Didier Dambrin, FL Studio’s original creator, has a new synth entitled Harmor that looks like one to watch. There’s a beautiful crop of new synthesizers this season that could have you yearning for a winter spent with long nights somewhere deep in the Northern Hemisphere, producing new music – see also, to name just one, Cakewalk’s Z3TA+ 2. (Both Harmor and Z3TA+ 2 are Windows-only, so time to boot up the PC or, Mac users, update that Boot Camp partition.) VSTi and native FL Studio support; US$149 but on sale this month for $99.

For some reason, releasing any synth right now involves demonstrating that the kids can make their wobble bass and dubstep with it, but I trust synthesists out there to do other things, too.

Introducing Harmor

Okay, I kind of buried the lead, but I wanted to give the synth its due.

Don’t want to boot into Boot Camp to run FL Studio?

This beta might interest you:
FL Studio for Mac Beta-Testers Wanted [Image Line forum]

Yes, you see that right: it’s FL Studio, aka Fruity Loops, running on the Mac platform. Synthtopia wonders if Hell froze over, but not so fast. Image-Line said they’d never build a Mac version of FL Studio. And they haven’t. The magic here is possible through Codeweavers Crossover, a commercial proprietary technology built on the open source tool WINE. Codeweavers already offers a standalone product that lets you run a variety of Windows (and Linux) software on the Mac, based on the same tech that lets you run Windows software on Linux. Here, Image-Line reports that there’s some additional customization and testing and tweaking that lets this run without further intervention on your part. (WINE can work beautifully, but there are various compatibility wrinkles with specific software – Image-Line and Crossovers have evidently worked specifically on making FL Studio function properly.)

WINE, the underlying technology, is an emulator but not in the sense of a virtual machine, which is how most Windows compatibility tools are implemented. It’s actually a re-implementation of Windows APIs. See WINE myths for more. That means that, once fully tested, FL Studio can run as well on the Mac as on Windows. What you won’t get is Mac-native APIs, meaning the resulting software won’t behave terribly like a typical Mac program. But FL Studio, like much music software, tends to behave in its own way, anyway, so I don’t actually believe that’s a huge deal. Updated: I realize I should say that compatibility issues or unpredictable behavior can be a big deal; I’ll be interested to see if the Mac experience can replicate the Windows experience or you’ll want to still reboot.

If you want to give this a try – and help ensure the quality of the release – beta testers are wanted. See the forum link above.

Through Thursday, March 31 at midnight, you can grab SoundToys’ Devil-Loc plug-in for free, concluding a giveaway that began at the TapeOp party at South by Southwest. Devil-Loc is a nice-sounding emulation of the Shure M62. Chris Conover, in thanks for a Record beta I sent his way, points to the offer, a code (which I’ll share with readers), and mentions some ways he likes to use it – particularly, he says, on drum room mics:

It is inspired by the Shure M62 Level-Loc, which was designed to be a leveling amplifier for microphones to avoid spikes and fades. Users have discovered the M62 to have incredibly gritty, dirty, and unusual compression characteristics that made drums sound larger than life and quite aggressive.

Chris Conover at theProAudioFiles.com

The only bad news in all of this, aside from the expiration date, is that the plug-ins do need an iLok, if you don’t have one of those handy.

More than an opportunity to pimp SoundToys (whose work I really do enjoy as creative sound plug-ins), I think it’s a good opportunity to point to the site for which Chris is writing, theProAudioFiles.com. It’s full of reviews, tips on mixing, interviews, and resources for sound production. It could be a great place to start to get your mind on sound work.

http://theproaudiofiles.com/

For their part, SoundToys will have a Deluxe version of this plug-in next month. It’s really just as interesting to learn about the history of the Shure hardware on which it’s based, if you’re not already familiar with it:

The Shure M62 Level-Loc was designed by Shure to be a leveling amplifier mostly for mics. The concept was it would keep an even level (locked level) once it hit a certain input so you wouldn’t get “fade outs or blasting”. It was super simple with only a switch for three “distance” settings based on how far from the mic you were. The M62V upped the control a bit by adding an input level knob. However, the reason it became famous was not because it did a good job of leveling, it may have, but largely thanks to SoundToys user Tchad Blake and his desire to push, abuse, and do deliciously evil things to his tracks. He discovered that pushing the Level-Loc gave you gritty, dirty, unusual compression that made drums gigantic and nasty. Both of which are good things. So we’ve taken that concept and dropped it in the simple two control Devil-Loc. Then we’ve taken it further than the original hardware with the Devil-Loc Deluxe.

Read up on the plug and the contests and giveaways going on:
https://www.soundtoys.com/sxswpromo/

Then grab the actual plug – while there’s still time – via this link:

https://www.soundtoys.com/sxswpromo/&rc=340-9736-993

Speaking of tablets, can the flat surface of a touchscreen really emulate guitar expression? One developer thinks so.

Toyo Bunko of Amidio, makers of soft synths for iOS, writes to share their latest project. OMGuitar is a “guitar synth.” While it’s entirely touch-based, they’ve found ways of adjusting the tone, including using the speed of a strum to impact timbre and techniques for bends and mutes. You choose chords via an interface of their own design (rather than on conventional frets), and onboard effects make this an all-in-one solution. 300 chords are available, and there’s a dedicated arpeggio interface.

It’s no replacement for an acoustic guitar, but as a design problem alone, it’s fascinating. OMGuitar is coming this month, say the makers.

http://amidio.com/

Ah, Mondays. If you’re looking for a way to brighten your work week and you’ve got an iPod touch or iPhone you can drop into your pocket, iOS music and audio developer Pulse Code tells us they’ve made four of its apps free for this week only, through August 8. That includes BtBx [iTunes], a simple and fun drum machine, DB-303, a simulation of the Roland TB-303 bass line synth and a particular favorite of pocket iPhone musicians, as well as a couple of fun toys – a robot tone synth and sound effects maker called Android FX and a text-to-speech “robot comedian.” These will all run on iPad, too, of course, though none has yet been adapted to iPad’s native resolution.

The development house has also just released on a couple of other (paid) apps, including a fascinating-looking graphical subtractive synth called PolyWave. It works with some similar ideas to the hardware proposed with our Dreams contest, in which you draw the sounds you want. And on the subject of transforming voices – a topic we covered last week on Android and desktop, there’s a new vocal transformer.

The microphone input itself on mobile devices is an interesting one. It becomes a sound source, a modulation source, and a controller. (It’s not hard to add to hardware projects, too – DIYers, take note.)

