Look around the room you’re in. Drum your fingers against some of the objects around you. Now imagine that you could turn those touches into any imaginable sound – and all you’d need to play them is a single contact mic. And we’re not talking just simplistic sounds – think expressive, responsive transformation of the world around you, all with just that one mic, thanks to clever gestural recognition.

Bruno Zamborlin has made that idea a reality, with hold-onto-your-chair results. It’s not available yet for public consumption, but it’s coming.

Bruno explains to CDM:

Mogees is a novel way for transforming any surface into a musical instrument.

By putting a (very cheap) contact microphone over a surface, the software can recognise different types of touch and associate them with different synthesisers.

Users can train the software with their own ‘gestures’, using both bare hands and objects. In the video demo we put the microphone over different surfaces such as kitchen tables and balloons.

The sound synthesis is based on two different techniques:

1 – physical modeling, which consists in generating the sound by simulating physical laws. Different materials can be simulated, such as membranes, strings, tubes and plates

2 – mosaicing, that works as follow: first, users load a sound folder; then, the noise coming from the microphone is analysed and the software continuously finds and plays its closest segment within the sound folder.

Mogees has not been realised yet. It could be published as Max4Live patch in some month.

Yes, we’ll be watching for future versions and publication, with bated breath and eager hands.

http://www.brunozamborlin.com/mogees

Update: Readers point to similar earlier work; obviously, contact mics have long been readily available. I’m not always concerned with whether something is new or not – old and cool can be cool. But what does appear to be new here is the additional gestural analysis to work more accurately with location. That takes an existing technique and refines its musicality. -PK

In a sea of software and hardware, a handful of releases every year stand out. On the software side, one of the most promising is Rob Papen’s Punch. It reflects a number of trends in soft synth design – given a choice between sampling and synthesis, it choose both; 64-bit support comes standard; pattern sequencing is built in. But it’s worth examining for two reasons: one, independent soft synth designer Rob Papen has done some of the best work in recent years, and two, it appears to offer a rich set of practical features in equal measure.

The video above is quite extensive – one watch-through will likely tell you whether or not this is for you. But here are the basic features:

• The Drums, The Drums… 2 bass + 2 open hat + 2 closed hat + 3 tom + 2 clap + 3 user.
• Each drum can choose one of several synthesis models or samples.
• Presets, Custom Samples. Load one of any number of presets and preset samples, or load your own sample content into the drum machine.
• Lots of Per-Drum Control. Per-drum distortion, individual output busing, choke groups. These route together into a prerequisite Mixer.
• Modulation. 2 envelopes, 2 LFOs, 8 modulation slots, for one of four effects units.
• Sequencer. 16-step internal patterns, each with four tracks. Sounds useful enough, though for more complex rhythms, of course, you’ll want to turn to your host or another MIDI source.
• “Easy” Controls. Each drum has what are in effect Macro controls, all MIDI-latchable, and various MIDI assignment options, as illustrated in the video. When you go from programming to performance mode, in other words – even as you work – you can quickly add hands-on control.

Mac + Windows, 32-bit + 64-bit, VST, AU (Mac), RTAS

http://www.timespace.com/punch
http://www.robpapen.com/punch.html

Punch is not without competition. Native Instruments’ Maschine is becoming a full-fledged host and sampling workstation. Propellerhead’s built-in Kong drum machine offers a very similar brew of sampling and synthesis, multiple models, hands-on control, and routing and mixing – indeed, part of the appeal to me of Punch is that it does more of what Kong does in a plug-in form. Arturia’s Spark melds sampling, synthesis, and physical modeling, loaded up with vintage samples and models as well as newer ones. FXpansions’s GEIST is sample-based, but also worth a look. Audio Damage’s Tattoo focuses on synthesis and sequencing, at the opposite pole. Both Spark and Maschine also have their own dedicated hardware controller. That’s just a start among recent entries – I’m sure I’m forgetting half a dozen others. (Round-up candidates?)

But Punch is now shipping, and it looks like a balanced, logical approach to this. It’s also one of the more inexpensive options here – EUR149 / GBP125 / US$179.

