burningbusch
-
Posts
7,996 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by burningbusch
-
-
FYI, there are issues when loading looped files created using either Translator or the Melas Waveform Editor. Both introduce audible artifacts, likely an issue related to incorrect file size or incorrect loop markers. As you cannot get down to the sample level on the Montage/MODX and verify, it's hazy as to what exactly is going on. Chicken Systems has verified the issue and a fix is planned for the next release of Translator expected mid-October. I haven't heard back from Melas. Sample Robot does not have this issue. Its loops are clean.
BTW, I'm not saying that both Translator and the Melas Waveform Editor have the exact issue, only that neither product's files loop properly in the Montage, according to my findings.
Busch.
-
I'm renting a Montage 8 to do some initial programming and conversions. I think I'm going to have to go with the MODX8 ultimately as the Montage doesn't fit on my main desk.
I was thrilled to find out, after some experimentation, I can get the release samples completely under control. In fact, this is the best I've been able to find with any hardware sampler.
Here's a Wurly 200a example. You should be able to hear the funky "bending" of the notes on release, which IMO, make all the difference in the world with Rhodes, Wurlies, etc. It's a bigger part of the sound than you would think and is a major reason digital hardware emulations of these electro-mechanical keyboards sound unrealistic, again IMO.
Purgatory Creek Soundware 200a - Montage
Busch.
-
AFAIK, these screens are all glass.
Triton
https://www.ebay.com/i/253078909012?chn=ps
Kronos
I would be shocked if the Montage/MODX screen was plastic. Plastic would scratch up in a few weeks from constant interaction with fingernails (I always use my fingernails on the Kronos for more precision). I think people assume because some of these screens can give a bit from touch that means they're plastic. I think the difference is how they're attached.
Busch.
-
Busch,
If you personally decide on MODX, I just hope you create sounds for the Montage, which can then also be used in MODX. (You have no doubt heard that Montage cannot read MODX files).
Thanks Barry. Yes, I'm aware of that issue and am trying to work through it. I would very much like to provide products on both.
Busch.
-
I played the MODX8 today...I thought the MODX8 action was fine...and a significant improvement over the MOXF, which I also played.I played all three sizes at Cosmo music today in toronto area. Key action on modx8 is exactly same as the moxf8.
Well, I'm glad that's settled then. ;-)
if theres any improvement on the action, it aint significant. Im pretty intimate with the moxf8 and i didnt feel a difference. it wont be long until someone opens up the board and confirms. But generally if Yamaha is not bragging about a new feature, that means its not new or improved
I defer to anyone with extended experience with these actions. Likely what I found was a result of new vs worn. I will say manufacturers do routinely revise things like keyboard actions without changing designations. Korg did it with the RH3 when the moved from the problematic contacts. Internally, they might be called rev 1, 2, 3, etc. but publicly it's just known as the RH3.
Busch.
-
The above Montage/MODX comparison video leaves the viewer with some assumptions that might not be true:
a) That programs/performances with the same name are VOICED the same. That's a BIG assumption. Manufacturers revoicing/tweak all the time.
b) Channels on the mixer and inputs into the recorder are EQed and calibrated the same.
c) A person playing similar passages on two different keyboard actions will sound same.
I'm always highly suspect of the live Youtube comparisons between different systems. That's not how it should be done if you want a completely honest shootout.
I'll say this. If there's that big a difference between IDENTICAL piano programs, then Houston, we have a problem. In a digital system, that just shouldn't be the case. I've done a lot of ABing of modern DACs and the differences should be subtle. Personally, I have zero confidence in that Youtube comparison. None.
I played the MODX8 today and compared it against the Montage8. I was surprised that the overall fit & finish was that close (the MODX just didn't feel cheap). I thought the MODX8 action was fine. Not the same balanced, weighted feel of the Montage, but it was fine and a significant improvement over the MOXF, which I also played. In playing a CFX performance on the Montage, I really liked how it responded dynamically. I pulled up the "same" performance on the MODX and didn't quite get the same reaction. Different actions for sure, possibly different voicing and I was playing through different speaker systems. So my verdict is, no verdict.
I was considering the Montage, not any longer. The MODX has all that I need.
Busch.
