Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    
    Oops....Make that "I was NOT really keen on th MT-32's sounds"
    
    Jason
    

Though I still don't think the M1 has super better-than-everybody-else
fabulous one-in-a-million presets, I think that it would be a good
tool.  It has great potential for use.  Also check out Kawai K1 and
Roland D-10 and Ensoniq EPS.  These are all different types of machines.
Play with them.  Listen to them.  See how they fit into your system.

And then you make the choice.  I have heard great demos from the K1 and M1.
I wouldn't mind having an M1r rack version.  I hope to get a K1r in the
next 6 months (probably my lone SGU unit for 89 except maybe a drum machine).

My one observation about many multi-timbral SGU (sound generating units)
is that while they sound great by themselves, they often sound weak or
get lost when played with other more solo-like instruments or with good
samples.  I had an MT32 and still have my D50.  The MT32 sounded great playing
a whole tune but adding D50 sounds to a tune made the MT32 voices sound thin
and not present as much.  Hard to describe exactly what I mean.

Good luck.

Buy what you like.  

Chad

	I think you would do fine with the M1.  From my recollections, the
chief objections people have had had to do with the smallish amount of sequencer
memory.  But since you have an ST, you can go the software route for your 
sequencer.  Also, I believe people have said the user interface is less than 
intuitive.  That, to me, is a small nit as well.  You can learn to live with
any interface.  I know - I had to learn to live with Dr. T's KCS sequencer - and
they don't get much worse.

	By all means, though, check out the other units.  K1, DX11, D10, ESQ-1,
SQ-80, EPS, etc.  You only be sorry if you buy without knowing what all is out
there.

	Dan

    
    Thanks guys,
    	
    	The general impression I get is that the previous notes
    on the M1 weren't against the M1 as an instrument but were
    against what Korg said the M1 was. I get the impression that
    if I buy on what I have heard and seen and not on what  I am
    told it does I wont be dissapointed.
    	To this end I have heard a few others and I am still
    keen on the Korg so I have bought one. So you will 
    probably be hearing more from me in the future.
    
    Once again thanks to all who replied.
    
    Jason.
    
    

    I thought the M1 was a very powerful machine for the price...
    
    of course, outta my price range....but still quite nice
    
    dbii

    My big gripe about the M-1 is that it has a terrible user interface.
    
    All of the operations are condensed onto too few buttons via a
    too-small LCD; hence you get many multi-level menus-within-menus.
    (example MIDI recieve channel configuration is buried down there
    somewhere; I looked for it for almost half an hour once and never found
    it.  :-(  ).  I wouldn't be surprised if other useful parameters are
    also way down hidden somewhere. 
    
    The other (smaller) gripe I have is that the M-1 sequencer isn't half
    as good as the ESQ-1's built-in sequencer (which also costs a lot
    less).  But this really doesn't matter to you as you already have
    a computer.
                                                              
    Check out the ESQ-1, SQ-80, and EPS (the latter two have per-key
    independent aftertouch sensing).  They all have highly intuitive
    (read - easy-to-use, don't-need-a-manual ) user interfaces and they
    make very nice sounds with a very good range of thin-to-thick.
                                                     

    But doesn't the M1 have "real" drums?
    
    The ESQ doesn't have any builtin drums, and the SQ-80's has drums
    but not a complete kit (no cymbals, basically, BD, one snare,
    HHs, Toms and "log drums").  THere are some (surprisingly) good
    Ride and Crash patches (better than most older generation drum
    machines, especially the Crash) you can use to complete the kit, but it's
    a real unfortunate thing that they aren't builtin to the drum
    kits.
    
    I've been looking to replace my MT-32 with a similar rack-mount
    unit.  I checked out the D-110 yesterday and well... I just wasn't that
    impressed.  It still seemed pretty noisey and thin, even if it
    is an improvement on the MT-32.  And there's too many novelty
    sounds, and not enough good basic "bread and butter" sounds.
    
    I'm using it (sorta) to handle the overflow from the SQ-80 (8 voices)
    and so what I'm looking for is something with excellent rich string,
    brass, tuned percussion, etc. type abilities as well as decent builtin
    COMPLETE drums (has to have things like shakers, claps, latin, etc.)
    
    It's been my intention to look at the M1R when I get the time.
    
    If anyone knows of anything else that might fit that bill, please
    let me know.
    
    	db

    Also be aware that the M1 now has a rackmount version (sans keyboard).
    If you really like the sounds, you might consider getting one and
    driving it from your Casio, tho' I don't know how it might function
    as a controller.  
    
    Rodney M.

    I find it interesting that people are comparing the M1 to the D-110
    rather than the D-50/550, which is more in its price class and well
    known to sound quite a bit better than the D-110, at the cost of
    onboard drums and multitimbrality.  I'd also suggest checking out
    the Casio VZ-1/10M.
    
    len.
    

    My two cents... which ain't worth much.  First of all you really
    should figure out if you want rack mount or keys - you metion MT-32
    and the M1.  Quite the difference.  I went through the same thing,
    I started off looking for cheap but good rack mounts and I was gonna
    sequence everything.  Then I came to the realization that I really
    wanted some keys to play with.  So in that  case the MT-32 goes
    right out the door, besides the fact that it is bottom of the line
    and for that much $$ you might as well splurge on the D110 which
    is supposed to have better sounds, is programmable and has seperate
    outs (instead of the 2 outs you get on the MT-32).
    So when I decided to look at keys, a *very* pushy salesperson at
    a music store really pushed me towards the M1.  I liked it at first
    glance, great sounds (my opinion), 4 outs, builtin effects, a small
    sequencer, velocity and aftertouch, and I'm pretty sure 8 voice
    polyphonic.  Well, instead of jumping at it, I also considered the
    S50, D50 andf the EPS (about the same price range).
    I decided to go with the EPS, which has up to 20 voice polyphony,
    2 out which is expandable to 8, expandable memory, hard disk expandable
    and allows you to make your own sounds from samples rather than
    being stuck with buying cards from a specific company.  Needless
    to say I have done none of the expansion cause I blew all my money
    on the EPS, but someday I may be able to do so.  The M1 is fixed.
    You'll have to judge for yourself, but I liked a more open system,
    especially considering when I bought the EPS I had OS version 1.3
    and now they are up to 2.2.
    But, I have to tell you having no FX equipment, and also having
    no skill (or actually the inclination) to make my own samples
    sometimes I think about the M1...
    Tim
                                                    

Probably the best (very "objective" term here :-)  multitimbral expander for
the normal, useable sounds is a Kurzweil expander.  Up to 24 notes Polyphony,
some sort of Multitimbrality (K1000 brochure mentions the word), sounds
that aren't 21st century rubber balls bouncing between speakers with
1st century BC natives chanting in the back.  Only zit that is obvious to 
a non-ownwer is the lack of multiple-outs.  As far as I know only a stereo
pair.  Of course, I have only had cursory experience with one.  Karl
can fill us in with the details, he being a very satisfied owner as far
as I can tell.