For all the lusting after hardware drum machines, it’s tough to beat software options for flexibility, range and quality of sound, speed of editing, and cost. 2011 seems an especially good year. I think CDM will have to do a drum machine roundup soon. Tips welcome.

Game makers and (particularly Mac) utility developers have joined forces to do various bundles of their software. I have to say, I generally like the model – particularly the fantastic Humble Bundle of indie games. That collection not only encouraged people to try adventurous (often experimental) independent game titles, but gives some of the proceeds to relevant charities. Linux users have been buying up the bundles disproportionately, contrary to the idea that they won’t spend money on software, and some of the developers even set a goal to earn enough money to open source their tools. (The open source software had a tangible benefit for gamers, too: it improved compatibility and performance on Mac and Windows.)

If you’re an independent music developer wondering how to make it work with an increasingly-commoditized, crowded marketplace, it could be worth investigating.

The Indie Dev Collective is one such effort for music developers. The model is a bit different: you buy music titles a la carte, not in one giant bundle. That means you only get what you really need, though, and titles still get some steep discounts, some up to 50-65% more. They’ve found a really talented group of developers, as well: H.G.Fortune, whiteLABEL, UGO Audio, Xoxos, ManyTone Music, Nuclues SoundLab, and others are participating. There are synths, effects, and soundware all on offer (and even one host).

Some stand-outs for me: IMEA Sequencer, pictured at top, is a 64-bit-ready Windows sequencer designed for live performance, complete with useful modules and VST compatibility. It looks fantastic – and it’s about time people found some alternatives; I love Ableton Live, but it’s boring if it’s the only thing you ever see onstage.

In effects, I like Amboea, a powerful set of stereo delay lines with “algorithmic crossfading.” Yeah, you could more or less finish an entire track with this one if you wanted.

There are a number of deep synths and drum machines, the most interesting I think being the M-theory physical modeling – hybrid instrument, bundled here with arpeggiators and MIDI tools. There’s also a fascinating-looking strumming plug-in bundled with multi-band effects and filtering, Mildon’s Strummer 2 and M4GIQ. Both those instruments are found here:
MIDI Effects

Windows users will find many, many more options than Mac owners, though Mac fans will find some good plug-in choices and plenty of soundware. (And they might have some goodies to use on a dual-boot system.)

All the tools here:
http://www.indiedevcollective.net/index.php

Sale ends May 23, or 23 May if you live in civilization. So, what do you think? Finding any good deals here? Favorite tools? And how could this model work elsewhere?

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.

Still evaluating Live 8 – or want to learn more about how to use it? You can now read my review of Ableton Live 8 free on Keyboard Magazine’s site:

Ableton Live 8 Review [Keyboard Magazine]
See also (via comments) Nick Rothwell’s review for Sound on Sound June [subscription or US$1.49 fee required]

Keyboard doesn’t yet have comments, so feel free to discuss – or disagree – here.

I wanted to back up a little bit and consider Live as if for the first time. Now, I had also personally heard at least Robert Henke complain at one point that reviews of Live were uncritical. That to me would be a flaw as a reviewer, because all software designs involve compromises, so no software can ever be perfect. Here, I still feel there’s legitimate room for improvement in terms of the way Live handles interactive clip triggering and how it assigns control. Of course, we’re not just passively complaining about it – there’s also a community of Live users working to hack in functionality they need using the Live API, both via Python and forthcoming Max for Live.

Also for the review, I shot some quick video demos of features that were easier to show than describe, namely the new instrument Collision and the Vocoder effect. These are basically mini-tutorials on these creations. See Collision at top, Vocoder after the break at bottom. Fixed! Now the top video is actually the Collision video. (Oops.)

I’m a huge fan of physical modeling and Applied Acoustics, and Collision is one of the best percussion models I’ve seen. It starts to approach some of what’s possible in Apple’s Sculpture in Logic, but in a much more focused context, and with some unparalleled resonators (which you can also use on their own in the form of Corpus). See the top video for a walkthrough of the interface.