Developer Amaury Hazan, a former developer of the interactive music app RjDj, writes to say he’s just finished his PhD thesis (ah, that… yeah, working on it), and that some of his doctoral research helped lead to a new iOS app. We covered that research some years ago here on CDM, and now it’s found its way into a new “beatboxing” app, which uses your voice as an input to sequence sounds. It’s a fascinating idea, if one that may require some practice. You can see the technique in the video above, or go grab the app for iOS at US$2.

http://billaboop.com/en/boomclap
iTunes link
A nice Wire to the Ear write-up

I’d love to talk to Amaury – and anyone else, if interested – about research in using mic inputs, so consider this a teaser and conversation starter.

Pianoteq is an effort to model, rather than sample, acoustic pianos and other instruments on the computer. Now in its third major release, its interface and sound generation have each matured. Using mathematical models in place of recorded sounds, an entire grand piano fits in just a few megs of space, rather than requiring several DVDs, and the software maker claims the results can be more natural and playable.

Pianoteq, which runs as do its rivals on Mac and Windows, is also unusual in providing support for the Linux operating system – something some developers have claimed isn’t practical with commercial music software. And a new “Player” addition, announced this month, makes it more affordable. In addition to software development, the team has even launched an extensive piano restoration effort:
http://www.pianoteq.com/kivir

I’ve been impressed with my time playing with Pianoteq’s software. That’s especially meaningful to me, as my background in music has been on acoustic pianos, back to when I was literally old enough to reach the keys for the first time. But I also wanted to know more about how this software developed. Its rigorous approach to modeling has attracted a lot of attention in the virtual instrument world, and the fact that it targets Linux alongside Mac and Windows challenges notions that commercial software can’t make it on the free operating system.

Pianoteq sent along some extensive answers, which I’m pleased to be able to share. Naturally, they’re proud of their software, so there is a bit of expected boasting here. (I’ll discuss more of the experience of using the tool, and the new Player version, shortly). But they also have some fascinating commentary on sound design, modeling, and the development process. In the “geeky as we want to be” spirit of this site, here’s the full scoop.

CDM: Can you talk about the background of the company? How does one make a shift from dealing with the physical instruments and tuning to thinking about mathematical models, let alone translate that into actual software?

Philippe: the Pianoteq history is strongly connected to my first job as a piano tuner. Then at the age of 31, I started a new life with basic studies in mathematics at the University of Toulouse, France. After what I prepared my PhD thesis on the parametrization of vibrating phenomena, without imagining that it would be the basis of my third life with Pianoteq. Thanks to these two skills and to an exceptional scientific environment in Toulouse, I succeeded in identifying important phenomena responsible for the generation of the piano sound and proposed a model which describes the whole interaction of the soundboard, strings, bridge and air.

Julien: I was working as an engineer at Institute of Mathematics of Toulouse, with Philippe (who was also my teacher when I was a student). My focus was on an open-source finite element package ( http://home.gna.org/getfem ) when Philippe told me about his project of piano sound synthesis. I took charge of the development of the real-time engine, and we quickly decided that we wanted to turn this research project into a commercial product. Thanks to the French law on innovation and research (1999), the support of INSA Toulouse, and the Institute of Mathematics, the start-up MODARTT was created in 2006 to sell Pianoteq, which was at that time the first fully modeled piano instrument.

Niclas: I represented many of Pianoteq’s customers of today, being a part time piano composer with a love for the piano instrument. I was updating an extensive article on digital piano technology in 2004 when someone advised me to have a look at Philippe’s research. I immediately understood its potential, which is why I suggested Philippe to assist in marketing and product development. Since then, I have participated in the product development and testing and am also in charge of sales and customer service.

Modeling the Piano with Math

I remember trying previous attempts at piano modeling and finding them interesting but ultimately unsatisfying. I think people who pick up Pianoteq have, immediately, a different experience. What’s different about this modeling approach than those that have come before – and, for that matter, why did it take until now?

Philippe: The idea of modeling musical instruments is very old and has always faced great difficulties: the complexity of physical phenomena, the sensitivity of the human ear to the slightest imperfection, and the difficulty of running a complex model in real-time. The latency needs to be so small that it gives to the musician the impression of playing a real acoustic instrument. Until now, attempts have only confirmed that the task was not easy. The state of the art of digital pianos is based on sampling technology. Each note is a recording of how it sounded at a specific moment, without taking into account the complexity of the instrument. The huge data generated by sampling can reach 40 Gbytes for a single piano. The flow rate of data transmitted from the hard drive to the sound device is too high for the current hardware capacity and it can happen that one hears crackles. [Ed.: I would say fast hard drives, optimized software streaming, and other intelligent configuration can certainly avoid crackles, but the fact that, say, a low-end hard drive might choke means that Philippe's point about data intensity here is nonetheless well taken. -PK]

Moreover, the reproduced sound lacks vividness. Hence, creating a piano model which takes into account the interaction between hammer and strings, the interaction between strings and soundboard via the bridge and the interaction of the soundboard with the air is of great interest. Based on mathematical models, Pianoteq allows parameters to be stretched as long as the model permits, resulting not only in new performance styles but also in new piano sounds. Pianoteq is thus also an innovating tool for music creation and can be useful not only to musicians but also to piano manufacturers and piano tuners for simulation and training purposes. Pianoteq makes excellence in piano available to all. Among Pianoteq users, composers and professionals in music creation are certainly the most excited with our innovation. Pianoteq offers what acoustic and sampled pianos cannot offer: new opportunities for music creation and a pure piano sound that is not altered by its environment (reverberation) or by recording devices.

Can you talk more about the model itself? I can see the components that are modeled, but – realizing we have fairly technical people among our audience – what are the basic modeling techniques?

Philippe: the modeling technique is based on various standard techniques issued from mechanics theory including modal analysis (calculation of vibration frequencies and the corresponding modes) and parametrization techniques that we developed at the university, as well as from a precise knowledge issued from my previous job as piano tuner/restorer of what is going on in a piano and what is important.

How did that approach to modeling evolve? Obviously, there’s this strong mathematical research background. But what’s the process like of translating that theory into something that’s usable? Were there mistakes or adjustments along the way?

Philippe: I don’t think there were mistakes along our model evolution, but more a constant improvement in the details taken into account by the model, looking closer to the physics of the piano and finding suddenly some simplification in the algorithms that allow to take include more details for the same computational cost or being more precise in the simulation.

Developing for Linux

How did you make the decision to support Linux in addition to Windows and Mac?

