Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    
    Jason
    
    Easiest way to get a commusic tape for you is through myself.
    DTN is 7851 2120. I will be in your area next week so that might
    be an opportunity to touch base. We do have a groupknown locally
    as berks-bum based on an innovative format of our own which meets
    about once every 6months. I.E. when I'get to Reading or Basingstoke.
    MR Machin are you ltening ? It's next Thursday night.
    
    As to editing sounds . The best approach is to gea known patch that
    is reasonably close to your requirement and then diddle a lot.
    
    I got my Atari for this purpose alone as I couldn't live with all
    those buttons and hidden menus.
    
    					Paul

    Hmmm.  The way I get a 'new' sound is by diddling with a sound that's
    already close.  A little background on why a sound is the way it
    is proves very helpful.  For example, if you want a flute-type of
    sound, you'll find that triangle waves will do that for you.  If
    you want something breathy, you'll need to add some noise.  If you
    want a good sax sound, forget it unless you have a good sampler.
    That kind of thing.  What I've been hearing is that if you want
    the best flexibility, try to have a setup that includes a sampler,
    a digital algorithm synth (PD, FM, LA, take your pick) and an analog
    synth.  By the way, there seems to be no *easy* way to create new
    sounds that you *like* without stumbling onto sounds that everybody
    else is using.  
    
    Steve

    After a while you can just kinda 'feel' what you want to do...
    
    If I want a Hammond sound from one of my 4-op FMs, I go right to
    algorhythm 8, pick some even frequencies, set all the levels to
    max and then start tweaking.
    
    Should I need a sound that changes timbre over time without anything
    remaining stable, I grab the alg with 3 carriers and 1 modulator
    attached to all three.
    
    If I want a gorgeous sax with lots of expression, I shut everything
    off and come back when I feel better.
    
    It's hard to tell anyone how to get a particular sound, especially
    on a different architecture. The 'find something close and tweak
    it' approach is a great place to start until you're real familiar
    with your machine.
    
    I wrote a pseudo-random patch generator for my DX. Generally, it
    comes up with junk but it sometimes gets lucky and spits out something
    that's fun if I tweak it up a bit.
    
    You can also have some fun by covering your LCD and very quickly
    move all your sliders, press all the buttons with no regard for
    anything. Then hit a key and see what you got? Like it? Keep it.
    Sound like bugzpoop? Repeat step 1... 
    
    Have fun...
    
    Edd

RE: Tapes

    Like PK said, talk to him (or read the COMMUSIC topics in the 1st
    16 or so in this conference).

RE: Patch Creation

    While the mechanics of this operation is machine dependent, definition
    of what you might want isn't ... I find that if I have an idea of what
    I want before I start, it helps a great deal (and yes, I have started
    diddling with nothing in mind). 

    Use your Hammond patch as a case in point.  What kind of attack
    (envelope settings)?  Do you want a relatively clean patch or something
    grungy (waveform choice/level)?  Built-in modulation (eg, vibrato) or
    only when called for (map LFO directly to oscillator or to wheel or
    aftertouch, and then to osc)?  Will the color of the sound change
    across the keyboard (keyboard scaling mapped to filter) or remain
    pretty consistent (no scaling)?

    Unless you know exactly what you're doing and exactly what you want,
    you're often better off to use Hallmark programming techniques than to
    try and brute force it (unless your primary objective is to learn and
    not to create a new patch).

    A slight aside - turn off the reverb until you get a sound close to
    what you're looking for, or you'll suffer FX burnout. 

-b

    Mr. Flowers:
    	Your question seems a little like asking, "When you want to
    find a good Afgani bar-b-que restaurant, do you just get in your
    car and start driving?".  I agree with the previous notes, parti-
    cularly Brad (.4).  If what you want to do primarily is have fun,
    then have at it.  But if you want to minimize frustration and maximize
    success (defined here as coming up with a usable patch) you may
    need to do some preparation.
    
    	To begin with, as someone mentioned, you really should have
    some idea about your machine(s)'s architecture (how it produces
    sounds). Without that you are not going to have a clue about what
    is likely to happen when you push a button or twist a knob.  This
    knowledge will help you to cut down the options from "zillions"
    to some manageable number of options.
    
