IDM Mailing Archive

quoted 4 lines Take the sampler for example. What does a sampler do that a fast PC

> Take the sampler for example. What does a sampler do that a fast PC > can't do? With a large fast Hard Drive and lots of RAM, there should be > no point at all in having a sampler. I mean, I can sample from a CD > going digital-to-digital on a PC without any quality loss.

Well my sampler plays 32 samples at once, perfectly, everytime. It has real-time filtering and modulation and effects, it has 10 outputs. The only thing ive seen on a pc which comes anywhere close to it is CSound, if it wasnt for the clumsy interface (ie none) CSound would in fact blow the pants off my akai, but at the moment it doesnt, and probably wont for a while. There is talk of a CSound DSP card which will allow you to do what ive said it cant..... but god knows when itll be out, and considering its going to be designed by MIT itll probably cost the earth to buy. If you wanted (or could afford) ten outputs from your computer youd need a seperate box anyway.

quoted 5 lines Until recently, home PC's were too slow to handle doing the kind of

> Until recently, home PC's were too slow to handle doing the kind of > real-time intensive work music entails. But the only reason real-time is > an important factor in music making is that most people still have a few > bits of analog equipment in the loop - an 808, some effects processors, > etc. Also, people like twiddling knobs.

Exactly, youll never take my spirit 12:2 off me! Its all very well having everything totally digital, but i doubt even something like cubase VST would give me the ease of 'tweakability' that my spirit gives me, the only way id consider doing everything digitally would be if i could have some sort of box of assignable knobs and sliders. Theres also the consideration of eye strain! Staring at the screen for like 15 hours solid can result in serious negative blooty. And if you did have sliders and stuff on the screen you could only tweak one thing at a time.

quoted 6 lines The MIDI keyboard is optional because I can't play piano anyway. I'd

> The MIDI keyboard is optional because I can't play piano anyway. I'd > rather "compose" based on sounds and frequencies rather than on a > traditional western scale, although it would be nice to learn some real > music theory along the way. But I firmly beleive that these days it's > possible to create great music without knowing a treble clef from an "&" > sign.

hmmmm.... i dont 'play the piano' either, but id be happy if you could suggest a better way of doing it. What exactly do you have in mind? Wed all rather compose in some VR situation (in fact i was discussing this with Hardy of spymania the other day...just imagine you pick up a sound stretch it a bit, bang it with a hammer and lob it through an envelope... oohh....oops sorry too anal!). Most samplers let you change the scale type or specify your own. The only thing ive seen which resembles what you want to do is a piece of software built by those french nutters in a bomb shelter IRCAM. they have some software where you are given an axis and you draw wiggly lines to express yerself... it probably always sounds like a violin and like the MIT DSP card costs a bomb.

quoted 9 lines Now that PC's move at light speed and are way cheaper, I think I can

> Now that PC's move at light speed and are way cheaper, I think I can > just about build that dream studio now. Here is a sample configuration. > If anyone has any ideas of what I'm forgetting, what I don't need, or > what crucial thing I'm forgetting that makes the whole idea pointless, > please point it out. It would be interesting to hear what you > knob-twiddlers think of us mouse-clickers. I don't wanna hear about how > tube-based effects processors and such make for better sounds, because > although I agree, I can still get 99% as good sounds from a PC. And I > can cut and paste!

Well ive got a pretty good compromise really, i use a pretty traditional set-up, sampler, mixer, effects, synths. But i also use soundforge to edit samples, resample sections of music and play them as loops on my sampler. And then finally i record the finished cubase piece into soundforge and cut, paste, compress and eq to my hearts delight.

quoted 2 lines 2 SoundBlaster AWE 32 Sound Cards (for speaker output and WAV

> 2 SoundBlaster AWE 32 Sound Cards (for speaker output and WAV > processing help)

erm if you want to everything perfect and digital why would you then go and stick a shitty soundcard on?!! sounds like a bit of a contradiction to the whole idea. Ive got a turtle-beach tahiti which cost me 300 UKP, its a bloody excellent value and quality card, but i still reckon its the bare minimum you need to enter the digital domain, youd really want to be spending $1000 plus on the soundcard, Cubase and logic will soon be supporting 2 ins and 2 outs, for double duplex sound (quadplex?!)

quoted 2 lines Digital Sound Card (for external digital devices)

> Digital Sound Card (for external digital devices) > SCSI 4X CD ROM Burner (don't necessarily need no DATs!)