-
This is an exciting release from Yamaha. I have a MODX on order. The plan is to put together a collection of sounds along the lines of what I did with the Forte. Because of the 1GB limit, I'm working with looped versions but with the loops way down in the decay so you get the true tone and natural decay until it's nearly inaudible. Anyway, still creates a much smaller instrument.
I'm not sure what will all go into the collection. I'll review the MODX and determine where I think I can add value. Clavinets for sure. I've got some 20 instruments I've sampled over the years. Target is maybe 6-8 instruments and ~500-600MB total, reasonably priced in a single collection.
But we'll see, so no promises until I get this further along.
I'm very glad to see the high degree of compatibility between the MODX and Montage. And because at minimum 1GB is guaranteed, I have something to target. I've never bothered with Yamaha in the past because of differences between the models and the fact the storage was variable and optional.
Busch.
-
Why are we discussing the ability of SSDs to stream samples? It's a non-issue.
Early in this thread, we were discussing the idea that the samples are loaded into RAM and not streamed. While that makes sense when taking into consideration manipulation of the samples, it doesn't compute when you look at how large these libraries need to be and how fast they're being loaded.
First, a 10-vel layer piano in which every note is sampled for full duration can't possibly fit into 1.5GB. And if you add round-robins (linear size increase with each round-robin) it gets worse. Second, it takes some time to load 1.5GB into RAM, then purge and load the next ~1.5GB (granted not all would have to be that large). You can see in this video, loading appears to be nearly instantaneous.
[video:youtube]
So I'm still confused as to what's actually going on. It seems like the samples are streamed, not fully loaded into RAM.
Busch.
-
I would argue that these smaller boutique synth makers have placed as much pressure on the majors as the other way around. According to the Modulargrid website there are 6,398 eurorack modules available from well over 100 manufacturers. How many dollars are going into the hands of these smaller manufacturers that would have gone to only a few top majors in the past? If you think Behringer introducing even a dozen modules into the eurorack marketplace is going to have a sizeable negative effect, think again. The business model for a boutique and a Behringer are completely different. So long as the small players create unique, interesting synths, they should do fine, relatively speaking. This synth renaissance isn't going to last forever and will undoubtedly contract at some point. But the opportunities for small manufacturers are much greater today than in the 1970s-1980s. Today, it is far easier to sell directly to customers and with minimal marketing expenses. Look at someone like John Bowen who has been selling the Solarius for years now. He's only sold a few hundred, but he's been able to keep things going with lot sizes of 50 at a time. He sells direct and gets 100% of the revenue vs. a much smaller cut if needed to rely on resellers/distributors. When Behringer was looking at redoing the Roland Vocoder (the Behringer VC340), they were looking at minimum production levels of ~1,000 units to get to the price point they were looking for. That might not sound like a lot, but it actually is for that type of keyboard in this market. Remember the inexpensive Roland Boutiques are all limited production runs, some of only a few thousand units. And you can still pretty much find any of these around (with the exception of the JU-06). I don't know how many DeepMinds they've manufactured. I do know you can find them at steep discounts, less than 1.5 years since their introduction. So selling the number of units Behringer needs to make all this work for them isn't a slamdunk by any stretch.
Busch.
-
To add to what I stated above, reverse samples are possible on the Kronos but only if the samples are loaded into RAM. Doesn't work with streaming. A simple application of sample manipulation.
Busch.
-
Loading into RAM makes sense due to the fact this synth is largely about manipulation of the samples, not a traditional players' instrument like the Kronos.
Imagine having the sequencer set up to change the playback start location of the sample randomly with each step. And imagine it set to 250BPM with 16 note duration. This won't work using streaming. Streaming works by always keeping just the starting segment of each sample in RAM and on the premise that it will bring in the rest of the sample sequentially, not randomly.
Busch.
-
I assume an osc can contain a complex multi-velocity multisample, otherwise, I don't see how this "deep sampling" is going to work.
Now the question is, can a single osc also contain all these articulations: sustain, una, staccatissimo, staccato and all the repetitions? And the intelligence to do round robins and determine that you're playing staccato, for example?
They differentiate between "OSC" and "Instrument".
I´m pretty sure you already understood that architecture detail ...
But,- "just sayin´"
A.C.
You're right.
Busch.
-
In the wild...
