Given a choice between boring and crazy, I always choose crazy. After all, craziness is part of the artistic persona. So bring it on.

It’s been a while since we had a celebrity saying things that didn’t really make sense. It’d be unfair to ask Ricardo Villalobos live up to some of the titans – Bob Dylan saying CDs have “no stature” and “have sound all over them,” and Elton’ John’s classic call to “tear down the Internet.” (Not to mention, in the end I think we wound up agreeing with them and turned Elton’s quote into a brand-new verb.) As with Elton John and Bob Dylan, I love and respect Villalobos’ work, no less so as he says things with which I disagree. But Ricardo Villalobos does get special credit for claiming in a recent Resident Advisor interview, among other things, that what has really hurt sound quality today is the lack of cheap drum machines from the 80s, because they were analog. Or they weren’t, but it was as if they were. Or something. (If you think this might earn some ire from Ableton loyalists, you’re right.)

No. I think the development is going in the opposite direction because everyone is making tracks in programs like Ableton, which has an OK sound engine. When I started making music 20 years ago, you had to at least buy a mixer, then some synthesizers, a drum machine—which is the best quality possible of a sampled drum. There was a pureness of the source of the music. It was analog, direct.

Ah, yes, the good old days. Back in the day, digital samples of acoustic instruments played through digital-to-analog-converters were real digital samples of acoustic instruments played through digital -to-analog-converters. It was analog, direct – well, aside from the fact that it was digital and not direct, but it was real … um … analog … digital. Pulse code modulation was real, pure pulse code modulation, not like the pulse code modulation you kids have today. Not like now, when people don’t … own… mixers. It’s not like you kids today, you people who use Ableton, people like… Ricardo Villalobos. (Villalobos is, in fact, a notable Live user.)

I mean, at least it’s a novel argument. Usually, you get the “mixing in the box is bad” and “computers aren’t real” argument from crusty audio engineers with massive outboard analog mixing boards, not electronic musicians. Recently, many experienced engineers I’ve talked to have come to the side of accepting that “in-the-box” recordings in software can be just as good as their analog counterparts. So, we may have reached a real landmark, a world in which electronic musicians claim digital’s no good and turntables are the only way to listen, while engineers experienced with analog claim just the opposite.

Let’s go back in time. For the record, twenty years ago by my calculations would be 1989.

The drum machine you might have bought then could be the Alesis HR-16, or perhaps a Roland TR-707. They’re fantastic, unique-sounding instruments. But “the best quality possible” is not generally a phrase associated with instruments of this era. We love them because they aren’t 192kHz, 64-bit multisamples recorded from 30 microphones and shipped on a 100 GB hard drive, because “quality” isn’t actually everything. And if you bought a new mixer in 1989, I assume you picked up something like Mackie’s just-released LM-1602, rather than an SSL. Of course, you really could go do that now. In fact, Ableton Live recently added 64-bit processing in the signal chain; the software that does more aliasing to account for lower bitrates is actually Pro Tools.

He goes on:

The thing is, you have the limitation of the program, the limitation of the digital mixing which is happening inside the computer, you have the limitation of the sound sources of the synthesizers—the virtual synthesizers. Even the sound engine is playing a very big role in the whole sound of the product. If you have a good turntable and good speakers, you can hear it is made in Ableton. Logic, for example, is very neutral in sound but Ableton…you can hear it in two seconds.

It’s hard to know where to begin. Live does have an overused sound – but that comes from people using effects presets as-is, people not knowing how to mix, people time stretching and warping without adjusting settings or taking care to think about the impact on its sound.

The idea that you have to use a turntable to hear these things, or generally to hear quality issues in a track produced entirely digitally is… well, an interesting theory. (It’d be like testing the fidelity of your inkjet printer by first taking a Polaroid of the output.)

They have all of these virtual instruments that are calculated by a computer, and you have a certain space where you have to put everything. And when you want to leave this space, you have to live with compromises, the compromises of digital mixes and recordings.

Now, perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought that if for some reason you thought you needed to mix on an analog board and record to, say, analog reel-to-reel, you were no less able to do that with the analog outs of your MacBook Pro than with your 606.

And what exactly was in those vintage drum machines, if not a computer making  calculations? Eleven secret herbs and spices? Elves with slide rules?

But this is the beauty of interviews – you can say whatever you want. And it definitely beats boring.

There is also one statement with which I wholeheartedly agree:

People are finding it easy to publish something without any controls. And this is the problem with the internet in general. There is so much information, and no one knows if it’s true or not. It’s just there. It’s an information monster.

