On the unlikely chance that you haven't found these already through my twitter feed, the Muff forum, or even Matrixsynth, here are my latest video demos, featuring the Flame Clockwork Eurorack module.
Flame Clockwork Demo Pt. 1
Flame Clockwork Demo Pt. 2
Enjoy.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monomachine Couples Counseling
As I mentioned back in September, I had traded both my MKI MachineDrum and MonoMachine for a MKII MachineDrum. Then, in December I decided to pickup a MonoMachine again, this time a MKII to match the MD. The initial reason was to try and fend off the severe Buchla lust I was enduring at that time (which I'm happy/sad/confused to say has not fully gone away).
But, in the months since then (particularly, the new year and onward), I had been once again using the MnM less and less, paying more attention to the modular than anything else and working on ideas for a new album. I was coming very close to selling it, I even made a half-hearted post on twitter about it, but there were no takers.
So there it sat on my desk, next to it's sibling, which does still get regular use, unlit and uninviting. It wasn't until I started thinking about putting together performance material that it crossed my mind to fire up the MnM again. I was again considering a small modular performance system, but I tend to like a lot of complex sounds, swirling in stereo, and I like the performance to be somewhat consistent from performance to performance, otherwise I get frustrated with it not sounding right. Both things that the MnM can handle...and there's the whole recall and syncing with the MD thing.
So, for the last couple of days, the MnM and I have been in "couples counseling". i call it that because that's sort of what it feels like. This on again off again relationship that I would really like to make work (then again, I've never been to couples counseling, so I really have no idea).
The first night was spent with just the manual. Just reading over the feature set and mentally re-aquainting myself with what it can do. I purposefully didn't want to sit down in front of it, tweaking randomly with an empty head and getting stuck in a "sound rut" like I had many times before with it. That approach seems to be no problem with the modular, but doesn't really work for me with the MnM for some reason. The manual quickly reminded me of the arpeggiator and more importantly, the independent trigger tracks and how para-locks work with "trigless trigs", a implementation concept which is fundamentally different from the MD in that you can set param-locks on steps which do not trigger any other aspect to the sound (PITCH, AMP ENV, FILTER ENV, or LFO TRIG).
Building ideas on these concepts *before* actually laying hands seemed to pay off quite well. The following evening I had a long session experimenting with sequencing out lots of param-locks with trigless trigs, separate FILTER and LFO trigs, and never actually laying down pitches; simply playing the sequence of "timbre automation" and holding down notes. It made some very nice drone-y noise-y stuff. I'd love to share, but I did this from the comfort of my couch, away from all the accoutrements of the studio.
Another concept that never initially crossed my mind before was using the arpeggiator to play the DBOX drum "machine" (basically the drum sample sound engine). While it was a little time consuming to search up and down the octaves of sounds (each octave of the keyboard is essentially a different sounding collection of sounds, grouped along the lines of a typical sample kit) to find a "chord" of the right samples for the arpeggiator, the results were very good, especially since the arp can run at different rates than the main sequence and can have shorter than 16 steps in length, including odd numbered steps. Using two different tracks with two different arpeggiators was that much more time consuming, but that much more rewarding as well.
Last evening was spent dealing with "the sound". I dare say I've become quite spoiled by the modular and that much more picky about the "quality" of the sound, and I certainly lean more analogue in my preference, but I certainly don't hate the sound of digital. But, many aspects of sound of the MnM just don't sit well with me and in writing down what those were, they were all ones that either attempt to sound analogue, or ones that I expected to sound analogue. Chief among these are the SWAVE machine and the filters. So, I decided to avoid those as much as possible (easy enough to avoid the SWAVE, not so much the filters) and focus specifically on the most digital aspects of this digital synth - the DPRO and the FM+. Now, the FM+ had long been a favorite since it offers pretty complex FM algos with a very simple (if sometimes unclear) set of controls, but I had not really explored the DPRO wavetable machine that much. Once again, diligence to constrain my scope paid off and I found myself getting sounds that I really liked and did not find myself relying on the filters to dynamically alter the sound and instead only found myself using the filters to shape it a little better, more like an EQ. Now, these most certainly did not resemble anything analogue, but it was digital being as digital as it can and I really liked that.
Now, it's not like I'm totally in love with the MnM again, but I have a new found appreciate for devoting time to it and getting better results from focusing on very specific features/functionality of the instrument. I think the MnM, moreso of the MD, requires more mastery of the device to really extract really unique and great stuff from it...at least for me anyway.
Another interesting rule I set for myself in this process was to NOT SAVE ANYTHING. I know, that's weird right, but I starting thinking about how I get in these "ruts" with this thing and a lot of these ruts start because I'm doing more or less the same process over and over again, and a lot of the time it's because I'm starting by revisiting something I worked on last time, when I stopped because I felt in a rut. It's also a practice that's not possible with the modular, and I wondered if the fact that you cannot save or fully and immediately recall your work on modular makes you think that much more creatively and retain more important bits about what you're doing as your explore the instrument. My early conclusions are that, yes it does.
One of the main downsides I'm still hung up on this point is the lack of a common reverb for all tracks. For example the MD has a global reverb and delay, and a reverb and delay send amount for each track. The MnM conversely has an independent delay for each track (which is fantastic for sound design reasons), but to get a reverb you purpose one of the six tracks as an FX track, and even in that case, it's not a send-return configuration like on the MD. You can route multiple tracks to the FX track running the reverb, but you do not have control over the volume level of the signal from each track going to the reverb, so there's no way to control the amount of reverb for each track. :( It's just as well I guess, upon actually recording it's likely one would just take each track out of the 6 independent mono outputs of the unit and mix in the box.
In the end (end of this post anyway, I'm certainly not through with this whole revisiting the monomachine process), I'm glad I didn't sell it and I've taken the time to explore it again. I may just have some Elektron-based live sets worked out after all.
But, in the months since then (particularly, the new year and onward), I had been once again using the MnM less and less, paying more attention to the modular than anything else and working on ideas for a new album. I was coming very close to selling it, I even made a half-hearted post on twitter about it, but there were no takers.
