issue04

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 54, Issue 04

This issue's topics:
	
	Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks (13 messages)
	Virtual Tracks vs. Real Tracks....

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:         Thu, 1 Jul 1993 13:25:36 -0500
From:         Arne Claassen ISE 
Subject:      Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

Considering the great 4 and 8 track survey, i get the impression that most
people on emusic use some kind of tape for mixing. I was wondering why.

1) Not enough polyphony on all the midi machines, so multiple sessions with
   tape tracks are needed.
2) Addition of non-midi instruments (drums, vocals, guitar) require extra
   real tracks
3) Better control over mixdown?

I only have two keyboards, so my polyphony is rather limited, but so far
i have seen no need for multiple sessions, so everything is virtual, going
through a mixer to the master. Have i left out any reasons for real tracks?
I'm just curious, since this is the emusic list and i thought everything
could be done virtually...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Arne F. Claassen                            |
|                                                     |
| "It is by my will alone I set my mind in motion"                       |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 1993 11:40:35 PDT
From:         Casey Dunn 
Subject:      Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

I would bet it the signal processors that people don't have...and so
they slap on the FX whilst bouncing...

casey

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 1993 23:34:12 GMT
From:         Hendrik Jan Veenstra 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

Arne Claassen ISE  writes:

>Considering the great 4 and 8 track survey, i get the impression that most
>people on emusic use some kind of tape for mixing. I was wondering why.

>1) Not enough polyphony on all the midi machines, so multiple sessions with
>   tape tracks are needed.
>2) Addition of non-midi instruments (drums, vocals, guitar) require extra
>   real tracks
>3) Better control over mixdown?

These are al valid reasons of course, although the latter is a bit doubtful,
since (when working with MIDI stuff alone) you can use velocity and controller
7 to do the mixing for you in a rather controlled way.
There are however additional reasons for using multitrack recording.  The most
obvious is lack of sufficient effects-units, or lack of sufficient AUX
send/returns on your mixer.  I have 4 effects units but only 2 AUX's, so
occasionally I need the multitrack to get all the effects recorded.
A second additional reason could be lack of sufficient MIDI channels.  If you
only have 16 channels and want to record 24 instruments, you can either buy a
piece of hardware to provide you with more channels, or, lacking money :),
resort to getting the multi-track off the shelf.
Another reason is something I'm not quite sure about...  I have the impression
that there is a difference between letting a synth play e.g. 4 instruments at
once (i.e. multi-timbral), and recording all 4 instruments separately on a
multi-track.  As if, when playing multi-timbral, the sound gets somewhat
"compressed" -- looses clarity, brightness, distinctivness, whatever you like
to call it.  I don't know if this is true.  Do others have a similar
experience/impression?  I always thought it might have something to do with the
fact that the processor in the synth has 'more work to do' when playing 4
instruments (e.g. playing back 4 waves instead of one, etc, etc.), and that
this might affect the sound-quality somehow.  But maybe this is nonsense and
someone can correct me.  BTW, I admit that I'm lazy, and thus despite the above
usually try to avoid the multi-track...

--
Hendrik Jan Veenstra (hjv@phil.ruu.nl)
Dept. of Philosophy
University of Utrecht             ... and they built up with their bare hands
The Netherlands                       what we still can't do today ...

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 1 Jul 1993 23:34:12 GMT
From:         Hendrik Jan Veenstra 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

Arne Claassen ISE  writes:

>Considering the great 4 and 8 track survey, i get the impression that most
>people on emusic use some kind of tape for mixing. I was wondering why.

>1) Not enough polyphony on all the midi machines, so multiple sessions with
>   tape tracks are needed.
>2) Addition of non-midi instruments (drums, vocals, guitar) require extra
>   real tracks
>3) Better control over mixdown?

These are al valid reasons of course, although the latter is a bit doubtful,
since (when working with MIDI stuff alone) you can use velocity and controller
7 to do the mixing for you in a rather controlled way.
There are however additional reasons for using multitrack recording.  The most
obvious is lack of sufficient effects-units, or lack of sufficient AUX
send/returns on your mixer.  I have 4 effects units but only 2 AUX's, so
occasionally I need the multitrack to get all the effects recorded.
A second additional reason could be lack of sufficient MIDI channels.  If you
only have 16 channels and want to record 24 instruments, you can either buy a
piece of hardware to provide you with more channels, or, lacking money :),
resort to getting the multi-track off the shelf.
Another reason is something I'm not quite sure about...  I have the impression
that there is a difference between letting a synth play e.g. 4 instruments at
once (i.e. multi-timbral), and recording all 4 instruments separately on a
multi-track.  As if, when playing multi-timbral, the sound gets somewhat
"compressed" -- looses clarity, brightness, distinctivness, whatever you like
to call it.  I don't know if this is true.  Do others have a similar
experience/impression?  I always thought it might have something to do with the
fact that the processor in the synth has 'more work to do' when playing 4
instruments (e.g. playing back 4 waves instead of one, etc, etc.), and that
this might affect the sound-quality somehow.  But maybe this is nonsense and
someone can correct me.  BTW, I admit that I'm lazy, and thus despite the above
usually try to avoid the multi-track...