Why would you need a digital sound card? surely if you wan a self contained digital system with no need for a dat youd be better off buying a better A/D system. CDROM burner though......oooh current object of desire!! does anybody know prices for a cheap multi-session audio burner??

quoted 1 line Sound Forge 4.0 (you can do anything to a sound in this)

> Sound Forge 4.0 (you can do anything to a sound in this)

yep, it rules my world...but id still like the fft module.. and a threshold on my wah, and an envelope on the gapper snipper and and and...

quoted 1 line Netscape/IE 3.0 (for stealing samples, baybee!)

> Netscape/IE 3.0 (for stealing samples, baybee!)

make your own by unrecognisably defacing well known artistes in soundforge.

quoted 1 line Rebirth (the shit rocks!)

> Rebirth (the shit rocks!)

yeah but it uses shitty games-standard directx sound drivers...which my supposedly proffesional soundcard doesnt fucking support....AAAARRGH

quoted 1 line Quake (for breaks)

> Quake (for breaks)

yeah... and diablo Well i think thats enough to annoy yer average idm'er, Although most of my answers may seem a bit negative, im totally behind the idea of what youre saying, and i too dream your dream........ :] However i think the likelyhood of just having one box that more than adequately does the lot is about five years or so off yet, its about as likely as a paperless office. Now if you could fashion a studio from intelligent utility fog...... kF

Here's an idea for you music creators out there, plus some questions: I've always thought that all of the equipment usually used in a techno/idm production studio seemed kind of silly in light of the fact that almost all of the functions can be reproduced 100% in a computer. I propose to create a 100% digital studio, with no analog equipment at all (except maybe for input devices like a MIDI keyboard and a few turntables and of course the monitors). Not even a cassette tape machine or a mixing board. Everything can be done in the PC without ever using that stupid obsolete rip-off expensive clumsy huge ugly equipment most people have piled up in their studios. Take the sampler for example. What does a sampler do that a fast PC can't do? With a large fast Hard Drive and lots of RAM, there should be no point at all in having a sampler. I mean, I can sample from a CD going digital-to-digital on a PC without any quality loss. Until recently, home PC's were too slow to handle doing the kind of real-time intensive work music entails. But the only reason real-time is an important factor in music making is that most people still have a few bits of analog equipment in the loop - an 808, some effects processors, etc. Also, people like twiddling knobs. The kind of music produced in a purely digital fashion will of course be very different, in the same way that illustrations produced in 3D modelling programs are different from paintings. Users can't always hear what they're doing along the way, or directly work on the final product. But I don't think it's an inferior way of working, just much different. The MIDI keyboard is optional because I can't play piano anyway. I'd rather "compose" based on sounds and frequencies rather than on a traditional western scale, although it would be nice to learn some real music theory along the way. But I firmly beleive that these days it's possible to create great music without knowing a treble clef from an "&" sign. Now that PC's move at light speed and are way cheaper, I think I can just about build that dream studio now. Here is a sample configuration. If anyone has any ideas of what I'm forgetting, what I don't need, or what crucial thing I'm forgetting that makes the whole idea pointless, please point it out. It would be interesting to hear what you knob-twiddlers think of us mouse-clickers. I don't wanna hear about how tube-based effects processors and such make for better sounds, because although I agree, I can still get 99% as good sounds from a PC. And I can cut and paste! *** Configuration X *** Double Pentium 200 / 128 MB RAM / 5+ gig SCSI HD 12X SCSI CD ROM drive SCSI Jaz Drive Windows NT (multitasking but w/o W95 bugz) 2 SoundBlaster AWE 32 Sound Cards (for speaker output and WAV processing help) Digital Sound Card (for external digital devices) SCSI 4X CD ROM Burner (don't necessarily need no DATs!) Logic Audio (the works) Sound Forge 4.0 (you can do anything to a sound in this) Netscape/IE 3.0 (for stealing samples, baybee!) Rebirth (the shit rocks!) Various other sound processing/playback/recording software. Quake (for breaks) MIDI Keyboard Stereo/Turntable/CD Player Speakers, monitors, headphones Anyway, it's dinosaurs vs. propellerheads, Moogers vs. Surfers. Let's hear it. -Chris Fahey