So there it sat on my desk, next to it's sibling, which does still get regular use, unlit and uninviting. It wasn't until I started thinking about putting together performance material that it crossed my mind to fire up the MnM again. I was again considering a small modular performance system, but I tend to like a lot of complex sounds, swirling in stereo, and I like the performance to be somewhat consistent from performance to performance, otherwise I get frustrated with it not sounding right. Both things that the MnM can handle...and there's the whole recall and syncing with the MD thing.
So, for the last couple of days, the MnM and I have been in "couples counseling". i call it that because that's sort of what it feels like. This on again off again relationship that I would really like to make work (then again, I've never been to couples counseling, so I really have no idea).
The first night was spent with just the manual. Just reading over the feature set and mentally re-aquainting myself with what it can do. I purposefully didn't want to sit down in front of it, tweaking randomly with an empty head and getting stuck in a "sound rut" like I had many times before with it. That approach seems to be no problem with the modular, but doesn't really work for me with the MnM for some reason. The manual quickly reminded me of the arpeggiator and more importantly, the independent trigger tracks and how para-locks work with "trigless trigs", a implementation concept which is fundamentally different from the MD in that you can set param-locks on steps which do not trigger any other aspect to the sound (PITCH, AMP ENV, FILTER ENV, or LFO TRIG).
Building ideas on these concepts *before* actually laying hands seemed to pay off quite well. The following evening I had a long session experimenting with sequencing out lots of param-locks with trigless trigs, separate FILTER and LFO trigs, and never actually laying down pitches; simply playing the sequence of "timbre automation" and holding down notes. It made some very nice drone-y noise-y stuff. I'd love to share, but I did this from the comfort of my couch, away from all the accoutrements of the studio.
Another concept that never initially crossed my mind before was using the arpeggiator to play the DBOX drum "machine" (basically the drum sample sound engine). While it was a little time consuming to search up and down the octaves of sounds (each octave of the keyboard is essentially a different sounding collection of sounds, grouped along the lines of a typical sample kit) to find a "chord" of the right samples for the arpeggiator, the results were very good, especially since the arp can run at different rates than the main sequence and can have shorter than 16 steps in length, including odd numbered steps. Using two different tracks with two different arpeggiators was that much more time consuming, but that much more rewarding as well.
Last evening was spent dealing with "the sound". I dare say I've become quite spoiled by the modular and that much more picky about the "quality" of the sound, and I certainly lean more analogue in my preference, but I certainly don't hate the sound of digital. But, many aspects of sound of the MnM just don't sit well with me and in writing down what those were, they were all ones that either attempt to sound analogue, or ones that I expected to sound analogue. Chief among these are the SWAVE machine and the filters. So, I decided to avoid those as much as possible (easy enough to avoid the SWAVE, not so much the filters) and focus specifically on the most digital aspects of this digital synth - the DPRO and the FM+. Now, the FM+ had long been a favorite since it offers pretty complex FM algos with a very simple (if sometimes unclear) set of controls, but I had not really explored the DPRO wavetable machine that much. Once again, diligence to constrain my scope paid off and I found myself getting sounds that I really liked and did not find myself relying on the filters to dynamically alter the sound and instead only found myself using the filters to shape it a little better, more like an EQ. Now, these most certainly did not resemble anything analogue, but it was digital being as digital as it can and I really liked that.
Now, it's not like I'm totally in love with the MnM again, but I have a new found appreciate for devoting time to it and getting better results from focusing on very specific features/functionality of the instrument. I think the MnM, moreso of the MD, requires more mastery of the device to really extract really unique and great stuff from it...at least for me anyway.
Another interesting rule I set for myself in this process was to NOT SAVE ANYTHING. I know, that's weird right, but I starting thinking about how I get in these "ruts" with this thing and a lot of these ruts start because I'm doing more or less the same process over and over again, and a lot of the time it's because I'm starting by revisiting something I worked on last time, when I stopped because I felt in a rut. It's also a practice that's not possible with the modular, and I wondered if the fact that you cannot save or fully and immediately recall your work on modular makes you think that much more creatively and retain more important bits about what you're doing as your explore the instrument. My early conclusions are that, yes it does.
One of the main downsides I'm still hung up on this point is the lack of a common reverb for all tracks. For example the MD has a global reverb and delay, and a reverb and delay send amount for each track. The MnM conversely has an independent delay for each track (which is fantastic for sound design reasons), but to get a reverb you purpose one of the six tracks as an FX track, and even in that case, it's not a send-return configuration like on the MD. You can route multiple tracks to the FX track running the reverb, but you do not have control over the volume level of the signal from each track going to the reverb, so there's no way to control the amount of reverb for each track. :( It's just as well I guess, upon actually recording it's likely one would just take each track out of the 6 independent mono outputs of the unit and mix in the box.
In the end (end of this post anyway, I'm certainly not through with this whole revisiting the monomachine process), I'm glad I didn't sell it and I've taken the time to explore it again. I may just have some Elektron-based live sets worked out after all.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Mr. Felix Visits A Buchla
So after witnessing my endless back-and-forth Buchla lust over the last several months (and really, it's gone on longer than that), I was extended an invitation to visit the venerable Chris Muir and his Buchla for an afternoon of enlightenment.
Since the Buchla lust had kicked up again as of late, I was bit worried about being exposed directly to a Buchla, but at the same time, I'm practically broke, so I wasn't that worried that I would phone up Don in the morning to place an order. I was anticipating it though.
What I got was something else.
First, the system is as visually striking in person as it is in pictures, this I knew, but after Chris turned up the speakers, I heard something I wasn't expecting. There is definitely something lost when listening to MP3s and possibly even WAV files (I can't remember how many of the demos that I have listened to have been WAVs). There is much more dimension to the sound when you're listening to it through speakers and the details of the sound are much more complex. What came across as almost noise in some MP3s, was a complex harmonic evolution of sound in real life. I'm not trying to be over dramatic, I was just surprised at the very quantifiable difference in hearing the Buchla in real life.
As Chris gave me a tour around his system, it was very interesting to see how he utilized modules in ways that never crossed my mind in the hours I had spent staring at the Buchla web pages and module images. It was equally as interesting to find out that many aspects of the modules worked differently than I understood them to. One thing that excited me was learning that the 291e filter was able to sequence through it's various stages on its own, without an external clock pulse. Each stage of the 291e has a editable time constant which determines the time until it switches to the next stage.
