Korg’s Monotribe became the surprise hit of gear announcements at this month’s Messe trade show. It’s little, it’s cute, and it seems entirely focused on synthesis and pattern-making fun.

Plenty of videos have circulated, but odds are you haven’t seen the Japanese-language demo above (well, Japanese titles – the video itself speaks the international language of synth). It’s a nice jam on Monotribe and the recently-released Kaoss Pad Quad.

Korg’s James Saveja answers some questions for CDM, rapid-fire style.

CDM: Can you describe the drum voices?

James: Drum voices are all analog. A nice punchy snare, kick and hat part.

CDM: How does the sync work?

James: It’s audio sync. You can use a pulse to keep things synced.

CDM: What’s the workflow like for the step sequencer?

James: Very easy. Hit record and the sequencer runs, and captures what you’re doing at the moments where you’re traversing the 8 steps.

CDM: Pricing I gather won’t be announced until the summer?
James: We’re getting close. Sooner than summer for sure.

CDM: Any impressions you wish to share?

James: I only got my hands on it for a few minutes at the show, and I gotta tell you, it’s got a very special vibe. It’s built like a tank, and the user interface feels extremely substantial. Sturdy knobs and switches, etc. It was a pleasure to play with. I’m excited to get my first production one. Yes, even [product managers] have to wait sometimes! =)

More details: Korg has also posted additional specs on the components. To me, the main thing remains their distinctive-sounding MS-series filter. And I think it’s telling that Korg, of all the major manufacturers, has actually returned to their back catalog of analog designs; in some ways, it’s surprising that no one else has. I’m not entirely sure about an analog pulse being a “return to modular” – that seems to overstate the case a little bit – but it is very, very easy to use a pulse to sync.

From the source:

Classic Analog Components – VCO, LFO, VCA
The VCO offers a choice between sawtooth, triangle and square wave. White noise can mixed in to the oscillator signal in any amount. The Octave selector covers a broad range, from deep bass to piercing lead-lines. Three EG (Envelope Generator) presets provide the VCA with impressive versatility and dexterity. The LFO can be patched to the VCO and/or the VCF, creating impressive dynamic effects. The Range switch allows the LFO to deliver stirring cyclic changes over tens of seconds (SLOW) or superfast (FAST) audio-range FM ringing. Switching the LFO Mode to the 1-shot setting allows the LFO behave as a second envelope generator – a truly powerful addition!

Vintage MS-10/MS-20 Filter
The monotribe features the same VCF circuit found on Korg’s classic MS-10 and MS-20 analog semi-patchable synthesizers. Distinctively analog, this sharp and powerful filter adds dramatic change to the sound, imparting the uniquely memorable character of Korg’s early analog synthesizers. Using the audio input, any audio source can be enhanced by passing through the filter section. Process an instrument, a voice, or a complete mix form CD or MP3 and create larger than life filter effects!

Sync Jacks: A Return to Modular
The monotribe provides both Sync In and Sync Out jacks, empowering multiple monotribe units to play and work together for a synchronized performance. Not just other monotribes, either. Audio line level pulses can trigger the Sync Input so the monotribe can be synchronized to a DAW system, for example. In addition, the polarity of the pulse waveform can be changed for both the input and output, so you can enjoy synchronized performance with a variety of equipment equipped with Sync connections.

Monotribe Product Page

By the way, one dirty little secret: almost all gear from recent decades uses some analog circuitry and some digital circuitry, this of course being no exception. I’ll let you conclude from that what you wish. To me, it’s design and use that gives electronics soul, not how analog or digital something is. What the Korg devices remind us is that analog circuits remain an affordable, practical solution to many problems.

Anyway, rest assured we’ll be watching for one of these boxes to arrive in the New York metro area. (Hmmm… I’m in NYC. Korg is on Long Island. The Monotribe and a number of other pieces of gear run on battery power. Synths on the Beach party, anyone?)

Want to win over electronic sound geeks? Korg’s found a simple formula: give them a steady diet of compact, affordable, fun toys that can also be serious sound tools. And so, Korg actually manages to upstage some “bigger” tech announcements this week with some good, clean gear candy. Aside from the expected Monotribe, there’s the unexpected Wavedrum Mini.

You’ve probably already seen the Korg Monotribe, the follow-up to the stocking stuffer analog handheld, the Monotron. It’s been leaked and teased as the words “under strict embargo” have come to mean in the music tech blogosphere “publish as quickly as possible.”

If you just joined us, though, the Monotribe is best described as a Monotron with step sequencer, new control features, analog sync, and simple drum circuits.

Let me boil down some predictions about this instrument, due summer this year.

1. Price will be the deciding factor. Keep the street well under US$200, Korg, and it’ll be a blockbuster. Go above that, and we’ll have to start comparing it to a pretty broad variety of boutique instruments – oh, and lots of stuff on eBay, even from a company called Korg.

2. More evolved synth control, not drums, is the killer feature. Yes, there are “discrete analog” drum sounds, but since they’re fixed, that doesn’t mean much. (Leave that to the modders.) So, instead, see the synth side.

I love the Monotron’s sound, when combined with its deliciously-raucous LFO and classic MS-10 / MS-20 Korg analog filter. Revisiting Korg’s own filter circuit was a stroke of genius. Extend on that success with the Monotribe by adding step-sequencing and recording, and add different control modes (including the ability to hit actual notes on its tiny ribbon), and it all becomes more useful. I also like pushing the frequency range. There’s a double-edged sword here, too, though – by adding features, it’s apparent what’s missing. And as a synth, the Monotribe is pretty limited. It pales oddly versus the (affordable when introduced) Roland TB303; I’d hesitate to even make the comparison. (But see item #1, which overrides the rest.)

