issue07

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 46, Issue 07

This issue's topics:
	
	Automation
	Fostex MIDI mixer (Re: Spec question)
	Spec question (7 messages)

Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon .
You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with 
the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text.
 
The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the 
University of North Carolina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:27:14 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Automation

>To what extent do you need/want to automate?

The short answer is "totally" since then I have total recall (of course):
the ability to knock up a completely wild effects mix and get it back
instantly weeks later, or under program control when playing live. Let me
put it this way: would you settle for a synth which could hold 128 patches
except for filter cutoff which had to be set manually?

>For volume/pan, are
>controllers 7/10 inadequate?

Yup, just about. In fact, I prefer two controllers per attribute: one for
maximum level, and one for the fade (0..127). Much easier to manage and
maintain the MIDI data while putting together a mix. The more sources of
control for each attribute, the better (for example, if I can do a main
fade on the mixer with Performer, I can then do fancy things to controller
#7 with MAX). However, with so many multitimbral instruments around,
automated faders aren't actually too much use any more, and I keep all my
Studiomaster faders at unity (except for rough initial mixes).

>Actually, in order to do what I *REALLY*
>wish, is to have sends and returns automated.

Which the Fostex provides. If it didn't I'd not be interested.

                      Nick Rothwell  |  cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
   CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance  |  cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:52:42 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Fostex MIDI mixer (Re: Spec question)

>I had thought long about the Mark of the Unicorn Mixer 7s, but the
>audio quality stopped me.

I had a big fright with the Simmons SPM8:2 (a truly shitty piece of
hardware) and don't wish to repeat it.

The main drawbacks of the Fostex as far as I can see at present are the
rather naive EQ and shortage of FX sends.

>Trouble is, the published 78 db signal
>to noise spec of the DCM100 probably won't cut it.

Hmm. 78dB isn't that impressive, is it? Is that a constant noise floor or
something cumulative with all channels open? If the latter, then (MIDI)
muting and the like might get round it.

>32 channels
>of Mackie 1604 + MixerMixer and 2 OTTO-1604 automation is more like
>$3000+ and 14 rackspaces.

And you don't get full automation either.

>But can a 12 db S/N difference on paper translate to
>acceptably quiet for recording?

The big question. I'm aiming to do a lot of live work in dance/theatre
where it's a constant battle against lighting thyristors anyway; I'm not
intending to do huge amounts of "studio" recording. I'll certainly listen
out for the hiss though.

Nick.

------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 14 Nov 1992 22:05:29 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Spec question

>Buy your own ST/TT, it is the number one MIDI-computer. And get Cubase
>to be your MIDI-tool, there is no better, it beats ANY program for ANY
>computer on this planet...

I'm impressed. I finally downloaded my 3 weeks' mail backlog and came
across this message *and no follow-up*. Admirable self-restraint, people.

Now, is anyone else out there as excited as me by the Fostex MIDI mixers?
(Assuming they work.)

Nick.

------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 14 Nov 1992 14:36:40 PST
From:         metlay 
Subject:      Re: Spec question

>Now, is anyone else out there as excited as me by the Fostex MIDI mixers?
>(Assuming they work.)

This is what Douglas Hofstadter would call an admirable example of a
self-referential question. |-> There are a great many items in the
MIDI world that would excite the EMUSIC-L readership, assuming they
worked "properly," where the definition of that word varies from
person to person. I, for example, believe that the Roland U-50's MIDI
spec works properly, whereas Nick regards it as completely broken,
due to our differing needs....

But to address the specific question, the Fostex design goes a long
way toward realizing one of the original paradigms of the Brave New
World of MIDI (See Moog's 1983 article in KEYBOARD, "Why They Do
(Sometimes)"). Namely, the reduction of overall form factor and bulk
without sacrificing power or sound quality. The Fostex points toward
a blank-boxes-plus-UI-unit paradigm that is showing up everywhere else
in music, from sound generation to digital recording. As such, it is
indeed a good idea and an exciting prospect. Are there any in stores
yet, and has any REAL testing been published for them?

--
dr. michael metlay       | and she's a master of return hitting
atomic city              | giving rhythm to her posts
p. o. box 81175          | so you read her and think hey it sounds good
pittsburgh pa 15217-0675 | and wish her posts had a soundtrack too
metlay@netcom.com        |                               (f. ercolessi)

------------------------------
Date:         Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:48:06 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Spec question

>There are a great many items in the
>MIDI world that would excite the EMUSIC-L readership, assuming they
>worked "properly," where the definition of that word varies from
>person to person.

Sure, although there is a reasonably common agreement on things which are
objectively broken. Witness the brand new Ensoniq ASR-10 sampler that
turned up at the local store this week. It crashed within ten minutes of
being turned on.

Why am I not surprised?

>I, for example, believe that the Roland U-50's MIDI
>spec works properly, whereas Nick regards it as completely broken,
>due to our differing needs....

It's not broken. It's "broken." That's different. It works well enough as a
slave, although the tying of the tone palette to the global control channel
is a serious compromise. The user interface and master control facilities
are sadly lacking in consistency.

