Ok, I just looked at what I could find on the Eventide H9. I love Eventide products but given I have a few of their products it would make no sense for me to get an H9.
On the plus side, I love the idea that you can edit parameters on the IPad. I just wish they would right an app for their other boxes. However, it seems they are doing this because they have miniaturized the box now with a micro LED and XYZ buttons and a big knob. I guess some like this style and it is a further development of the X and Y knobs on their other boxes. I understand why they did this but at least with the other boxes when you move a knob the LED indicates the parameter being changed. So, unless you want to be driven crazy by the tinisized form you have to have an IPad?
They also combine select algorithms from the other boxes with an option to buy more. Nice marketing. You know that people will end up spending more on algorithms than if they bought all the current boxes. Well, I can't really say that without seeing The price but that is my guess.
What I would have liked is a rack mount unit with all the algorithms from the current boxes, large display, 3 hot knobs, added algorithms from their rack mount effects, MIDI, USB and IPad access and multi pedal plugs. CV control would really have been a plus.
So, I know many are going to love the H9 and in terms of sound the Eventide algorithms are great but I just don't see this one as a real innovation, just smart marketing.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Whats Old Is New Again
Over several weeks I have been using Tom Hughes' "Analogue Guide to Vintage Effects" as a coffee table book. It's out of print but if you are able to procure a copy I highly recommend it. What's fascinating to me is the market for effects from companies that have long since closed their doors. Some effects fetch prices in the 100s! The truth is I don't have any and I don't plan on buying ant in the future. Well, that may not be totally true. I would buy a spring reverb but more for experimental reasons than nostalgia. I have stomp boxes and rack mount effects and some emulate vintage but I have an interest in nostalgia more from a historical perspective.
So why did some effects do so well and others fail. I have three reasons in order of importance:
1. The circuit construction
2. Good Marketing
3. Features
Most effects sound good because of the circuit design but things get dicey because there are often many versions of the same effect and sometimes under different names. It's really why some effects may be hard to duplicate unless you totally simulate a circuit and that may be difficult and CPU intensive.
Some popularity is pure hype and marketing as well. Sometimes it might have to do with a big name store carrying an effect or perhaps a popular artist might like it and everyone thinks if they get that effect they can sound like their musical heroes.
Old school stomp boxes also tended not to be feature rich although an exception may be Mu Tron for example.
A few special cases are also worthy of mentioning: Spring and Plate reverb, tube distortion/overdrive and tape delay. For various reasons emulating any of these is not a simple task. In my opinion most synth effects that have any of these effects do a lousy job. If you have a killer synth it's probably munching on CPU and a good emulation crushes many CPUs. Companies making synths also want to concentrate on the synth so effects are after thoughts. Distortion, especially the soft clipping of tubes, is hard to emulate. I don't have vintage tubes but I do have an EH "Tube EQ" with dual 12AX7s.
In my opinion here us where dedicated boxes like the Strymon "El Capistan" tape delay also shine as do some rack mount devices.
A final special case - reverb. In my opinion the most important effects are:
1. EQ
2. Compression
3. Reverb
Ok, in the end these are really mastering/Mixing tools rather than effects but to be, perhaps with the exception of delay, the rest are window dressing. A bit of ear candy but non essential.
So, that's my take on effects old and new. Hope you enjoyed it.
So why did some effects do so well and others fail. I have three reasons in order of importance:
1. The circuit construction
2. Good Marketing
3. Features
Most effects sound good because of the circuit design but things get dicey because there are often many versions of the same effect and sometimes under different names. It's really why some effects may be hard to duplicate unless you totally simulate a circuit and that may be difficult and CPU intensive.
Some popularity is pure hype and marketing as well. Sometimes it might have to do with a big name store carrying an effect or perhaps a popular artist might like it and everyone thinks if they get that effect they can sound like their musical heroes.
Old school stomp boxes also tended not to be feature rich although an exception may be Mu Tron for example.