Julien: The initial prototypes for pianoteq were developed on Linux, using [audio system] JACK, with no GUI. Later, when we added a graphical interface and turned it into a VST plugin, we used VSTGUI for its interface, which is not available on Linux. However we had quite a few requests from Linux users, and we did make sure that pianoteq was running fine in WINE [an open-source implementation of Windows' APIs, allowing Windows programs to run in Linux]. During the development of Pianoteq 3, we switched to the JUCE toolkit, which is a great piece of cross-platform software. Thanks to JUCE, the Linux port was really easy to do, so we decided to give it a try and see what happens.

One complaint I hear from developers about Linux is that it’s “impossible” to do commercial development, because you “can’t” distribute binaries. Obviously, that didn’t stop you. I’ve tried Pianoteq on Fedora and Ubuntu, though, under both the real-time and default kernels, and had immediate success. Now, I imagine there’s a good bit of work that goes into making that happen. What was your experience like as a developer? Do you feel that the result is successful, that it is a usable solution for users?

Julien: This was in fact something that we also feared, that the Linux port would turn into a support nightmare. However a good example of a successful application that is distributed in binary form is Renoise. That showed us that it was possible to do. In fact Renoise also uses JUCE, but I was not aware of that fact at that time. What helps here for binary portability is that we have very few dependencies. JUCE is statically linked, so pianoteq depends on very few dynamic libraries: ALSA, X11, libc (even old versions), and basically that’s all. We had to hack some sort of weak linking for JACK in order to allow pianoteq to run even when libjack.so is not available. Of course, if you want better integration in the desktop, things get much more complicated.

What’s your own Linux testing setup like? (distro? kernel?)

Julien: Pianoteq is built on a Debian Sarge box, otherwise we generally use Ubuntu for the desktop, with the default kernel. [Ed.: The distribution Ubuntu is itself built on packages from Debian; 10.04 LTS uses Debian Testing.]

I’ve likewise been impressed with the vanilla kernel (as opposed to the “real-time” branch), which can save some setup time and configuration work. (My audio interface is a Native Instruments Audio Kontrol 1). Any thoughts on what setups may be most advisable? (You document some of this in the readme.)

Julien: I’ve never been lucky with the kernels labelled “rt” , and I really hate when the computer randomly hangs so I prefer to stick with default kernels. We don’t have issues with them, as long as your user account has been granted real-time priviledges. I believe that for now, the most overlooked setting for realtime audio is the CPU frequency throttling, which is a real audio performance killer, especially on the less powerful machines such as netbooks. You really need to have your cpu running at full speed 100% of the time, especially with a software like Pianoteq which needs quite a bit of CPU power.

Ed.: Before we give the realtime kernel a bad name, some of those “random hangs” were not necessarily the kernel’s fault – a bug in Ubuntu’s implementation caused the system to crash when combining the RT kernel with proprietary NVIDIA drivers, for instance. But if this sort of thing scares you, the vanilla kernel remains a strong option – it’s the default for a reason. The larger discussion is best saved for another article, but suffic,e to say, if latency-sensitive piano instrument developers are okay with the vanilla kernel, you shouldn’t feel you have to install a realtime kernel just to make music. If you want to test it, projects like Fedora’s Planet CCRMA can make it easier to use.

Are you finding that there is some positive response to the Linux version?

Julien: Yes, very positive response. In fact, a bit more than what we expected at the beginning. Approximately 4% of our customers are using the Linux version.

I could even imagine it working on netbooks. Based on load, it appears perfectly workable, which means a really cheap ultra-portable piano you can take anywhere.

We spent some time to make sure that the latest versions could run on netbooks, altough with very high CPU load (80% or more). However I’d recommend to use a more powerful laptop in order to have more room for the cpu. Ed.: Given the range of Atom netbooks out there now, I may have to test some of the newer models on this.]

There’s not currently a Linux plug-in version, correct? I’ve been just as happy using JACK [a standard for routing audio between applications], but what went into that decision?

Julien: Right, no plug-in version on Linux for now. The problem is that “plug-in” may mean any combination of VST, DSSI, and LV2. VST would be the easiest for us, but very few hosts support it ( basically only proprietary hosts such as renoise and energyxt, and also jost). DSSI is said to be obsolete, while being not to hard to support (except the GUI has to run in a separate process..). LV2 is said to be the future, but
it seems to be quite complicated to fit a “vst-like” plugin into an lv2 plug-in. We have not yet taken a decision. It is already enough of a pain to support the numerous plug-in formats on Mac and Windows. We will probably add support for JACK sessions quite soon.

In Use

Initially, having so much power over sound could be overwhelming – looking at the number of parameters you can adjust in the real-time mathematical model. Aside from the presets (which themselves sound pretty terrific), how would you suggest someone go about beginning to explore the options? Is there a workflow that makes sense for approaching adjusting the sound?

Answer from Pianoteq:
http://www.pianoteq.com/faq?category=pianoteq_working

Ed.: So I should have read the *** manual! Here’s their advice:

If you need to adapt the piano sound you could for example try adjusting the hammer hardness (2) to achieve a different brightness of the hammer strokes. Increasing unison width (3) makes it a bit out of tune (resembling certain acoustic pianos). The new powerful sound recording feature (4) lets you place up to 5 virtual microphones anywhere around the piano to achieve ultimate ambience and tone colour. The dynamics and velocity curve (5) will most likely need to be adjusted to the keyboard used in a MIDI file performance.

Indeed, this commentary makes sense. Hammer hardness is something that could be adjusted in the maintenance of an actual piano. Since you listen to a software piano model as though it is amplified, adjusting mic placement (as on a number of piano software emulations) is a no-brainer. And dynamics and velocity curve are essential not only for MIDI files, but if your keyboard controller lacks these controls onboard.

As my friend Jim Aikin noted in his review of Pianoteq – why would you adjust the speed of sound? (I suppose you could account for different altitudes; I could replicate the Aspen Music Festival!)

Julien: Well, why not ! Being in a virtual world gives you access to some parameters that cannot be easily modified in the real world, if they give interesting variations of the sound, then they are worth being adjusted!

One small note – it seems the metronome is not connected to the playback and recording, which means that MIDI sequences won’t export to SMF correctly? (Or is this a Linux bug?)

Julien: Yes, it’s not a bug, the MIDI recording and playback abilities of the standalone application are very minimalistic. It is best to use a real sequencer for serious work.