We may need to revisit the vocoder issue as there’s a new vocoder in FL Studio (Vocodex in the current beta), plus the existing vocoder in Reason. Sounds like there’s an article here waiting to happen. I like Ableton’s vocoder, though; it’s a different implementation and coupled with their unique Frequency Shifter, you can get some really unusual sounds.

For more Live 8 learning (and a more in-depth discussion of different ways of approaching the Frequency Shifter):

Live 8 Videos: New Warping Explained, APC + ReMOTE SL Integration

Ableton Live 8 Misuse: Ping Pong Psuedo Scratching Effect Video Tutorial

Ableton Live 8 Creative Tutorial Videos: Using and Misusing Groove Extraction

Ableton Live 8 Creative Tutorial Videos: Misusing Frequency Shifter

As an addendum to the last story, Ivica Ico Bukvic sends along an example of the [myu] Max/MSP + Unity game engine combination in action. Here’s the surprise: Unity isn’t generating visuals. Instead, Unity simulates ripples created by movement in the space, and builds physical models that are sonified and spatialized by Max/MSP.

Speaking of work involving art museums and the combination of Max and Unity, VJ Anomolee notes in comments his own work with the pairing. Lightbent Synth is an in-progress piece with alternative controllers and sensors that produces sound with a novel visual representation (sound’s very quiet in this preview — more hopefully once it progresses):

Lightbent Synth from VJ Anomolee on Vimeo.

Ivica explains the top work:

This past fall [myu] had seen its first real-world implementation in an exhibit that was a part of the grand opening of the Taubman Museum of Art in Roanoke, VA (http://www.taubmanmuseum.org/). The exhibit utilized [myu] as part of an interactive aural installation titled "elemental." An online tech
demo video of the installation, including written synopsis is available also via Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA-9BOgc1gk. Below is a brief synopsis of the installation:

"elemental" interactive communal soundscape premiered in November 2008 as part of the Revo:oveR collection commissioned for the grand opening of the Taubman Museum of Art in Roanoke, VA. The Youtube video focuses primarily on the technical aspects of the installation. Using Max/MSP/Jitter, a homebrew IR webcam with fish eye lens and a LED-based IR spotlights, entire 24×36-foot exhibit space is converted into an aural sandbox giving visitors an opportunity to generate and shape the
ensuing soundscape. Positional data of up to 20 visitors is forwarded to Unity3d using [myu] Max-Unity interoperability toolkit developed at DISIS (http://disis.music.vt.edu). Unity is used for physical simulation of ensuing ripples and the resulting data is sent back to Max for spatialization across a 12-channel (4×3) ceiling-mounted speaker array. Driven by communal interaction, virtual ripples refract from each other spawning an algorithmically generated aural fireworks. The exhibit ran non-stop for approximately 5 months until March 2009.

Bonus video below: an early prototype that did include visuals. After days of looking at emulated knobs and faders, it certainly does speak to some of the possibilities for musical interface and expression.

It’s a tough time for the music tech industry like so many industries. But there are beautiful products coming from independent developers – indie, boutique shops crafting musical instruments in code. The folks at Devine Machine, makers of the likes of Guru and Lucifer, unloaded three big announcements overnight – enough to make you think there’s some obscure trade show going on at the end of March no one told you about.

Here’s the capsule view of why they matter:

OTR-88: A modeled electric piano

The beautiful thing about electric pianos like the Rhodes is that they’re really electromechanical instruments – amplified, yes, but entirely organic in the way they produce sound. OTR-88 is not the first attempt, as the developers imply, to use physical modeling techniques to try to reproduce those properties. Applied Acoustics’ Lounge Lizard, for instance, (available in Ableton Suite as Electric) follows similar lines. (Native Instruments’ Electric Piano and Digidesign’s Velvet have modeling approaches of their own, but also make use of samples.)

But OTR-88 does appear to go further. Tine movements are modeled in 3D. There are elaborate models of pickup interaction and velocity response. Herbie Hancock was consulted on the design. And you can adjust keys on a per-key basis. That should appeal to sound designers and electric piano aficionados alike. You can thank new physical modeling research by Efflam Le Bivic, one of Devine’s two developers.