A few special cases are also worthy of mentioning: Spring and Plate reverb, tube distortion/overdrive and tape delay. For various reasons emulating any of these is not a simple task. In my opinion most synth effects that have any of these effects do a lousy job. If you have a killer synth it's probably munching on CPU and a good emulation crushes many CPUs. Companies making synths also want to concentrate on the synth so effects are after thoughts. Distortion, especially the soft clipping of tubes, is hard to emulate. I don't have vintage tubes but I do have an EH "Tube EQ" with dual 12AX7s.
In my opinion here us where dedicated boxes like the Strymon "El Capistan" tape delay also shine as do some rack mount devices.
A final special case - reverb. In my opinion the most important effects are:
1. EQ
2. Compression
3. Reverb
Ok, in the end these are really mastering/Mixing tools rather than effects but to be, perhaps with the exception of delay, the rest are window dressing. A bit of ear candy but non essential.
So, that's my take on effects old and new. Hope you enjoyed it.
Whats Old Is New Again
Over several weeks I have been using Tom Hughes' "Analogue Guide to Vintage Effects" as a coffee table book. It's out of print but if you are able to procure a copy I highly recommend it. What's fascinating to me is the market for effects from companies that have long since closed their doors. Some effects fetch prices in the 100s! The truth is I don't have any and I don't plan on buying ant in the future. Well, that may not be totally true. I would buy a spring reverb but more for experimental reasons than nostalgia. I have stomp boxes and rack mount effects and some emulate vintage but I have an interest in nostalgia more from a historical perspective.
So why did some effects do so well and others fail. I have three reasons in order of importance:
1. The circuit construction
2. Good Marketing
3. Features
Most effects sound good because of the circuit design but things get dicey because there are often many versions of the same effect and sometimes under different names. It's really why some effects may be hard to duplicate unless you totally simulate a circuit and that may be difficult and CPU intensive.
Some popularity is pure hype and marketing as well. Sometimes it might have to do with a big name store carrying an effect or perhaps a popular artist might like it and everyone thinks if they get that effect they can sound like their musical heroes.
Old school stomp boxes also tended not to be feature rich although an exception may be Mu Tron for example.
A few special cases are also worthy of mentioning: Spring and Plate reverb, tube distortion/overdrive and tape delay. For various reasons emulating any of these is not a simple task. In my opinion most synth effects that have any of these effects do a lousy job. If you have a killer synth it's probably munching on CPU and a good emulation crushes many CPUs. Companies making synths also want to concentrate on the synth so effects are after thoughts. Distortion, especially the soft clipping of tubes, is hard to emulate. I don't have vintage tubes but I do have an EH "Tube EQ" with dual 12AX7s.
In my opinion here us where dedicated boxes like the Strymon "El Capistan" tape delay also shine as do some rack mount devices.
A final special case - reverb. In my opinion the most important effects are:
1. EQ
2. Compression
3. Reverb
Ok, in the end these are really mastering/Mixing tools rather than effects but to be, perhaps with the exception of delay, the rest are window dressing. A bit of ear candy but non essential.
So, that's my take on effects old and new. Hope you enjoyed it.
So why did some effects do so well and others fail. I have three reasons in order of importance:
1. The circuit construction
2. Good Marketing
3. Features
Most effects sound good because of the circuit design but things get dicey because there are often many versions of the same effect and sometimes under different names. It's really why some effects may be hard to duplicate unless you totally simulate a circuit and that may be difficult and CPU intensive.
Some popularity is pure hype and marketing as well. Sometimes it might have to do with a big name store carrying an effect or perhaps a popular artist might like it and everyone thinks if they get that effect they can sound like their musical heroes.
Old school stomp boxes also tended not to be feature rich although an exception may be Mu Tron for example.
A few special cases are also worthy of mentioning: Spring and Plate reverb, tube distortion/overdrive and tape delay. For various reasons emulating any of these is not a simple task. In my opinion most synth effects that have any of these effects do a lousy job. If you have a killer synth it's probably munching on CPU and a good emulation crushes many CPUs. Companies making synths also want to concentrate on the synth so effects are after thoughts. Distortion, especially the soft clipping of tubes, is hard to emulate. I don't have vintage tubes but I do have an EH "Tube EQ" with dual 12AX7s.