Speaking of the 291e, it was quite impressive. It's definitely not designed to be used as a "standard" synth filter; it's practically half a synthesizer+sequencer all its own. While it's bandpass only, it sounds incredible. It's very clean, clear, and "vocal" sounding, and with some applied audio-rate modulation, has an incredible growl. Listening to Chris make a quick sequence of the filter's stages, with different amounts of FM per stage, and some external CV to the overall frequency, was just stunning. It was like an alien spaceship was somehow singing to me. Once he started using additional nodes of the filter (this was just using node A initially!) it became even more complex. Since the amplitude of each stage is also variable per-stage, it seems to me that a 291e paired up with some kind of source for filtering, is all you need for serious experimental composition.
When we starting talking about how Chris uses his setup again and I was surprised to find that he uses his 210e router almost exclusively as an attenuator for one of his 281e modules and as a audio matrix mixer for FX (delay, reverb, etc) sends. Chris has a basic "base patch" which he builds on and modifies slightly as necessary, but also makes frequent use of the preset abilities of the 200e. While it's always interesting too see how other people use a particular module, it was becoming extra interesting to see how Chris utilized his setup and how much it differed from how I imagined using a very similar assortment of modules. Previously, I believed the Buchla was tailored for a fairly specific use of the system, or at least more specific than say combining your favorite euro/frac/modcan-format modules. Listening to Chris describe how he works with his system really changed my perspective on that. I was clearly underestimating the Buchla.
We focused on the 256e next, which I found out was one of the few modules I had fully understood going in, but it was great to see how much, and to what extent, that Chris used it. Not only does it function as a way to alter and scale incoming CV (including inverting and scaled inversion), it also allows for mixing/cross-fading multiple CV signals as well as VCA for CV.
Over the next hour (or who knows how long it was, time was hard to keep track of), we bounced around to various aspects of the system, and finally settled into the 261e oscillators...or I should say Complex Waveform Generators. To call it an oscillator really is not doing the module justice. Being two oscillators, at least one VCA, multiple waveshapers all rolled into one, the thing is practically a voice all on it's own. While most modular folks balk at the fact that the waveform generation is digital, there are several advantages that come along with that. Chief of those for me was the fact that when Range is set to "Track", the modulation osc tuning determines a pitch ratio, which is maintained as you tune the principal osc. This was absolutely amazing to use in practice. I simple tuned the modulation osc to get the desired FM side bands, and then simply use the primary osc tune to control the overall pitch. Another interesting aspect of the 261e that cannot be discerned by staring at pictures is that there are several modulation modes possible. It's not just pitch, timbe, or amplitude modulation, but rather those individually plus combinations of all of them! Pitch + Timbre modulation was quite possibly a favorite, although amplitude modulation with independent control over Timbre and Symmetry was very cool too. Even more interesting is that the Pitch modulation is always done using sine waves, where as the other modes follow the waveshape setting of the modulation osc. This seems like a limitation, but being able to have Pitch+Timbre modulation, and vary the waveshape of the modulation osc and have that only affect the Timbre was fucking awesome. Limitation my ass! Speaking of which, the variable waveshaping didn't sound that bad at all! Based on various opinions that I'd read already, I expected an almost "unusable" PWM sound, but it wasn't that bad at all. It was no AFG, but it had a very unique and special sound. Along those same lines, the Hard Sync sound is not the ripping harmonic sound that one typically associates with Hard Sync, but it had it's own endearing character. The interesting thing was that Sync on it's own was not that impressive, but Sync mixed with FM+Timbre modulation made sounds like I had never heard before. Like circuits being tortured.
I knew I was going to like the 261e going in, but I had no idea to the extent at which I would love it. The waveshaping (timbre, symmetry, and high-order) combined with FM/AM is just absolutely incredible. The lack of additional "unwanted" side-bands that digital FM offers really brings an amazing pallete of sound to the table when paired up with waveshaping. I literally could have sat there for hours turning those 4 controls (modulation index, timbre, symmetry, and high-order). The ability to go from a simple sine wave to a sound that I can't even begin to describe was...well...fucking incredible! I was also surprised how much the controls interacted with each other. Depending on how much timbre and high-order I had adjusted, Symmetry would yield very different timbrel results. Likewise, depending on how much of the Modulation Index and Symmetry I had set, the Timbre would yield wildly different results. And, I'm no stranger to teaming up FM and waveshaping. Since I picked up the Doepfer A-137, I've been feeding it a steady diet of FM and while the results are fantastic as well, I've never had the control and range of sound with so few controls. I'm really starting to run out of words to explain how awesome I thought the 261e was...and this is 1,000x more than I said to Chris after turing the knobs for who knows how long (Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I simply said "Oh...wow!")
We wrapped up talking about various system configurations, thoughts on the 222e, various methods of control, portability, setup time, all sorts of little things.
At this point, you're probably thinking, "ok, so here's where he starts talking about selling all his euro modules and how the Buchla is the greatest thing ever". Oddly enough, I don't feel that way at all. I thought for sure that after visiting Chris, listening to him talk about his system, and getting quality some hands on time, that I would know, one way or the other, if a Buchla is in my future. Well, I don't.
I certainly know a lot more about the system now, and feel much more educated on its use and its strengths and weaknesses, particularly from an artist's perspective. I feel like I now can make a better, more educated, decision on wether or not to turn my attentions toward a Buchla, and I feel really great about that. I know that if I do decide to walk down that path, I know what to expect along the way. For now though, I'm going to stand here at the cross-roads thinking about both roads.
....
But... I do foresee a 261e and 291e in my future. ;)
Since the Buchla lust had kicked up again as of late, I was bit worried about being exposed directly to a Buchla, but at the same time, I'm practically broke, so I wasn't that worried that I would phone up Don in the morning to place an order. I was anticipating it though.
What I got was something else.