3. The design is a bit of a disappointment – but it could be more fun than a Monotron. The original Monotron was iconic and adorable, tiny enough to fit in your hand, dirt-cheap and simple enough to give to non-synth friends in place of wine. The new Monotribe is mostly utilitarian-looking, as if several units were cut and paste together, and with the extra bulk, you still don’t get niceties like, um, MIDI. But no matter: again, assuming they’ve got the price right, this appears to be a fun little busy box for synth addicts that can make most iOS apps look soulless by comparison.

4. Sync is more fun than you think. So, that sync jack will take an audio pulse. That means you could send this a click and sync to a DAW – or, I’d imagine, do some fun audio triggering with it. Hacks should therefore be really easy on the sync side. And it could wind up being sync that moves this into the must-buy category.

Demos:

It’ll be a fascinating test – can you take something ultra-minimal, make it a little less minimal, and have it still work?

And yes, it’s funny to hear the word “analog” turn into a “new” marketing buzzword.

Will people make whole albums with it? They will, indeed. Listen to Chris Randall tell CDM about putting the Monotron on EPs.

And a Mobile Drum

The Korg Wavedrum Mini is equally adorable. On the Wavedrum Mini, it’s easier to complain about absent MIDI output since it’d make a terrific little controller, but that’s about the only gripe so far. Again, the major unknown – and it could be the deciding factor – is price.

The Wavedrum Mini is otherwise an ultra-portable drum pad with speaker, and a “sensor clip” — I’m guessing just a trigger — that you can put on anything. There are built-in patterns and things, but let’s skip to the good parts.

It’s a win for:
1. Anyone who needs to play with batteries.
2. Anyone who needs something ultra-portable for practice (especially with the speaker and headphone jack).
3. Anyone wanting a fun toy to play with drum triggers, using that clip.

It’s just a shame the clip and pad can’t be used with MIDI or USB or Bluetooth or anything but audio. Makers, time for us to step in and offer a little DIY alternative, huh?

Due summer 2011.

Full disclosure: Create Digital Music produces and sells the competing MeeBlip. Okay, that was fun to say.

While Roland this week is pushing their JP-80 and celebrating a 30-year milestone (the Jupiter-8), Yamaha has a different tack. They’re talking about the 10-year anniversary of the MOTIF workstation line, and introducing a version that’s actually easier to lift and afford. That could be friendly to the current economic tough times. But with all that people love their software synths, can Yamaha make a compelling case to the computer user, too? I put Yamaha on the spot to answer that.

First, here are the specs:

• MOTIF XS sounds, with 1,217 voices and 355 MB of waveforms. (Okay, that’s nothing to HALion’s 15 GB of sounds on a computer, but Yamaha promises content with “Expanded Articulation” features.)
• Virtual Circuit Modeling and MOTIF XS synth engine, with 18 filter types.
• 256 performance patterns, 6,720 arpeggiator patterns, MOTIF XS four-part arpeggio engine.
• USB audio/MIDI interface to record directly to a PC – 4-in, 2-out, stereo input for vocals or instruments/guitars.
• Onboard sequencer and direct-to-sequencer recording so you can use the keyboard as a sketchpad.
• MIDI controller functionality.

None of that is terribly earth-shaking; where the MOX line is worth mentioning is on weight, size, and cost. The MOX6 weighs 15.4 pounds with 61 semi-weighted keys; the MOX8 gives you 88 Graded Hammer Standard keys in 32.6 pounds.

MOX6: US$1199.99 MAP
MOX8: US$1699.99 MAP

That still isn’t quite an impulse buy, but there isn’t a whole heck of a lot of competition, particularly if you want a lightweight, playable hammer-action keyboard with these kinds of features. (Roland and Kurzweil compete in the same space, but only Kurzweil I think is on the same level for pianist-friendly hammer action keybeds.)

In fact, if you look at it this way – a keyboard with controllers and a real Yamaha keybed that you can still lift – the MOX fills a long-quiet spot in the market.

Having onboard sounds is a nice backup, but for most of us who are addicted to superior-sounding soft synths, half a gig of MOTIF sounds just won’t cut it. (Side note: I really do think there’s something to the Japanese aesthetic of miniaturized sample content. I’m stunned engineers at these makers can voice these things as well as they do.)

So, I asked Athan Billias of Yamaha’s Pro Audio and Combo Division to tell us more about the computer workflow and keybed. It brings up features you might miss, like controller capabilities, using the sequencer and arpeggiator with other gear, and other details.

Keybed: Yamaha’s keybeds are some of the best-liked away from actual pianos, so this comes as good news: “The Graded Hammer Standard is what we use on many of our digital pianos- the P95, etc,” says Athan. “It’s a graded hammer action that was designed to be lighter and allow for a more streamlined design than the Clavinova’s, but uses a similar mechanism.” Now, it is lighter – otherwise the keyboard would weigh more – but if portability is key, this could be a player.

Streaming from the audio engine: With USB onboard, being able to record the internal sound bank is essential; I saw commenters elsewhere asking about this. The answer is, yes, you can: “It is a 4 in ( to the computer ) 2 out interface. So yes, you can stream directly from the synth engine will also recording the L&R analog inputs.”

USB audio drivers: The keyboard isn’t class-compliant, says Athan, because it’s both multi-channel audio and multi-port MIDI. (I believe the latter is the issue.) You’ll need Yamaha drivers – so, no Linux / iPad.

Computer integration: With inexpensive controller keyboards available, Yamaha has a little something to prove to convince computer users. They’re obviously thinking of that use case, as they include soft synths in the box. Here’s Athan’s argument.

I think this is the coolest thing about the MOX. So let’s talk computer integration.

The MOX comes with Cubase AI of course, but it also has a suite of other software.

YC-B3 – Yamaha Organ Modeling VST soft synth
Prologue – Steinberg Virtual Analog softsynth

MOX VST editor – This turns the hardware into a VST so you can treat the hardware exactly like a softsynth. Save your project, open a month later and it recalls the setting of your hardware exactly as they were when you were last working on the project.