Where can people read more about the featured historical instruments?

http://www.pianoteq.com/cimbalom
http://www.pianoteq.com/grimaldi
http://www.pianoteq.com/blanchet
http://www.pianoteq.com/schmidt
http://www.pianoteq.com/graf
http://www.pianoteq.com/cp-80

There are some fascinating add-ons that aren’t pianos. Is it possible at some point that other sound designers might be able to use the sound engine to design their own instruments?

Julien: We believe that Pianoteq PRO is already a first step in that direction, with its ability to edit each parameter note by note.

How are users using this onstage and in the studio? What sorts of users have you found using the product?

Niclas: There are many composers and keyboardists that use Pianoteq, from amateurs to professionals, on stage as well as in the recording studios. We have presented a few reference users here: http://www.pianoteq.com/references

Thanks to the Pianoteq guys for being thorough in the answers. I know not everyone responds in the same way in regards to the perceived quality of the model, but my own feeling is that the effort makes the instrument terrifically playable and responsive. The best way to see for yourself is to give the demo a go, and listen to the results. I’ll follow up more on this instrument, and how it’s become a central part of my Linux music workstation, soon. Let us know if you have questions for the developers I missed.

The software synthesizer has come full circle. What was once possible only with a mid-range desktop computer is now easily accomplished with a sub-$200 device that rests in your hand and sips power. That transformation, once something people regarded in some vague time in the future, is now one that’s very present. I expect a lot of the hand-wringing about the future (some of it from me) comes from the uncertainty about just what it’ll mean. For some small glimpse, though, it’s nice to get to talk to Propellerhead CEO Ernst Nathorst-Böös.

ReBirth is a tool that convinced a lot of people that computers could stand in for dedicated music hardware. Now that it’s on an iPhone or iPod touch or iPad, there’s no question we’ve reached a benchmark. Ernst was nice enough to send some thoughts on a Saturday evening. (I do think he used a QWERTY keyboard to do it, so please, let’s refrain from too many prognostications about how new devices will eliminate the need for furniture or oxygen, etc.) There are some interesting thoughts here, and I expect fuel for others contemplating what to do with new mobile devices. And yes, this is a direct port: believe it. There’s a lot these plucky mobile chips can do.

Peter: What made you guys decide to make the leap? How did it come about?

Ernst: We’ve been watching the iPhone/Touch/iPad development closely. Monitoring what others are doing, thinking about how it fits in what what we are trying to achieve. And honestly, I haven’t personally seen anything yet that really points to the future in the way I have seen it happen a couple of times before in my life (MIDI, computers, DAWS, the whole incredible transition we’ve been going through in the years since I started making music). It’ll happen, that’s for sure, it just hasn’t yet.

And Rebirth for iPhone is not that. It is a comeback of something that changed the scene as long as thirteen years ago. There’s a bit of nostalgia involved, but truth is, the program amazingly enough still beats the s*** out of a lot of what is going on iPhone right now, when it comes to inspiring you to create and experiment and actually make a whole track. Which is exactly what the app was about all the way back in 1997.

As for how it came about, the ReBirth idea had been lurking in the back of our heads since long and then the opportunity to work with Retronyms came about and – well, we just did it.

What’s the workflow like here? The audio output of these devices is okay, but not great. I see there’s a share button – how do you imagine people might use this? (How have folks around the Props office started using it?)

We imagine people using it in may ways. To kill some time on the bus. To try ideas and get inspired. To create beats and loops for other compositions. To work together with friends, collaborate and exchange ideas. And hopefully in ways we haven’t thought of. The sharing features we have now are very functional and straightforward. You just upload the doc and tell your friends about it so they can access it. However, it’s easy to dream up extensions to those and we will monitor closely how people use it and what they will be asking for.

I see that right now it just scales to the iPad; are you planning an iPad-native version?

We never comment on future releases, simply because we don’t want to disappoint anyone. But of course we are looking at the iPad. But there are a lots of things we want to do. The iPad is a slightly different beast, compared to the phone and Tocuh and we prefer to get it right rather than to be first.

How different is this from the original ReBirth, aside from the obvious difference of using touch? In terms of sounds and features, were you able to add anything? Did you have to compromise anywhere to make it run on these devices?

This is a 100% port. It sounds exactly the same and is completely file compatible. No compromises. We only omitted functional stuff, like being able to load any Mod. But no, nothing added either, except sharing. It’s cool that the iPhone doesn’t have a file system, but it also forces you to think differently and we don’t want to try to put round pegs in square holes.

I have to ask – are you concerned at all with all of these little widgets that this thing is hard to see?

We worked hard on the navigation, the zooming and panning, to make it feel natural. It was hard since there are so many controls on the screen (look at the 808!) and you need to move around quickly and fluently while never risking changes to the document. I really like how it turned out.

It seems to me that there’s a debate on about how interfaces should evolve. In some ways, it seems that we could use new UI elements with the advent of touch interfaces, not just replicate hardware. On the other hand, replicating hardware almost works better with touch access
than it does with a mouse. Is this something you think about, as well?

I completely agree. The hardware metaphor is serving us well, but it’s just one way to go. But on something like the iPhone and iPad it really makes a lot of sense, maybe even more than in a mouse controlled environment. However, if you ask me, those control surfaces that you connect to control aspects of the software you are already running on your computer just don’t cut it. Then a hardware control is actually better, at least in in my personal opinion. Apple’s devices are all integrated, touch interface and machinery in one, and that’s a completely different thing, very exciting for the future!

http://rebirthapp.com/

ReBirth, the Roland groovebox emulation that helped launch the popularity of soft synths, is now on Apple’s mobile devices for US$6.99. (I woke up to a note from Propellerheads’ CEO Ernst left in my inbox overnight, so thanks, Ernst, for the tip!)

This is not the native iPad version MusicRadar predicted after an interview with Ernst. For now, iPads scale up the iPhone interface. But a version with “native” resolution for the tablet seems a no-brainer down the road.

Feature list:

2 x TB-303 Bassline synths
TR-808 Drum Machine
TR-909 Drum Machine
Pattern Controlled Filter
Distortion unit
Compressor
Mixer
5 user mods
Pattern sequencing
Full automation
Combine patterns to build songs
Share songs with other ReBirth users

Full details: http://rebirthapp.com/

I have a few questions about this tool that I hope to get answered. I do wonder, for one, whether people in Sweden have some sort of superhuman vision that allows them to see incredibly tiny (ahem) user interface widgets. I’ll have to test this on my iPod touch. On the other hand, the faux hardware knobs and buttons actually seem to me to make more sense on a touch device than they did with a mouse, so that element could be a lot of fun. In a way, I’m sort of happy that they did a direct port like this, visually – the only way to tell if it makes sense for you is to give it a try. I’ll reserve judgment until I do.

