marino

Urgh. A mini-storm hit some cities in central Italy yesterday, including Roma... but nothing like the devastation you had in several zones of the North. Hope no damage was done to your people and equipment.

It happened to me a couple of times. No permanent damage to the instruments, but in one occasion my Wavestation lost all its internal sounds, and I had to reprogram the whole set while my bandmates were having dinner nearby... Ulp. Where was that?

I have a Yamaha G2 as well. It was built in 1973 IIRC, and it's not a "baby grand" as the guy in the video says; it's 175 cm long. Btw you can have it for a mere 500,000 dollars. It's very well mantained. Quite a bargain!

Things are proceeding crazily in the synthesizer world. The Spirit is one of those unique machines, standing out among the Italian electronic instruments, a bit like the Elka Synthex. Bob Moog was involved in the design quite heavily. Like Elka, Crumar wasn't considered a top-class brand at the time, although every other band had one or two on stage. In the early eighties, they tried to do something more top-notch, for example financing the GDS project from Bell Labs. I believe that the Spirit comes from the same period. Also, I know that the people at the "new" Crumar are competent and passionate. And I personally love the sound of the Spirit, and its unusual and interesting architecture. That said, I heard that the new Spirit is going to cost 4000 Euros... which frankly, is a price very few musician can afford for a monophonic synth with no patch memory. Still, I wish them every success... and I would love to put my hands on one, since the Spirit is one of the few vintage synths that I have never played. Maybe next time Crumar could try to design a 'new' instrument inspired by it... with some modern additions and a more reasonable price.

I agree with everything you said. Dealing almost exclusively with music, the other applications that you mentioned escaped me... but you're absolutely right about spoken voice treatment and quick-delivery projects. In fact, I can imagine using it for instantaneous treatment of singers (to set a quick voice sound for immediate listening). And yes, presenting multiple masters to a client is playing with fire... usually

Finally, very very late, I'm able to share my experience with Master Plan. Before I begin, I'd like to say something about my own relationship with audio: Although I have been recording music my whole life, I have no specific education in audio engineering; however, I have certainly learned something by working on countless recordings in different music genres: Jazz, rock, classical, ethnic, electronic. I have mixed and mastered a few things by myself, like stuff for videos, television or theater – but for actual records, I have always mixed and mastered in a real studio, alongside some good tech. I have certainly learned a lot this way – mainly that my space and equipment at home are hopelessly inadequate... which has not prevented me from mixing and mastering my latest record at home. Being a work of rather abstract electronic music, I thought I'd take the risk. Back to Master Plan. I think that the various functions have been described wonderfully by Craig – which kind of frees me to just share my very personal impressions. The whole idea seems to present an unintimidating system for the *musician* who has limited confidence with technical terms and procedures – in other words, people like me. However, I have some experience with eq, compressors, limiters, etc. - so I find this approach a two-edged sword: Quite often, I would have liked to know what exactly was going on with the various functions, 'without' needing an analyzer to find out. (thinking about it, maybe a built-in analyzer could have been educational) I tried Master Plan with a whole bunch of different materials: From older pieces from the times when “mastering” meant just to put a bunch of songs in the right order and to balance their volumes, to simple stuff like demos for bandmates, to finished works (both mastered and unmastered), to songs from my published records. In all cases, music I'm extremely familiar with. I started my tests with the most obvious parameter, the “Loud” knob. Wow! I mean, wow. Even with material that had been already compressed and brought close to max loudness, this thing was able to increase the perceived volume by... a whole lot. And most important, it did without the slightest sign of squashing or degrading the sound. Of course, when brought to the extreme limits, it started actual distortion. But used in the reasonable range, the efficiency of this algorithm, coupled with its great “musicality”, is uncanny! And the reasonable range is very wide anyway. To my ears, it also seems to gently emphasize attack transients, but perhaps that just goes together with the increased loudness. In any case, hats off for this magic knob; even with just this one parameter, the program would have been worthy in my opinion. The “Wide” function does what you expect: It widens the stereo image. Again, it does so in a rather musical way; and like several other parameters in Master Plan, it seems to work in a gentle manner, even when pushed to the max. In fact, this also applies to the Clean and Calm functions, which sound like mild adjustments in eq – and also to Thick (a gentle saturation) and Smooth (slight compression). Craig has already described what they do in some detail. Now, all these parameters are very well designed: Their frequencies, curves and dynamic responses are set in a masterful way, and are useful in a variety of situations. However, the effectiveness of this kind of processing is very dependent on the source material. Sometimes I found myself thinking, “if I only could move the center frequency just a little bit..” Also, I miss the possibility of cranking a parameter to more extreme values. I find that sometimes, momentarily setting a function to exaggerated levels helps finding the actual level or frequency that the piece needs. That said, if the target is the musician who doesn't want to mess with more complex details, the parameters are very well thought, and useful in most cases. The “Unity” button is incredibly useful! In conjunction with the Bypass function, it allows you to check what you have really done to your sound, independently from the perceived volume. Every mastering program should have this function. Now for the part that I didn't like too much: Fixed low/high eq, and especially fixed 3-band compression, with no other parameter than compression level. Once again, the frequencies, curves, etc. are set in a meaningful and musical way, and can be useful in many situations. But for control freaks like me, the compromise is a bit too high here. I absolutely need a good graphic or paragraphic equalizer. And for multiband compression, for every band I need to set the center frequency, the range, and other stuff like the attack/release parameters, according to the type of material. I apologize for not including audio material; my music computer is ko at the moment, and I was forced to work in a different environment. I'm also fighting a number of other troubles, of which I'll spare you the details. So the big question is, would I use Master Plan as the sole mastering tool for a project? For music intended for publication, I'm not sure. I would probably proceed as usual, with a chain of different specialized programs... then I would use Master Plan at the end of the chain, using mainly the magic “Loud” knob, and maybe a couple of other, final touches. But for non-critical material, probably I would. It's very friendly, fast, easy to use and musical. If the source material doesn't need any drastic adjustment, you can set a good sound in minutes. Once again, the intended user seems to be the musician who prefers not to deal with too many technicalities; the presence of presets seems to confirm this. For this type of music maker, Master Plan could be a godsend.