[video:youtube]
Highlights
The samples as modulation sources!
Instant 16 note poly mode
Set List
Instant sample stretch
Busch.
-
I think someone mentioned the analog filters as being part of the reason for low polyphony. Am I daft? I don't quite understand that. I would've thought polyphony only related to oscillators/sample size. Sorry, no time to Svengle. You can leave me in the dark if you prefer.
Each voice is going through an analog filter independently (and the related voice specific EGs, modulators, etc) hence the limiting factor. You could just slam an analog filter on to the end of the chain and have it affect all voices, but that's very different.
Busch.
-
This is from the add-on library.
"The Super Grand is an exquisitely deep-sampled Grand Piano. We recorded it in multiple microphone perspectives and up to 10-velocity layers, including Sustains, Una Corda and both Staccatissimo and Staccato short notes with 5 x repetition notes. The shorter articulaofferoffers (sic) the ability to play faster licks on the piano, but retaining the realism and ring-out of shorter notes."
I assume an osc can contain a complex multi-velocity multisample, otherwise, I don't see how this "deep sampling" is going to work.
Now the question is, can a single osc also contain all these articulations: sustain, una, staccatissimo, staccato and all the repetitions? And the intelligence to do round robins and determine that you're playing staccato, for example? Seems to me, that in order to pull off a complex library like this in a fashion anything like you can on a software instrument, there's got to be programming that goes far beyond a traditional synth framework.
Busch.
-
unverified, unofficialAnyone know if the mod source/destination list is out? I may have missed it.Sources:
Inst1
Inst2
OSC1
OSC2
LFO1
LFO2
LFO3
LFO4
Env LPF
Env VCA
Env 3
Env 4
Slider 1
Slider 2
PitchBnd
ModWheel
Pressure
Breath
Foot
Expression
Velocity
Note Num
Slop Osc 1
Slop Osc 2
Slop 3
Slop 4
Noice
DC
Wonder why the step sequencer isn't listed as a source?
Busch
-
I really love this one.
[video:youtube]
Busch.
-
Price: $3,999 (Incl. free shipping within US/EU/CANADA)
Sequential Prophet X Hardware Synth
True Analog Sample Synthesizer
16-Voice Stereo Analog Filters
Ultra-Low Latency. Instant load time
150GB Factory Sample Content (+200.000 Samples)
Advanced Sample and Prophet Synth Engine
512 Core Programs / 512 User Programs / 512 Add-On Programs
Custom Add-On Libraries Available, exclusively from 8Dio
User Sample Import December 2018
https://8dio.com/instrument/prophet-x/
Busch.
-
What I find most interesting is teaming with 8Dio for the sampled sounds. I only have a few of their libraries, but the ones I own exhibit TONS of character. A sharp contrast from the sounds found on a typical ROMpler or earlier wave-based/wavetable synths where they can often best be described as antiseptic to the point of being lifeless. So you have these very organic (sorry, I think it's apt) sampled sounds teamed with synthesizer tones, in whatever way DSI has come up with. It could very well be that the piano, strings, brass, etc. on this synth completely embarrass 99% of what's out there in the hardware world, even though samples are just part of the sound generation.
It will be interesting to see what level of detail is possible, Certainly seems that at minimum there is a single layer multisample (based on the piano demo) but will it support multiple velocity layers and, hopefully, user imported multisamples.
Just speculation, obviously.
Busch.
-
A fun game, no doubt.
Busch.
-
I don't use Spotify so I don't know how it works. Can you select individual tunes and download them to your device? If so, then you're correct there's no difference. If you can't find a specific tune and download it on Spotify, then that's the difference I was making.
With Spotify you can download songs to your devices. You can play those offline, but you need to go online within 30 days (that takes just a brief second to do) to reverify your subscription. There is a limit of 3,333 songs per device. I use this to play music in the car or when hiking to avoid data charges.
Busch.
-
I find it frustrating that otherwise brilliant people like Mike Martin don't understand the difference between copyright infrigement and theft.
Let me try to explain it to you: If we were both in high school, and I copied your essay, that would be copyright infringement. If I broke into your locker and stole your essay, that would be theft. The difference between the two situations is dramatic: in the case of theft, you no longer have an essay to hand in.