Updated: I did get a chance to verify the export workflow, and unfortunately… there is none. Ernst confirms:

You can import files from the Rebirth Song archive and from your computer (via a web page), but not export to anything but iPhones.

That’s a deal-breaker for me personally, because I like the handheld as a way to sketch ideas for the desktop, not just via audio. Hopefully that’s something that can be addressed. I’m sure for the way other folks work it may be less of an issue. Stay tuned; I’m putting together an overview of all the various musical apps in terms of how you could integrate them with your creative process on your laptop or studio machine.

Synthtopia has some good thoughts on why this release matters. You can tell from the exclamation points what the review may be:
ReBirth Is Back! Turns Your iPhone, iPad Into A Techno Studio!

I’m also interested to know more about that sharing workflow, and how you might use this in a studio, beyond just connecting the audio out headphone jack of your device.

Of course, if you don’t have an Apple mobile, you can still get the original ReBirth for free, for Windows, meaning various tablets and netbooks can run this, too. (It’s ReBirth Everywhere! Speaking of which, I still need to try to make it run in WINE on Linux – anyone done that?)

In the meantime, enjoy; have a great weekend, everyone. I’m back to notating a conventional score, using paper, a pen, and a laptop. Kids, ask your parents.

Updated: questions answered.
ReBirth, Reborn, as Synths in your Hand: Q+A with Ernst Nathorst-Böös

The iPhone has become an almost absurdly-popular platform for music apps this year, even given more capable, more plentiful PCs. But to those who don’t yet “get” the appeal, talk to a mobile music addict: having the ability to be creatively musically in corners of time that would otherwise go unused, like a cramped bus ride, can be a beautiful thing. (Now, you start talking about taking away my PC/Mac experience, and I will start screaming in agony – but that’s a topic for a separate post.) The question is, what form should that app take? Today, I’ve got an iPhone round-up going as I clear out my news inbox, but that thread lies beneath all the stories…

I’m working on putting together a collection of truly productive, non-gimmicky/non-toy music apps now that the platform is maturing. But two apps released this week I think deserve special mention, and mention together – partly because of the different angle they take.

They’re both essentially handheld grooveboxes. They’re both relatively powerful, bringing desktop-style production to the platform. They’re both good options, and at this price, you might go buy both. But as I go off to test these two apps, I’m already struck by the contrast between the two.

One is the kind of app that we’re seeing a whole lot of on the iPhone, just as we once saw it in me-too apps on desktop computers. It assumes that the way to reach more people is to give them a whole bunch of canned loops that already sound like the styles they might want to play, and assume they’ll be pretty limited in their ability to do much with those loops.

The other of the two apps eschews the obligatory audio loops for real synthesis, and strips out the usual “let’s try to look like hardware” interface for something a lot more minimal and (I think) touch device friendly. That’s a design lesson that might well be applied beyond the iPhone, too.

First, consider the looped audio approach.

From IK Multimedia, GrooveMaker is a real-time app for manipulating audio loops. Interestingly, IK brought it over from the Mac/PC software. There are some powerful features, real-time control over audio, WiFi upload to your computer. It’s all well and good, so far.

The problem is that GrooveMaker is yet another app that assumes the only way people can have fun is to start with a bunch of canned loops and genres. GrooveMaker comes with hundreds of loops in house, hip-hop, and club styles. But that’s it – there’s no way to really easily start a track from scratch. (Update: Note that I should say you can at least sequence from scratch, but only with the stock content – which would have made GrooveMaker bigger news on this platform were it not for the release of iDrum and BeatMaker first.)

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti-sample. It’s not my own working style because it just doesn’t inspire me, but that’s a personal feeling, and not one I’d impose on anyone else. In fact, some of my best friends (ahem) are capable of doing things with sampled loops that blow my mind. The problem I have is with lowest-common-denominator thinking. In fact, I think synthesized tracks, tracks that give you real control over the sound, are often more fun for beginners.

Take, for instance, Smule. As founder Ge Wang discussed with CDM, their Ocarina and Leaf Trombone app are aimed really at non-musicians. But because these instruments use synthesized sound, people are free to really play with them and make whatever noise with them they like, rather than getting stuck with canned sounds to “remix.”

Now, perhaps a future version of GrooveMaker will make it easier to bring in other audio. Even then, it’ll have a lot of catching up to do with Intua’s far more powerful BeatMaker having been on the market for some time and offering features like integration with noise.io’s soft synth. But let’s talk for a moment about the flexibility of synthesis.

More Funner, with Synths?

bleep!BOX takes a different approach. Now, there have already been some 808 and 909 emulations on the iPhone. But you really have to see this instrument in action. Creator David Wallin has done some interesting work to make lots of sound parameters accessible.

David writes us:

I wanted to drop you a line to let you know that my iPhone groove box app is finally approved and live in the app store. It features 10 drum/synth parts (808 / 909 emulations of snares, hihats, etc and 4x 2-Oscillator analog synth parts). All sounds are generated realtime and are highly tweakable – no samples are used.

Compare the results: with the canned loop, you get something that sounds good right away – though it also sound predictable. It then actually requires a fair amount of effort to make that sound your own, if you succeed at all.

Using synthesized sound, on the other hand, you initially get, well, nothing at all. But you can very quickly get to something you’ve created yourself, even if your skill level isn’t all that high.

That’s an oversimplification, of course, but I think it’s at least born out in the design philosophies here; bleep!BOX allows the user to be more constructive than passive. (Audio manipulation techniques are capable of some tricks all their own – especially when you get into time manipulation and granular resynthesis. But that’s just the means to the end. There’s a difference between synthesizing music and consuming – or even passively remixing – music.)

I’m looking forward to spending some time with bleep!BOX as a sketchpad for beats. I’ll be interested to see how it might evolve to allow easier integration with desktop music workflows.

But notice what you can do with synthesized sounds – you can actually play. I think this is part of what made the Korg DS-10 such a smash hit on the Nintendo DS, even given the DS’ extremely constrained audio fidelity. (The iPhone – and, incidentally, Sony’s PSP – fare much better.)

Whether you’re a beginner or advanced user, “play” and expression are really what it’s about. A kazoo, for instance, doesn’t have canned sounds. It doesn’t come with presets. It can, frankly, embarrass you. But it’s fun to play, because you can feel a certain amount of freedom with it.