Chad

> Kurzweil (K)1000(PX)... some sort of Multitimbrality

    Ups :  2 rack spaces hi, 24 voice, dynamic voice assignments, best
    piano, string, choir, organ, horn samples I've heard.  A new ROM
    is available with electric basses, drumsets, flutes, various Rhodes.
    All sounds available immediately, no floppy loading.
    
    Downs : only 2 outs, impenetrable user interface, no user sampling.
    Best used in conjunction with another, programmable or loadable
    SGU.
    
    karl

    I haven't talked of the D-50/D-550 because my understanding is that
    
    o they aren't multi-timbral (enough) 
    
    o nor polyphonic (enough),
    
    o don't have a builtin drum kit
    
    o Probably don't have good enough documentation (sorry, I just
      feel very strongly about Roland's attitude towards documentation;
      I may indeed be biased because I confess to wanting to avoid
      supporting the notion that they can sell stuff without writing
      good documentation.  If I were only slightly more biased, I'd
      organize a boycott.).
    
    I need those things.  
    
    The Kurzweil stuff is just TOO rich for my blood.
    
    What I'm really looking for is a workhorse: lots of voice, polyphonic,
    rack-mounted and drums.
    
    	db

    > First of all, you really should figure out if you want rack mount
    > or keys
    
    You talking to me?
    
    This is what I said:
    
    		.7> I've been looking to replace my MT-32 with 
    		.7> a similar rack-mount unit.  
    
    > You mention the MT-32 and the M-1.
    
    Uh... no I didn't.  This is what I said:
    
    		.7> It's been my intention to look at the M1R 
    		.7> when I get the time.
    
    The M-1R is a rack-mount version of the M-1.
    
    	db

    D-50/550 are only bitimbral, indeed, but 16-voice polyphonic is
    not enough?
    
    len.
    

    Is it *really* 16 "voices" or 16 "partials"?
    
    I mean, the biggest MIDI-gear lie ever told might be Roland
    describing the MT-32 as a 32 "voice" synth.  Sure there are
    a few sounds for which you could approach 32 voices, but in
    practice, you really end up with about 12.
    
    16 voices (using, say, the Ensoniq definition of "voice") would
    be plenty, but is that really what you get.
    
    I don't think that a D-550 exactly fits the bill, but I am interested
    in them.  I tried one at Daddy's and was really impressed with the
    sound quality.
    
    But is it even truly "Bi-timbral"?  I mean does it respond to
    MIDI Volume, Patch change, pitch band and other controllers,
    etc. on TWO seperate channels.
    
    Or is "Bi-timbral" Roland's way of saying that you can split the
    keyboard, or layer sounds, or something like that.
    
    The worst Roland documentation is the advertising.  Incoherent
    is one thing, misleading is another.  I no longer have any trust
    when Roland says something is 16-voices, or Bi-timbral, or anything
    like that.
    
    	db

    Getting just a little tough on the R-word, aincha Dave?
    
    I'd consider my DX multitimbral *because* of the split/layer facility.
    No two ways about it in my mind. Two simultaneous patches = multi-
    timbrality...
    
    Edd

A DUAL mode patch on the D50 is 8 polyphonic -- essentially they are two
patches layered together -- a WHOLE mode is 16 polyphonic.  Naturally,
the DUAL moders ususally sound better.  Then there are the other modes.

db, I'll bring in my D50 documentation (both manuals) and let you take a look
at them (if I remember).

Chad

    I think my toughness on Roland is deserved.  They make great products.
    That's the most important thing.  However they are awful at
    documentation, user support.
    
    And I think calling the MT-32 a 32-voice instrument is "fraud" pure 
    and simple.  Does anyone really disagree with that assesment?
    
    > I'd consider my DX multi-timbral because of the split/layer
    > facility
    
    Are you serious Edd?  Tell me your joking.
    
    I absolutely do NOT consider two simultaneous patches to be 
    "multi-timbral".   That is "layering" and nothing more.
    
    I consider "multi-timbral" is and should remain a term used
    to distinguish layering from more flexible capabilities of
    what *I* (and I think most of the free world) regard a multi-timbral 
    synth as being capable of doing which boil down to being able
    to play two completely independent parts, on separate MIDI
    channels.
    
    If people go around saying a DX is multi-timbral, folks will
    never understand the difference between what a layer does, and
    what an ESQ, or D-20, or M-1, etc. can do.
    
    We need that distinction to identify the added capabilities of
    a truly multi-timbral synth.
    
    Anyway, can the D-550 play at least two independent parts on two separate
    MIDI channels?  If not, I think it's misleading to call it
    "multi-timbral"
    
    	db

    > db, I'll bring in my D-50 documentation
    
    Chad,
    
    I appreciate the offer but I must tell you that I can generate
    no enthusiasm for slogging through another Roland manual.
    
    I expect that Len or someone will be capable of telling me what I
    need to know now that we understand what *I* think "multi-timbral" means.
    
    	db

    > Tell me you're joking...
    
    Serious as a heart-attack.
    
    Timbre: a 'sound', be it imitative or purely electronic. The quality
    that lets us distinguish between a pinano and a bazooki.
    
    Multi-timbral: Able to produce more than one timbre simultaneously.
    
    Seperate MIDI channels is definitely a feature, but certainly not
    a qualification for mutitimbrality.
    