First, the system is as visually striking in person as it is in pictures, this I knew, but after Chris turned up the speakers, I heard something I wasn't expecting. There is definitely something lost when listening to MP3s and possibly even WAV files (I can't remember how many of the demos that I have listened to have been WAVs). There is much more dimension to the sound when you're listening to it through speakers and the details of the sound are much more complex. What came across as almost noise in some MP3s, was a complex harmonic evolution of sound in real life. I'm not trying to be over dramatic, I was just surprised at the very quantifiable difference in hearing the Buchla in real life.
As Chris gave me a tour around his system, it was very interesting to see how he utilized modules in ways that never crossed my mind in the hours I had spent staring at the Buchla web pages and module images. It was equally as interesting to find out that many aspects of the modules worked differently than I understood them to. One thing that excited me was learning that the 291e filter was able to sequence through it's various stages on its own, without an external clock pulse. Each stage of the 291e has a editable time constant which determines the time until it switches to the next stage.
Speaking of the 291e, it was quite impressive. It's definitely not designed to be used as a "standard" synth filter; it's practically half a synthesizer+sequencer all its own. While it's bandpass only, it sounds incredible. It's very clean, clear, and "vocal" sounding, and with some applied audio-rate modulation, has an incredible growl. Listening to Chris make a quick sequence of the filter's stages, with different amounts of FM per stage, and some external CV to the overall frequency, was just stunning. It was like an alien spaceship was somehow singing to me. Once he started using additional nodes of the filter (this was just using node A initially!) it became even more complex. Since the amplitude of each stage is also variable per-stage, it seems to me that a 291e paired up with some kind of source for filtering, is all you need for serious experimental composition.
When we starting talking about how Chris uses his setup again and I was surprised to find that he uses his 210e router almost exclusively as an attenuator for one of his 281e modules and as a audio matrix mixer for FX (delay, reverb, etc) sends. Chris has a basic "base patch" which he builds on and modifies slightly as necessary, but also makes frequent use of the preset abilities of the 200e. While it's always interesting too see how other people use a particular module, it was becoming extra interesting to see how Chris utilized his setup and how much it differed from how I imagined using a very similar assortment of modules. Previously, I believed the Buchla was tailored for a fairly specific use of the system, or at least more specific than say combining your favorite euro/frac/modcan-format modules. Listening to Chris describe how he works with his system really changed my perspective on that. I was clearly underestimating the Buchla.
We focused on the 256e next, which I found out was one of the few modules I had fully understood going in, but it was great to see how much, and to what extent, that Chris used it. Not only does it function as a way to alter and scale incoming CV (including inverting and scaled inversion), it also allows for mixing/cross-fading multiple CV signals as well as VCA for CV.
Over the next hour (or who knows how long it was, time was hard to keep track of), we bounced around to various aspects of the system, and finally settled into the 261e oscillators...or I should say Complex Waveform Generators. To call it an oscillator really is not doing the module justice. Being two oscillators, at least one VCA, multiple waveshapers all rolled into one, the thing is practically a voice all on it's own. While most modular folks balk at the fact that the waveform generation is digital, there are several advantages that come along with that. Chief of those for me was the fact that when Range is set to "Track", the modulation osc tuning determines a pitch ratio, which is maintained as you tune the principal osc. This was absolutely amazing to use in practice. I simple tuned the modulation osc to get the desired FM side bands, and then simply use the primary osc tune to control the overall pitch. Another interesting aspect of the 261e that cannot be discerned by staring at pictures is that there are several modulation modes possible. It's not just pitch, timbe, or amplitude modulation, but rather those individually plus combinations of all of them! Pitch + Timbre modulation was quite possibly a favorite, although amplitude modulation with independent control over Timbre and Symmetry was very cool too. Even more interesting is that the Pitch modulation is always done using sine waves, where as the other modes follow the waveshape setting of the modulation osc. This seems like a limitation, but being able to have Pitch+Timbre modulation, and vary the waveshape of the modulation osc and have that only affect the Timbre was fucking awesome. Limitation my ass! Speaking of which, the variable waveshaping didn't sound that bad at all! Based on various opinions that I'd read already, I expected an almost "unusable" PWM sound, but it wasn't that bad at all. It was no AFG, but it had a very unique and special sound. Along those same lines, the Hard Sync sound is not the ripping harmonic sound that one typically associates with Hard Sync, but it had it's own endearing character. The interesting thing was that Sync on it's own was not that impressive, but Sync mixed with FM+Timbre modulation made sounds like I had never heard before. Like circuits being tortured.
I knew I was going to like the 261e going in, but I had no idea to the extent at which I would love it. The waveshaping (timbre, symmetry, and high-order) combined with FM/AM is just absolutely incredible. The lack of additional "unwanted" side-bands that digital FM offers really brings an amazing pallete of sound to the table when paired up with waveshaping. I literally could have sat there for hours turning those 4 controls (modulation index, timbre, symmetry, and high-order). The ability to go from a simple sine wave to a sound that I can't even begin to describe was...well...fucking incredible! I was also surprised how much the controls interacted with each other. Depending on how much timbre and high-order I had adjusted, Symmetry would yield very different timbrel results. Likewise, depending on how much of the Modulation Index and Symmetry I had set, the Timbre would yield wildly different results. And, I'm no stranger to teaming up FM and waveshaping. Since I picked up the Doepfer A-137, I've been feeding it a steady diet of FM and while the results are fantastic as well, I've never had the control and range of sound with so few controls. I'm really starting to run out of words to explain how awesome I thought the 261e was...and this is 1,000x more than I said to Chris after turing the knobs for who knows how long (Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I simply said "Oh...wow!")
We wrapped up talking about various system configurations, thoughts on the 222e, various methods of control, portability, setup time, all sorts of little things.
At this point, you're probably thinking, "ok, so here's where he starts talking about selling all his euro modules and how the Buchla is the greatest thing ever". Oddly enough, I don't feel that way at all. I thought for sure that after visiting Chris, listening to him talk about his system, and getting quality some hands on time, that I would know, one way or the other, if a Buchla is in my future. Well, I don't.
I certainly know a lot more about the system now, and feel much more educated on its use and its strengths and weaknesses, particularly from an artist's perspective. I feel like I now can make a better, more educated, decision on wether or not to turn my attentions toward a Buchla, and I feel really great about that. I know that if I do decide to walk down that path, I know what to expect along the way. For now though, I'm going to stand here at the cross-roads thinking about both roads.