It’s almost as though the Internet is a place in which people can make any wild claim they wish, without anyone questioning its basis in reality or fact.

http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature.aspx?1128

If you hate modern samplers with all their supposed fidelity, longing instead for the glitchy digital distortion of samplers past, a DIY project has brought you the sounds you love. “Where’s the Party At?” has been inspiring tingly sensations in digital lovers since I first wrote about it in September.

Now, the kit version is shipping. It’s a unique-looking combination of reliability and sonic unreliability, good open source design engineering and, as the creator puts it, a certain “crustiness.”

Apocryphal Feature List and General Horn-Tooting:

• 8-bit max sample depth, 1-bit minimum.
• 20kHz (or so, user adjustable) max sample rate, no minimum.
• 512k SRAM, about 26 seconds (minimum) or sample time.
• Big, versatile 6 button, 7 knob, 8 LED user interface. For Cavemen.
• Even more big and versatile full MIDI control in and out capability. Fully sequenceable. For people who use Live and general bespectacled electronic music nerds.
• Sample banking — multi-timbral recording, playback and audio processing across all banks.
• Sample multiplication, XOR, ABS, and all sorts of other weird sample processing and cross-modulation.
• Real time overdubbing.
• Preferences saved in permanent memory.
• Hackable analog clock source which can be syncronized to other synths.
• Non-Hackable crystal clock source which will always do Exactly What You Tell it.
• Programmable clock jitter, bit rate reduction, aliasing, and sample clock errors all adjustable in real time.
• All the normal backwards masking and half time and typical sampling features common to many commercial samplers.
• On-The-Fly Granular reconstruction of samples.
• Full pitch control of samples.
• Self test mode for debugging.
• 2.8Hz-357kHz frequency response (measured).
• Sub-audible noise floor.
• Looks nerdy and attracts people with stringy hair. Possibly bad skin.

Details on this kit, plus a video sampler version made for a specific party here in NYC, at creator Todd Bailey’s site:

http://narrat1ve.com/

Updated: Complete information on the kit itself, at US$75 – Some Assembly Required (read: you’d better have a soldering iron handy and know how to use it!)

Where’s the Party At, Hardware Version 1.01

I also love the bag of shiny hardware for aiding in making yours nice!

The LinnDrum II (once the BoomChik) has become a somewhat mystical beast, looming over the horizon and taunting fans of synth and beat hardware. The collaboration between beat machine guru Roger Linn (of LinnDrum and MPC fame) and synth guru Dave Smith (of Dave Smith fame), the box has gone through various design revisions, each leaked and dissected by, well, people like me. Saturday brought a new set of news, as spotted by Tony Mission on Gearslutz.

Here’s what we know now:

We know that the LinnDrum will be a combination of Dave’s synthesis know-how and Roger’s approach to real-time sequencing and beatmaking. We know it’ll have digital and analog synth voices. We know it’ll do MPC-style real-time and 808-style step sequencing. It’s almost certain to retain onboard sampling, too. In fact, presumably the specs on Dave Smith’s site are still reasonably applicable.

What we don’t know is what the design will look like, or when it’ll ship. It won’t ship in 2008, so … 2009? The image above is not what the new LinnDrum II will look like. Roger released these images over the weekend, but they’ve already hit the wastebasket in favor a new design. On the design elements:

We’d prefer not to release details of the new design because it’s so cool that I don’t want to show our cards to the competition. However, I do want to thank all those who wrote in with suggestions because this interactive design process has very much helped to change what we thought the product originally should be into what we now know you really want.

Roger does tip his hand a bit in regards to what the philosophy of the new design is:

For those of you who are new to LinnDrum II, its new subtitle is “Beat-Centric Digital Audio Workstation with Integrated Analog Synthesis”. Inspired by how the MPC product line that I (Roger) originally created for Akai has evolved a new genre of musical instrument, LinnDrum II aspires to raise the bar beyond the current crop of high-end pad-oriented music production station products in order to enable musicians around the world to better realize the next wave of beat-oriented music.

“Beat-Centric Digital Audio Workstation with Integrated Analog Synthesis” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but I like the philosophy here. It sounds a bit like the feedback people sent was that they want the finished design to stand on its own. (The passionate audience for the MachineDrum certainly suggests there’s a market out there for something different from the Akai and Roland units for all-in-one production.) I’ll certainly be the first to defend the delays. We can’t judge the LinnDrum II itself until it’s in our hands, but it is clear to me that if you want something different than what’s already available, you do have to be prepared to wait.