    	Second, understanding the nature of the sound also helps to
    narrow down your tools.  Once I was trying to get a piano patch
    to sound more realistic and couldn't get rid of a clicking noise
    each keystroke made.  It was not until I figured out it was the
    attack portion of the sound that was the problem that I could focus
    my energies here instead of on the harmonic spectrum or some other
    dead-end.  You don't need Fourier analysis here, just a basic idea
    of what makes your target sound "sound" the way it does.
    
    	Third, DEFINITEly try to start with something that sounds close.
    If nothing else, the settings on this prototype will give you some
    sense of the characteristics (and specs) you want.  One of the first
    sounds I put together was a harpsichord patch for my KAWAI K5. The
    K5 comes with a nice complement of keyboard patches, but the harps-
    ichord sounded "electronic".  So I took a look at the harmonic spectrum
    (of overtones) and found that the patch had too much energy in the
    higher overtones with respect to the fundamental and lower harmonics.
    Pulling some of those back helped enormously.  I then softened the
    attack (Slowed it down) so that the "pluck" of the strings was less
    acute and thus less electric.
    
    	Finally, if you get the sound in the ballpark then and only
    then crank in some reverb.  Whenever I have forgotten to turn off
    the reverb, I always have a tougher time.  FX mask other things
    going on in the sound generation process.  Making sounds can be
    a lot of fun, but playing is a lot more fun for me.  I find the
    only time I really diddle with patches is when I really MUST have
    a specific sound that the standard patches just can't match.
    
    Clusters,
    Bill Allen @MPO
    
    PS Most machines are not really well set up to work on patches (IMO).
       As a bare minimum, I really think you have to have some sort
       of graphical analysis of harmonics and envelopes.  I got spoiled
       with the K5 on this, and ended up buying a Patch Editor/Librian
       for my D-110

    I'd disagree entirely.  As soon as you start to understand what
    it is (in terms of what it sounds like) that each of your synth
    parameters controls, it's no problem to build a new sound.
    
    _Whether or not_ this is productive time is the subject of another
    EXHAUSTIVE rathole ( already discussed, check the directory for details).
    
    Hints:
    
    	Hammond_without_keyclick:  Square waves, ASR envelope with attack
    		and release times set to zero, sustain set to full.
    
    	Hammond_with_keyclick: Take above, add a short blip of noise.
    		(i.e. an AD envelope with fast rise and fall)
    
    	Hammond_with_Leslie: Take above, and add vibrarto (amplitude)at about 3
    		Hz and tremulo (freq) at 3 hz, with the filter opening and
    		closing with the tremulo.
                                                                     
    
    See how easy it is?  :-)
    
    	-Bill

!    < Note 1852.6 by CTHULU::YERAZUNIS "I can add, test, and branch; therefore I am." >
!                           -< Some HammondHints... >-
!
!    I'd disagree entirely.  As soon as you start to understand what
!    it is (in terms of what it sounds like) that each of your synth
!    parameters controls, it's no problem to build a new sound.
 !   
  !  _Whether or not_ this is productive time is the subject of another
!    EXHAUSTIVE rathole ( already discussed, check the directory for details).
!    
!    Hints:
!    
!    	Hammond_without_keyclick:  Square waves, ASR envelope with attack
!    		and release times set to zero, sustain set to full.
!    
!    	Hammond_with_keyclick: Take above, add a short blip of noise.
!    		(i.e. an AD envelope with fast rise and fall)
what's faster than attach and release times set to zero, as above?
    !    
!    	Hammond_with_Leslie: Take above, and add vibrarto (amplitude)at about 3
!    		Hz and tremulo (freq) at 3 hz, with the filter opening and
!    		closing with the tremulo.
tremolo is a regular variation of amplitude.  vibrato is a regular
    variation of pitch.  If your synth labels it the other way, itw
    as built by idiots and you should throw it away.
    !                                                                     
    
!    See how easy it is?  :-)
    
!    	-Bill


Tom-

    Bill,
    
    > I disagree entirely
    
    I don't disagree with your disagreement if you understand your synth
    well, but I disagree that you should start with a "new" sound.
    
    If you start with a "similar" patch you don't spend as much time
    setting the parameters to what you have in mind because many
    of them are already there or "close".
    
    It just saves time - I think it's a good suggestion.
    
