issue23

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 61, Issue 23

This issue's topics:
	
	comments on my personal dilemna? (3 messages)
	Re[2]: comments on my personal dilemna? (4 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:         Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:44:19 -0700
From:         jk 
Subject:      comments on my personal dilemna?

          Bars & Pipes Pro 2.0  versus  Cakewalk 2.0 for Windows?
          -------------------------------------------------------

I currently have a 68000 based Amiga 1000.  Remember these?  It's 10 years
old.  Multiple decisions have brought the promise of a 486DX-66 sweetened
for Windoze into the household, over an Amiga 4000 or Mac.

The Amiga is running B&P Pro for my sequencing.  Basically it's an awesome
program running on a shitty computer.  It is a program that certainly
inspires and enhances creativity.  When the PC comes I will get Cakewalk
2.0.  That is definite.  It looks like it has the most control and best
interface of PC sequencers [come on now......torch me if I'm wrong,
it's o.k. ;)]  The PC keyboard and synth keyboard hot-macros along with
CAL programs really make it stand out for me.

The most important thing I want to know about Cakewalk is realtime MIDI
data control.

On B&P Pro you have a palette of tools that you may place on the 'MIDI
pipeline'.  Some tool names are Arpeggiator/Inverter/Transposer/Keysplit/
Delay etc. which act on MIDI data coming into the sequencer (thus
being recordable) and/or exiting the sequencer.  I've been futzing with
some canonical ideas, so an example is:

TRK 1:   MIDI IN (from keyboard) ---> Delay --------------> Ch 1. (Violin)
                                       |
TRK 2:                                 +--> X-pose ------> Ch 2. (String Orch.)

In this example, the Delay is set to 8 measures (but only affects data going
to Ch. 2), the delayed data is xposed down a 4th based on my master setting of
an E Dorian mode.  The cool thing is that both tracks are recordable and I
hear the results as I am recording (or just playing).  You can stack up as
many tools as you want, merge them, split them and assign outputs to any
combination of tracks.  The problem is that on my dog-of-a-machine, MIDI
data starts slowing down if I have more than 6 or 7 tools on the pipeline,
as each tool imposes a strain on CPU resource.

Can this be done with Cakewalk?

I realized that this could easily be accomplished with a CAL program or even
a macro, but I need it to occur as I am playing, I need to *hear* it, I need
to be engulfed.

Sincere thanks in advance,
                                                      _
-john       ___                                    __/ |
___        |   |     JKrikawa@CCIT.Arizona.Edu    |    |___      ________
   \______/     \__________ Tucson, AZ ___../\./\/         \____/        \____

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 24 Feb 1994 18:21:32 CST
From:         HARRY HAECKER 
Subject:      Re: comments on my personal dilemna?

That sounds like a really good sequencer set-up!  I have Cakewalk for Win.
and can tell you that >no< there is no real-time arpeggiator or delay system
in the program.

That would be an interesting feature to include in a future version...12 Tone,
are you out there??

About the MIDI slowdown problem...I'm a bit fuzzy on the relationship between
the 31K bit-rate and your CPU clock rate: how can you tell if the limiting
factor is the CPU or MIDI baud?      I've been holding off on ever buying
a 486 just for music, since MIDI can send info just so fast- and that's all.
My more complex cut/paste operations would be calculated faster, but so far
that's not a problem.

later, HFPH

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 1994 08:34:45 -0700
From:         jk 
Subject:      Re: comments on my personal dilemna?

>That sounds like a really good sequencer set-up!  I have Cakewalk for Win.
>and can tell you that >no< there is no real-time arpeggiator or delay system
>in the program.
I had a feeling about this, a very bad feeling.  :-(

>That would be an interesting feature to include in a future version...12 Tone,
>are you out there??
Well it would be really nice if the makers of B&P Pro (Blue Ribbon Soundworks)
would make a PC port of the program.  They did it for SuperJam.  It's a
pipe dream.........

>About the MIDI slowdown problem...I'm a bit fuzzy on the relationship between
>the 31K bit-rate and your CPU clock rate: how can you tell if the limiting
>factor is the CPU or MIDI baud?
On the Amiga I have, you can tell its the CPU.  If I add a bunch of windows
to the screen and then have a large pipe array (manipulating MIDI data), you
can hear the notes shift out of time, easily.  The MIDI manipulation takes
place before it even hits the 31k bit-rate port (which I rarely overload with
the stuff I do).