    ...and Roland's doc set does byte.
    
    Edd

    This conference is amazing.  Here we have another 15 replies AFTER
    the originator of this topic stated he'd made a decision and bought:
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------    
>    < Note 1815.4 by KERNEL::FLOWERS "Hero of the Green Screen..." >
>                                -< I got it... >-
>    Thanks guys,
>    	
>    	The general impression I get is that the previous notes
>    on the M1 weren't against the M1 as an instrument but were
>    against what Korg said the M1 was. I get the impression that
>    if I buy on what I have heard and seen and not on what  I am
>    told it does I wont be dissapointed.
>    	To this end I have heard a few others and I am still
>    keen on the Korg so I have bought one. So you will 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    probably be hearing more from me in the future.

    Friend Edd,
    
    I think your derivation is an obfuscation of the meaning of
    "multi-timbral".
    
    Your kind of timbre, gets the ax.  ;-)
    
    I submit to you that a layer is not TWO timbres, but rather
    one timbre.
    
    > The quality that allows us to distinguish between a pinano and
    > a bazooki
    
    But a pinano/bazooki layer does not allow us to distinguish between
    a pinano and a bazooki.  We instead hear it as one complex timbre,
    perhaps a "Panooki".  ;-)
    
    By your definition, the ESQ has (at least) 24 way
    multi-timbrality as each "voice" has 3 oscillators which are
    in essence "layered".  Combining your definition of a timbre,
    and Rolands definition of "voice", this makes my ESQ-1 a 24
    voice synth.
    
    Several of the waveforms on the ESQ are basic wave forms combined
    with partials.  One has 5 partials plus an octave.  One would gather
    that you regard that waveform as having 7 timbres.  So an ESQ-1
    patch that uses that for all three osc's makes the ESQ-1 a 168
    voice synth.
    
    And I haven't even touched on what AM mode or SYNC mode does!
    
    I think multi-timbral means that for some configuration it is capable
    of producing two DIFFERENT timbres.  This need NOT be in unison.
    
    It is this notion of multi-timbrality that I've seen consistently
    used in everything BUT Roland advertisements.
    
    A DX-7 can NOT produce two different timbres except in unison.
    
    	db

    No! No!!
    
    If I layer a pinano and a bazooki I can most definitely hear both
    timbres. (By your obfuscation an orchestra only produces one timbre,
    a point that is probably arguable.)
    
    But what if I split my keyboard? Put the pinano on the left and
    the bazooki on the right? 
    
    I would think the the key to your definition lies in
    "multi-channality", a concept I find quite different from
    multitimbrality.
    
    Edd

    Re: -1

	> The world only makes one sound?

	If we get technical, then yes, every sound you hear... a single
	note, a chord, a pinano and bazooki layer... they are just 
	different soundwaves added together to make a different soundwave;
	therefore everything you hear is one timbre.

	Now, if we consider that there is one FUNDAMENTAL timbre (the 
	sine-wave,) then we can have a ball...  Hmm... let's see... since
	square waves, triange waves, and white noise are all made up of
	an infinite number of sine-waves, then I guess you could say that
	every synth that supports those waveforms has infinite timbrality?

	Personally, I agree with Dave:  two independent sounds over two
	independent MIDI channels = multitimbrality.

	- Jim

In some senses, the MT32 is a 32 voice synth module.  It is possible to produce
32 different notes at once, though it is probably not that useful to do so.
Depending on the voices chosen, up to 15 or 16 at a time can be useful.  A lot
of those 1 and 2 partial patches are useful.  I wouldn't call the ads fraud,
as it is capable of doing the 32 voices.  They don't tell the whole
truth however (they don't tell untruths in this question, just not the
complete story).

I have usefully however had anywhere up to 16 plus drums on mine, which I no
longer have (some day I'll update the for sale note...)

Dave, I didn't see your note about the manuals until after I had laid them on
your desk.  Don't read them all.  It took me about 3 minutes last night to
find relevant info to the question.  I don't consider  the D50 docs that bad,
not that I have extensively read them either, but I have been able to
find answers to questions relatively quick.

Yes, the D50 can recieve on 2 different channels and play different timbres
on these two different channels.  Channels are user definable.  The keyboard
can also transmit on a different channel than receiving on and can be used
in non-local mode to control external SGU while the internal SGU is 
controlled externally.

<sigh>

Chad

    The MT-32's "32 Voice" claim reminds me of when I went to amusement
    parks as a kid. "20 Tickets! $5.00!!!". Great, I can ride all day
    for $5!
    
    ...but then I found out even the silliest ride took 3 tickets and
    the best ones took 10!!!!
    
    Edd

>   By your obfuscation an orchestra only produces one timbre,
>   a point that is probably arguable.
    
    If the orchestra produced the SAME SOUND for EVERY note (as a layer
    would), then, yes, an orchestra would not be multi-timbral.
    
    But orchestra's don't, or at least not the ones I've heard.
    
    And isn't it interesting to note that while you imply that an
    orchestra *IS* multi-timbral , you could NOT come nearly as
    close to reproducing an orchestra with a layer as you could
    with a "multi-timbral synth" (according to my definition)?
    
    	db

    Referring to the D-50 manuals left on my desk:
    
    > Don't read them all.
    
    Don't worry.  I have no intentions of doing that.
    
> Yes, the D50 can recieve on 2 different channels and play different timbres
> on these two different channels.  
    
    Then, I think it is "technically" multi-timbral, although I think
    "Bi-timbral" would be a little bit more honest.  This definitely
    puts the D-550 under consideration for future purposes.
    
    	db

    
    
    Buying a D50/550 for multi-tymbral use would be like buying a car
    with a nice burbling v8 and taking the engine out and making it
    into 2 straight 4's and using them in seperate car's. It may be
    "by-tymbral' but it sounds best when fully tweeked to do the ton
    and a half. 
    
    As the saying goes. If you can't afford to buy and use it as intended
    then what's the point ?
    
    				Paul.
    
    
    

    re: .30
    
    I'm not really sure what to make of your comment.
    
    This could be said of any synth that allows you to double
    (multi-timbral) or layer parts though can't it?
    