    Another reason to start with an existing patch is to examine what
    it does.  If you always start with a "new" patch, you never learn
    anything from other people have done similar things.  It's always
    a good idea to examine a patch and find out what make it work, and
    there's no more productive time to do than at the same time you're
    trying to do a similar sound.
    
    	db

    I didn't mean to suggest that you should always start from a single
    "BASIC" sound- but it sometimes is easier to.  If you have a sound
    that's close, start with that. 
    
    The only problem with starting with a not-close-and-complicated
    sound is that there's often a weird kink in those patches that make
    it hard to modify _unless_ you do as dB suggests and understand
    the patch thouroughly before modifying it.
    
    This can be very very hard if you like to use chaos-theory
    interconnects of modulations (what would I do without my Matrix? :-) ) 
                                              
    However, Hammond-type organ patches are generally not that complicated.
    
    (the AD envelope is for the noise, NOT for the square waves.
    Aughghghggggh!) 
    
    -----------
    
    Re: Tremulo and Vibrato:  None of my synths have it labeled as
    either.  My brain has it labeled- and wrong, too. :-)
                         
    Re: Leslie simulator:
    To do it right, you should phase-lock the three motions together
    such that the volume and filter cutoff sinusoid lag the freq-mod
    sinusoid by 90 degrees.  (Check your synth for a "osc restart phase"
    input, or lacking that, use a lag generator to create the volume
    and filter cutoff sinusoids from the freq-mod sinusoid).  It helps
    to layer this patch with itself and lock the two freq-mod sinusoids
    180 degrees out of phase with each other (or have a second layer
    with a - sign in all all of the second layer's modulations of the
    freq-mod sinusoid.)
    
    To allow for a Leslie speeding up/slowing down you also need to
    modulate the frequency of the sinusoids and their amplitude (ramp
    'em up on startup, and down on shutoff.)
                                                                          
    	-Bill

    Jason,

        As with so many other things in life (and especially in this
    conference :-), there is no right or wrong way to create these patches,
    you'll have to try both approaches and see which suits you best.

    I think you'll find that editing existing sounds whilst at the same
    time trying to understand what it is that you're doing will help you
    to 'get into' the architecture of your synth.

    One thing which had a brief mention earlier was computer-aided voice
    randomisation. Some computer based voice editors allow you to specify
    the degree of randomisation you want, which could be useful if you
    think that you're close to the sound you want but don't know how to
    get closer.

    Cheers,

    Derek.

    re .10
    Derek:
    	Sounds like you've used these "patch droids" before.  I have
    one on my D110 Editor but have not used it yet.  I plan to give
    it a whirl this weekend.  Any other helpful hints on how to use
    them?
                    
    Clusters,
    Bill Allen @MPO

    Bill,

        I don't actually have much experience of using a randomiser (I
    don't own one (yet)), but I do spend lots of time thinking of what
    I'd do if I *did* have all of the toys that I want :-)

    One idea is to try the opposite of the obvious approach of using the
    randomiser to 'fine-tune' a sound - why not take a sound which you
    detest, hate and loath and randomise fairly wildly to see if anything
    decent ensues ?!

    By the way, is your D-110 editor compatible with the MT-32 (I don't
    have an editor for my Atari ST/MT-32 yet, but it is my birthday soon
    :-) :-)

    May your clusters never wither,

    Derek

    re .12
    The "randomization" feature is really kind of neat.  You simply
    select the sound to be randomized and SHAZAM!!!...you now have the
    original tone plus 63 variations of it.  The program places these
    in a 64-tone bank (overwriting the other tones that were there).
    What do they sound like?  Well, the variations were all over the
    map.  Some were minor timbre changes with elements of the tone being
    detuned.  Others seemed to have differences in timing of component
    onset or decay.  
    
    I could see how using this feature could take a long time.  First
    you need to decide what you want to alter (pitch, amplitude, etc.).
    Then you need to determine the degree of alteration you want (in %).
    I took a couple tones I liked and after zapping them once or twice,
    decided that the original was still nicest.  I will try to learn
    more about this patch before I experiment further...
    
    D.Kayd:
    This program is for the ibm-AT so I'm not sure that it will work
    on your machine.
    
    CLUSTERSzzzzz,
    Bill Allen @MPO