The act of copying a performance from YouTube may, or may not, be copyright infringement -- you must also consider the doctrine of fair use. In this US, this is covered under Title 17, Section 107.
Unless you are prepared to make an argument that Tee here is not exempt under section 107 (which allows use for scholarship, research, etc) -- get off your high freakin horse and STFU.
Yes, I will make a strong case that the OP is not entitled to claim "Fair Use." In fact, fair use has NOTHING to do with an individual accessing copyrighted material without compensation to the owner. It is about the re-publication of typical snippets or small segments of copyrighted material. And the courts are most accepting if it is nonprofit education or non-commercial use. Think research papers, classrooms, documentaries, etc.
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
If the OP were able to claim fair use, then any/all musicians would have full access to all recorded music under the guise of "scholarship, research." And any actress wannabe, all movies, using the same rationale. It doesn't work that way and everyone knows that or should know that.
Besides, "fair use" isn't carte blanc. It is simply legal protection in a few, specific cases and there's no guarantee the court will grant you the exception under "fair use." The best option is still to go the copyright owner and ask permission to include their work in yours.
Theft, copyright protection, it's mincing words IMO. The FBI puts it under the umbrella of "theft of IP." "Theft of IP" is a common phrase, so Mike's use is not not out of line. IP, obviously, is a unique type of property but it is considered property under the law nonetheless. But if calling it copyright infringement helps you sleep at night, knock yourself out.
IMO, the best approach would have been for the OP to simply say: "it's nobody's business how I plan on using these utilities." It isn't my business how he uses this stuff. Funny, there are youtube videos that are in fact PD or CC, but that didn't seem to be in anyone's thinking.
Though I try very hard to be a good citizen in this IP space, I'm not perfect. But I'm not going to rationalize that either. I'm not going to rationalize special case exemptions for myself. We play fast and loose with these laws because it's easy to do and chances of getting caught are slim to none. It's that simple.
Busch.
-
What I really like about those stands is that the height and angle of both tiers appear to be completely adjustable. Is that the case?
Busch.
-
I was told a few things regarding the GS/Vox under NDA. I wasn't told whether they're general-purpose CPU or ASIC based, so I can speculate. I suspect they are the later. The boot time of the GS is ~40 seconds which puts it in the same ballpark as ASIC synths. My Forte requires the same ~40 seconds to boot while my Integra-7 takes 25 seconds. This is a far cry from the 2+ minutes on the Kronos. Also, consider the GS is loading six large pianos plus other sounds--FAR larger libraries than other ASIC synths.
I would guess one reason a manufacturer would choose Linux and a general-purpose CPU is that they could exploit the built-in functionality: APIs for GUI, file management, and I/O as well as USB and SATA for expansion options. How much Korg did this with the Kronos I can't say, but it seems plausible. The GS/Vox have no large touchscreen GUI and include only rudimentary file management. They have the look, feel and functionality of an ASIC keyboard.
In the end, I don't think this matters much. ASIC does not guarantee low latency or consistent latency. The new Roland TR-8S has an issue when you move sliders while playing a pattern, the timing is completely out of whack. They will undoubtedly fix this, but does that not give you pause to think the timing might still not be ROCK SOLID? I've used hardware sequencers with obvious timing issues. There was that keyboard, might have been a Roland, which would develop laughable lag when doing a pedal-down glissando. Is that something that that's only triggered when played at the extremes or does latency become less consistent when polyphony increases? Even today it's not uncommon to find laggy interfaces with ASIC synths. 15-20 years ago, Keyboard Magazine did latency testing of a variety of synths and modules and the results were all over the place.
Also, latency is not always a hardware issue. It can be found in the sample. It's not uncommon to find some space between the start of the sample and the actual attack of the sound. The Piano in Blue library had this to an extreme and they modified this based on user complaints. But others do this to add "air" or provide space for attack sample elements. Not all samples are slammed up against the start point. This translates to perceived latency by the player.
Busch.
-
1
-
Yamaha MODX
in The Keyboard Corner
Posted
A simpler, more elegant solution would be for Yamaha to provide transposition offsets in LIVE SET, similar to the Kronos. You keep the original Performance data the same. Provide an indicator -1 or +12 in the LIVE SET slot for that Performance.
Busch.