I’m really eager to play this one.

OTR-88 Electric Piano

Krishna 1.5: Samples to Synthesis

The Krishna synth instantly earned respect for its “Frame Synthesis” approach, which makes it atypically easy to turn recorded samples into oscillators – a hybrid approach that threatens to end forever the synthesis versus sampling debate. 1.5 has a rebuilt engine, more LFO and ADSR routing destinations, and this tasty-sounding feature:

‘Snap to harmonics’ option for the filter : each note will instantiate a filter to resonate to its own harmonic.

Krishna Synth

One Shot Recorder

OSR is a terrific-looking little tool that’s designed to grab sounds while you play them. Set a threshold, record, and OSR spits out ready-to-use samples. That makes setting up a quick sampling or multisampling session — times when you may have a whole mess of samples to record — much easier. The new release now supports standalone and more pg-in formats, has a decay control, automatic sample reordering, and a pretty new UI.

One Shot Recorder (OSR) Sample Capture

OSR looks like the dream tool for a big multisample creation. Sometimes you may just want to grab some quick, beat-synced samples. Not new, but related, Live Sync Recorder is a tempo-synced VST. Turn it on, and it just rolls, slicing up your audio into one or two bar loops.

I actually can’t believe I didn’t know about this – I expect to put this to use very, very soon.

Live Sync Recorder Free

If you like that, there’s a fancier version, too.

The NAMM show brought a cluster of new soft synths from some beloved synth makers. The interfaces are noticeably conventional, but there are some tasty sonic features in store. Most of these are promised as “coming soon,” not available now, but here’s a quick look at what to expect.

By the way, if you’re one the people complaining that you’re sick of everyone talking about Ableton and want something else to be excited about, I have one word for you:

D.CAM.

Let me sum it up in one line first:

minimoog V 2.0: Rewired circuitry, automation recording vocal filtering, and weird 3D preset browsing mean if you like minimoog, you’ll like it more.

Brass 2.0: physically-modeled brass stuff you can play more easily with controllers, now with a sax model and fully spatialized and harmonized.

Trilian: Even more of the synth that gives you more bass than you need – and now your Intel Mac can run it in place of Trilogy, for free.

Largo: It’s a Waldorf synthesizer, but it’s software. You can’t afford a Blofeld, but you can afford this, and then use it in a coffee shop.

D.CAM: Synth wishes granted: thick parallel-waveform performance synth plus vintage-style string synth plus big, modern FM plus and environment to put them all together.

(added!) impOSCar 2: Features aren’t confirmed yet, but an early look at the OSCar emulation suggest a very big sequel indeed.

And you can add that to the coming Operator 2 and Collision in Ableton Live (either a la carte or the suite). In fairness, these are exactly the sort of synths that make people wonder why they should pay for Operator – but one look at the clean interface in Operator, and how much it can do in that compact interface, and I think it fits in just perfectly. Collision, meanwhile, gives us physically-modeled percussion, which I really want to see more of.

By the way, in comparison most of the hardware announcements (microKORG XL, new V-Synth OS) at this show were, to my mind, more incremental than the goodness that shows up in the software stuff. True, D.CAM is the one new entry here, but, well, technically it’s four entries on its own, and there’s quite a lot in the upgrades, some of which you get for free.

Certainly, what we have is a ton of sequels to some of the biggest soft synth hits (Arturia minimoog V, Trilogy, and impOSCar in particular).

Arturia minimoog V 2.0

It’s an odd version number – five two? Okay, that’s “two” as in the number, “V” as in virtual, not the Roman Numeral. But for fans of Arturia’s flagship Moog emulation synth, 2.0 brings some interesting new features. Sound MAP is an odd, graphical way of exploring presets, although it strikes me a bit like what would happen if you took a preset browser and dumped all the presets on the floor. (For me, this brings back flashbacks to Apple’s HotSauce, an experimental 3D interface for metadata on the Web. Thanks, Mattbot. Everyone else, don’t ask.)