    Or is this an implication that I should plan on always 
    using layered sounds for the D-50 and that I should consider it 
    an 8-voice synth and not a 16 voice synth?
    
    	db

Most of the interesting sounds on a D50 are DUAL mode patches, which are
then 8 notes polyphonic.  I have heard some useful WHOLE mode patches though
(16 poly).  I haven't yet seen any that are SEPARATE mode patches OOTB.
It shouldn't be hard to combine two whole mode patches into a separate patch
though (separate key mode is the bitimbral mode).

The ads I've seen for the D50 call it bitimbral, not multi.

The D50 is not a multitimbral expander, it is a lead or pad type of interesting
with full rich sounds.

CHad

    Hacking around with the Xpander/Xk last night, I found the following
    interesting observation:
    
    	1) Normal Xpander (matrix) voices sound pretty good.
    
    	2) Doubled (pair of voices, tuned in unison) sound slightly
    	   better than single voices- but not twice as good.
    
    	3) Octaved voices (two voices, tuned an octave apart) sound
    	   MUCH better.  Better than twice as good as (1).
    
    	4) Octaved voices with the higher voice arpegiatted between
    	   the first and second octave sound INCREDIBLE.  Off-scale
    	   good...
    
    The bad news that in mode (4) the Xpander is essentially a 3-voice
    synth.  But it seems worth it. :-)  Now, where can I pick up a second
    Xpander cheap? :-)
    
    	-Bill

RE the discussion on multi-timbrality...

	I have to agree with Edd on the multi-timbrality (bi-timbrality?) of the
DX-21.  I can't help but think, db, that you're missing the point that it not
only layers, but it can split accross the keyboard - one sound on one end, 
another sound on the other.  

	And I also think Edd hit the nail on the head by separating out the
concept of multi-channelizing of patches from the concept of multi-timbrality.
Think about it - multi-timbral: "many timbres".  No evidence of the concept of
separate channels there.  'Twould be nice to have them available on separate 
channels, but the word "multi-timbral" does not need it to be satisfied.

	Dan

    Dan,
    
    I have not missed that point about splits.  If you read my notes
    again, you will see my wording is carefully chosen to EXCLUDE them 
    from multi-timbrality.  I did not mention them specifically because
    there may be other things besides splits and layers and I wanted
    to be general.
    
    Now it's my turn to state what points you and Edd may have missed.
    
    "Multi-timbral" has one meaning as a general term, and a similar
    but more refined meeting when used to identify a "feature"
    on a synth.  My claim is that the meaning of multi-timbral as
    a feature is well-established by usage.  Note that even Roland, 
    as Chad has said, describes the D-50 as Bi-timbral, not multi-timbral.
    
    I don't believe that even Yamaha bills the DX as being "multi-timbral".
    Does it?
    
    	db

RE < Note 1815.35 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "Yo!" >

>    My claim is that the meaning of multi-timbral as
>    a feature is well-established by usage.  

	Well, you can claim that, but at least two of us, who, if I may say
so, are far from novices in the MIDI field of knowledge, do not agree with
you.

>   Note that even Roland, 
>    as Chad has said, describes the D-50 as Bi-timbral, not multi-timbral.
>    
>    I don't believe that even Yamaha bills the DX as being "multi-timbral".
>    Does it?

	I am unable to find any particular terminology from Yamaha that 
describe its ability to split or layer two distinct timbres simultaneously.
So, that's still up for bids.

	Also, I didn't think the distinction between bi-timbral and 
multi-timbral was the main point, here.  I was under the impression that it was 
the additional feature of more than one timbre being accessable from more than
one channel that was up for question.
    
	Dan

    > *8 CHANNEL* Multitimbral synth...
    
    Seems to me that if your definition is true, the above statement
    would be redundant.
    
    Of course, if Dan and my interpretations were correct, the above
    description would address the 2 parameters I believe you've rolled
    into 1.
    
    Edd

>>    My claim is that the meaning of multi-timbral as
>>    a feature is well-established by usage.  

>	Well, you can claim that, but at least two of us, who, if I may say
>so, are far from novices in the MIDI field of knowledge, do not agree with
>you.
    
    Dan,
    
    I wasn't stating an "opinion".  I was stating an "observation".
    This can be verified or discounted.  It's not "your and Edd's word
    vs. mine".
    
    I suggest that we look at the usage of the term multi-timbral
    in the ads taken by the various synth companies.
    
    Let's see if we can find a manufacturer that mentions "multi-timbral"
    for BOTH "channel multi-timbral" synths and synths that support 
    layering/splitting. 
    
    That is let's look at the manufacturers who employ the term
    "multi-timbral" and see if they apply it to their product line
    according to your definition or mine.
    
    I already can tell you that Roland applies it according to my
    definition.   I'm pretty sure Ensoniq does although I'm not 
    sure if they make a unit that is capableof layering or splitting
    AND not capable of responding on several channels (OMNI mode doesn't
    count).
    
    And the Kawai ad I have here in front of me describes the K1, K1M
    and K1R as an "8 *CHANNEL* Multi-timbral" synth (Kawai K1).
    
    	db

    re: .38  <I win!!!! Send me Vanna White!!!>
    
    Edd's reply .38 is actually a reply to my reply .39.  I entered
    it, deleted it, and re-entered it with some slightly different
    wording.
    
    >> *8 CHANNEL* Multi-timbral synth...
    
    > Seems to me that if your definition is true, the above statement
    > would be redundant.
    
    C'mon Edd,
    
    The channels are a "unit of measure" (which btw supports my
    interpretation).
    
    This is like saying that the MPH in a statement such as "this car 
    can achieve a maximum speed of 100 MPH" is redundant.  Perhaps it
    is, but that's a perfectly acceptable way of saying it.
    
    > Of couse, if Dan and my interepretations were correct, the above
    > cescription would address the 2 parameters I believe you've rolled
    > into 1.
    
    Nope.  Actually, you've rolled rolled three into one: split + layering
    + Roland/db/Ensoniq/Kawai notion of multi-timbral = Edd and Dan
    notion of multi-timbral.
    