--
Hendrik Jan Veenstra (hjv@phil.ruu.nl)
Dept. of Philosophy
University of Utrecht             ... and they built up with their bare hands
The Netherlands                       what we still can't do today ...

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 1993 09:58:00 GMT
From:         "JON BOXALL." 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

        I find another reason for commiting to tape is that MIDI simply isnt
up to the job then it comes to more complex stuff.  I am involved in writing
in the area of dance music, and in that situation, timing is critical.
        On the other hand, perhaps it's my Atari that's the limiting factor.
Any ideas?
                Jon.

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 1993 10:20:49 -0500
From:         Arne Claassen ISE 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

> once (i.e. multi-timbral), and recording all 4 instruments separately on a
> multi-track.  As if, when playing multi-timbral, the sound gets somewhat
> "compressed" -- looses clarity, brightness, distinctivness, whatever you like
> to call it.  I don't know if this is true.  Do others have a similar
> xperience/impression?  I always thought it might have something to do with the
> fact that the processor in the synth has 'more work to do' when playing 4
> instruments (e.g. playing back 4 waves instead of one, etc, etc.), and that
> this might affect the sound-quality somehow.  But maybe this is nonsense and
>someone can correct me.  BTW, I admit that I'm lazy, and thus despite the above
> usually try to avoid the multi-track...
>
> --
> Hendrik Jan Veenstra (hjv@phil.ruu.nl)

I guess I can see that. My EPS lets me crank down the polyphony from 20
voices to about 8 voices, which supposedly increases the quality. Whether
this is really noticable, i have not yet tried.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Arne F. Claassen                            |
|                                                     |
| "It is by my will alone I set my mind in motion"                       |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 3 Jul 1993 01:22:24 GMT
From:         Hendrik Jan Veenstra 
Subject:      File: "EMUSIC-L LOG9307A"

"JON BOXALL."  writes:

>        I find another reason for commiting to tape is that MIDI simply isnt
>up to the job then it comes to more complex stuff.  I am involved in writing
>in the area of dance music, and in that situation, timing is critical.
>        On the other hand, perhaps it's my Atari that's the limiting factor.
>Any ideas?

Huh?  I use an Atari too, and ocassionally write pretty 'heavy' stuff,
MIDI-wise, but I've never experienced any problems.  After all, MIDI is only 31
kBaud, which isn't that much to handle.  No need to buy a Saprc station for
_that_.
O, it just occurs to me that you might mean something with 'dance music' than I
first thought.  I thought you meant dance _music_, but I suppose you could also
mean the house-rave-hiphop-kind-of-notes-assembly... :-)
In that case: a friend of mine earns his money making house (wonder why he's a
friend, btw ;-) and also uses an Atari, without problems.


--
Hendrik Jan Veenstra (hjv@phil.ruu.nl)
Dept. of Philosophy
University of Utrecht             ... and they built up with their bare hands
The Netherlands                       what we still can't do today ...

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 1993 20:58:11 -0700
From:         Michael O'Hara 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

Relating to earlier discussions re: MIDIs limited bandwidth;

There may be some small possibility that Apples new FireWire (very fast)
serial protocol could replace MIDI.  This may be a possibility for
future roland systems among others (there is *some* discussion, I
understand).  Let your people know if you want to see new faster
methods of "note event" transmission from device to device.  Just think;
*one* daisychained cable for even large systems!  At the same time,
we could make the data structures more modern; lets dump the "channel"
thing already!

And remember, you didn't hear it from me, and I know no-one at apple, Inc.
-Standard disclaimers inserted here-

Yes, I *am* in charge of tilted windmills.

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 5 Jul 1993 18:29:31 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

>There may be some small possibility that Apples new FireWire (very fast)
>serial protocol could replace MIDI.

If this is the 1990's, where's my damned robot and aircar?

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

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 7 Jul 1993 07:53:52 CDT
From:         crispen 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

Let me "revise and extend" some remarks Phil Ramone made in the current
EQ: you record a track on your multitrack so that you can get the spirit
of a performance without having to worry about EQing, balancing,
effecticizing ;-), etc. the way it's going to be in the final mix.