....
But... I do foresee a 261e and 291e in my future. ;)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
NAMM 2009 - MaxMSP - Math
Once again, long time no post.
With my Serge lust more or less in check these days, I headed off to NAMM '09. I saw many cool things, particularly the new Plan B Zero cases (if you read this blog, you no doubt have already seen pictures), but I was surprised with what caught my eye the most.
The first was Max for Live. Most folks who pay attention to the Ableton community knew that something like this was coming after Ableton and Cycling '74 "joined forces" last year, however I didn't really expect such a simple, yet elegant implementation.
The other thing that really stuck we was the JazzMutant Lemur. I finally got to see one up close and personal and I was very impressed with what I saw. Not only the quality of the hardware, but with the programming environment and the new v2 software.
Lots of interesting new things, and the one thing that it all spurred was for me to take a good look at MaxMSP for once.
I used to own Reaktor and stumbled through that ok enough, but never really pleased with what I came up with. It was probably part lack of knowledge and part lack of direction, but it always seemed like the result wasn't worth the amount of time necessary to achieve that result. I had similar expectation with Max going in, and when I tried diving right in, deconstructing some of the example patchers, I was immediately confused. Rather than get discouraged, which I'm used to doing, I decided to take the less exciting route and go through the tutorials one by one. And boy am I glad I did.
The tutorials are very well thought out, don't move forward in too big of steps, and the overall documentation is excellent. Being able to select an object and hit a quick keycommand to pull up the full documentation on that object is wonderful. My favorite though is being able to just hit 'n' to start creating a new object...just start typing the name of the object that you want it will start auto-completing the various possible objects. Too slick! Max 5 is looking great too, I'm a bit of a picky bastard when it comes to UI and the older generations were always a bit of a turn off.
Another interesting turn is that I've become more interested in the math behind digital synthesis. I was never very good at math, although it wasn't do so much to lack of skill as it was a lack of motivation. Like many more in my generation, I suffer from a severe lack of motivation for things I'm not interested in, and during high school and college, I couldn't have been less interested in math. I could never see a practical use for what I was learning, and being a total smart ass, I would pose that question to my math teachers frequently. I really did want to know though, and I never did get a good answer. Always the "you need to know it" or the slightly more specific "you need to know it for calculus". The last math I actually remember studying was quadratic equations and polynomials. What do know, that's the basis behind much of digital synthesis, particularly waveshaping and filter design. The last few days have been filled with wonderful exploration into the world of Chebyshev polynomials, and their very pleasing results on sine waves.
So, where am I going with this? It's a basic plea to math teachers, should any read this blog (or even if you know some math teachers). PLEASE, please, tell your students some interesting or at least practical uses for the math that you are teaching them. If some student asks "what do we need to know this for", they may not be trying to be a smart ass, they very well would just like to know. I really wish someone had done this for me during my education. I might have come to really enjoy and like math, rather than hate it and, later in life regret, not putting in more effort.
Oh well.
PS. I have a few euro modules for sale currently, if any of you are interested:
http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2935
Cheers everyone and Happy New Year!
With my Serge lust more or less in check these days, I headed off to NAMM '09. I saw many cool things, particularly the new Plan B Zero cases (if you read this blog, you no doubt have already seen pictures), but I was surprised with what caught my eye the most.
The first was Max for Live. Most folks who pay attention to the Ableton community knew that something like this was coming after Ableton and Cycling '74 "joined forces" last year, however I didn't really expect such a simple, yet elegant implementation.
The other thing that really stuck we was the JazzMutant Lemur. I finally got to see one up close and personal and I was very impressed with what I saw. Not only the quality of the hardware, but with the programming environment and the new v2 software.
Lots of interesting new things, and the one thing that it all spurred was for me to take a good look at MaxMSP for once.
I used to own Reaktor and stumbled through that ok enough, but never really pleased with what I came up with. It was probably part lack of knowledge and part lack of direction, but it always seemed like the result wasn't worth the amount of time necessary to achieve that result. I had similar expectation with Max going in, and when I tried diving right in, deconstructing some of the example patchers, I was immediately confused. Rather than get discouraged, which I'm used to doing, I decided to take the less exciting route and go through the tutorials one by one. And boy am I glad I did.
The tutorials are very well thought out, don't move forward in too big of steps, and the overall documentation is excellent. Being able to select an object and hit a quick keycommand to pull up the full documentation on that object is wonderful. My favorite though is being able to just hit 'n' to start creating a new object...just start typing the name of the object that you want it will start auto-completing the various possible objects. Too slick! Max 5 is looking great too, I'm a bit of a picky bastard when it comes to UI and the older generations were always a bit of a turn off.
Another interesting turn is that I've become more interested in the math behind digital synthesis. I was never very good at math, although it wasn't do so much to lack of skill as it was a lack of motivation. Like many more in my generation, I suffer from a severe lack of motivation for things I'm not interested in, and during high school and college, I couldn't have been less interested in math. I could never see a practical use for what I was learning, and being a total smart ass, I would pose that question to my math teachers frequently. I really did want to know though, and I never did get a good answer. Always the "you need to know it" or the slightly more specific "you need to know it for calculus". The last math I actually remember studying was quadratic equations and polynomials. What do know, that's the basis behind much of digital synthesis, particularly waveshaping and filter design. The last few days have been filled with wonderful exploration into the world of Chebyshev polynomials, and their very pleasing results on sine waves.
So, where am I going with this? It's a basic plea to math teachers, should any read this blog (or even if you know some math teachers). PLEASE, please, tell your students some interesting or at least practical uses for the math that you are teaching them. If some student asks "what do we need to know this for", they may not be trying to be a smart ass, they very well would just like to know. I really wish someone had done this for me during my education. I might have come to really enjoy and like math, rather than hate it and, later in life regret, not putting in more effort.
Oh well.
PS. I have a few euro modules for sale currently, if any of you are interested:
http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2935
Cheers everyone and Happy New Year!
Monday, December 29, 2008
The Serge
I tried really hard to come up with some kind of McCain "the surge is working" joke, but just couldn't. :( So anyway, this is the big Serge post, hopefully it does not disappoint.