    Actually if they used your interpretation of multi-timbrality,
    the number would have to be 16, not 8,  because the K-1 does splits.
    
    	db

    Back in the old days, the definition of the term ``multi-timbral'' could
    be couched in the definition of the term ``voice'':  if a synth
    was capable of using two or more independent sets of voice parameters
    simultaneously, then it was multi-timbral.  
    
    This notion existed before there were MIDI channels and electronic
    patch storage.
    
    Recently, the synthesis architectures have become more flexible, so the
    definition of a voice has become indistinct, jingoistic, even.  I
    can't imagine that all manufacturers use consistent nomenclature any
    more.
    
    Personally, I use a definition similar to Edd and Dan's.
                                
    Steph

My definition would be that a synth that can play two or more timbres
simultaneously (ala the "old" def Steph gave) is multitimbral.

I don't care what channel(s) the different timbres are on. If it is
achieved through a split, then so be it, if on different channels, then so
be it.  Both are multitimbral.

For example, my D50 has a split patch where an accoustic bass is on the
bottom half and a flute is on the top (maybe the instruments are a bit
different but none-the-less are distinct and not layered).  That is an
example of multitimbrality, though both would default to respond to the same
channel.  A dual mode patch however on the D50 (two sound blocks layered)
would not be an example of multitimbrality.  An MT32 playing Bass on channel 2
and violin on channel 4 is an example of multitimbrality.  Fuzzy area is where
two distinct patches that are normally used apart on a synth (hence 
multitimbral) are layered to both sound together on the that synth.

When I describe multitimbrality to a "layman" when describing a device
I don't say it is "16 voice multitimbral, 32 polyphonic", rather I say
that it can "play up to 16 different 'instruments' at once with up to
32 notes sounding at once".

If the K1 is 8 multitimbral, I bet my horsefeathers that in split mode
it takes two of its multitimbralness-abilities to do it, which would
then reduce its channel-multitimbralness.

Chad

If anyone is  counting,  I  like to reserve the term "multi-timbral" for
     instruments  which can  respond  to  separate  MIDI  channels  with
     separate timbres, ala db.    This  allows  me  to think of an N-way
     multi-timbral SGU as N virtual instruments.

/Mitch

Though it ain't the only definition, db's and Mitch's (and whoever 
else wants it) definition is the prefered and much more useful definition.

IMHO

Chad

    Please remember that "multi-timbral" means one thing, and
    "multi-timbral synth" means something MORE SPECIFIC,  or at least,
    that is my claim.  I don't disagree with the definition of
    multi-timbral given a few notes ago, it just doesn't define
    the same term we're discussing, i.e. "multi-timbral synth".
    
    By the way, to add a bit more precision to my definition of
    "multi-timbral synth", I would say that a Multi-timbral synth
    supports an n-channel implementation of the MIDI "Multi mode".
    
    Although I had limited time for this last night, here are the
    results of my initial (5 minute) research (based on promotional
    materials I happened to have in lying around the house).
    
    Yamaha avoids the term "multi-timbral".
    
    But....   Supporting my (and Mitch and Chad's "if we're counting"
    (does this make the "score" 3-to-2??? ;-) ))...
    
    I have a piece of literature here.  It's an overview of the complete
    Korg line.  EVERY SINGLE PIECE (M1, Kthat supports multi mode has the word
    "multi-timbral" in it and in the same textual segement that describes
    the support of "multi-mode".  There are NO exceptions.  In fact,
    with the exception of the M-1, all the multi-mode synths are described
    in LARGE LETTERS in their captions as "multi-timbral synths".  The M-1 doesn't mention
    it in the caption (it mentions things that distinguish it from the
    other multi-timbral synths), but it is described as a "multi-timbral
    synth"  in the product description.
    
    There is one piece, Symphony Orchestra model, that does NOT support
    multi-mode, but DOES support splits and layers.  The term
    "multi-timbral" is completely absent from it's description.  Split
    and layer are described (uniformly throughout the book, NOT just
    for Symphony) as "combination play modes".
    
    Korg uniformly describes multi-mode capable synths as "multi-timbral
    synths" and uniformly omits that word for synths that do only layering and
    splits.
    
    I hereby claim that I've demonstrated that Korg adopts my definition
    of a multi-timbral synth.  Does anyone not accept this claim?
    
    	db

    Now let's look at Roland.
    
    I didn't have any Roland literature at home but it occurs to me that
    we might be able to demonstrate that Roland also uses "my" notion
    (I of course claim it's the almost-everybody-but-Edd-and-Dan's
    notion) of multi-timbral synth.
    
    We've established that Roland describes the D-50 as Bi-timbral?
    
    Question: Can either side of a D-50 split be a "layered" sound.
    
    If the answer is "yes", then isn't it curious that they've described
    it as a *BI*timbral synth.  If they adopted the Edd-and-Dan notion
    of timbrality, would it not be a "Quadra-timbral" synth?
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  I forgot to fully identify my source for Korg.  It's a catalog,
          produced by Korg, called "Electronic Musical Instruments Vol.14".
    	  I picked it up very recently at Daddy's Junky Music in Nashua.

    I live for this type of useless stuff...
    
    > Does anybody not agree...
    
    Predictably, I don't.

    Here in Field Circus we do a lot of RS232 line installations. For
    years, almost every engineer (myself excluded) has referred to the
    25 pin connector as an "RS232" which is out and out WRONG. It's
    a DB-25 connector. (Ask the stockroom for a DB-25 and they look
    at you like ya got two heads.)
    
    My point? Common usage don't make it true.
    
    Edd

    > implementation of the MIDI "multi-mode"...
    
    Having not read the spec in ages, could you refer me to where in
    the MIDI spec "multi-mode" is defined?
    
    I've been under the impression that 4 modes based on a mono/poly-
    OMNI-On/OFF matrix were all that was defined...
    
    Edd

    >> Does anybody not agree...
    
    > predictably, I don't
    
    > My point, common usage don't make it true.
    
    Edd,  you've pretty much demonstrated that you DO agree, but that
    you've lost track of what you're disagreeing with.
    
    From .35:
    
	"My claim is that the meaning of multi-timbral as
    	a feature is well-established by usage." 
    