*** Configuration X *** Double Pentium 200 / 128 MB RAM / 5+ gig SCSI HD I would get a pentium pro--4 processor and you will soon find out that if you deal with huge wav files this won't be enough ram. And no adding more ram won't help. Also start with a 9 gig drive. 12X SCSI CD ROM drive SCSI Jaz Drive Windows NT (multitasking but w/o W95 bugz) NT is not a good musical platform. The drivers for most sound cards under nt are below par. And beyond that the way nt interfaces with hardware can cause problems with some software. 2 SoundBlaster AWE 32 Sound Cards (for speaker output and WAV processing help) you want good sound and you suggest an awe 32? look elsewhere. if your just messing around then this is fine. But it doesn't look like your just messing around. Digital Sound Card (for external digital devices) why this? why not get a bad ass sound card that has this. The way your going your going to run out of irqs! SCSI 4X CD ROM Burner (don't necessarily need no DATs!) true but DAT is a music industry standard...and they are read/write. So you can copy over mistakes...like, i don't like this mix. Damn, i will have to scrap that cd..... Logic Audio (the works) Sound Forge 4.0 (you can do anything to a sound in this) Netscape/IE 3.0 (for stealing samples, baybee!) try stealing from cd's, moivies, recording things with a mic. You'll have better luck. Rebirth (the shit rocks!) not really. It will someday but not in its present state. Various other sound processing/playback/recording software. Quake (for breaks) MIDI Keyboard Stereo/Turntable/CD Player Speakers, monitors, headphones Your on the right track but you need to do alot more research and understand the equipment better. IBM based computers are only now coming into their own in regard to music. Good luck

Hi...

quoted 1 line I propose to create a 100% digital studio

> I propose to create a 100% digital studio

Excellent idea. See Electronic Musician (I think... maybe it was Keyboard) a few months back. They had a cover story on doing exactly this, affordably. At least, their idea of affordable. :) Your suggested system is on the right track, but a bit off for reasons other people have stated, and this article will give you an overview of all the available options in some detail.

quoted 4 lines Take the sampler for example. What does a sampler do that a fast PC

> Take the sampler for example. What does a sampler do that a fast PC > can't do? With a large fast Hard Drive and lots of RAM, there should be > no point at all in having a sampler. I mean, I can sample from a CD > going digital-to-digital on a PC without any quality loss.

Quite often I *want* quality loss or sampler colouring, especially when sampling from CD. Nothing more frustrating than having a sample that sounds too nice, and jumping through hoops to get it a bit less clean. Admittedly, if you're trying to get a nice synth sound from a sample CD, you may want cleanliness. However, there's so many sample CDs out there, that you can easily restrict yourself to CDs which aren't audio, but have .wav files (or the format of your choice.) In this case, no sampling at all needs to be done - load it up, edit, and away you go. Obpetpeeve: good sample CDs cost a minor fortune. The $20 cds I've used make good coasters and spare jewel cases. Also, a sampler isn't just some A/D and D/A converters - once the sample has been tweaked, edited, and messed up, the sampler then becomes a synthesizer, with all the usual synth capabilities. I don't how well this is done by good soundcards, but I'd say that having filters, envelopes, lfo, mod, etc. is indispensable.

quoted 5 lines Until recently, home PC's were too slow to handle doing the kind of

> Until recently, home PC's were too slow to handle doing the kind of > real-time intensive work music entails. But the only reason real-time is > an important factor in music making is that most people still have a few > bits of analog equipment in the loop - an 808, some effects processors, > etc. Also, people like twiddling knobs.