In my opinion here us where dedicated boxes like the Strymon "El Capistan" tape delay also shine as do some rack mount devices.
A final special case - reverb. In my opinion the most important effects are:
1. EQ
2. Compression
3. Reverb
Ok, in the end these are really mastering/Mixing tools rather than effects but to be, perhaps with the exception of delay, the rest are window dressing. A bit of ear candy but non essential.
So, that's my take on effects old and new. Hope you enjoyed it.
Monday, January 14, 2013
John Cage and the Culture of Noise
I have to admit that being an electronic and experimental artist has allowed me a lot of creative freedom to explore a lot of musical territory. I recently read an article which more or less praised John Cage as the primary musical revolutionary to open the doors of creativity. To be honest, I am not a big John Cage fan. I see him more as a kind of musical politician rather than an artist. Did he open a lot of doors? Perhaps but he was one of many in an Avant Garde revolution.
I also don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. As music to write this blog to I am listening to Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier". The beauty of Bach's music is in it's precision as notes are fashioned in a very restrictive musical construct and yet, at least in the case of the greats like Bach, transcending it. In his own time he was probably not as popular as his sons whose music is now only a footnote to the looming presence of their father's music today. Time favored complexity over popularity.
In Bach's time, it was easy to discuss technique. Music was all written out so that innovations could be discussed and used by others. Today, music is pretty much free form and electronic music has left it's classical roots in many ways i believe to its demise. In this bold new world ushered in by John Cage it is imitation that has become the limitation. Music becomes narrowly defined by a certain beat or type of sound. Dubstep and chiptune music is an example. Music defined by technology or even 8bit chips. These are self imposed limitations much like serialism before the Avant Garde and electronic revolutions began to sculpt the musical landscape.
As I have been working with Moog Guitar I find myself like Cage with no net under me and no map to chart my course but unlike Cage I do think about the musicality of what I do. On keyboards I have frequently drawn on jazz and classical in using modes and altered scales. As a Catholic I am inspired by Messiaen who was one of the first to write for an early electronic instrument the Ondes Martenot. And in sound design I find artists such as Karlheintz Stockhausen whose picture graces the top row of the Beatles Sergeant Peppers not John Cage far more inspiring than John Cage.
I do believe that sound is not just sound as Cage would tell us. It does not stand boldly on it's own but as artists we shape it and organize it. Electronic Music is "organized sound" as Edgar Varese called it. I have noticed that some artists are critical of talking about technique. They believe that it's just the doing that is important but I disagree as I do with Cage. If electronic music is to advance we should discuss technique. Perhaps we need to do more that mimic sounds and rather, advance and discuss the use of more sophisticated techniques. Anyway, that my two cents on Cagian musicality. It is my hope that we may look to others not to limit our art but perhaps to leave a few breadcrumbs for others to follow.
I also don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. As music to write this blog to I am listening to Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier". The beauty of Bach's music is in it's precision as notes are fashioned in a very restrictive musical construct and yet, at least in the case of the greats like Bach, transcending it. In his own time he was probably not as popular as his sons whose music is now only a footnote to the looming presence of their father's music today. Time favored complexity over popularity.
In Bach's time, it was easy to discuss technique. Music was all written out so that innovations could be discussed and used by others. Today, music is pretty much free form and electronic music has left it's classical roots in many ways i believe to its demise. In this bold new world ushered in by John Cage it is imitation that has become the limitation. Music becomes narrowly defined by a certain beat or type of sound. Dubstep and chiptune music is an example. Music defined by technology or even 8bit chips. These are self imposed limitations much like serialism before the Avant Garde and electronic revolutions began to sculpt the musical landscape.
As I have been working with Moog Guitar I find myself like Cage with no net under me and no map to chart my course but unlike Cage I do think about the musicality of what I do. On keyboards I have frequently drawn on jazz and classical in using modes and altered scales. As a Catholic I am inspired by Messiaen who was one of the first to write for an early electronic instrument the Ondes Martenot. And in sound design I find artists such as Karlheintz Stockhausen whose picture graces the top row of the Beatles Sergeant Peppers not John Cage far more inspiring than John Cage.