    If you've accepted that it's common usage, then you DO AGREE
    with my claim.
    
    So the question is, what exactly are you disagreeing with.  You
    don't seem to be disagreeing with what you quoted from me which
    was:
    
    > I hereby claim that I've demonstrated that Korg adopts my definition
    > of a multi-timbral synth.  Does anyone not accept this claim?
    
    I mean, do you really disagree that I haven't demonstrated that Korg
    adopts my definition?????   Given that I've shown complete consistency
    with mine and complete inconsistency with the Edd-and-Dan version
    in Korg literature???
    
    Or are you at least willing to concede that the common usage of
    the term is "my" definition, but you just think that's just an
    unfortunate formally incorrect usage of the term?
    
    	db

    I disagree with both of you.
    Tom

    re: .48
    
    I don't have a copy of the MIDI spec.  I can only tell you that
    at least Ensoniq, Korg, and Kawai all have a "Multi" MIDI mode
    and it seems to mean the same thing across those brands.
    
    Other brands might have it, but I can't say that for certain.
    
    	db

    When is the moderator going to step in and squash this?
    
    Richard.

    My contention is that mutitimbral means just, and only, that
    more than one timbre can be produced by a single SGU simultaneously,
    without any regard to the number of MIDI channels that it will
    receive on.
    
    The only thing I'm willing to agree to is that everyone except Dan
    et moi have bastardized the term...
    
    Edd
    

    Well, I guess I started this back a ways when I mentioned that the
    D-50/550 was bitimbral (almost as bad as being bi-anything).  It's
    been fun to stand back and watch.
    
    But I have to agree with db and co., and disagree with Edd.  What
    Edd is calling multitimbral, everybody else calls "layered", and
    for most people multitimbral implies receiving on distinct MIDI
    channels, and usually separate outputs as well.
    
    Such usage is not "bastardization", but adoption of a convention
    so we can understand one another.  Since "layered" does a perfectly
    fine job of describing Edd's notion of "multitimbral", what do
    Edd and co. propose as the proper term for what everybody else calls
    "multitimbral"?  Multichannel doesn't hack it, as that can mean
    a whole slew of things.  So, "multitimbral" (in the same sense that
    an ensemble is multitimbral, i.e., multiple sounds playing different
    parts) is usefully defined the way everybody but Edd has defined
    it.
    
    And, no, the D-50/550 *can't* play a layered (in Roland terms, "dual")
    sound in bitimbral (in Roland terms "separate") mode.  One of these
    days, Roland will figure this out and follow Yamaha's lead.  They
    seem to be catching on, albeit slowly, viz. the D-20 (or is it
    D-10/110?).
    
    len.
      

    > The only thing I'm willing to agree to is that everyone except Dan
    > et moi have bastardized the term...
    
    Well, I don't really know if I'd call it "bastardizing" but I can
    live with this understanding of it.
    
    	db

    Then we shall let it lie?
    
    Peace on you, db.  Peace on the rest of you also...
    
    Edd

    > Then we shall let it lie?
    
    We shall.
    
    > Peace on you, db,  Peace on the rest of you also...
    
    Harumphh.  Don't think for a minute that I don't know that what
    you "really" meant was "piss on you db and piss on the rest
    of you too".
    
    Well.... same to you, egotistical bastard!!!
    
    ;-)
    
    	db
    
    p.s., I may be at LERDS-BIM tonite (normal wednesday "thing" cancelled)
    	  so we can drink lots of beer and piss on each other in person
    	  all night.

    Uhm, is the HR-16 better at being multitimbral than the TR-707?
    
    len.
    

    > Uhm, is the HR-16 better...  ...than the TR-707?
    
    Oh, without question it is.
    
    BTW, the correct spelling is "Ummm..."   ;-)
    
    	Guardian of the sacred vernacular

    
    	the score?
    
    		db seems to have a bigger bladder
    
    			but 
    
    		Edd gets greate distance with less!
    
    	probably wise to avoid the potty at the BIM?

For the record:  I never sided with one party or the other.  I only gave
a higher usefulness rating to db.  

Chad

(I wonder what the next conversation will be about)

    
    Re - ??
    
    No No I disagree layering is not the same as Multi-tymbral.
    
    Is it Edd?
    
    					Paul.

    Yamaha describes the DX7-IIFD as multi-timberal, they do not describe
    the DX7 as multi timbral.
    
    dbii

    
    Mentioning the M1 and the MT32 (D10, D20, and D50) in the same breath
    is ridiculous, in my opinion. There is NO COMPARISON in the sound. The
    M1 is (and should be) competing with the Kurzweil 1000 series
    sound-wise. If you compare the M1 with the EPS, it will lose on
    many points (sequencer is worse than EPS, it doesn't sample at
    all, etc.), but will win on others (99 GREAT sounds instantly, no
    need to spend money on a whole disk library to get all your "bread
    and butter" sounds, available as a rackmount, etc.). It really depends
    on what you are looking for in a SGU. I liked MANY of the M1's sounds
    better than the Kurzweil's (e.g. brass sounds). 
    
    Mike D

RE < Note 1815.63 by DNEAST::BOTTOM_DAVID "Everyday I got the blues" >
>                      -< As read inthe Y-word literature >-
>
>    Yamaha describes the DX7-IIFD as multi-timberal, they do not describe
>    the DX7 as multi timbral.
    
	I just looked up the DX7IIFD pamphlet and found no usage of the word
'multi-timbral'.  It refers to its ability to split and layer as '2-channel
6 operator FM synthesis'.

	BUT...  (!)

	I went to a catalog that Yamaha put out about a year ago and looked at 
the matrix in the back listing all Yamaha's pro MIDI gear.  Under the 'FM 
Synthesizers' table, it had a row to describe the feature 'Multi-Timbral'.  
Under the rows marked 'DX7IIFD', 'DX7IID', and 'DX21' it indicated that these
were indeed '2 Voice' multi-timbral.

	Dan

    Only forests are multitimbral.
    
    len (whose 707 is not only more multitimbral (it will make 15 sounds
    at the same time, while the HR-16 will only make 13 [click doesn't
    count]), it's also got many more outputs).
    