Remote Editor- The remote mode turns the MOX into a very comprehensive DAW and VST controller. There is an AI knob which means that rest the mouse over any parameter in Cubase and the AI knob can tweak it. You can use the Remote Editor to select almost anything in Cubase to be controlled by buttons on the MOX.

You can open, select and tweak VSTs , control the EQs of audio channels, open and close the mixers and other windows and many other things.

However, it is not just the software. The MOX is an audio interface so you can play back your VSTs audio out through the MOX. A MOX, some VSTs and a laptop are all you need ( besides a PA system) to play live. The MOX has a DAW level control on the front panel which is the output from your computer.

Sequencer / arpeggiator: Okay, actually, I find this potentially the coolest feature. The sequencer can record internal MIDI or external MIDI, so you can use the keyboard as a sketchpad or use it to sequence hardware. I’m not terribly familiar with the MOTIF sequencers, so I have to give this another try to see how usable it is, but it is one advantage of workstation-style keyboards – here, without all that extra cruft (and heft, and cost) you don’t need or want.

Also, a MIDI output switch lets you use the arpeggiator and patterns to sequence your external MIDI instruments.

Otherwise, this is effectively a MOTIF XS in the guts, just with less weight and cost. That’s, um, how I expect to celebrate my next birthday/anniversary, I hope.

This isn’t a review, but this looks like a contender – and I’d love to stack the Kurzweil and Yamaha offerings against each other. Cheap controllers are nice, but having a superior keybed and some useful functions and (even just as a backup) standalone sounds has some appeal, without feeling like your keyboard is trying to be another computer.

The only unfortunate detail is that the keyboard would share the name of nuclear fuel at a most inopportune time. Then again, if I plug it in here in New York, there’s a 30% chance I’m running off nuclear fuel, too. Think of it as short for “moxie” instead.

How do you build a new flagship synthesizer — and how do you make it live up to a beloved past name?

That’s the question Roland has taken on once again with the Jupiter-80. Shown to a select few starting at NAMM, then (very) non-intentionally leaked in the past few days, there’s a good chance you’ve seen it. But here, I’ll try to provide some technical details you may not know – thanks to ongoing conversations with Roland and the help of our friends at Keyboard – and also look back to the original Jupiter-8. Whether the resulting keyboard is for you, I think that reveals something of the path of one of the world’s great synth makers, and perhaps explains some of the impassioned reactions (positive and negative) to a new Roland.

1981 to 2011: The First Jupiter’s Legacy

Let’s get this out of the way: the Jupiter-80 isn’t directly based on the landmark 1981 Jupiter-8. And full disclosure: in the past, I’ve questioned whether Roland’s past monikers always fit the new models, as with their Juno-G.

But let’s consider the original Jupiter-8 for a moment. To most of us today, it’s the Jupiter as analog synth (technically, analog-digital hybrid synth) that we love. But that’s not the only story on the Jupiter. If it were, the Jupiter might be lost among other synths of the era.

Gordon Reid has written terrific histories of the Roland company and the Jupiter line. The opening section of his 1994 history of the company for Sound on Sound (“What have the Rolands ever done for us?”) is a must-read.

Reid in 1998 writes about the Jupiter-8 that its ability to sit transparently and clearly in a mix, and its all-around playability and feature set, are what set it apart. Ironically, part of what differentiated the Jupiter series was that it was a step toward the digital age. The JP8A was a precursor of MIDI and – more importantly – digital musical composition and polyphonic sequencing. You’ll see in coming days plenty of complaints that Roland isn’t doing an “analog” synth. But I agree to at least some extent with Roland’s leadership that analog alone is not the only essence of the Jupiter. (*See the endnote to this article below before you accuse me of a terrible heresy.) [1]

SynthMania has a wonderful selection of sounds, including the original factory patches and extensive patch sheets:
http://www.synthmania.com/jupiter-8.htm

Looking back through the original factory patch sheets, it’s also clear that the Jupiter-8 was intended as an device to simulate real instruments – a “synthesizer” in the truest sense. Remember that Roland’s history was intertwined with organ history. The Jupiter line was even designed in ways that could replace or augment organs, and certain features – attempting push-button access to the full range of acoustic instruments – owe their legacy to organs. They also were focused on economy and playability. Fortunately for us, the results – particularly Jupiter strings and brass – were idiomatic. Aiming for old sounds, Roland created new ones.

Below, Jupiter-8 demo videos — and notice the emphasis on the splits and layers. (More on that element and its relation to the JP-80 below.)

And that brings us to the Jupiter-80. The question is, what makes a Jupiter? Do you make a new synthesizer in the sense of synthesizing real instruments, or do you make something that’s a programmable electronic instrument in the sense of what analog synths mean to us now? The JP-80 does both, and that means the question of how well it meets those two goals will likely be high on the list as it is completed, shipped, and fully reviewed.

A Tale of Two Synths: The New Jupiter-80

The Jupiter-80 is really two instruments. It focuses on being two things:
1. A live performance synth, focused on live playing (not being a studio-style workstation)
2. A big pile of sounds

A comparison is way out of the scope of this first-look article, but the Jupiter-80 contrasts with Korg’s KRONOS. The KRONOS is sold as “nine” keyboards in one, and it really is as much full-blown workstation as live keyboard. The Jupiter-80 is more about playing live. The KRONOS is built on an Intel Atom architecture similar to the OASYS distinct from any other Korg product; the Jupiter-80 has more in common with other new Roland synths.

But – and this is where you’ll see some mixed reactions – the new JP is two synths in another way. It has tones that emulate real instruments and articulations, and then the sort of synth sounds that you’d expect for something that says Jupiter on it.

Roland tells CDM that they view the original mission of the Jupiter-8 as being expressive, so to them the SuperNATURAL engine is a perfect fit for the Jupiter – even as synth purists and programmers may feel otherwise.

But before you dismiss it, the interesting element is the way in which you can combine the two tones on keyboards. That isn’t hard to do on a computer, but if you prefer to play an all-in-one synth – or to do this on a single, integrated instrument – it’s compelling.