One thing to consider with a computer interface: you only have one mouse. This makes twiddling more than one "knob" at once a pain in the ass. The other thing to consider is the size of your monitor. Even if you splurge and get a 21" you're still going to end up with a very cluttered screen with tons of tiny little knobs, faders, scroll bars, blah blah blah. Yuck. User interface is very important. I think this is the main reason people will stick to self-contained hardware units for the conceivable future. Also, the ability to play live is greatly diminished if there's nothing to bang on. :)

quoted 3 lines music theory along the way. But I firmly beleive that these days it's

> music theory along the way. But I firmly beleive that these days it's > possible to create great music without knowing a treble clef from an "&" > sign.

I agree, but I submit that you will lose nothing whatsoever and do yourself a big favour if you get some training or educate yourself on music theory, composition and performance. I'm not suggesting you become a piano virtuoso, but a basic understanding goes a long, long way. As in any discipline, nothing beats natural aptitude coupled with knowledge and expertise. Jon

What you're describing is indeed achieveable, but you're neglecting to consider that there are a lot of analog instruments that can't simply be replicated inside a computer. The current state of the art of computer software simply isn't up to the task of providing a seamless, bug free interface the way that an old synth does. Not only that, ordinary PC sound cards (like the AWE32) are not pro quality soundwise. I've been spending my hard earned money, skimping on record buying, in order to get together a setup not unlike what you describe, and believe me, the time spent farting around getting everything to work together in the computer cuts into real music making time. By the way, The April "Keyboard" magazine has a blurb on Aphex Twin, where they apparently interviewed him. Yet another chance for us all to play the "spot where he's talking bollocks" game. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "i love the smell of new carpet. it makes me dizzy. just like when you fall in love." -- Mike Dvorkin Home Page, featuring Reagan on Black Velvet, the EMP Compilation CD, samples of my music, etc http://soli.inav.net/~kent/ Kent Williams kent@inav.net CADSI 2651 Crosspark Road Coralville IA 52241 (319) 338 6053 (home) (319) 626 6700 x 219 (work) (319) 626 3488 (fax)

quoted 5 lines SCSI 4X CD ROM Burner (don't necessarily need no DATs!)

> > SCSI 4X CD ROM Burner (don't necessarily need no DATs!) > > yeah but you'll find that using CD-R is inconvenient compared to DAT. > i record all my stuff to DAT and eventually when i've amassed enough i > burn a whole CD full.

That's my basic thinking as well. The portable nature of DATs mean that you can take them to any decent recording studio anywhere in the world, and go to CD when you're ready to release something. Plus, DATs are much cheaper than CD-Rs. And, you can record radio shows that happen to play tons and tons of good quality techno, trance, trip-hop, whatever, and then go back and pick out bits and pieces to sample from. Digitally. :) Also... the AWE32 was mentioned in the original post. I looked into the Turtle Beach Fiji w/ S/PDIF digital IO daughtercard. You can pick them up fairly cheap (around $300 if I remember correctly). This gets you from DAT to PC, and back, while still allowing you to sample at up to 20-bit resolution. np: Don Solaris. (bout time! ZTT is just plain stupid for not releasing this in the states). -- guyjr@ns.gt.ed.net | I.D.M.- That stage in sleeping when your feet are a.k.a., Guy Elden, Jr. | moving faster than your eyes.