All of this would be gimmicky and useless, except that you can use this strange, 3D interface to morph between preset ideas. If you could also use it to select interpolate between random parameters, I’d go nuts – I’ll leave that to someone else to implement.

The other features are more likely to please everyone:

• A vocal filter feature with an X/Y morphing interface with different formants (not new to synths, but certainly new to Minimoogs, real or emulated)
• Circuitry and modulation destination improvements
• Automation with real-time recording

Together, it looks like a worthy upgrade for fans, some of whom I know just live inside this synth.

Arturia minimoog V 2.0 [Product Page]

Elsewhere: The folks at Future Music were especially excited about the new features, particularly that browser and the way the Vocal Filter sounds. (I didn’t follow, though, was the uberfeature the Sound Map or the Vocal Filter? We really have seen these sorts of things before, which is not to take away from Arturia’s cool implementation here.)

And it’ll cost $299/EUR229 to upgrade from the current – wait? What’s that?

No, it’ll be completely free for existing users. Now there’s a reason for some customer loyalty.

Arturia Brass 2.0

Arturia also refreshed their physically-modeled brass synth, which now has a saxophone model – the tenor Buffet-Crampon. (Nice choice! And I’m partial to tenors, as I grew up with my father playing tenor in his college pep band.)

Also new: harmonization features, spatialization, MIDI integration features (ideal for, say, the newly-shipping Akai EWI USB wind controller). There are also pre-composed riffs by genre, if you’re feeling lazy, though I heartily recommend doing things the hard way.

The minimoog is slick, but I actually think Brass may be a bigger upgrade – and while you’ll find other moog-y sounds, Brass is a really unique sound source. IRCAM, Paris’ legendary sound research center, is responsible for the sounds inside, meaning you can imagine slightly unshaven, French students in white lab coats every time you use it, which has to be worth something. (I actually wear a lab coat when I’m designing sounds, I know that.)

Brass 2.0

Elsewhere: Sonic State grabbed a video demo of Brass 2.

And it’s also free to upgrade.

Spectrasonics’ All-Bass Trilian

How is it that some readers are more excited about Trilian than any other soft synths when all it does is bass sounds?

Well, perhaps because this is successor to Spectrasonics’ Trilogy is the uber-bass plug-in. Upright ? Check. 5-string? Yep. Roland 303? Why not?

Now, normally instruments based on lots of sampling leave me pretty cold, but the STEAM engine – used in Spectrasonics’ Omnisphere – gives you synth-like controls. And I think Trilian’s narrower focus on just basses might earn it more attention than Omnisphere got. (The latter was hyped like crazy on announcement, only to be oddly forgotten, relatively speaking, by the time it came out – maybe because it’s so huge, none of us can fit it on our hard drives.)

And by the way, talk about earning good will: if you own Trilogy and have an Intel Mac, Spectrasonics will give you Trilian for free (shipping only, in place of the usual US$99 upgrade price). So, sure, Apple burned you by switching CPUs, and Spectrasonics could profit – but they’re not.

This means even as I chide Novation, Spectrasonics earns the “Good Sense Wins Over Accounting” award.

Other specs:

• Big, new library of acoustic, electric, and synth basses
• Arpeggiator
• All the original patches, refreshed
• Gobs of articulations in the design, for live performance or scoring
• Modulation with FM, timbre shifting, and some unique modulation deliciousness
• 64-bit support
• A name that subtly references the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Too many other things to list, so just check out:

Trilian Announcement

Spectrasonics does some really incredible stuff. It’s mind-boggling overkill in some ways (ridiculous sampling plus ridiculous synth design), but there’s nothing wrong with that – especially when it serves nothing but bass. And there’s just so much control in there, it really is a sound design dream, not just a big pack of sample files.

US$299, due in May.

Waldorf Largo

It’s a Waldorf synthesizer, but it’s software.

I don’t really have to say much else, but suffice to say, it runs on Windows, it runs on Mac (VST and AU), and it’s all that lovely Waldorf-ness in a virtual rack. The software interface gives me deja vu relative to a number of Logic synths, among others, but then I think there’s just one guy who designs all UIs for all software. (Okay, maybe there are … two guys.)