>I've been holding off on ever buying
>a 486 just for music, since MIDI can send info just so fast- and that's all.
>My more complex cut/paste operations would be calculated faster, but so far
>that's not a problem.
Well, in my case it won't be just for music.  My wife's gonna use it for
3D art modeling and she also needs a DOS-based machine for work sundries.

Thanks for your info Harry, I appreciate it.
Regards,
                                                      _
-john       ___                                    __/ |
___        |   |     JKrikawa@CCIT.Arizona.Edu    |    |___      ________
   \______/     \__________ Tucson, AZ ___../\./\/         \____/        \____

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:09:42 CST
From:         "Harry F.P. Haecker" 
Subject:      Re[2]: comments on my personal dilemna?

   Something else to keep in mind, John...

I don't know your $$ situation, of course, but I do know that the
Fatar 2001 Studio 88 has real-time delay and arpeggiation ability.
The action is really good, but I did have problems getting an intact
unit in via UPS, so I don't know how sturdy it is over the long run.
And, it's "only" $1.6K!  I'd really rather those MIDI effects be
implemented via the sequencer, less expensive and more versatile
(sp?).

One thing (read, purchase) leads to another in this sickness we call
electronic music; still, I guess it's better than being addicted to
hard drugs!

Harry

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:07:36 -0700
From:         jk 
Subject:      Re: Re[2]: comments on my personal dilemna?

From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" 
>I don't know your $$ situation, of course, but I do know that the
>Fatar 2001 Studio 88 has real-time delay and arpeggiation ability.
>The action is really good, but I did have problems getting an intact
>unit in via UPS, so I don't know how sturdy it is over the long run.

Actually a Fatar *is* on my wish list, but only for it's weighted keys.
I do remember your remarks from the K2000 list regarding the problems.
I'm not too worried about it, though.

ObligEMUSICContent: Does anyone on the list know of *any* DOS/Windows application that will
  do realtime MIDI manipulation (besides filtering/note ranging)??

When combined, the 'Tools' in B&P Pro are extremely powerful.  I have built
up four-part pseudo-canons that sound pretty neat.  Part 1 is the
leading line, Part 2 is delayed by 4 measures and xposed, Part 3 is delayed
8 measures from Part 1 and inverted about a certain key and Part 4 is
delayed by 12 measures from Part 1 and filter so only certain notes
come through...all in real time from a single midi input channel.  Sure it
can get messy if you're not careful, but it can also provide some fine
satisfaction.

You can buy add-on tools to increase your tool palette which take sickness
further:  there's harmonizers, feedback loops, doublers and on
and on.  Each one has an icon, so you grab them and line them up on the
track window as either an input object chain or output object chain.

Why hasn't this approach been utilized by DOS sequencers?  It seems so
utilitarian, but I'm probably just used to it by now.

>One thing (read, purchase) leads to another in this sickness we call
>electronic music; still, I guess it's better than being addicted to
>hard drugs!
Well................
                                                      _
-john       ___                                    __/ |
___        |   |     JKrikawa@CCIT.Arizona.Edu    |    |___      ________
   \______/     \__________ Tucson, AZ ___../\./\/         \____/        \____

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 1994 10:18:37 -0800
From:         metlay 
Subject:      Re: Re[2]: comments on my personal dilemna?

>One thing (read, purchase) leads to another in this sickness we call
>electronic music; still, I guess it's better than being addicted to
>hard drugs!

Not by much, depending on how sick you are. I'm rather enjoying my current
build-down.

--
   mike metlay    |
   atomic city    | QUOTE OF THE WEEK: From Joe McMahon, moderator of EMUSIC-L:
  p.o.box 81175   |
pgh pa 15217-0675 |         "Whee! "
metlay@netcom.com |

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 25 Feb 1994 16:52:18 -0500
From:         Joe McMahon 
Subject:      Re: Re[2]: comments on my personal dilemna?

>   mike metlay    |
>   atomic city    | QUOTE OF THE WEEK: From Joe McMahon, moderator of EMUSIC-L:
>  p.o.box 81175   |
>pgh pa 15217-0675 |         "Whee! "
>metlay@netcom.com |

You're a cruel man, Metlay. :-)

 --- Joe M.

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