The Chroma was my main synth for 11/12 years. I learned complex subtractive synthesis on it. I know, it was an exercise in masochism given the interface, but I was young and very, very hungry. Ring modulators, alternative routings, filters in series or parallel... that damn piece of paper resided permanently over the synth, and after a while I started working in studios not only as a pianist/keyboardist, but as a programmer as well. An highlight came when they used my oboe and vibraphone sounds on the Chroma, rather than the sampled ones from the Kurzweil 250. (well, the vibraphone wasn't too realistic to be honest... but it fitted the arrangement quite well ) I also had the Apple IIe computer with their proprietary pre-MIDI interface, which I used mainly to organize sound banks. But it was a bit unreliable, heavy as hell, and its sound didn't sit very well with the over-present digital instruments, like the Yamaha FM stuff. So when in the late 90s someone made me a decent offer, I sold it, with all my sounds in it. It was the rational thing to do, but I still miss it... it was an unique instrument.

Looks a lot like my apartment!

Haha! I particularly liked the titles under the "Technique" section. We have something similar in Italy, but more dedicated to the pros, or at least to those keyboardists who are actually working. Mostly untranslatable, sorry.

I just sent a small amount from the Donations page. I think that I'll set a monthly transfer from Paypal for future donations.

I'm not sure what the best solution would be, and I'll gladily follow what the admins and the members decide. That said, I'll share my thoughts. - I would accept ads no problem, but i would prefer for them to be at least music-related. This is to avoid generic, click-sucking links which, among other things, wouldn't encourage members to click on them. - About ad blockers: I have noticed that some sites require you to whitelist the site in your ad blocker to let you in. Although not a super-nice solution, it could be a way to overcome the problem. - About the matter of extra content, etc.: While I would love to see the Boddicker material, that's not the reason I keep visiting KC. The main reason is the interaction with the other members, a community of expert, knowledgeable players. Along the years, I have received countless good advice from the people here, and I don't think I need any extra motivation to keep coming back. - Edit: I would accept subscriptions as well, but I don't think it would be the best way to attract new members, or even to keep all existing ones. Just my 1 cent...

A few random considerations. - A few years ago, I took a very conscious decision to stay away from modular systems. Not because I don't love them, I really do. But having a tendency to build complex patches, the fact of not being able to recreate them exactly the next day (or year) would have driven me crazy! I have a friend who owns a huge modular system, and when I visit him we have great fun, but it usually takes a long time to perfect a sound, perhaps even doing several - equally good - variations along the way. The fact that all those goodies will be lost forever gives me an uncomfortable sense of wasted time. Today, I can barely stand even synthesizers without patch memory (although I have a couple). However... - I think that having everything too exact and repeatable is equally unhealthy. The little differences in room acoustics, listening situations etc. are only natural. It's like having two or three oscillators always in perfect tuning and phase relationship: It hurts the humans' nervous system. We need some variety and unpredictability. That's why VCOs sound so pleasing! I can understand this feeling, but I believe that it has more to do with our expectations than with the actual sound quality... I mean, if we grew up with a particular record and we have loved it all our lives, we tend to hear any change as a betrayal. I actually love some remastering, and hate some other. I have even made experiments, playing old and new versions of, say, "Close to the Edge" in both original and remastered versions for some of my students, and many of them preferred the most recent version... I guess it all depends on who's doing the job. I recently made an electronic music album, where I re-elaborated several pieces from a period of 30 years. I no longer even own some of the instruments that I used, so I decided to redo almost everything. It was an exhausting job, but I am glad that I did it. I think that all the pieces sound better now. And btw, I love the sound that Jarre achieved on "Live in your Living Room"!