And what the Jupiter isn’t – whatever you may have heard on the forums – is a ROMpler. The derivative term “ROMpler” refers to instruments that more or less play stock sampled sounds from internal memory with little live control or synthesis. The Jupiter-80′s architecture isn’t that, on either the simulation or synthesis sides.

SuperNATURAL

The SuperNATURAL engine has already appeared on new Roland organs and the V-Piano. The basic model is to provide sound content that’s pre-programmed to emulate real instrumental articulations from a keyboard. That’s always been a challenge to sampler designers. In big computer sample libraries, you’ll find all sorts of tricks for key switching and sample variations and other ways of providing the full range of instrumental articulations on a keyboard. (The piano, after all, was never intended to do what a violin or erhu can.) The SuperNATURAL engine attempts to make those more immediately playable.

Unlike a conventional PCM synth, you also avoid issues like sample looping and phase issues. Vince LaDuca, Product Manager, Keyboards for Roland US, explains the concept:

What happens when a keyboardist is trying to reproduce sounds other than a traditional keyboard instrument on the synthesizer? This is where synthesizers today really fall short because the typical sound engine inside cannot truly “interpret” an expressive keyboard performance done on keys into an authentic guitar, trumpet, or violin performance – a guitarist plucks or strums strings, a trumpet player uses his breath, lips and trumpet valves, and a violinist plucks or uses a bow on strings. All the keyboardist can do is trigger a static digital sonic picture of sound he is trying to recreate, and each time a key is pressed, the same sonic picture is repeated, but at different pitches as played on the keyboard.

The Jupiter-80 solves this problem by using Roland’s newly developed Behavior Modeling technology. It takes care of the “interpretation” by constantly analyzing the keyboardist normal, natural keyboard performance, and instructs the ultra-realistic SuperNATURAL sound engines inside the Jupiter-80 to “play” and constantly “articulate” the reproduced sound just as the “real” performer would based on the keyboardists timing and interval between notes, the strength at which the various keys are struck, or if the keyboardist is pressing a pedal to sustain notes. These actions, among others available to the keyboardist, are translated by the behavior model for the selected sound being reproduced into an authentic plucked or strummed performance in the case of a guitar, aggressive or smooth bowing in the case of a violin, and the sharp or smooth pitch changes created by the valves on a trumpet and the pressure of the trumpet player’s breath. These are but a few of the articulations possible with Behavior Modeling.

Vince tells CDM that he likes the analogy of the keyboardist in this case as akin to the conductor of an orchestra. There is a certain suspension of disbelief.

There’s a reason I mentioned organs earlier – it’s not derogatory. Whether you deem it entirely successful or not, the Jupiter-80 is an attempt in the modern, digital age to stun audiences the way organs once did.

But for Creative Sound Design Lovers…

Okay, so you can have a really “magical” experience and play a keyboard and have it sound like an instrument. But for creative sound designers and synth lovers, does that mean you’re completely left in the dark?

Well, the Jupiter-80 isn’t entirely focused on synthesis, to be sure. You don’t get the terrific physical controls for programming Roland has sometimes introduced over the years. A touchscreen takes its place, but as some of the screenshots show, it’s not as programmable as a virtual analog synth today can be. (See the almost ridiculous range of options on the Korg Kronos.)

But one promising element – still in active development as I’ve been talking to Roland over the past weeks – is very much in the spirit of the original Jupiter-8, and that’s an emphasis on combining tones.

The JP-80′s architecture allows the use of four tones, each with its own effects block, each with independent controls, on each of two layers – upper and lower – plus solo and percussion voices. That 2 x 4 + 1 + 1 in the architecture, which are then mixed together. The upper and lower voices each have reverb; solo and percussion have compressor, EQ, and delay. Touch-button access looks to make it very easy to mix sounds.

Starting with splits and layers, you’re already able to use the massive sound content on the JP to produce big hybrid textures. A Tone Blender function then allows you to work more with movement.

The best way to understand what I mean is to look at the screen shots – these are prototype shots, so the final version may differ, but they give you a sense of what’s going on. And there’s no lack of sound design possibilities here. The Tone Blender mode, top, gives you some of these morphing possibilities. Below that image, registration and effects routings make complex, layered, playable sounds.

Vince at Roland has sent some hands-on impressions. (Yes, he works for Roland and he’s getting hands-on time with it himself – welcome to the synth development process, something I’ve recently discovered first-hand!) This is effectively unofficial — Vince’s own personal reaction to playing the thing. He writes:

It will allow one controller in, then map it to parameters of all 4 tones in a Live Set. I’m not sure how that works when you stack an upper and lower (8 tones), but will dig in more tomorrow. Also there is some extensive controller routing for each MFX used in a live set, of which I think can be addressed with the tone blender.

Another cool thing is how you can stack 27 oscillators, each with independent filter, amp, and LFO. Each “synth” tone has 3 oscillators (called “partials” with independent filter, amp, and LFO), and if you use Upper, Lower, and Solo parts, that’s 9 tones. 9×3=27. We’ve also modeled the JUPITER-8s UNISON mode, so if that get’s dropped into the equation, you’re up in the 70s! Can you say thick?!

While Roland isn’t introducing the 21st Century polyphonic analog synth of our dreams, what they tell CDM they are doing is modeling a wide variety of classic synthesis sounds, meaning this should still provide plenty of sound content for those tastes. Exactly how they’re modeling it and how the architecture works is something I expect to learn in coming weeks.

You Might Still Hate or Love It

Based on comments I’ve seen and heard, this may not be your cup of tea. The visual look, borrowing heavily from the original, is more of an acquired taste when placed into a modern context. And yes, of course, from sampled instruments to flexible sound design, the JP-80 really does have to compete now with software. That, combined with the cost of any of these keyboards, may mean that for hardware purposes many will prefer more focused designs to these sorts of flagship monsters.