As I mentioned in my recent post, over the course of researching the Buchla I started to see things that I did not like in my current system, or put maybe a more accurate way, advantages that I saw in other formats. Let's start with the most simple, and obvious, one. Banana jacks.
Using multiples in 1/4" or 1/8" is annoying as hell. I know it seems trivial, but *every time* I find myself wanting to use a multiple, it requires breaking half a patch down, exchanging cables and then retracing my steps so that I put it back together properly. With banana jacks, it's much more elegant. Need a mult? Just poke a jack in there and that's it. Seems like a small thing, but while it would be nice to have in Euro (really nice to have) it is almost required due to the level of functional density of each Serge module (not panel, but individual module - which is referred to as a "function block" in Serge-land). That brings me to my next advantage of the Serge. Functional density.
In Serge-land, they call this "patch programmability". Depending on how you patch a particular function block, you can achieve different results. The "Smooth / Stepped Generator" (SSG) for example, can not only be a S+H, but also a VC slew limiter, VC LFO (triangle and square), clock, LPF/LPG, lo-fi VCO, zero-crossing detector, and more with any combinations of these (that's right, most of those functions only require one half of the module!). This module is even one-upped by the "Dual Slope Generator" (DSG) which has an unprecedented number of patch programmable functions, yet on the surface, it's just an AD envelope generator. It's this "patch programmability" that really attracts me to the Serge system. The flexibility and range of sounds possible in even a single panel (or even M-odule) is rather astounding. Exhibit A is this fantastic demo from kkonkkrete which surfaced a few weeks ago.
Note that this video features only 2 M-odules, and throughout the video, some portions of the Sequencer A M-odule are not even used. It's quite amazing that the Creature M-odule (the one on the right side) is essentially a fully featured Serge system on it's own! This brings me to my next perceived advantage. Portability.
This is one of the advantages that I found in the Buchla which I think is very apparent here as well. A 3 panel Serge system would more or less be similar in size to a 12ws Buchla case and definitely give it a run for it's money, if not certainly beat it out feature-wise (but this isn't purely about features). My system, as it is now, is almost too large. I haven't even filled the case and I find that on many patches, some modules are just "in the way" and I end up having to work around them. A small detail, but to me it screams "you have to much shit that you don't use", and if I don't use it, it isn't that necessary. Maybe this just one of those "ebb and flow" things, but I like to have an efficient use of space, and when I find myself always turning to the same dozen or so modules, it's hard to fight off the urge to trim the fat, so to speak.
The final advantage is another one taken from my Buchla research and this is the dynamic control/interaction with the instrument. While it's no 222e Kinetic Input, the Serge TKB Touch Keyboard Sequencer is a very dynamic and expressive controller.
The sequencer is not unlike the mythical Milton (or maybe that should be the other way around). There are 4 "rows" of 16 steps. A standard clock steps through each of 16 stages, while a separate vertical clock with step through the 4 rows, allowing for 64 step patterns. Either the combined row output is available, or each row output separately, allowing for control of 4 separate modules for each stage. The direction of the sequencer can also change based on either a manual switch, or a trigger input. There is also a "random stage select" trigger input. When pulsed, it will select a random stage. And, speaking of stage selection, when the keyboard is linked with the sequencer, touching a key touchplate will immediately select that stage. It can be patched so that when pressing the key touchplate, the stage will be held and the sequencer will not advance. There is also key pressure voltage available, for more expression. Basically, it's the perfect combination of a keyboard controller and an analog sequencer.
So, until I've had some one-on-one face time with a Serge system and can make my final decision, I see some Serge in my future. My best assessment at this point would be to start with a Gator and Creature and add a TKB as early as financially possible. After using that system for a while, I'll have a better idea of what else I might need (if anything at all). That's another advantage of the Serge, not only can so much be achieved with only a couple panels, but it's pricey enough that you just don't go off buying more on a whim, something that happens with me constantly with euro. I just lack that willpower I guess.
My dilemma though is that I can't bear to part with a good chunk of my Euro system. Out of the modules that I use in practically every patch, I plan on keeping the following:
Livewire AFG (x2)
Livewire Vulcan Modulator
Livewire Dalek Modulator
Livewire Frequensteiner
Livewire Dual Cyclotron
Plan B M13 LPG
Plan B M14 Voltage Proc
Harvestman Stilton
Harvestman Evin (forthcoming)
Harvestman Tyme Sefari
Doepfer A-132-3
The Plan B M10s and M24 would be in there since those are used in every patch, but they have direct functional equivalents on the Serge. In fact, there's practically the same as the Serge DTG and SSG modules. As time goes on, I would consider loosing the Dual Cyclotron (which will be a hard one) and the Plan B M14 since both could be had in the Serge domain without too much trouble. As I said, I haven't had face time with the Serge VCO and Filters yet, so until I do, I can't imagine giving up the AFG+Frequensteiner sound. Even so, I can't imagine giving it up.
All of this Euro, plus some more, would fit rather nicely in one of the upcoming 9U A-100P portable cases that Doepfer has announced, which is what I would plan on transitioning the euro system into once they are available.
So, I'm not decided 100%, but this definitely feels like the direction that I want to move. Only time will tell.
I've linked to it where appropriate, but the "Ergres - Serge Fans" site has an extensive amount of info on Serge systems, as does Carbon111. They have been extremely helpful in the journey and if you are at all curious, I would suggest checking them out.
http://www.serge-fans.com/
http://carbon111.com/serge_index.html
As I mentioned in my recent post, over the course of researching the Buchla I started to see things that I did not like in my current system, or put maybe a more accurate way, advantages that I saw in other formats. Let's start with the most simple, and obvious, one. Banana jacks.
Using multiples in 1/4" or 1/8" is annoying as hell. I know it seems trivial, but *every time* I find myself wanting to use a multiple, it requires breaking half a patch down, exchanging cables and then retracing my steps so that I put it back together properly. With banana jacks, it's much more elegant. Need a mult? Just poke a jack in there and that's it. Seems like a small thing, but while it would be nice to have in Euro (really nice to have) it is almost required due to the level of functional density of each Serge module (not panel, but individual module - which is referred to as a "function block" in Serge-land). That brings me to my next advantage of the Serge. Functional density.