Ok, so I have read the Quick Start Guide and I did some more research, so now I should be able to answer to my own original questions. - Is the LFO on the Pro 800 global, per voice or selectable? This is still uncertain. - Can you stack two instances of your patch and detune them? 4-voice polyphony could be an acceptable sacrifice in some circumstances, in exchange for a bigger sound. It looks like you *can't* do this. You can put the instrument in monophonic Unison, and there's even a "Chord" mode - but no way to play two layered instances of the same sound in 4-voice polyphony. Shame! - I guess there's one filter per voice, I'd like a confirmation. I have heard some note articulation on demos that seem to confirm it. - Are all parameters accessible from the panel, or have you to use a computer or controller to reach the less common functions? No need for a computer, it seems. However, quite a few double-push moves to access some parameters. And to reach an initialized patch, you have to turn the instrument off and back on while pressing a button... not the end of the world, but a bit quirky. Of course, it's $399........

Which inevitably reminds me of...

Tenet? Great movie - except that you have to watch it three times to start realizing what the heck is happening...

Ha ha, thanks Craig - but to write a proper review, I feel that I would have needed to discuss the sequencer, arpeggiator, and paraphony as well. These are sought-after function these days, and they are implemented quite well in the Pro 3. I just happened to be less interested in those, so I simply ignored them... 🙃

I had completely missed this thread! Thank you for the smiles and giggles.

Well, of course. Every instrument that I have sold had my sounds inside, hundreds of patches, dozens of sleepless night... The thought of some of the old instruments triggers memories of different periods of my life. I even recall the smell of some of them. I had dreams of my Rhodes Chroma for years after I had sold it. And the Rhodes 73 ep was frankly too much to carry to gigs, but nothing could ever *really* replace it. I decided to keep the Matrix-12 at all costs, still have it. And I still miss my expanded XP-80, a great board with decent action, aftertouch, and good master functions. I even miss the Roland SH-201, an underrated little monster. Even the midi controllers bring good memories: The Elka MK76, built into its own flight case, with polyphonic aftertouch in the early days; the Studiologic 2001, with four midi ins and four outs with unlimited merge! (I had two, I donated one and the other is about to go). When I finally got a grand piano, I sold my old upright to my then-girlfriend. I had written all my music on that upright, so I was quite attached to it... but every now and then, I could still play it at her place. Of course I asked her a very reasonable sum. And of course, shortly after we split, she sold it for double that amount... There's just one synth that I didn't regret selling: The PPG Wave 2.2. I made the mistake to buy it without trying it first, and I hated its sound from the first note. I used it live with a fusion group in the late 80s, then I sold it for a fraction of the price I had paid.

Thanks Dave! I hope you're doing well! I never get tired of making sounds on the Pro 3. In fact, I have already programmed quite a few more after making the video....

Hello guys, I made another little video with my latest Pro 3 sounds, so I thought to add it to this thread. Enjoy.

The new price looks insane for a good-sounding 8-voice analog poly. Hard to resist! That said, I still would like to clarify a few details, old and new: - Is the LFO on the Pro 800 global, per voice or selectable? - Can you stack two instances of your patch and detune them? 4-voice polyphony could be an acceptable sacrifice in some circumstances, in exchange for a bigger sound. - I guess there's one filter per voice, I'd like a confirmation. - Are all parameters accessible from the panel, or have you to use a computer or controller to reach the less common functions? Especially if it can do two-voice unison/detune with 4-voice polyphony, it would become very tempting for me!

It wasn't used much in pop music, but it's all over a whole generation of film and tv soundtracks. The intermission music for "Gone with the Wind" is all Novachord. You can hear it in Hitchcock's "Rebecca", and also "The Maltese Falcon", "Cat People", "High Noon" "The Ten Commandments", and in several episodes of "The Twilight Zone".

From a teacher: very well put.

I didn't know that they used the Karma system, but it seem to fit well with their music. I like Animal Collective... they start from pop (pop?) and turn it upside down.

I would love to see a "Karmastate" instrument! Unfortunately, the Wavestate UI is already not user-friendly, or simply logic, at all. With all these knobs and buttons, a more rational approach to the many functions would have been welcome. Adding a complete Karma section would be wonderful in theory, but dangerously close to madness... doing it via the editor(s), however, could be viable.