But different as those audiences may be, I do think everything from simple soft synths to big keyboards deserve to be compared on their merits, and compared to each other. So I look forward to seeing what the JP-80 has done, and playing a finished version.

And as for whether you’d still want a Jupiter-8, perhaps in place of this newer Jupiter-80? Well, that remains an interesting question. It’s not easy being Roland: they company has a legacy with which to compete, too.

Stay tuned, and let us know questions – Roland folk are standing by to deal with us harassing them answer our questions.

Videos, Notes

From Sonic State, a session with Howard Jones, who worked on sound design with this instrument.

Keyboard Magazine shoots some footage of the engineers from Japan; typically these folks don’t talk to English-language press, so I do find it interesting when we get to hear from them.

[1] People are saying they want more “analog,” but they’re also saying they want “cheap.” I suspect what people may really want is not a new Jupiter-8, but a new Jupiter 6 – or a new version of the Curtis CEM that powered it. These brilliant, economical, musical chips were the sound of a generation of instruments. It was the combination of inexpensive digital technology (which Roland helped promote) and this chip that made synthesis accessible. James Grahame, designer of our own MeeBlip synth, has even suggested this could be a DIY project, which would be very exciting, indeed. I would love to believe there’s a next Doug Curtis – the engineer for which the chip is named – out there somewhere.

The point is that it’s the economical analog synth that people are imagining. Right now, polyphonic analog just isn’t economical – and given the capabilities of digital synthesis, it’s tough to make that choice. But if someone wants to imagine a new replacement for the Curtis CEM, that could change.

Updated: Roland tells CDM tentative pricing is set at US$3999.

I can neither confirm nor deny whether Roland has a new keyboard entitled the Jupiter-80. I can, however, confirm that there is a man standing in front of a keyboard that has “Jupiter-80″ written on the back. I can also say, based on my knowledge of the 1981 keyboard – which I believe is not under any press embargo or NDA – it appears to me not to be a Jupiter-8 with a zero stenciled on it and a screen that may or may not be a touchscreen on it. (Actually, given the way Messe embargoes are going so far, I’d say if the Jupiter-8 were under a veil of secrecy, I probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.)

In an “exclusive scoop” for CDM, though, I can say this:

Having watched forum and comment trolls say angry things about Roland, I believe that any synthesizer sounds cooler and more serious when you talk about it in German. Watch and see.

“Ah, but I already knew things sounded cooler in German,” you say. Ah, but such is the nature of scoops. Sometimes, they tell you things you don’t already know. Sometimes, they don’t.

Updated: Yeah, okay, now we can talk about the Jupiter-80. And even if you don’t love it, in German or English, you can get some information that comments I’ve read on blogs have more or less gotten entirely inaccurate.

The question of how to build controls to fly today’s live laptop music sets – whether “DJ,” “live PA,” or something else – remains open. We’ve got an inside look at the newest entry, the most recent device to explore just what should be mapped and tactile, and what should be left behind. Amidst various look-alike mixer-and-deck controllers, it fits in with those pushing to make computer control a hybrid of traditional DJ metaphors and new computer ones.

Meet the Twitch. The result of a collaboration between New Zealand DJ software developer Serato and UK hardware maker Novation, Twitch deviates from a number of norms.

First, while made with Serato, it’s explicitly designed to support Ableton Live and rival NI Traktor via upcoming updates. That’s something we’ve seen among general-purpose controllers, but usually the main selling point of DJ-specific gear is some sort of tight integration. (That said, you will see in the specs that they promise ITCH support for Serato will be “one-to-one.”)

Second, the developers tell us they’re heavily influenced by the monome and controller hacking communities.

What you get is a do-everything controller and audio interface, all in one box. There are beat slicing features, mixing and effects, a replaceable crossfader, and touchstrips that can be used for various purposes, which promises to be flexible enough to suit a range of applications. And unlike some rivals, the inclusion of an audio interface and USB bus power could make this more practical in the typical plug-and-play gig situation. More on how the applications work in the video:

The resulting tool even carries the “controllerist” moniker promoted in the past by artist/technologists Moldover and Ean Golden.

The Twitch has touchstrips, faders, knobs, and buttons, a strange hybrid of a lot of different ideas. I’m still wrapping my head around it – and whether this will feel like a genius cockpit for music or a Frankenstein combo of other controllers. But the Twitch at the very least looks less like the result of a product planning meeting and more like exactly the sort of thing digital musicians, DJs, and readers of this site might design for their own purposes.

It also promises to be more compact. (Akai’s APC made one misstep there – unfortunately, DJ booths are too often measured in handfuls of square inches, and even those atop the flimsy plastic cases that cover the turntables.) Straight from the source:
Weight – 1.8kg (just under 4 pounds)
Dimensions – 350mm W x 275mm D x 65mm height (13.8″ x 10.8″ x 2.6″)
– not bad.

Product Manager Dylan Wood of Serato writes us from Auckland to explain how the design came about, and how it came to fruition. It’s a great glimpse both of their design thinking and how you translate a product like this to the market. Dylan says:

The collaborative design process kicked off a couple of years ago when we first started to talk to Novation. We didn’t have to have too many conversations before we realized we had quite similar ideas about where live performance and controller technology was heading. The very first time we exchanged concept drawings at a Messe show they turned out to be really similar in terms of form factor and control set, which is always a good sign. On my way back to New Zealand after the show I visited the Novation HQ in the UK and spent time with Lars and Matt from the their team to progress the idea of a new style of DJ controller forward. We had this common idea to combine the realtime live feel of Serato DJ software with the Controllerist elements that Novation are known for.

A tip of the hat has to be given to MLR and the Monome community at this point. We’d all be using community apps on the lemur (I was going through a Monome obsession at the time and was mid Arduinome 128 build). After watching endless youtube videos of performers doing amazing things with buttons we came up with the concept of the Slicer. The Slicer is like a rolling window of cue points that moves through a song in time with the music. It does MLR style loop chopping and mashing but over a whole track instead of just short loops. It gives a DJ or performer a way to cut up and re-perform their music without having to edit or sample it manually and was something that no other software is doing in the DJ context. After we’d struck on this as being a core feature for the product, we exchanged a few updated concept drawings and I headed back to New Zealand.