I do believe that sound is not just sound as Cage would tell us. It does not stand boldly on it's own but as artists we shape it and organize it. Electronic Music is "organized sound" as Edgar Varese called it. I have noticed that some artists are critical of talking about technique. They believe that it's just the doing that is important but I disagree as I do with Cage. If electronic music is to advance we should discuss technique. Perhaps we need to do more that mimic sounds and rather, advance and discuss the use of more sophisticated techniques. Anyway, that my two cents on Cagian musicality. It is my hope that we may look to others not to limit our art but perhaps to leave a few breadcrumbs for others to follow.
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Problem With Distortion
I just realized why I dislike distortion boxes. I have always claimed that they remove not only the personality of individual guitars but the playing style of the guitarist as well. Here is why. Distortion boxes work by clipping the signal or basically cutting off the top. I am excluding tubes that do something very different. When this happens, the complex changing waveform of the attack transient is turned into a square wave. In effect, the expressiveness of the musician is removed.
Moog Guitar and EBow
It has always amazed me how many draw conclusions before even knowing all the details about something. This is certainly true of Moog Guitar. On the surface, Moog Guitar appears to be a guitar with a built in EBow. I can't express with more vigor how wrong this is.
First, the EBow is indiscriminate. It just imparts energy like a vibrating magnet. It does not sense individual strings any more than a pick does. With some effort one can learn to use it effectively but Moog Guitar is very different. In Moog Guitar the source of the vibrations are the pickups. The reason this is important is that Moog Guitar senses the vibration of individual strings. When a string vibrates, the pickups impart energy to that string to keep it vibrating.
Second, Moog Guitar also can damp strings. This is critical. Not only does it provide a setting to make strings sound more banjo like by damping energy but in a middle setting, it damps strings not being played. This allows the musician to play individual leads on one or more strings without other strings vibrating. The reason is the vibration is a two fold feedback loop and electronics which mute the other strings not played avoiding any accidental notes.
Third, one aspect of Moog Guitar that most impresses me is the harmonic balance, This shifts the energy from one pickup to the other. What this sounds like is sheer magic. It's not filtering and it's no gimmick. You can actually feel it in the vibration of the guitar. What it sounds like has to be heard but it's a kind of harmonic dance that no other instrument on earth can produce.
Forth, the E-Bow has no power control. It's just a matter of how close it is to the strings. On the Moog Guitar the amount of power can be controlled by a knob (Vo Power). Vo Power becomes part of the playing technique as does harmonic balance. In an ordinary guitar, most of playing technique is in the attack but Moog Guitar is more like a synth allowing shaping of the sound during the sustain including touching strings to create harmonics.
Fifth, the Moog Guitar has a built in filter. While some might think this is an auto wah it's much more subtle and can provide yet another way to shape the sound of the instrument.
So yes, Moog Guitar is a very unique instrument with huge potential. What it most certainly is not is a guitar with a built in E-Bow.
First, the EBow is indiscriminate. It just imparts energy like a vibrating magnet. It does not sense individual strings any more than a pick does. With some effort one can learn to use it effectively but Moog Guitar is very different. In Moog Guitar the source of the vibrations are the pickups. The reason this is important is that Moog Guitar senses the vibration of individual strings. When a string vibrates, the pickups impart energy to that string to keep it vibrating.
Second, Moog Guitar also can damp strings. This is critical. Not only does it provide a setting to make strings sound more banjo like by damping energy but in a middle setting, it damps strings not being played. This allows the musician to play individual leads on one or more strings without other strings vibrating. The reason is the vibration is a two fold feedback loop and electronics which mute the other strings not played avoiding any accidental notes.
Third, one aspect of Moog Guitar that most impresses me is the harmonic balance, This shifts the energy from one pickup to the other. What this sounds like is sheer magic. It's not filtering and it's no gimmick. You can actually feel it in the vibration of the guitar. What it sounds like has to be heard but it's a kind of harmonic dance that no other instrument on earth can produce.