Ironically, I think it actually requires a fairly advanced user to have that kind of freedom with pre-canned loops. Aiming at a “lowest common denominator” is too often disparaged, when it can really mean aiming at a large public.

But maybe the reason “lowest common denominator” gets a bad name is that more advanced tools are often more fun. I’d love to see more work done on synthesized sound that’s really fun to play with.

The choice is yours, naturally. The two instruments:

http://www.groovemaker.com/
http://www.bleepboxapp.com/

So, iPhone/iPod touch users – now that the novelty has worn off, have you found apps you continue to use over time?

And, since you do come to CDM for opinions, anyone care to disagree with my take (or nod approvingly)?

What do you really want from a recording tool on a computer? The Digital Audio Workstation answer to that question has for years been on giving you a generalized set of tools that try to anticipate every possible need. The “workstation” approach puts a whole bunch of functionality in one place, in particular adding features like plug-in hosting for supporting third-party effects and instruments, video editing and scoring, and music notation.

Record is a different animal: it’s a specialized tool focused on making music with audio, instead of a generalized tool. Reason has focused on synths, with a distinctive set of hardware-styled modules in a virtual rack. Record focuses on sound, with a distinctive set of hardware-styled modules in a virtual rack. Get it?

What’s left out is important. There’s no plug-in support, but by limiting use to the internal sound modules, Record is entirely agnostic about things like sample rate and can be far more flexible with modular audio routing and fluid tempo changes. (There’s also no MIDI out support, but if you’re looking to sequence external hardware, I might look elsewhere, anyway – especially with gems like Numerology out there.) Record also supports ReWire and has various export features, so the assumption is that – as with Reason – when you really want plug-ins, you can use your existing environment of choice.

Maybe you can call the results a DAW, if you really want to. But the one thing that isn’t debatable: Record is Reason for sound.

CDM was first with the official story from Propellerhead over the weekend, talking about the philosophy behind Record. Now we can talk about the specifics inside – and I have a test version here I’ve been working with while on the road.

Basically, Record combines comp-based recording with Reason-style racks and a whole load of goodies for processing and mixing your sound, including Line 6 guitar effects and an emulated SSL mixing desk. Why am I excited to begin working with it? Basically, it’s what happens when you flip the Record interface around. The most important screenshot (see any of these shots bigger by clicking on them):

Here’s what you get:

• All about “Record”ing – with comps: As the name implies, the real soul of Record is recording. Comping is built in from the beginning so that you get a take you want, and each track even includes an integrated tuner by default. This is really a tool that assumes you’re actually one person plugging in an instrument and playing.
• Music and tempo-based sound: “Tempo-independent” audio is almost the reverse of what this is. When you record sound, the idea is that you always have some musical information in mind – beats and bars. Record lets you then change the tempo of that audio fluidly, without ever having to think about warping or slicing or markers or loops or anything like that. Propellerhead says they’re especially proud of the audio quality of the stretching algorithm working behind the scenes to make these changes sound good, which is what we’re already hearing (unofficially, of course) from beta testers in comments and elsewhere.
• Tempo changes: Unlike other tools that have focused on DJ-style or electronica-style master tempo, Record assumes fluid changes in tempo from version 1.0. There’s always a “conductor” track, a main tempo lane, which can have subtle, curved tempo changes (accel./rit.). When you export your audio, that information is exported as MIDI, so this musical information travels with you to other tools.
• An integrated recording/mixing/arrangement environment: This is the one DAW-like part of Record, though it still feels more like Reason than anything else. Each track gets three things: a channel routed into the mixer, an individual device module you can insert into the rack (as in Reason), and a sequencing lane for MIDI and audio.
• Sequencing: This is the most traditional part of Record – you do get conventional sequencer lanes. Clips can arbitrarily contain audio, MIDI, and automation data. The important thing to note is that, because Record doesn’t support plug-ins, you can count on consistent integration of automation – if there’s a knob in a module, you can automate it in the sequencer, just as in Reason.
• Hardware-style mixing: No software-style mixer here: the mixer inside Record is a direct simulation of hardware, not a loosely-inspired emulation. The Record mixer is modeled after an SSL 9000k analog mixing desk, so that it intends to look, work, and sound like the real thing. (SSL was not officially involved, so you’ll just have to count the Propellerheads as SSL fans.)
• Reason-style effects: In addition to the mixer, you get Reason-style modules for EQ, dynamics, and other effects.
• Line 6 guitar effects: Line 6’s virtual POD is built in, so you get their guitar amps and cabinets built in. I’m guessing those should be quite nice with keyboards, too.

Arrangement: Looking at the birds-eye view, Record does admittedly look like a DAW. But dig in a little bit to how these modules work, and there’s more Reason DNA than anything else. It’ll be interesting to work with these modules over the coming months. Also, most important to recognize is that when you see audio in Record, it will always obey tempo changes you make, including gradual speed increases and decreases – no warping or slicing required. When you do want to slice up audio, you could, say, drop Record as a ReWire client into an Ableton Live set, or even export your audio with tempo changes from Record as one track and put your sliced audio in a different rack.

The mixing desk:

The thing is, it’s not so much what Record does as what it does in a Reason-style way. So while this is a preview, not a review, here’s what makes Record more like Reason:

For Reason users, this one image pretty much sums everything up. The workflow is still essentially a Reason workflow – if you love that, you’re likely already salivating. If not, it’ll likely take more convincing from the other aspects of the tool.