Being at literally opposite ends of the world made for an interesting challenge. As Lars and I worked further on the concept, someone always had to stay up to the middle of the night so we could talk on the phone and keep developing the ideas. We got Lars down to New Zealand and spent a week or so locked in an office around a table listening to tunes and bashing the design into shape.

With the software and hardware engineering talent that we’ve got at both ends we were able to dig deep into some of the new features we were adding, like the Touchstrip, ensuring that we were implementing a solid method of control. The firmware and software interaction our engineers have come up with makes the strips feel really responsive in all the different modes.

Several rounds of hardware prototypes and lots of testing with our in house DJ’s means we’ve ended up with something that feels great, even to someone used to more traditional control like turntables or CDJs. The most arduous of the real world tests devised during this process was to ensure that the Touchstrips would work really well in sweaty, live club conditions. It involved a bare touch strip PCB with a live USB connection, and a jar full of marmalade. A thoroughly English test for the robustness of the product!

The beta process has been a passionate one – as there are a lot of keen musicians and DJs at both companies there have been some fairly epic conversations around exactly how a feature should or shouldn’t work. As well as in house DJ’s we’ve also got a crack team of external beta testers that work with us on various different projects. We heavily utilize private areas of our forum for beta communication and it makes working on projects a little more community based in a lot of ways, as it’s all about conversations with real people that are actually using our products. This kind of iterative user lead feature development process can sometimes take a long time, especially when you’re working on something that is a bit adventurous feature wise, but the results are worth it as you end up with something that feels really good to use, which has been thoroughly sanity checked by real end users.

So lots of software development and plenty of hardware prototypes later, here we are. We’re really excited for Twitch to see the light of day. I for one can’t wait to see the kind of crazy button smashing videos that users are going to post up on youtube of themselves using this thing. It’ll have come full circle at that point.

Thanks, Dylan.

Dylan also sends CDM exclusive video of a stress test of the touch strip … combined with marmalade.

Full specs:

Availability: Early July 2011
Pricing: US$599.99 MSRP / $499.99 street (UK GBP 399.99 including VAT est. street)

Bundled Serato Professional – so not a limited version of the software
Tactile multi-function touch strip
“Slicer mode” for chopping up beats
Compact and portable (they do claim it’ll fit in your bag and the DJ booth – we’ll test that!)
“One-to-one” ITCH control for Serato
Aluminum top plate
2-in, 4-out audio interface
“High-quality” replaceable cross-fader
Software effect control
USB bus-powered
Mic/aux input
Switchable booth outputs (master + cue feeds)
MIDI compatible

Full details: Novation Twitch

Among the highlights of the product releases last week, Roland has a new virtual analog synth (the SH-01) and shoulder keyboard (AX-09) that look friendly and relatively affordable (especially once you account for street price, not list). They have that convergence of certain selling points that I think will make them popular – maybe not with everyone, but with enough people that you may soon be seeing them around. And that makes them worth a little further research.

I got to have a long conversation with Vince LaDuca of Roland US about the new gear, so we could answer some questions readers raised and talk about some of the technical details. Here’s what I came away with following that chat, starting with the SH-01.

GAIA SH-01 Synth

The most important message I got about the SH-01 was that this really does seem to be a new generation of synth from Roland. It’s not directly equivalent to the SH-201; it takes advantages of newer Roland tech in DSP and specifically in power savings. That’s what allows you to unplug the SH-01 and run it on 8 AA batteries for, according to Vince, somewhere around five hours.

Unlike the previous SH-201, too, the SH-01 has a rich set of great-sounding effects. (The effects section was, for me, the real weak point of the 201.)

Architecture: The SH-01′s virtual analog engine is indeed mono-timbral; it’s all on channel 1. You do get three virtual analog tones, though, so you can put together some fairly sophisticated patch designs. (Vince and I couldn’t think of a three-tone Roland synth, ever, but if you know of one, shout it out in comments.

There are some twists, though:

Oddly enough, the SH-01 packs a full-blown General MIDI+ sound chip for GM soundfile playback. (I can’t dream of ever wanting that, but I know there are folks out there who still play SMF files on GM banks.) So, that PCM engine responds on channels 2-16. You probably don’t care, but now you know. And if you’re wondering what that meant when you read the specs, you weren’t hallucinating.

You get two LFOs for each of the three tones. There’s also a separate, assignable LFO for modulation. There are additional modulation options accessible from the front panel, too. For instance, you can adjust panning depth modulation for both LFOs by holding down the shift key.

Between tones 1 + 2, you have the option of ring modulation and oscillator sync. So, combine the three tones and the modulation choices, and you have some pretty rich sonic options on a pretty cheap board – there are certain advantages to virtual analog.

What happens when you switch tones and adjust a knob? A couple of readers asked about this. Let’s imagine you move a parameter knob from three o’ clock to nine o’ clock, then switch from the first tone to the second tone. Once you touch the knob again and move it, it will jump to its new value for the second tone. To me, it’s probably the only reasonable compromise; you want the tactile feedback of knobs, but you wouldn’t want the complexity of waiting for a knob to pick up a value.

The good news, though: you can select multiple tones at once and adjust the parameter on all of them at the same time.

Preset storage: The SH-01 has 64 preset programs, plus 64 user programs onboard. That’s plenty for me, but since some readers asked, if you add a USB key, you get an additional 64 programs, for a total of 128 user programs (or a grand total of 192).

What about the audio in? Sadly (for me, at least), the external input features only a center cancel, not the ability to route audio into the synth for filtering or modulation. That means you get karaoke capabilities, but not the flexibility of using your hardware synth to modify audio input. On the other hand, there is a lovely toy KORG would like to sell you that will do the trick.