That is, go for the music, then tidy up the sound.  Of course, if your
music doesn't rely on live performance, then this is irrelevant.
Some would say that it's irrelevant because there's no music there to
get on tape, but you won't catch me saying it ;-)
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen        | Music should not be held responsible |
| crispen@foxy.boeing.com       |   for the people who listen to it.   |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 8 Jul 1993 04:16:23 -0400
From:         Andy Farnell 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

>
>         I find another reason for commiting to tape is that MIDI simply isnt
> up to the job then it comes to more complex stuff.  I am involved in writing
> in the area of dance music, and in that situation, timing is critical.
>         On the other hand, perhaps it's my Atari that's the limiting factor.
> Any ideas?
>                 Jon.
>
Have you tried Steinbergs MIDEX. I also find, in writing hectic dance/techno
where the event density peaks the midi channel cacks itself. Making sure the
active sensing is switched off can help, and, if you dont need midi clock out
then switch that off too. A friend of mine claims that the MIDIX (which gives
you two or three physically separate channels) improves things lots. In general
the bottleneck is the midi output buffer, it has nothing to do with the
 processor
speed which is an order of magnitude faster. Other remidies:

reduce as much control data as you can,
dont quantise anything that doesn't really need it (100 or so note on events
at one point are going to cause problems, if they can be staggered then use
this, some syths let you introduce a fixed delay, or you can use something like
Akai midi processor, then kick all the sequenced events back a beat or two.

Andy Farnell
Computing and Cognition
Bournemouth University
England

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 8 Jul 1993 09:59:58 CDT
From:         crispen 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

Hendrik Jan Veenstra  sez:

>There are however additional reasons for using multitrack recording.  The most
>obvious is lack of sufficient effects-units, or lack of sufficient AUX
>send/returns on your mixer.

Right on!  Altogether too many homebrew records have the same reverb
(= the same sonic space) for every instrument/voice in the composition.
Multitracking lets you customize the effects for the instrument/voice.
Unless, as Hendrik says, you've spent way too much money on effects.

And, too, remember that a sound which has been recorded on one track,
then bounced to another changes subtly.  For example, I wouldn't give
you ten cents for my FM synth's grand piano sound until I've bounced
it twice, each time with some EQ.  Then it's real tasty.

Remember that our quest for purity is illusory to begin with.  The
cheapest tape machine you can buy probably doesn't color your sound
half as much as your really nice mic.  A bounced musical sound is
just that: a musical sound.  Maybe the repeated bouncing is appropriate
for the sound; maybe it isn't.  The true answer is determined on a
case-by-case basis, not as a corrolary of the Sonic Purity Axiom (tm).
All IM tin-eared HO, of course.

>Another reason is something I'm not quite sure about...  I have the impression
>that there is a difference between letting a synth play e.g. 4 instruments at
>once (i.e. multi-timbral), and recording all 4 instruments separately on a
>multi-track.  As if, when playing multi-timbral, the sound gets somewhat
>"compressed" -- looses clarity, brightness, distinctivness, whatever you like
>to call it.  I don't know if this is true.  Do others have a similar
>experience/impression?

Just this odd one: Sparky, my Yamaha V50 (isn't that just precious?)
has to have both its stereo outs go to the mixer, even if it's going
to be mixed to one track.  The circuit in the V50 that gives you a
mono out when only the left channel is connected is umbelievably lame:
noisy, overmodulated, useless for making music.

As to the rest, if you mute tracks during sequence playback, then you
have an ironclad guarantee that there's no note stealing or note muting
from polyphony limit overflow on the synth.  Of course, it may be that
your all-tracks-on playback has always muted out some ghastly error
which will appear when you play a track at a time ;-)
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen        | Music should not be held responsible |
| crispen@foxy.boeing.com       |   for the people who listen to it.   |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 8 Jul 1993 15:02:48 CDT
From:         Arne Claassen ISE 
Subject:      Re: Virtual tracks vs. Real tracks

I get the impression that the general consenses is that bouncing tracks is not
a bad thing, but might actually be a good thing. My whole reason for starting
this discussion was that I was under the impression that boucing tracks
was undesirable. This only from my experience of mixing a tape from vinyl and
then hating any further generation tape copies, because of the loss in quality,
mostly the highs. I guess that effect is less distinct when a track that is
bounced only has a few instruments on it and the multi-track machines are more
capable then the tapedecks i use.

-AFC
Error 157: fatal open error on file .sig.
Error 045: fatal mail error
*** Terminating message ***

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 2 Jul 1993 12:41:46 BST
From:         Mark Etherington 
Subject:      Virtual Tracks vs. Real Tracks....

Hi!

In reply to several previous messages:

The only way a synth could sound different in multi-timbral operation is (on t
the whole) if there is only one effects processor in the synth (which is
usual) and so different patches originally designed with their own effects
settings are all having to go through one compromise setting. Only cures:
record each part to tape separately or buy more synths....

MIDI is fast enough to cope with most things IF you're careful how you use it.
Use multi-port interfaces which process different ports separately with
sequencers which can cope with them, so different instruments are actually
separated onto completely different MIDI feeds. Avoid MIDI thrus, especially
on older equipment with slow response times. Put timing critical information
on low channel numbers (e.g. put drums on track 1 instead of track 10).

There is proof emerging that most MIDI instruments' response times are still
slow enough to make the speed of MIDI irrelevant, provided it is used
carefully. Things are better than they used to be, but upgrading the MIDI spec
would still have little effect as things are at the moment. So don't slag off
MIDI! :-)*

Hope this is useful/interesting/not-too-boring.

Cheers,

Mark Etherington
Queens' College
Cambridge University

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