• Every track is a rack: Each time you create a track, you get a modular rack, which translates to the inserts you see in the mixer. For advanced users, this means you can do anything with routing you want. You get a full-blown rack on each track, with all the usual goodies for routing. For beginners, it means you can call up easy presets for whatever you’re doing, and the parameters show up as plain-English knobs in the mixer. You don’t have to think about routing or what everything represents; you just focus on sound. For beginners and advanced users, the ability to “see” all of this routing with virtual cables and such means sophisticated mixing and routing setups aren’t quite so abstract.
• It’s a Reason interface: Everything looks and feels like Reason, even with a much more involved UI. All the new views continue on the theme of adjustable navigation panes. These views either get combined into a single-window interface, or can be detached if you’d prefer. But there are almost no dialog boxes, with one notable exception:
• You get Reason patches and patch browsing, for audio: Reason users will feel right at home, as Record extends the patch browsing metaphor from Reason. And because track effects inserts use what are essentially Combinators, those inserts just feel like Reason devices inside a mixer.
• Reason + Record: If you have Reason, you have access to all your Reason modules. And since Record has a big Reason rack – well, you get the idea. Instead of recording inside Reason, what Reason users get is Reason inside a bigger version of Reason that understands not only recording, but mixing and audio arrangement, and treats audio like music, with tempo.
• ReWire: Record is a ReWire client (slave), not a host (master). That should be your first clue Propellerhead aren’t trying to replace Pro Tools, Live, and Logic. But it does mean you could easily use, say, Record for recording purposes on your own, then drop it into a Pro Tools session in the studio, or Record to do some song-writing that you then bring into an Ableton live PA or remix set.
• Reason-style automation and control. Most notably, this is the first audio production tool I’ve seen that was set up from the beginning to be used with keyboards, as Reason was. It’s funny: right now, M-Audio are pitching using a keyboard to control Pro Tools with their Axiom Pro / HyperControl product. This essentially goes the other way: like Reason, Record uses the “Remote” protocol, which was effectively the first to “automap” your keyboard controller and control surface to the software. That means you can comfortably produce an entire work from your keyboard, while adding guitar or vocals as an audio recording.
• Oh yeah, it’ll be fun even if you only use synths: In case you haven’t guessed already, for Reason users, this means mixing and processing and arrangement tools that weren’t available before, so even if you never hook up a mic to Record, I imagine you could use almost all of these tools. (Only the tuner and audio comps become redundant.)

It’s really the relationship of the device rack to the mixer and tracks in Record that make it unique, and will be fun to explore over the coming months. When you create devices and Combinators, you can easily see them in the mixer and track sections. Sends are named as the actual sound parameter, too. Because it doesn’t support plug-ins, that also means you never have to worry about the way parameter names are handled in formats like VST, though you can always return to your favorite host when you do want plug-ins since Record is also a ReWire client.

Line6 guitar and bass amps are available out of the box as insertable modules. This is all you need for the interface: it’s aggressively simple.

The patch window will look familiar to Reason users. But if you’re new to this, what it means is that you can easily surf through, say, Line 6 guitar presets and hear immediately what they sound like.

So, what does the music sound like? Josh Mobley via Twitter tells us about his official demo song, “Push Me Down,” made in Record for Propellerhead. All the songs in the embedded player below were made in Record, with the exception of “Narrow Escape,” the demo for Reason 4.

About that Dongle

The other bit of news – and the one item that’s likely to be most divisive – is that Propellerhead is changing the authorization scheme in Record, as explained here:

Ignition Key

The good news: “demo” mode / non-authorized mode is actually only “open”-disabled. You can even save files in the demo; you just can’t open existing files. The Ignition Key comes free with the tool rather than being a separate purchase as with some iLok products, and if you lose or break it, a replacement is available for a nominal fee. (Some manufacturers actually have the gall to charge for the full purchase price of the product or close to it, which is utterly ridiculous.) Also, if you don’t want to use the key, there is an Internet authorization.

The bad news: it is still a dongle. Internet authorization requires a consistent connection while you’re working; the moment that’s dropped, the software reverts to demo mode. I would personally much rather have seen one-time Internet authorization as is available from Ableton and Native Instruments, among others, especially as Record would be fun to use on a bus or train without plugging in a dongle. Propellerhead say they’ve put some thought into this and wanted to do copy protection right, but I expect they’ll hear about it anyway.

The one upside I do see is for people who use a lot of machines (like myself, for one). You can use just the dongle without any other authorization, and you can use it on as many machines as you want. So that means you can move from a studio to a Mac laptop to a PC laptop to a netbook just by moving your dongle around, and never have to fill out a registration form or worry about if you’ve run out of authorizations.

Also, I’d suggest that people use this as an opportunity to freely try the demo without any annoying limitations and decide if you like the tool before you buy it.

Availability / pricing

Beta testing is starting now, today – sign-up at the site below.

September 9, 2009 is the official release date.

Suggested retail: US$299, EUR299. No word yet on what bundles will be available for existing or new Reason users, but Propellerhead says that it will have special bundle pricing of some kind.

Videos and more info at:

www.record-you.com

It’s been a long, long wait for side-by-side Reason and audio racks and recording in Reason, but there’s no question that this is a big announcement.

Since many of you will be beta-testing this alongside me, I look forward to hearing your opinions of the tool and any tips or techniques you discover.

Ever wished you could pack the sonic goodness and programming power of a soft synth into a hardware box? Dreamed of software that lived in a road case and had the stability and power-on capability of your outboard gear? You’re certainly not alone. That meant many of us were intrigued when soft synth emulator house Arturia showed off the Origin, a DSP-based hardware box that put their emulations in a box that wasn’t a PC.

Dave Dri knows touring with gear, as the founder of Seque and a live electronic festival vet. We got his impressions from across the Pacific in Australia. He’s upfront with everything he loves and everything that annoys. To bring a different perspective to Planet CDM here, I’m pleased to welcome Dave as a guest.

An Origin Of Sorts

Founded in France in 1999, Arturia has gained a solid reputation for the quality of its emulations of classic analogue synthesizers. If the soft synth emulations of the classic Moog Minimoog and Yamaha CS-80 have made Arturia a name in the industry, the news of its development of a hardware DSP system made for enjoyable speculation and furious Google searches for videos, news and reviews. While units in Australia are somewhat scarce at present, an Origin was supplied for review by Musiclab in Brisbane, Australia. Where the initial review was for music press print media, there is so much more to this module that we can take a deeper look and share with the CDM community some of the issues and notable features of the Arturia Origin.

Man, Meet Machine

The initial impression of the unit is typical of any large synth module with a host of knobs and blinking lights. The Origin can be rack-mounted or run as a table-top unit, with supplied wooden ends screwing in for the all-important retro aesthetic. There have been comments about the time it takes the unit to boot up, which takes a while. Once you have booted, though, it’s a treat to use, and the LCD screen is both large and bright. As ever, first impressions gained by scrolling through the individual and multi presets give a feel for the possibilities and examples of programming inside the box. A range of usable bass and synth sounds nestle amongst the abstract sweeps and blips, showing plenty of sonic diversity. The Origin is, after all, billed as being “the most powerful synthesiser on the market”.