    I thought we'd put this one to rest.
    
    I don't know what "kind" of multi-timbrality these DX's have
    "multi-mode", "split/layer" or otherwise.  It is interesting to note
    that Yamaha seems to avoid the use of the term, whereas Roland, Korg,
    Kawai, Ensoniq, Kurzweil... among others... use the term at almost
    every opportunity.
    
    I can only tell you that it is widely established that "multi-timbral
    synth" implies a feature akin to MIDI Multi-mode.  If you choose
    not to believe this, we can still remain friends.
    
    	db

    > HR-16 will only make 13...
    
    I read basically the same thing in Keybored and thought it was a
    mistake there too...
    
    16 pads minus 2 of the 3 mutually exclusive HH pads equals 14, not
    counting click.
    
    Who's wrong?             
    
    Edd

RE < Note 1815.67 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "Yo!" >

>    I thought we'd put this one to rest.

	Sorry, db, I just hadda add in Yamaha's word, since they seem to be
the only one (at least that I can think of) that specializes in simultaneous
voices in the same channel.

	BTW, I think it was asked of you before, but I don't remember seeing
your answer - where does the term 'multi-mode' come from?

	Dan
    

    re .68:
                                            # sounds
    	pads	    	# pads	# channels  at a time
        ----		------  ----------  ---------
    
    	open hihat,        3        1          1
    	half open hihat,
    	closed hihat
                                   
   	crash cymbal 	   1        2          1
    
    	everything else	  12       12         12
    
    	click	           0        1
    
    			------	----------   -------
    
    			  16       16         14
    
    Right, 1+1+12 = 14, not 13.                      
    
    Why'd they allocate two channels to the crash cymbal instead of
    the ride?  How often do two crashes come within one crash decay
    time, compared to two ride beats within one ride decay time?
    My standard HR-16 setup allocates the ride sound to the crash pad,
    and the crash sound to the ride pad.  Also, I allocate foot closed
    hihat to closed hihat, and put the closed hihat on one of the
    "everything else" pads.  Assuming you'd almost never foot close and
    stick the hihat at the same time (true of most drummers), you program
    so you always get to closed hihat by going through foot close first.
    
    
    Returning to the subject at hand - as Edd and I discussed at last
    week's Xmas LERDS-BIM, the issue seems to be whether multitimbrality
    via keyboard or SGU splits count as well.  We decided they did.
    I.e., my MKS-80 (SGU only) can receive on two (adjacent) MIDI channels,
    and play two sounds independently, or can receive on one channel
    and play two sounds independently depending in note number - one
    "section" plays the notes < the split point, the other the notes
    >= the split point (or maybe its the other way around?).
    
    len.
    

    Geez I didn't mean to stimulate furthur urination,, but in the 1988
    Yamaha Digital Instrument catalog it lists 2 voice multi timbral
    as a feature of the DX7-IIFD and yes the DX-21....
    
    dbii whose Hr-6 is multi-tibral enough for me
    

    The click does too count-
    
    If you're using the HR-16 as an SGU, the click can get any of the
    49 samples, and can be assigned to a MIDI note number.  Just because
    the "click" voice is normally used internally is no reason to 
    claim it isn't there.
    
    For a real "kick" (groan) assign the click to use the crash cymbal
    sample.  (nb it gets boring real fast :-) )
    
    So, it's really 15-timbral, not 14.
             
    	:-)
    
    	-Bill

    Yeah, "click in play" can do that, but you get absotively no rhythmic
    variation for whatever instrument is assigned to the click.
    
    Good for disco bass drums....
    
    Edd

    re: .73
    
    > But you get absotively no rhythmic variation...
    
    Is this true?  I mean, if you can assign a MIDI note to the click,
    one would presume that in play mode, the HR-16 would respond to
    that MIDI note in any rhythmic pattern that gets sent.
    
    Easily verified or discounted of course.
    
    	db

    Hmmmmm..... you may be right (I may be crazy...)
    
    Since I always use the HR-16's internal sequencer for my drum
    parts, that scenario never occured to me...
    
    You do the experiment and I'll swear by whatever you come up with.
    That's just the kinda guy I am...
    
    Edd

    re .74 re .73 re ...  But you can't assign a MIDI note number to
    the click, as you can only assign note numbers to pads, and the
    click doesn't have a pad. 
    
    Does counting the click as a legitimate timbre (even though it can't
    be invoked by a MIDI note on message) mean that the residual hum
    and noise of any device counts as a timbre?
    
    len.
    

    > How often do two crashes come within one crash decay time,
    > compared to two ride beats within one ride decay time?
    
    In heavy metal, two close crashes come quite (some might say "too")
    often.
    
    But speaking in terms of design rationale, I think the rationale
    used was "Which sucks worse, a cut-off crash decay, or a cut-off
    ride decay?"
    
    I think Crash cut-off is VERY noticeable.  Most older machines have a
    noticeable cut-off of the crash because it's the longest sample.
    
    In fact, my standard HR-16 kit actually has TWO crash pads because I
    seem to do a lot of closely spaced crashes and I like them to sound
    like two different cymbals so I tune and pan them differently.  So I
    don't use the 2-in-1 crash pad feature.  I have never really paid much
    attention to ride decay cut-off and your words have sorta caused me to
    think about putting one of my two crashes on the ride pad, and putting
    the ride on the crash pad.
    
    	db

> BTW, I think it was asked of you before, but I don't remember seeing
> your answer - where does the term 'multi-mode' come from?
    
    I addressed this in .51 to the extent that I knew.
    
    	db
    
    

    re .77 - right!
    
    A truncated crash is quite obvious.  But most back to back crashes
    are to different cymbals, so the HR-16 gimmick doesn't help much.
    
    This is why I hang onto my "obsolete" drum machines - they give
    me extra, noninteracting crashes.  I use 4 - the HR-16, the TR-707,
    the TR-909, and the LinnDrum.  Assigning the HR-16's ride sound
    to its crash pad gives me a little more ride sustain than I'd get
    otherwise, and I use the ride cymbal a *lot* more than I do back
    to back crashes; still, the multiple drum machine crash solution
    means I can do multiple crashes at the same time (something I *do*
    on my real kit frequently).  This doesn't work for rides, because
    the ride cymbal sounds are too diverse to sound like the same cymbal,
    an effect I *want* for the ride, but not for the crashes.  Simultaneous
    crashes on two cymbals gives a much fatter crash sound.  4 crashes
    gives me 12 possible pairings.
    