• Voice architecture from the Q / Blofeld
• Three oscillators, two with sub-oscillators, modeling analog waveforms plus PPG, Waldorf Wave
• Ring mod
• Multi-mode Waldorf filter (“Taste the difference” seems to be Waldorf’s message, if you believe them)
• Modulation matrix, fast, syncable LFOs
• One arpeggiator per layer
• Effects

If you’re in synth overload, I’d say move along, but I know there are some folks who have been coveting Waldorf in software, and now you’ve got it.

Largo [Product Page]

I just wish they hadn’t given it a name that makes it sound like a notation product, but I guess that’s forgiveable. Pricing? Availability? No word yet.

Fxpansion D.CAM Synth Squad

D.CAM is a bunch of modeled-analog goodness. Now, the FXpansion boys want you to believe this is all about emulating the goodness of analog, but to me the real story is that you get loads of digital synthesis power that bring together some of the best old stuff with the best new stuff. The products read a bit like a wish list for synths, and then the Fusor product lets you put them all together in semi-modular fashion.

The marketing is a little muddled, and seems to feature evil dystopian overlords with giant red eyes. But who cares? The synths look fantastic. I, for one, welcome our new dystopian overlords.

Strobe is a “super-oscillator” performance synth with parallel waveforms, sub-oscillators, a filter with drive, voice stack/detune – think thick.

Amber is a vintage string synth, which takes classic divide-down string synths and adds new absurd modulation. Delicious!

Cypher has lots of knobs and lots of arrows! Okay, basically the idea here is audio-rate FM with lots of shaping and filtering and still more modulation. FM is back, for sure.

Fusor is an environment in which you can layer your D-CAM synths and modulate them. There’s an arpeggiator and step sequencer. This might seem like overkill given the number of environments out there that do this stuff, but in this case you get a consistent interface and semi-modular capabilities. It’s no Reaktor, but it’s a bit like what I’d imagine a set of one really brilliant person’s Reaktor ensembles might look like.

http://www.synthsquad.com/

Elsewhere: Gearwire has a nice write-up that sums this up with one line: “This trio combines the most sought after features in classic synthesizers with the synthesizers of tomorrow . . . today!”

In other news…

Zebra is now up to 2.3, which I believe is also NAMM news (or announced at the same time). “Point 3” in the crazy, synthtastic world of Urs Heckmann means things like a skinnable UI, sideband modules, MIDI program changes, Mac RTAS, a resizable editor, compressor modes, comb filter, and … okay, I can’t actually list it all. The sideband alone sounds fantastic. Whoever out there has time to program Zebra and reskin it, I salute you.

Other soft synth news I’ve missed? Let us know.

And what has you most psyched?

impOSCar 2

I missed this important preview, as it wasn’t really an official release at NAMM – the features shown aren’t even fully confirmed. But one of the best vintage emulations out there, impOSCar 2, is up for getting some improvements. Interestingly, some of the directions GForce’s Dave Spiers is taking (like more modulation routing, ring modulation, and more particular synth controls) parallels some of the other stuff we’re seeing added to modern soft synths. I do like the sound of chord mode, polyphonic aftertouch, and portamento spread – this could be a very playable synth.

My usual caveat on this sort of thing is, I tend to personally shy away from synths that focus primarily on emulation of a previous model, just because that sort of thing doesn’t hold as much appeal for me. But GForce – not unlike Way Out Ware’s emulations, also distributed by M-Audio – certainly manage to be the better in this category.

If you are interested in impOSCar 2, this is the one case in which the folks on the NAMM floor have the definite advantage. Check out SonicState’s video below, and further details from the gang at Computer Music (via MusicRadar):

Computer Music: GForce impOSCar 2! See it, hear it, pull funny faces!

SonicState with the instrument’s creator:

Thanks, michel / bliss! (I had wanted to cover this and … yep, forgot.)