On a more positive note, the SH-01 does still function as a USB audio interface. That means, not only can you easily route the SH-01′s sounds into your computer via USB, but the external input, too – especially handy if you’ve got a Mac, which can aggregate multiple external audio interfaces.

Is there a VST plug-in, as on the SH-201? Nope, there’s not. But the SH-01 also reflects a more complete realization of the SH-201′s design philosophy. Whereas the SH-201 required diving into the software for some parameters, the SH-01 really does have absolutely everything accessible from the front panel.

What does the phrase recorder do for you? This is really one of the fun parts of this synth. You can record up to eight different types of knob movements, for recording things like rhythmic filter sweeps by performing them with your hands. I mentioned KORG, but I should also point out Roland has some tradition with this sort of feature, like the motion control functionality on previous JP-series synths.

Each phrase can include overdubs of different knobs, so you can add various modulations to a single patch, with a length up to eight bars. You can store up to eight phrases in total, with an additional eight possible via the USB key for a total of sixteen. They’re global, so the phrase will impact any preset.

Arpeggiator: The arpeggiator uses one of 64 preset patterns, all accessible from the front panel, and an arp is stored with each patch. There aren’t user patterns, however; if you want to store your own riff, you need to use the phrase recorder – and there aren’t that many slots. So, doing sophisticated patterns of your own isn’t really the focus of the SH-01, but for simple arpeggiator patterns, I expect the 64 presets will likely cover you.

I know that a lot of folks will want to immediately compare the SH-01 to KORG’s offerings in the same price range, as this is a segment most closely associated in people’s minds with KORG. I’m a fan of the R3 and microKORG lines. The easiest comparison: if you love vocoders and mics, obviously, the SH-01 isn’t going to be your first choice. Beyond that, though, it’s nice to see some real competition in this area, and I hope to take a closer look when these things ship. Suffice to say, KORG and Roland are different makers with different philosophies, sounds, and design traits, so the two never come out as exactly comparable. (I don’t think either KORG or Roland can beat the value and quirky personality of the original microKORG, given that you can pick one up for under $300 lightly used, but for a beefier synth with larger keys, comparing the R3 and SH-01 seems absolutely fair.) And yes, for a little more, you also have offerings like Dave Smith to consider, too.

One thing I pledge not to do: no abstract arguments about software versus hardware. You already know what you want. The days of this being a religious battle are long over; everyone I know now uses software, and nearly all of them have at least one hardware synth around.

AX-09

The AX-09 actually attracted more attention on CDM and via our Twitter fans and such, making it one of the big stories of last week. I suspect the reason is that, unlike the SH-01, the AX-09 has some real appeal to computer synth lovers, as a controller. Note that Roland is also giving products names and not just numbers, so as the SH-01 is the “GAIA” (hello, Earth mother!), the AX-09 is a “Lucina.” (Not to be confused with the Chevy Lumina.)

Before we get to that, though, I’ll give Roland a chance to talk about the internal sounds, for those who do want to use its internal synth bank. Vince tells me the Lucina really is a “high-quality synth,” short of the breadth and depth of the flagship shoulder-mounted AX-Synth, but still with a range of usable synth, acoustic, and piano sounds similar to those you’d find in Roland’s JUNO or Fantom lines. The “special” tone bank deserves special attention, says Vince, who describes the poly synth patch as “pretty amazing – it’s on the level of the AX-Synth.”

You can even do some light editing of presets, with front-panel access to patch level, reverb, cutoff, resonance, attack, and decay.

The AX-Synth does far more, with four-tone-structure sounds, a full-blown software editor, and real effects. But then, for some of us, again, the real appeal of the AX-09 is getting a keyboard specifically designed to be played from your shoulder that costs roughly half of what the AX-Synth does, so we can play our computer instruments.

If that’s the goal, you do get some rich controller options on the AX-09. The modulation bar can send modulation messages, hold, or a combination of the two. There’s an assignable touch controller. The D-Beam infrared sensor can control touchless manipulation of a variety of parameters, including aftertouch, modulation, and portamento. (Vince started reading off Control Change numbers 7, 10, 11, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 74… yeah, you can definitely send MIDI messages with this thing.)

One thing you can’t do is control aftertouch from the keybed; Vince said they decided not to do that because they felt it was too hard to manipulate a full range when playing in a shoulder position. At least one CDM reader has argued with that in comments, but I can see an argument for leaving it out. Anyway, I dare someone to strap some accelerometer control to this thing, too.

Some folks have questioned even the AX-09′s price, partly I suspect because they aren’t interested in the internal sounds. But I will say, I’m pretty pleased with the quality of Roland’s keybeds, all of which the company manufactures themselves (rather than contracting out to someone else). I’ll reserve judgment until I get a hands-on with one of these units. Yes, you could conceivably attach a strap to an existing keyboard, but having it laid out in a way that anticipates use on your shoulder has appeal.

And there is something about a shoulder keyboard, for all they have been derided.

“There’s something different about being kinetic with your performance,” says Vince.

What about some of those goofy videos?

Okay, if you’re wondering about Roland’s marketing, there is something nice that they’re working on. Vince described the push of Roland’s marketing campaign and the “better life through music” slogan is getting more people to play, getting them to play earlier in life, and getting them to play together.

And whatever is going on with those videos, that’s an idea I can absolutely endorse. My sense is, that story is ultimately told not by marketing but by the people who buy – or don’t buy – the gear. If the gear is designed properly and priced right and it gets into people’s hands, you’ll see people discovering music with this gear.

Side note: Roland US helpfully sent along the US video, but it seems to still be the same thing, minus the Japanese charm. I understand what they’re doing, and the video is on message, but … well, I generally don’t like promotional videos. I half expect someone to jump out and exclaim, “Kids totally rule!! Radical!”) I’m sticking to the fan-made vids.