    The MC-500 allows me to set up a "kit" with up to 32 rhythm
    instruments, scattered across all 16 MIDI channels.  My basic setup
    has 2 snares, 2 basses, 8 toms, 4 hihats (HR-16 closed, half
    open, open, and foot closed), 2 rides (HR-16 ride and bell) and
    4 crashes.  This uses up 22 of the MC-500's instruments, leaving
    me 10 slots for per-song percussion "spice", e.g., claps, tambourine,
    congas, timbales, bongos, claves, shaker, etc..  Except for balls
    out Latin numbers, this works quite well for me.  Since I can save
    MC-500 rhythm setups on disk, I can set up a "Latin" configuration
    as well, without the snare, toms and cymbals, etc..
    
    len.
    

re: -< Wretched Excess or Clever Exploitation of Obsolete Technology? >-
    
    I think it's a clever exploitation of Obsolete technology but
    a wretched excessive use of MIDI channels.  ;-)  (And mixer
    channels which I'm short on).
    
    I generally find that I don't need more than 16 sounds for anyone
    pattern so I "redefine" pads from my standard kit when I need
    something like more cymbals.  Or I'll use the drums in the MT-32
    (which does have GREAT latin samples), or use the sampler.
    
    Of course, with this setup I can't do many of the things that
    you CAN do such as:
    
    	  Program the drums from a sequencer (actually, when I get
    	  my HR-16 updated to the new software, this may be possible)
    	  That is, if I deviate from my standard kit in some patterns,
    	  I can't program the kit changes to happen at the right moments
    	  with the old version of the HR software.
    
    Len, I'll tell you one good reason that I would like to have a
    TR-707 to supplment my HR.  Flams.  They are a pain to program
    (and get right) on the HR and I like to use them a lot.
    
    I told Alesis that they should add it either as a button somewhere,
    or perhaps as another "sound" (which I think might be a better idea
    at least for the snare).
    
    	db

    Re- back a ways, about HR-16 click channels...
    
    The click channel does respond to MIDI note-on's- you set the note
    number by going into the MIDI key-mapping menu but NOT hitting any pad
    to select it.  This lets you choose the MIDI note number for the
    "click" voice, which you can then use just like any other SGU channel. 
                                                            
    RTFM, as they say.  :-)
    
    	-Bill

    So we can say that the HR-16 is 15 voices as an SGU and 14 when
    using the internal sequencer.
    
    	db

    Mono-timbral too, right?
    
    Edd

    RTFM means *Rememberize* the f'ing Manual, right?  Sorry, I read
    it that night, and sho'nuf, you *can* assign a MIDI note number to
    the click.  Bizarre, but useful. 
    
    Re MIDI channels consumed by my multiple drum machines; since the
    MC-500 has *2* MIDI outs, I only use up 3 of 32 channels for my
    drum machines.  When I get an R-8, it'll be 4, but I've still got
    28 channels left.  I have a 6-in/2-out submixer for the drum machines
    (no longer enough; I need an 8-in) so's the drums only use up 2
    channels on the main board.     
    
    len.
    

    I am overwhelmed.  Absolutely overwhelmed.

-b (who is thinking about nabbing a Kurzweil)

    
    
    Nah, get the M1...it's Multi-Timbral
    
    ;-}.
    
    Jason. 

    Actually, so is the Kurzweil, and it's not limited to 1 oscillator per
    voice to generate 16 (24) note polyphony.

    I won't touch the multi/poly/quasi-timbral discussion with a 10 foot
    pole.  I'm not one for a bun fight.  Sakes.

-b

    uh, hi, Brad.  I bleeve #.86 was in jest.

    Yup - I'm having a hard time getting back into things.  But thanks ever
    so much for pointing out my impropriety.  &*}

    Anyway, I'm *still* considering a K1000.  Is there a topic that deals
    with this unit, anyone? 

-b

Brad --

look at the U-110.

It sounds great for the $$$  (Daddy's asks $899) and is up to 31 
polyphony, and 8(?) multi-timbralness 
whatever that means, and has bow-coup (americanized french :-)
ROM samples (2 megaword ?)

Chad

Brad -- move this note wherever you want it.

    
re: -.1		>>>    look at the U-110.
    
    But keep in mind that you get what you pay for, especially in terms
    of piano sounds.  I did a VERY close inspection jumping between
    the Roland P330 (new version MKS20-type piano thing) and the U110
    and was amazed at how hissy the U110 piano was.  If you're ever
    thinking of doing solo piano or sparce arrangement with piano, I
    think the piano hiss would be very noticable.  Thus, I've removed
    the U110 from my list of possible purchases (since I've decided
    that a GREAT piano is a necessity).
    
    I think Karl Moeller said shortly after he got his 1000PX that it
    was the first affordable electronic piano substitute that he would
    use for a solo piano piece.  Though, I think the P330 is very good,
    I think I'll agree with him.  In a separate test, I tried the Kurzweil
    and can find very few flaws in its piano that would be noticable
    in my normal use.  (Correct me if this is an inaccurate recollection,
    Karl.)

- John -
    
P.S.  If the previous note gets moved, this one should probably get
      moved, too.

-.1 >>>    was the first affordable electronic piano substitute that he would
-.1 >>>    use for a solo piano piece.
    
    My intention was for this to parse as "an electronic substitute
    for an acoustic piano" but I notice that this may be how you read
    it.  Ah, language.  It sounded so good when I thought it.
    
    - John -

    re the KZpiano.. listened to with headphones, without a reverb field,
    there are some small timbre changes every few notes, but when using
    a decent digital reverb (and I use a MIDIverb I) it sounds great.
    
    Just did another piano solo last night.  Also, my piece "The Minefield"
    off COMMUSIC V was done with the KZpiano, and much of it was piano
    only.
    
    Still recommended.