>Namely, the reduction of overall form factor and bulk
>without sacrificing power or sound quality.

Quite so; this is what's really interesting about it.

>Are there any in stores
>yet, and has any REAL testing been published for them?

Sound On Sound UK did a detailed review, but their reviews are always
positive so it doesn't prove anything. I'm waiting for KEYBOARD to get to
it. I hope to play with some units in a week or two.

Nick.

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 09:27:01 EST
From:         Larry Larraga 
Subject:      Re: Spec question

>>Now, is anyone else out there as excited as me by the Fostex MIDI mixers?
>>(Assuming they work.)

When I had heard of the DCM/Mixtab about 6 months I promptly called
Fostex to get any more details.  Amazingly, I was put through to one
of the development engineers, who was very considerate in answering
my questions.  Finally, apologizing for his poor English, the engineer
offered to send me copies of pages from the manual including specifications!

I had thought long about the Mark of the Unicorn Mixer 7s, but the
audio quality stopped me.  I picked up a Mackie 1202 and found that
the wonderful headroom and virtual silence of the thing made it a
perfect choice for my submixing needs.  Now, in the middle of a
rather extensive mixdown project I find myself wishfully thinking
about MIDI automation again.  Trouble is, the published 78 db signal
to noise spec of the DCM100 probably won't cut it.  The published
Mackie spec of 90 db nominal is, as I stated earlier, virtually
silent for my environment (submixing synths in parallel with an analog
1/2" 8-track w/dbx type 1 mixed all to DAT).  I have a Yamaha AM802
submixer  that has a stated 82 db S/N that in comparison to the Mackie
seems hissy.  So, I'm assuming the DCM100 will only be that much worse.
Trouble is - I'm out of channels and studio space and money. 32 channels
of DCM100 + MixTab might only be $1300-1500 and 2 rackspaces.  32 channels
of Mackie 1604 + MixerMixer and 2 OTTO-1604 automation is more like
$3000+ and 14 rackspaces.  No can do.  OK, maybe I CAN find the space
for 'em, but not the extra $1700 fer sure.

In short, can't wait to hear it.  I know published specs only tell one
side of it.  But can a 12 db S/N difference on paper translate to
acceptably quiet for recording?  I guess I could bring in my Mackie
to A/B it with the DCM100.

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:40:01 MET
From:         Andrea TONI 
Subject:      Re: Spec question

> So, I'm assuming the DCM100 will only be that much worse.
> Trouble is - I'm out of channels and studio space and money. 32 channels
> of DCM100 + MixTab might only be $1300-1500 and 2 rackspaces.  32 channels
> of Mackie 1604 + MixerMixer and 2 OTTO-1604 automation is more like
> $3000+ and 14 rackspaces.  No can do.  OK, maybe I CAN find the space
> for 'em, but not the extra $1700 fer sure.

Hi,
.. To solve quickly and cheaply your problems Why don't you go and have a look
to the new Roland 240R line input mixer (Ok no MIDI but 24 line 3 + 1 aux and
here in Holland ~1200 $ .. I guess much cheaper in USA !! .. And
usual high quality Roland specs ..).
Well it looks nice on paper .. but I didn't try to use it .. SO go listen and
judge yourself ! .. And it is only 4 rack space units !

Ciao,
------------------------------------------------ENV---ENV---ENV----------------
 Andrea TONI (andrea@sihp03.si.estec.esa.nl)     |     |     |
 Planetary and Space                            VCO-->VCF-->VCA--> DUCATI 900SS
 Science Division (SI)                           |     |     |
------------------------------------------------LFO---LFO---LFO----------------

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:44:21 PST
From:         metlay 
Subject:      Re: Spec question

>.. To solve quickly and cheaply your problems Why don't you go and have a look
>to the new Roland 240R line input mixer (Ok no MIDI but 24 line 3 + 1 aux and
>here in Holland ~1200 $ .. I guess much cheaper in USA !! .. And
>usual high quality Roland specs ..).
>Well it looks nice on paper .. but I didn't try to use it .. SO go listen and
>judge yourself ! .. And it is only 4 rack space units !

With all due respect, Andrea, I no longer allow Roland mixers in my studio.
The ones that I have worked with have been of very poor quality in terms
of noise floor and S/N. I mixed my last CD on one and have regretted it
ever since. The Mackies are the least expensive option for high-quality
mixing currently available, although I agree with Larry that they're
quite bulky. I have solved the problem with a submix from a Rane SM82
16-channel 1-space mixer, which I run into two channels of the MAckie with
very little sound degradation.

--
dr. michael metlay       | and she's a master of return hitting
atomic city              | giving rhythm to her posts
p. o. box 81175          | so you read her and think hey it sounds good
pittsburgh pa 15217-0675 | and wish her posts had a soundtrack too
metlay@netcom.com        |                               (f. ercolessi)

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:52:55 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Spec question

>.. To solve quickly and cheaply your problems Why don't you go and have a look
>to the new Roland 240R line input mixer (Ok no MIDI

That's the reason. I'm really keen on total automation.

Nick.

------------------------------
End of the EMUSIC-L Digest
******************************