In Serge-land, they call this "patch programmability". Depending on how you patch a particular function block, you can achieve different results. The "Smooth / Stepped Generator" (SSG) for example, can not only be a S+H, but also a VC slew limiter, VC LFO (triangle and square), clock, LPF/LPG, lo-fi VCO, zero-crossing detector, and more with any combinations of these (that's right, most of those functions only require one half of the module!). This module is even one-upped by the "Dual Slope Generator" (DSG) which has an unprecedented number of patch programmable functions, yet on the surface, it's just an AD envelope generator. It's this "patch programmability" that really attracts me to the Serge system. The flexibility and range of sounds possible in even a single panel (or even M-odule) is rather astounding. Exhibit A is this fantastic demo from kkonkkrete which surfaced a few weeks ago.
Note that this video features only 2 M-odules, and throughout the video, some portions of the Sequencer A M-odule are not even used. It's quite amazing that the Creature M-odule (the one on the right side) is essentially a fully featured Serge system on it's own! This brings me to my next perceived advantage. Portability.
This is one of the advantages that I found in the Buchla which I think is very apparent here as well. A 3 panel Serge system would more or less be similar in size to a 12ws Buchla case and definitely give it a run for it's money, if not certainly beat it out feature-wise (but this isn't purely about features). My system, as it is now, is almost too large. I haven't even filled the case and I find that on many patches, some modules are just "in the way" and I end up having to work around them. A small detail, but to me it screams "you have to much shit that you don't use", and if I don't use it, it isn't that necessary. Maybe this just one of those "ebb and flow" things, but I like to have an efficient use of space, and when I find myself always turning to the same dozen or so modules, it's hard to fight off the urge to trim the fat, so to speak.
The final advantage is another one taken from my Buchla research and this is the dynamic control/interaction with the instrument. While it's no 222e Kinetic Input, the Serge TKB Touch Keyboard Sequencer is a very dynamic and expressive controller.
The sequencer is not unlike the mythical Milton (or maybe that should be the other way around). There are 4 "rows" of 16 steps. A standard clock steps through each of 16 stages, while a separate vertical clock with step through the 4 rows, allowing for 64 step patterns. Either the combined row output is available, or each row output separately, allowing for control of 4 separate modules for each stage. The direction of the sequencer can also change based on either a manual switch, or a trigger input. There is also a "random stage select" trigger input. When pulsed, it will select a random stage. And, speaking of stage selection, when the keyboard is linked with the sequencer, touching a key touchplate will immediately select that stage. It can be patched so that when pressing the key touchplate, the stage will be held and the sequencer will not advance. There is also key pressure voltage available, for more expression. Basically, it's the perfect combination of a keyboard controller and an analog sequencer.
So, until I've had some one-on-one face time with a Serge system and can make my final decision, I see some Serge in my future. My best assessment at this point would be to start with a Gator and Creature and add a TKB as early as financially possible. After using that system for a while, I'll have a better idea of what else I might need (if anything at all). That's another advantage of the Serge, not only can so much be achieved with only a couple panels, but it's pricey enough that you just don't go off buying more on a whim, something that happens with me constantly with euro. I just lack that willpower I guess.
My dilemma though is that I can't bear to part with a good chunk of my Euro system. Out of the modules that I use in practically every patch, I plan on keeping the following:
Livewire AFG (x2)
Livewire Vulcan Modulator
Livewire Dalek Modulator
Livewire Frequensteiner
Livewire Dual Cyclotron
Plan B M13 LPG
Plan B M14 Voltage Proc
Harvestman Stilton
Harvestman Evin (forthcoming)
Harvestman Tyme Sefari
Doepfer A-132-3
The Plan B M10s and M24 would be in there since those are used in every patch, but they have direct functional equivalents on the Serge. In fact, there's practically the same as the Serge DTG and SSG modules. As time goes on, I would consider loosing the Dual Cyclotron (which will be a hard one) and the Plan B M14 since both could be had in the Serge domain without too much trouble. As I said, I haven't had face time with the Serge VCO and Filters yet, so until I do, I can't imagine giving up the AFG+Frequensteiner sound. Even so, I can't imagine giving it up.
All of this Euro, plus some more, would fit rather nicely in one of the upcoming 9U A-100P portable cases that Doepfer has announced, which is what I would plan on transitioning the euro system into once they are available.
So, I'm not decided 100%, but this definitely feels like the direction that I want to move. Only time will tell.
I've linked to it where appropriate, but the "Ergres - Serge Fans" site has an extensive amount of info on Serge systems, as does Carbon111. They have been extremely helpful in the journey and if you are at all curious, I would suggest checking them out.
http://www.serge-fans.com/
http://carbon111.com/serge_index.html
Friday, December 19, 2008
Teratoma - released
Sorry I'm lagging on the Serge post, it's coming. This is short though.
Just wanted to say that my first modular album, Teratoma, has been released. Just inside the deadline of the Muff 2008 Artist Challenge. The collections are composed almost entirely of the eurorack modular, except for a few cases where a hand is leant from the MachineDrum and Monomachine, and in one case, a Piano sample patch in Logic.
http://www.virb.com/felixinferious/music/albums/52424
enjoy.
Just wanted to say that my first modular album, Teratoma, has been released. Just inside the deadline of the Muff 2008 Artist Challenge. The collections are composed almost entirely of the eurorack modular, except for a few cases where a hand is leant from the MachineDrum and Monomachine, and in one case, a Piano sample patch in Logic.
http://www.virb.com/felixinferious/music/albums/52424
enjoy.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Long time no post
I'm very sorry for my long absence from the blog here. I'm rather ashamed of it and it's due to little more than lack of time and laziness. Mostly laziness.
What small amount of free time I've had over the last couple months has been devoted to trying to finish up tracks for an upcoming EP/Full length and just general hanging around on the Muff forum. Unfortunately for the blog here, all of my modular-related ramblings and thoughts are getting dumped there and not here.
Time for a change.