Origin is essentially a modular environment for programming custom synth modules with a collection of oscillators and filters. It draws upon Arturia’s stable of analog gear models, adding new, original content from the Arturia team. With those synth sounds now in a physical case, boasting external signal inputs and a three-layered step sequencer, the Origin is impressive on paper. Its sound is equally impressive, but one would expect no less from Arturia based on the quality of their software. The presets might attract the same “heard it all before” criticisms from anyone who has been around analog synths for a while, but that can be perhaps considered a complement to the analog modeling. One needs only to play up and down the range of notes of a Minimoog patch to realise that the coherency of the lower and higher notes is superior to lesser Virtual Analogue products. This is especially pronounced in the lower note ranges, though the manual goes into details about avoiding upper frequency aliasing and a “no names” criticism of some other “leading softsynth”. If you’re a soft synth developer, it might be you! Uh oh!

Get With The Program

The first issue that one is likely to run into is delving into the much-talked-about modular programming environment. Whereas the similarly modular Nord G2 includes robust programming environments in computer software for their hardware synth, Arturia have chosen to limit the Origin’s programming to be an entirely inside-the-box affair. Indeed, the USB port and supplied software are merely for archiving and transferring patches. Quite why this process takes such an excruciatingly long time is a mystery, but the lack of any ability to edit file names of archived patches is simply lazy programming. At the time of writing, Arturia haven’t replied to confirm if there is an editor on the way, but one would consider it likely that such a revision will be released with an OS update shortly.

Not that programming on the Origin is anything near impossible. Merely annoying. There are two modes to view the programming process, which amounts to dropping modules into slots and opening each module to connect to another. Frustratingly, there appears to be no way to intelligently “insert” modules into the signal path. This, in addition to no method of “swapping” modules in and out, slows down the rate of programming and limits the kind of creative and random experiments that make actual modular synthesis interesting. Similarly, deleting a module inline will break the signal path, and require re-patching. Despite these quirks, the process is relatively fun and the availability of up to 9 oscillator instances and 4 filter instances will surely yield some interesting results.

Ed.: This is one I’m definitely interested in following – I’d be willing to make some sacrifices for in-box programming, which is an impressive feature, especially with this modular structure. But these do sound like significant obstacles. Other folks want to chime in? -PK

These modules are sourced from the modeling of the Moog Minimoog, Yamaha CS-80, ARP 2600 and Sequential Circuits Prophet 5, as well as additional Arturia originals. Each has its distinctive quirks and allows for some interesting combinations, with features like self-oscillation on the Moog and the smooth response of the Jupiter filters. The manual becomes useful here, with examples and reference points for understanding the characteristics of each.

Better Living Through Synthesis

Beyond creating your own patches, the unit comes packed full of preset programs. Each program contains one synth structure as well as up to three effects settings and one sequence. Up to four Programs can be combined as a Multi, allowing for multi-timbral sound module use with MIDI note, channel and split functionality. The synth structure can be either a user-built modular environment or a template synth. At time of writing, the Origin is shipped with only the Minimoog supplied, with no clear date from Arturia when they will supply the rest. This does seem a curious omission given not only the cost of the unit, but the idea that all these units are already modeled in other Arturia software, requiring only a programmer to port the modules to the Origin. Add another thing to wait for in “the future”.

Room For Improvement

There are quickly a list of issues and concerns a programmer will have with the unit. Where the Arturia software emulation of the Minimoog shows numeric values for tuning settings, the Origin does not. Indeed, all parameters are merely displayed as a graphic representation of a knob, leaving only a visual cue as to the settings. This becomes an issue when tuning the semitones of a number of oscillators for instance, which coupled with the lack of editing software or a touch screen, makes programming the same patches on the Origin a slower affair then Arturia’s own Minimoog V.

Other issues include the use of only a single instance of the Delay, Chorus, and Reverb effects, out of a maximum of three effects able to be run at any one time. The limited palette of effects including Distortion and a Phaser are similar to those found on a Novation X-Station at five times less the expense, and pale in comparison. The Delay and Reverb lack depth of character, and one might find themselves checking that the Distortion is, in fact, actually turned on. The restriction to singular use of the more CPU intensive Delay and Reverb is an indication of conserving processing power for the actual synth patches, but these issues quickly creep into the potential capacity of a Multi patch. In an era where the cheapest entry level laptop has processing power to spare, it is relatively disappointing that a module advertised as “the most powerful synthesizer on the market” would have any processing restrictions whatsoever. If you intended to run the world’s most ultimate 9-Oscillator Trance super saw Multi with full effects and blazing filters, think again. Outside of CPU and “I can’t believe it doesn’t have a touch screen” interface issues however, much of what currently detracts from the overall desirability of the Origin could well be fixed with a timely OS update.

Things Are Looking Up

Those niggles out of the way, it’s time to reaffirm that the unit does in fact sound fantastic. As said before, so it should. It’s Arturia doing what Arturia do. Coupled with the rather interesting, if quirky, step sequencer, the unit has the potential to become a boutique brain for a relatively well-funded live act. Where programming may feel like a festival of clicks, the Origin is perfectly suited for performance and allows for an incredibly well-planned customization and mapping of knobs to this end. External inputs offer the chance to create inspired filter programs and the unit hasn’t neglected a healthy array of midi ports. The unit is heavy at around the 8kg mark, but the build is impressively solid and all the knobs have the same smooth feel that makes units like the Waldorf Blofeld such a joy to tweak, grab and perform on.

It is, however, the quality of the sound that will emerge as a common point of conversation regarding the Origin. It is very expensive and will perhaps emerge as a limited and desirable boutique unit for some. For others, the comparison to the Arturia software will be a pressing factor, with all the synths on the Origin available as part of Arturia’s acclaimed “V Collection” at a price over four times cheaper than the Origin. Of course, these are not available in modular form, which invariably brings up again the question why the Origin is shipped without a software editor. Sure, the Origin sounds amazing, but the question is whether it sounds that much more amazing than the same software, and whether the potential for programming is currently worth the restricted workflow of doing it all inside the box.

To Origin, Or Not To Origin

Some of the best music technology in history has been quirky and difficult, and there is little argument against calling the Arturia Origin exactly that. For all its difficulty, however, it sounds incredible. For all the niggling feature complaints, it suggests a well-timed OS update in response. For its price though, there are no easy answers. Comparing the recommended retail prices in Australia at present, the Arturia Origin costs only a few hundred less than one would spend purchasing both a Moog Little Phatty Stage II and a Dave Smith Prophet 08. Both being genuine analogue synths in their own right. Whether the market is ready to pay this price until Arturia address the features left wanting is entirely up to the producers and acts with the money and passion for incredibly sounding and very specific modular emulations. For everyone else, the software awaits.

For another – similarly skeptical – take on the Arturia, here’s Music Thing from last year:

Review: Arturia Origin. It’s bit, it’s expensive, it’s sexy. Why don’t I want one?