrustean manner rather...
>>>
>>> Oz.
>>>
>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here are the latest postings in the melodyne saga.
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys
>>>>
>>>> micro tuning is part of Melodyne studio. It hasn't been part of
>>>> Melodyne plugin or Melodyne uno, so therefore it's not in the
>>>> feature set of Melodyne editor.
>>>> But we will take this as a strong feature request for future
>>>> updates.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> lucytune:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Stefan;
>>>>
>>>> As studio license holders, we didn't realise that this was a
>>>> feature not included in the other versions. So does this mean
>>>> that we will be able to use the microtuning tables when the
>>>> studio version of DNA is released?
>>>>
>>>> For the future of microtuning it would be preferable that all
>>>> future versions of Melodyne were to include microtonal>>>> capabilities. There has been a similar problem with GarageBand
>>>> and Apple, who for some time had failed to include microtuning
>>>> capability in GarageBand, although it was provided with Logic Pro.
>>>>
>>>> It is unfortunate that this practice of omitting microtuning has
>>>> evolved for purely mercantile reasons, as it has resulted in the
>>>> the unanticipated consequence of limiting the growth of
>>>> microtuning to those who can afford the top of range products.
>>>>
>>>> One could also put the philosophical argument that it is
>>>> restricting the evolution, and future of music beyond 12edo, in a
>>>> plutocratic manner.
>>>>
>>>> This of course is contrary to the intention of all the
>>>> microtonalists that I know
>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 13:23, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is catastrophic. Why would any company which already had
>>>>> implemented a microtuning architecture throw it away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oz.
>>>>>
>>>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Charles Lucy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks as though Celemony are going to remove microtonal
>>>>>> capability with the new Melodyne beta.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Check out the bug report forum at this url:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.celemony.com/userforum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4984
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and please register your protests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2009, at 04:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > I have got it up and running, yet it looks as though they have
>>>>>>> > yet to add the microtuning capabilities. i.e. they have left
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> > the old tuning table function, so please will those interested
>>>>>>> > request it, so that DNA will enable us to microtune
>>>>>>> > polyphonically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What function is missing? Part II of the video clearly shows
>>>>>>> the ability to move notes in pitch to the nearest cent,
>>>>>>> displayed
>>>>>>> in the toolbar above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Carl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>>>> lucy@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Lucy
>>>> lucy@lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>>>
>>>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>>>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>>>
>>>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>>>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucy
>> lucy@...
>>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>>
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:
>> http://www.lucytune.com
>>
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
>> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Aaron Krister Johnson
>> http://www.akjmusic.com
>> http://www.untwelve.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.untwelve.org
>
>
>
>

On 19.09.2009, at 14:09, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Indeed? What music programs designed for Linux do you suggest for us > Mac-users?

Its a long list of open source audio software available for the Mac (some is also available for Windows, but not all).

Ardour, Audacity, Jack and friends, Csound, SuperCollider (originally Mac, now also Linux), Ceres3, etc.

Best
Torsten

Notation Editor - http://www.noteflight.com/
Online DAW's - http://www.indabamusic.com/, http://digimix.com/,
http://www.tracksandfields.com/

Some of these are startups that haven't actually taken off yet, but
supposedly are in the works.

And if you haven't seen http://www.hobnox.com/audiotool yet, then
you're in for a shock.

-Mike

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike could you point out the notation editor and DAW?
>
> This sounds cool!
>
> " I've been seeing online
> notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
> DAW/sequencer pop up lately."
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm personally digging the shift towards web applications and away
>> from the traditional paradigm altogether. I've been seeing online
>> notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
>> DAW/sequencer pop up lately. These are obviously no match for Logic
>> and Photoshop right now, but I think that's more of a limitation of
>> the current web architecture that we have than a fundamental rule of
>> technology.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone fundamentally redesigns
>> the architecture of all of this so that web applications can be more
>> fundamentally tied in with the operating system the better (Isn't this
>> the goal of what Google wants to do?). Maybe this will never be
>> practical for something like a DAW, but it's a great idea for
>> something like an online notation editor. There isn't really much
>> intensive realtime DSP work going on there.
>>
>> (And if you're as eternally optimistic about the future as I am, then
>> there might even be an online DAW someday too.)
>>
>> -Mike
>
>

Very cool!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Sep 19, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

> Notation Editor - http://www.noteflight.com/
> Online DAW's - http://www.indabamusic.com/, http://digimix.com/,
> http://www.tracksandfields.com/
>
> Some of these are startups that haven't actually taken off yet, but
> supposedly are in the works.
>
> And if you haven't seen http://www.hobnox.com/audiotool yet, then
> you're in for a shock.
>
> -Mike
>

Thanks Mike!!

I signed up for indabamusic - chris vaisvil or SoOn Label - I'm going to
give this one a go.

I guess these are part of the coming wave of "cloud computing" apps.

Chris

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

>
>
> Notation Editor - http://www.noteflight.com/
> Online DAW's - http://www.indabamusic.com/, http://digimix.com/,
> http://www.tracksandfields.com/
>
> Some of these are startups that haven't actually taken off yet, but
> supposedly are in the works.
>
> And if you haven't seen http://www.hobnox.com/audiotool yet, then
> you're in for a shock.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...<chrisvaisvil%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike could you point out the notation editor and DAW?
> >
> > This sounds cool!
> >
> > " I've been seeing online
> > notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
> > DAW/sequencer pop up lately."
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...<battaglia01%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm personally digging the shift towards web applications and away
> >> from the traditional paradigm altogether. I've been seeing online
> >> notation editors, online graphics programs, and even one online
> >> DAW/sequencer pop up lately. These are obviously no match for Logic
> >> and Photoshop right now, but I think that's more of a limitation of
> >> the current web architecture that we have than a fundamental rule of
> >> technology.
> >>
> >> As far as I'm concerned, as soon as someone fundamentally redesigns
> >> the architecture of all of this so that web applications can be more
> >> fundamentally tied in with the operating system the better (Isn't this
> >> the goal of what Google wants to do?). Maybe this will never be
> >> practical for something like a DAW, but it's a great idea for
> >> something like an online notation editor. There isn't really much
> >> intensive realtime DSP work going on there.
> >>
> >> (And if you're as eternally optimistic about the future as I am, then
> >> there might even be an online DAW someday too.)
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >
> >
>
>