To catch you up a bit, in the midst of working on these new tracks, I also got bit by the bug to start performing live again. I've never performed with a synth before, but played a lot of guitar with the bands I've been in over the years. I miss performing for people. So, with that in mind, I started looking at ways to achieve that again. Using a laptop and triggering loops was more or less out of the question. I don't want to look like I'm checking my email in front of everyone, and for the most part it's very uninteresting to the audience, in my opinion anyway. The next step was to work with the SP-404 and come up with different textured loops that I could layer, turning on and off, along with the MachineDrum. I got started with building up loops and it quickly became an aweful, and uninspiring chore. The "sets" that I came up with were not very fun either. The sounds were static and interacting with them was rather...well...uninspiring. At that point my thoughts turned to using a modular live, but clearly the monstercase would be very cumbersome to lug around (although fun to look at, if facing the audience) and of course, had no way to quickly switch patches. And I wanted some dynamic way that I could interact with it, both via some sort of sequencer (which could be handled by the MD + Kenton) as well as some sort of "touch controller".
Enter the Buchla 200e.
First, some history on my exposure to the 200e. It was the first modular system that I looked at when considering buying a modular system. I saw the booth at NAMM and it certainly was the most visually appealing system, and the fact that it folded up *and* had preset recall was like the greatest thing ever. Had the price at the time (and now) not seemed completely out of my range, I would have went for it. The other formats were much more economical.
The 200e satisfied many of the "live performance" criteria I had set for myself.
-Portable
-High functional density
-Ease of setting up patches (preset recall)
-Performance oriented interface (namely, the 222e touchplate)
-It looks fucking cool (ok, that wasn't a requirement, but it is a bonus)
After much toiling and going back and forth on pros/cons for what seemed like months, much of which went on in an epic thread on the Muff forum, I finally came to the decision that I was not going to invest in a Buchla. The main cons were:
-Sound. It doesn't sound bad, it's just not quite my thing...not for that price
-Price. It's not unobtainable, but it would be a significant investment.
-Having to give up Euro. Most of it anyway...part of the previous con.
There were other small negatives too. Audio and CV are different signal paths, some "quirky" behavior with certain features, not the end-all-be-all in flexibility. All of these were personal opinions though, and many of the reasons for these designs were quite valid - I'm not devaluing the system at all. It's just stuff that I did not particularly like and if I was going to make that kind of financial commitment, I had to like it.
Interestingly enough, I picked up a Monomachine MKII. I had begun to miss the MKI (which I had traded, along with my MD MKI, for an MD mkII) and felt I did not give the little guy a fair shake the first time around. I was right and I'm very much enjoying having the MnM back again.
However, a new "problem" arouse. As part of the research into the 200e, I was constantly comparing my current Euro system with the Buchla, in particular looking at what the Buchla could do and what my Euro could not (well, to be more clear, what it could not do as easily or achieve in a more streamlined manner). But what I took away was what I found to be shortcomings of my system, and to some degree, the Euro format/lineup.
Enter The Serge.
Stay Tuned.
What small amount of free time I've had over the last couple months has been devoted to trying to finish up tracks for an upcoming EP/Full length and just general hanging around on the Muff forum. Unfortunately for the blog here, all of my modular-related ramblings and thoughts are getting dumped there and not here.
Time for a change.
To catch you up a bit, in the midst of working on these new tracks, I also got bit by the bug to start performing live again. I've never performed with a synth before, but played a lot of guitar with the bands I've been in over the years. I miss performing for people. So, with that in mind, I started looking at ways to achieve that again. Using a laptop and triggering loops was more or less out of the question. I don't want to look like I'm checking my email in front of everyone, and for the most part it's very uninteresting to the audience, in my opinion anyway. The next step was to work with the SP-404 and come up with different textured loops that I could layer, turning on and off, along with the MachineDrum. I got started with building up loops and it quickly became an aweful, and uninspiring chore. The "sets" that I came up with were not very fun either. The sounds were static and interacting with them was rather...well...uninspiring. At that point my thoughts turned to using a modular live, but clearly the monstercase would be very cumbersome to lug around (although fun to look at, if facing the audience) and of course, had no way to quickly switch patches. And I wanted some dynamic way that I could interact with it, both via some sort of sequencer (which could be handled by the MD + Kenton) as well as some sort of "touch controller".
Enter the Buchla 200e.
First, some history on my exposure to the 200e. It was the first modular system that I looked at when considering buying a modular system. I saw the booth at NAMM and it certainly was the most visually appealing system, and the fact that it folded up *and* had preset recall was like the greatest thing ever. Had the price at the time (and now) not seemed completely out of my range, I would have went for it. The other formats were much more economical.
The 200e satisfied many of the "live performance" criteria I had set for myself.
-Portable
-High functional density
-Ease of setting up patches (preset recall)
-Performance oriented interface (namely, the 222e touchplate)
-It looks fucking cool (ok, that wasn't a requirement, but it is a bonus)
After much toiling and going back and forth on pros/cons for what seemed like months, much of which went on in an epic thread on the Muff forum, I finally came to the decision that I was not going to invest in a Buchla. The main cons were:
-Sound. It doesn't sound bad, it's just not quite my thing...not for that price
-Price. It's not unobtainable, but it would be a significant investment.
-Having to give up Euro. Most of it anyway...part of the previous con.
There were other small negatives too. Audio and CV are different signal paths, some "quirky" behavior with certain features, not the end-all-be-all in flexibility. All of these were personal opinions though, and many of the reasons for these designs were quite valid - I'm not devaluing the system at all. It's just stuff that I did not particularly like and if I was going to make that kind of financial commitment, I had to like it.
Interestingly enough, I picked up a Monomachine MKII. I had begun to miss the MKI (which I had traded, along with my MD MKI, for an MD mkII) and felt I did not give the little guy a fair shake the first time around. I was right and I'm very much enjoying having the MnM back again.
However, a new "problem" arouse. As part of the research into the 200e, I was constantly comparing my current Euro system with the Buchla, in particular looking at what the Buchla could do and what my Euro could not (well, to be more clear, what it could not do as easily or achieve in a more streamlined manner). But what I took away was what I found to be shortcomings of my system, and to some degree, the Euro format/lineup.
Enter The Serge.
Stay Tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