In fact, in a case studio of how good Roland’s customers are at selling the Roland gear, see this Michael Jackson medley by music nerd YouTube (and Britain’s Got Talent) sensation Brett Domino. (Of course, I do wonder if Roland covertly had something to do with the band’s abrupt change from their all-Yamaha setup.)

And yes, I still want “Better Life Through Music” t-shirts. Cool kids will totally rip them up, wear a tie over top, and big boots with spiked heels, very punk.

Previously:

Roland Gets the Fun Back? Cheaper, Smaller Shoulder “Keytar” Keyboard, AX-09

Roland Gets the Fun Back, Pt. 2: SH-01 Synth

The Octatrack is an ambitious piece of hardware, combining multitrack sampling and playback with real-time audio warping. We didn’t get a good look at it earlier this week, but the folks at Gear4Music went back to get a more complete walkthrough with Elektron’s Jon. It’s followed by a proper live set – and it sounds fantastic. In fact, it embodies the quality I described earlier this week of Sweden’s other highly-anticipated gear, the Teenage OP-1: it becomes an instrument you’d want to practice.

Jon also elaborates on the features of the Octatrack. Talking points:

• Automatic time stretching means samples can sync automatically if you so desire – certainly part of what helps earn this Ableton comparisons, and something that should be great live.
• The ability to accommodate big samples can make this a machine for playing backing tracks, with clips of ten minutes in length well within reason.
• You can manipulate steps individually, adjusting parameters like pitch or filtering for creative effects.

It looks terrific, and even if you don’t have the budget to set aside (yeah, I feel you), it’s a great indication of where some of these techniques are going. More details on the Gear4Music blog:
Musikmesse 2010: Elektron reveal full Octatrack details

Previously (including more specs):
Elektron Unveils Octatrack Sampler-Sequencer-Warper, Expands and Discounts Machinedrum

Let’s get this out of the way right at the beginning: dedicated audio editors are important. For sound design, for tweaking audio assets, and for just getting close to your sounds, editing waveforms in a DAW often doesn’t cut it.

That’s made a lot of Mac users unhappy, because it’s one of the few areas where the Mac platform lags seriously behind Windows in available choice. Windows users have been spoiled by choices like Sound Forge (now Sony), Adobe Audition, and Steinberg WaveLab, all three excellent editors that are functional and fast to work with. The Mac, meanwhile, has been all about BIAS Peak. And Peak has been divisive: some users love it, but others want an alternative. Possible choices like Adobe Soundbooth and Apple Soundtrack Pro, while useful in their own workflows, haven’t caught on with audio editors. (One notable “underground” choice is the favorite of many CDM readers – Audiofile Engineering’s Wave Editor – a smaller name, but I doubt WaveLab will shake the loyalty of its devoted users.) Clarification: okay, it depends on who you ask. See comments for some intelligent debate of my thesis here – yes, there are many options, including DSP Quattro and some lightweight choices like Amadeus. So, perhaps the real issue is Windows users migrating to the Mac (or cross-platform users with favored Windows editors) who don’t find something with which they’re comfortable. And yes, whether you really need a dedicated editor is all about how you work with assets – see comments.

Steinberg bringing WaveLab to the Mac is already turning a few heads, particularly among recent PC-to-Mac converts. (Even on Windows, with Adobe Audition having fallen behind, WaveLab may gain some ground.)

Don’t think it’s big news? Have a look at recent Facebook and Twitter activity and other chatter over the announcement. Amongst the elite sound design lovers, WaveLab is the news of the week. That’s a small group of people (as any of the developers of these apps will readily tell you), but they also have a big impact on the sound of media today.

The reworked interface still has a last-generation feel, but on the other hand, it’s functionality over form that defines this category. I’m still waiting to see some more material details, but Steinberg at least has a preview of what’s new in 7. Wading through their PR materials, I translate that to include:

• A new workspace UI built around dockable, scalable multiple windows and customizable toolbar. (I hate toolbars, so I may customize it by … turning it off. To each their own, though.)
• “Ground-up” re-engineering effort to support cross-platform Mac and Windows code (based on past experience, that may benefit the engineering on the Windows side, too)
• New VST3 restoration tools developed by Sonnox, including DeNoizer, DeBuzzer, DeClicker, and plug-ins gathered from Steinberg’s pro audio line, including the Nuendo Post Filter.
• New CD and DVD-A burning engine.

The inclusion of mastering and burning materials really puts this right opposite Peak – and for those of you who didn’t even bother with Peak, could fill in some key gaps in suites like Logic Studio (in case you aren’t a fan of Apple’s editor and burning tools).

I’m not a WaveLab user, though it’s always been a program I respected from a distance. So if you are an old-hat WaveLab lover, do get in touch; we may need to you to review the new release when it ships.

WaveLab 7 preview at Steinberg

Looking for all the world like it was inspired by the Gakken SX-150 synth, but packed with Korg analog electronics, the monotron has to be one of the biggest surprise announcements from a major vendor in recent memory. The tiny has the filter from the classic KORG MS-10 and MS-20 and is called a “real analog” synth.

It’s also likely to be very hackable, though we’ll know more about that soon. I think we’ve found the stocking stuffer of 2010, and it’s only March.

Pricing: MSRP US$85
Availability: August 2010
(note: this is official information from KORG USA; for some reason some other dates and prices are floating around)

Specs:

• A ribbon controller for vibrato, glide, and pitch
• Circuitry: one voltage-controlled oscillator, one voltage-controlled filter, one low-frequency oscillator.
• Controls: five knobs, one switch.
• LED blinks with the LFO.
• Same voltage-controlled filter circuitry as on the legendary KORG MS-10 and MS-20 semi-modulars – now, if we could only convince KORG to give us a monotron Pro with more of the MS in it.
• Runs on two AAA’s
• External audio input (updated) for filtering any external input – awesome. (Thanks, arne/styrofoammusic!)

Official product info:
Monotron Page @ KORG

Videos:

Via Engadget, MusicRadar, Gizmodo