2008 has been an amazing year for music technology. But I can’t bring myself to look back on it on this New Year’s Eve: not when there’s so much to look forward to in 2009. Case in point? An extraordinary, innovative new controller that in a matter of hours was already spreading among connected music technologists around the planet.

At the end of the day, it’s not hard to describe what you might want out of an expressive music controller. Most people would agree on that. The challenge is really an engineering problem. Solve the engineering problem in an artful way, and you can spend the rest of your time just practicing playing your invention. That’s what makes the above video so exciting.

Randall Jones has built a really elegant and wonderful multi-touch hardware controller, as reported by MAKE:blog (and picked up on Hack a Day). With $50 in parts and a lot of clever hardware design and software coding, Jones has built an interface that responds to both touch and pressure and, using some smart sonic mapping, can realistically reproduce instruments like the dumbek and guiro.

Intimate Control for Physical Modeling Synthesis [Project Page / Paper Abstract]

PDF, Randall Jones MSc Research Paper

Who needs a “top 10 technologies of 2008” post for CDM when this particular instrument could pretty easily top the whole list? Let’s just call it done, and uncork the champagne: major congrats, Randy! (This is a master’s thesis!)

Jones’ work does have some precedent, but just to review how much he’s accomplished here: he’s innovated in terms of the sensing, the form factor, the software interpolation, and the way in which the control data is mapped to a synthesis method. (Whew!) That has had a number of specific achievements:

• A clever form factor: The basic design here is elegant and could be adaptable to other form factors. Most importantly, the use of polypropylene and silicone rubber means the interface deforms nicely as you press it, giving you feedback. And that opens lots of other similar design possibilities. Translation: being squishy rocks.
• Multidimensional / force-sensitive input: “Multi-touch” usually only means something that can take multiple touch inputs at one time, as in, from multiple fingers. But as I’ve complained in the past, the problem is that most multi-touch interfaces, like the Lemur and iPhone, don’t respond to the amount of pressure or deform (providing tactile feedback) when you use them. That makes them feel a bit like an ATM screen that happens to take more than one finger at a time. Jones’ prototype responds to how hard you’re pressing or hitting it, and it’s more sensitive – more like a real-world instrument. Jones calls this “multidimensional,” but force-sensitive would be another way to look at it. Translation: it’s more organic than entering your ATM PIN code.
• Audio-rate resolution: By choosing to use audio signal for control rather than … well, anything else, Randy gets an extremely responsive control signal. The controller itself is passive, requiring no power. Everything is done by processing audio created by the sensors. That’s not a new idea, but by returning to it in this context, Randy makes a much more responsive controller than most touch and multi-touch controllers before it, and returns to some of the analog-style control of instruments like the Theremin and acoustic instruments. Translation: it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing.
• Smart centroid processing: To make touch points accurate, Randy wrote a new object for Jitter that does centroid calculation. Translation: Randy worked through the details.
• Waveguide mesh modeling for deep sonic results: None of this would be meaningful without meaningful sounds coming out of it. Here, Randy builds on previous work in creating a physical model of a drum head (back to the dumbek), but both refines the model and works intelligently through how to match it with the controller. Translation: it makes good noises.

There are some other related touch devices, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, but rather than reinvent his work, I’d suggest reading through Randy’s own research paper. He does a great job talking about what’s great and not-as-great about other research and products, and makes a terrific argument for his design choices. (Basically, see also the Haken Continuum, the Korg WaveDrum, the Tactex MTC Express, the CNMAT multitouch controller, and the Audio-Input Radio Drum.)

Now, if this kind of development had come about a few years ago, the next thing we’d be talking about is how this might be commercialized. Part cost is cheap – that’s good news. I don’t know Randy’s plans for licensing and future development. But we can already compare how this might have gone had this been introduced, say, a few years ago.

The old model:

1. Spend a couple of years more refining the prototype on your own.

2. Show off the work at an academic conference in Italy. People can see it if they’re associated with an academic institution that’s also willing to pick up their airfare and let them leave for a week. (Anyone who’s had to wrestle with their department to get a couple hundred dollars for a thousand dollars in actual expenses knows what I’m talking about here.)