While you wait, you can sign up for updates:

Request for LinnDrum II or AdrenaLinn III Product News

LinnDrum II Product Page / News

Previously:
Dave Smith/Linn LinnDrum II Pre-order List Now; Specs

LinnDrum II: Former BoomChik Gets More Delayed But More Mature

CDM regular Kyle McDonald keeps cranking out wonderful projects. Following up on a tangible music sequencer powered by Skittles (taste the rainbow of fruity beats), and last week’s cheap-but-effective DIY 3D interface, he’s now put the popular DIY electronics platform Arduino to work as a lo-fi effect. He writes:

There have been a bunch of projects bent on getting audio out of the Arduino, using them as synths — even Lady Ada’s more recent Wave Shield (http://www.ladyada.net/make/waveshield/). A friend of mine was looking for a sample rate reducing/bit crushing pedal, and I thought "I could probably do that with an Arduino". It turns out the audio isn’t as terrible as you’d expect (except when you want it to sound terrible!) so I put together an instructable for anyone interested in making their own.

http://vimeo.com/1460684

http://www.instructables.com/id/Lo_fi_Arduino_Guitar_Pedal/

Kyle’s site, complete with lots of other projects

Great stuff! Of course, the advanctage of these lo-fi digital effects is just that – they’re cheap digital effects to achieve. But this makes me wonder, will anyone be able to hack these effects for some twists of their own?

We’ve been eagerly awaiting the LinnDrum II since it was called the BoomChik. We called the non-functional prototype one of the best products of this January’s NAMM – reasoning being that, based on what we heard from showgoers, a silent LinnDrum still beat more evolutionary blandness from the rest of the industry. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say some of us were getting a wee bit impatient waiting for some kind of news. Now that news appears to be here — a rough estimate on availability and pre-order details. (Updated: Specs had been posted previously, as Cory observes in comments, but let’s savor them one more time.)

Availability: Late 2008 (“our best estimate,” so that’s not set in stone)

Cost: US$1400 for the all-digital LinnDrum II, or $1800 for the LinnDrum II Analog with the addition of four analog voices as seen in the Prophet ‘08 and Evolver, plus 32 dedicated encoders

Pre-order list: No commitment, no money down; just email support@rogerlinndesign.com and you’re in. Will there be a baby shower at some point?

Dave and Roger have also posted updated specs on the two units. Highlights include:

• A real-time optimized operating system – do lots of stuff without stopping play
• Modulated filters and resonators
• Real-time and step recording – think MPC and 808, respectively – with visual animation on the pads
• Record to Compact Flash
• Lots of controls, including buttons and assignable sliders, and foot switch and expression jacks for pedals, in addition to the pads (in fact, it looks like there’s less mucking around inside menus than on competing boxes from Akai and Roland, one thing that kept me off those units)
• Eight outputs – so you could do some interesting effects routing, or do some crazy surround sound drumming. (In fact, I could see using multichannel outs to a computer and doing effects in the computer…) Four more outputs for the analog voices on the Analog model.
• MIDI and USB, with USB storage operations

I imagined the Analog model would pretty much steal the show, but the Digital model is cute and compact and still pretty unique, so I think we’ll see interest in both.

June 20 LinnDrum II Update [Specs and an explanation of the status of the design]

Via The Chip Collection, who caught me napping out in Chicago

Yep. I still want one. And I don’t very often want hardware.

Here’s the analog model, with a close up on its additional control section. Things are laid out in a really friendly way across the whole design. Promising stuff.

Eliot Van Buskirk of Wired points out that RIAA numbers show that records are on the rise again, after two years of declining sales. No, I’m not just using the old-fashioned term "records" to refer to something else — I mean records, as in vinyl, as in big round things with grooves that you put on phonographs. $22.9 million worth of retail value moved in records in the US alone — not a huge industry, necessarily, but nothing to be sneezed at, either. By the way, even though the CD industry is shrinking fast, $7.5 billion of CD albums were sold in 2007. So the record industry has every right to be scared by rapidly-depleting sales — and every opportunity to be intrigued by the money that might be made on digital (which, totaling all different formats, was well over $2 billion).

In fact, here’s one for you: online digital growth outpaces CD shrinkage by a factor of greater than 2:1. It’s tough to project rates forward, but that should be a good sign.

RIAA Admits Vinyl Sales Are Climbing [ Wired.com Listening Post ]

I think the vinyl anomaly, though, is brilliant for a whole number of reasons. What you read in the press about the music biz is pretty one-dimensional. We’re expected to believe the industry is collapsing, and sales are down. The reality is much more complicated. Here are some other factoids you can extract from the RIAA’s 2007 sales figures in the news of the weird category:

• High-def audio formats have completely failed — so much that cassette sales are equivalent to units of SACDs and DVD Audio combined.
• More money was spent on mobile downloads than single downloads elsewhere — thanks to the fact that they’re so ridiculously expensive, of course.
• People spent nearly as much on vinyl records in 2007 as they did on music videos online ($28.2 million).