Forth, the E-Bow has no power control. It's just a matter of how close it is to the strings. On the Moog Guitar the amount of power can be controlled by a knob (Vo Power). Vo Power becomes part of the playing technique as does harmonic balance. In an ordinary guitar, most of playing technique is in the attack but Moog Guitar is more like a synth allowing shaping of the sound during the sustain including touching strings to create harmonics.
Fifth, the Moog Guitar has a built in filter. While some might think this is an auto wah it's much more subtle and can provide yet another way to shape the sound of the instrument.
So yes, Moog Guitar is a very unique instrument with huge potential. What it most certainly is not is a guitar with a built in E-Bow.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Additive Synthesis - Is It the Holy Grail of Synthesis?
For years additive synthesis has been more of a theoretical animal than a practical form of synthesis. The reason? The amount of CPU power to make it happen. This has all changed and there are several additive synthesizers on the market now.
This blog post is the first of what I hope will be a series. I realized that the many posts I had made to a bulletin board are most likely going to disappear and I not only wanted to reproduce much of it but to update it and organize it for systematically. It's a huge topic because it really strikes at the heart of what sound is. I am also in a unique position to talk about it because I have a degree in mathematics and I have studied the topic for years. I am also an electronic musician and composer.
So, this blog is only an introduction. Let me begin by answering the question is it the holy grail of synthesis. The answer is a resounding no. Can it be useful? Yes, absolutely. Two good examples of this are Camel Audio's Alchemy and the Reaktor synth Razor.
Why would it be considered the Holy Grail of synthesis? In theory it can build any sound from it's parts that are called partials. Not only in a static sense but sound as it changes over time. Now I said in theory at least according to some. The theory is wrong because many who talk about additive synthesis do not understand what is called the Fourier Transform and many were mislead by an influential work "On the Perception of Sound" by Hermann Von Helmholtz. No one reads this any more (although I do have an unread copy on my bookshelf) but it has had a very influential effect on the perception of sound and I believe even additive synthesis.
Ok, now I warn you. We are about to go down a rabbit hole and it does involve a matrix. This one is called a Gabor Matrix. But don't ask Alice but a composer by the name of Xenakis. Confused?
Read this and be afraid. Be very afraid. Is sound a series of waves called partials or is it a series of grains?
http://or8.net/pipermail/microsound/2009-December/001197.html
More to come in future posts but I hope this peaks some interest. By the way, check out Poseidon. It's VirSyn's walk on the granular side wearing Helmholtz glasses.
This blog post is the first of what I hope will be a series. I realized that the many posts I had made to a bulletin board are most likely going to disappear and I not only wanted to reproduce much of it but to update it and organize it for systematically. It's a huge topic because it really strikes at the heart of what sound is. I am also in a unique position to talk about it because I have a degree in mathematics and I have studied the topic for years. I am also an electronic musician and composer.
So, this blog is only an introduction. Let me begin by answering the question is it the holy grail of synthesis. The answer is a resounding no. Can it be useful? Yes, absolutely. Two good examples of this are Camel Audio's Alchemy and the Reaktor synth Razor.
Why would it be considered the Holy Grail of synthesis? In theory it can build any sound from it's parts that are called partials. Not only in a static sense but sound as it changes over time. Now I said in theory at least according to some. The theory is wrong because many who talk about additive synthesis do not understand what is called the Fourier Transform and many were mislead by an influential work "On the Perception of Sound" by Hermann Von Helmholtz. No one reads this any more (although I do have an unread copy on my bookshelf) but it has had a very influential effect on the perception of sound and I believe even additive synthesis.
Ok, now I warn you. We are about to go down a rabbit hole and it does involve a matrix. This one is called a Gabor Matrix. But don't ask Alice but a composer by the name of Xenakis. Confused?
Read this and be afraid. Be very afraid. Is sound a series of waves called partials or is it a series of grains?
http://or8.net/pipermail/microsound/2009-December/001197.html
More to come in future posts but I hope this peaks some interest. By the way, check out Poseidon. It's VirSyn's walk on the granular side wearing Helmholtz glasses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)