3. Publish in an academic journal a handful of people get, so they can try to figure out what it’s like from diagrams and grainy black-and-white photos (and no sound). Oh yeah – no one can actually comment on the story, either, so advanced researchers lack feedback and newcomers lack context and commentary.

4. Get the prototype ready for NAMM. Blow a bunch of cash on a hotel in Anaheim and a NAMM booth.

5. Work out a complex, expensive production and distribution scheme that in turn jacks up the price. Hope someone finds it and can afford it.

6. To justify the cost, make the product as finished as possible. Sell it as a “Digital Dumbek” to eccentric, loaded rock stars.

Now, I don’t want to sound grumpy or naive. The truth is, some really brilliant instruments have been down this road. But I’m not sure the description above really did a whole lot for their brilliance. I’m not necessarily saying there aren’t benefits to some of the above techniques, but clearly they won’t work for everyone.

The new model:

“Where’s my flying car?” That’s the question that often comes up when technology and a New Year coincide. With music, though, I think what we’ve really been waiting for is a convergence of new technology and new communities. Flip through the Computer Music Tutorial’s section on new instruments, and you’ll see some fantastic, exotic, and often familiar new interfaces. So what has 2009 got that the last few decades didn’t? Think cut-rate, faster tech, and a connected Web community to develop, evangelize, and use new technologies.

1. Get 20,000 Vimeo views the moment you post your first demo. No one has to fly anywhere.

2. Connect with people doing research and experiments worldwide and get instant feedback and ideas and potential collaboration – even if they’re not publishing research or flying to conferences or are even academics.

3. Instead of assuming you’ll build a finished, closed product (hello, “Digital Dumbek”), figure people will want to hack the result. (Randy has already posted parts lists, so it’s possible to build this thing right now if you’re so inclined. And he also says in Vimeo contents he’s thinking about doing a version that transmits OpenSoundControl data, so you could use it to control other instruments, music, or even visuals.)

You’ve already skipped a lot of the steps that were previously necessary just to find interested parties. And that network could in turn be used to figure out how to make the thing around the world at a lower cost and get it directly to people who might want to buy it. It also assumes those people might hack the tool for very different applications, instead of having to target one particular kind of person.

Nothing about this is a panacea for innovation: most of the hard engineering problems remain, and this doesn’t mean you can magically create new products. But there’s no question that even changing the hurdles means there’s new potential. If 2009 is about anything, I hope it’s about people finding new solutions to taking that potential and tapping into it. You can bet it’ll be a major focus of this site.

Congrats, Randy – we’ll be watching.

Happy New Year.

pmpd, free external for Pd

Johan Strandell writes:

It’s not physical modeling in the usual sense; pmpd simulates things like friction, acceleration/deacceleration etc.; i.e., more useful for control of parameters rather than synthesis in itself. Some of the examples are really intriguing, but I’ve only scratched the surface on it. An article about it would be great, to see what other people are doing with it.

Consider your challenge accepted. May take me a while, but I’m doing some other work modeling physics, so this could segue nicely. As you can see in the visual below, you can use this to model fluids, matter, particles, and other substances. That could be easily applied to sound synthesis (and they include a number examples) as a way of making control less mechanical and more dynamic and organic. Since environments like GEM run 3D visuals on your graphics card, there’s nothing stopping you from dedicating your graphics card GPU to visual feedback while the CPU plugs away on the sound.

To run this, you’ll need the free Pure Data (Pd) environment for visually programming sound and multimedia. There is a Max/MSP port for OS X, and since he’s included source code I’ll try to compile for Windows, but since Pd is free and the examples and illustrations are in Pd, you’re better off starting there and worrying about porting to Max later.

There’s also a library for SuperCollider; I know there are some SuperCollider-using readers out there so let us know how this works out for you. Visual below.

Yeah, I know, it’s summer vacation — so, music technology faculty, I fully expect you to give us some examples, since you’re out in your summer cabin with no students to bother you. (I had a teacher once who said the one that would make teaching a perfect profession is if there were no students.)