So, here’s to the cassette and the vinyl record. And what does all this really demonstrate? To me, it’s a blunt reminder that what the record industry has failed to do is successfully transition to new media and new, more diverse audiences. When cassette sales started to deteriorate with the introduction of the CD, no one said the industry was doomed then. Vinyl was a great format, which is why it’s still alive. The online formula is starting to come together, but it’s just not quite there yet. And given that most of the industry’s money still comes from CDs, it seems like it’s likewise time to figure out how to get more mileage out of that format and slow the decline, rather than obsess over it, while continuing to work on new formats.

Photo: Michelle’s House of Disco.

Producers howl over sound cut out by MP3 compression (and I see, while I was sitting on this, it got slashdotted, though no one took the bait

As Joel Selvin writes for the The San Francisco Chronicle, MP3s have less music:

…the music contained in these computer files represents less than 10 percent of the original music on the CDs.

Wow, I knew that compressed digital audio files contained less data, but less music?

In its journey from CD to MP3 player, the music has been compressed by eliminating data that computer analysis deems redundant, squeezed down until it fits through the Internet pipeline.

Of course! If they didn’t, we might stop up the tubes that make the Internet — or … um … one tube, apparently. (No wonder congestion is bad if we have just one pipeline! You need it to fit!) And there’s more:

When even the full files on the CDs contain less than half the information stored to studio hard drives during recording, these compressed MP3s represent a minuscule fraction of the actual recording.

The humanity! All those years when we were buying CDs, we were only getting half of what was recorded in the studio?! Why, that must mean they’re recording, say, four whole tracks when they record the album. And one take. (Okay, I’m assuming they somehow got this statistic by assuming 96kHz sample rates … except that’s not really half the amount of data … and that would still require 16-bit … and I don’t know who told them that, anyway.)

There are the obligatory and predictable quotes from Phil Ramone and others. I can understand engineers being squeamish about someone listening to a low-bitrate MP3 on iPod earbuds, though I wonder how they missed people taping pennies to their turntables in the 60s. (Scratches and dust, I suppose, just give you more music!)

You’ve read these kinds of articles before. They’re not entirely wrong, they just struggle to explain what lossy compression is. A journalist, I can imagine, would do that easily; I haven’t written any compression algorithms this morning so I’ll admit my own understanding of data compression is rudimentary. But, of course, what a journalist should do is talk to experts, and you hope they’ll tell you something that makes sense. In this case, they seem to explain away our ability to hear music at all. Get ready for — experts gone crazy!

Gasp at speaker designers who call into question our ability to hear digital audio — AT ALL! John Meyer, from Meyer Sound Labs:

“It turns you into an observer,” Meyer says. “It forces the brain to work harder to solve it all the time. Any compression system is based on the idea you can throw data away, and that’s proved tricky because we don’t know how the brain works.”

Go ahead. Listen to a digital audio file — right now. I don’t understand it. I have no idea what’s going on. Are you even hearing music? Who knows?

What’s missing here, of course, is the acknowledgment that the digital audio file itself also “throws away data”, because the real world doesn’t have samples. For that matter, this whole argument seems to result from a century of gradually losing the ability to distinguish between a recording and live sound. Part of the reason people are so upset by digital audio compression, even if it’s lossless, may be because people have an artificial attachment to the recording itself. But don’t tell that to people who engineer records and design speakers.

People are so desperate to prove that digital recordings are somehow evil that they even turn to research to prove that your brain on digital files stops feeling emotions:

It could be that MP3s actually reach the receptors in our brains in entirely different ways than analog phonograph records. The difference could be as fundamental as which brain hemisphere the music engages.

“Poorer-fidelity music stimulates the brain in different ways,” says Dr. Robert Sweetow, head of the University of California-San Francisco audiology department. “With different neurons, perhaps lesser neurons, stimulated, there are fewer cortical neurons connected back to the limbic system, where the emotions are stored.”

I expect that’s true — of 64kbps MP3s played through, say, a tin can. Welcome to the age of recordings: we sacrifice superior formats for inferior formats, yes, as higher-fidelity CDs give way to copy protection-laden, incompatible, inflexible, lossy compressed files. But then people get so upset that they throw out any understanding of the actual music in favor of the recording, artificially elevate old records without any real basis, call into question the basic idea of data compression even though its popularity demonstrates that it can work.

Here’s a suggestion: what about what gets thrown out when you go from a live performance to a recording? I love listening to records. I have strong feelings listening to records. (Erm, digital files.) But I’ll bet most people’s limbic systems get the biggest rush when they hear something live.

Oh, well, at least all of this should make Bob Dylan happy. If “new records have sound all over them”, and MP3s “take out some of the music,” does that mean the resulting record has the right amount of sound on it? You know, like taking your finger and wiping extra jam off of toast?