source file: mills3.txt Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:30:43 +0200 Subject: Sysex vs. Pitch Bend From: Carl Lumma >Gary Morrison wrote: > >> You might be well-served to see how your "product plans" compare with >> Marion McCoskey's "FasTrack" JI MIDI sequencer, or possibly even Justonic's >> "Pitch Palette" software. I personally don't know much about the features >> of either. > >Can someone please give more information on these? I've done some work with the Pitch Palette, what would you like to know? It's a windows program that sends sysex re-tuning messages to compatible synths, including ones by emu, ensoniq, and roland. It has a ratio-based scale editor, and a calculator utility for converting between fractions, cents, and hertz. It has a primitive sequencer that allows you to add scale and key changes to midi files. It even has a live performance mode that can make key changes automatically if you stick to block chords in root position. The Justonic people brag about this feature, but it's really very limited. Much better is to send key changes from the lowest octave of your keyboard or from midi foot pedals, which the Pitch Palette also supports. I haven't done any work with the live performance mode yet; so far I've used it only for midi sequencing. My problem was, as seems to be the bugaboo of the tuning-table method, TIME. The tuning dumps take too long. Unless you're very very careful, and even if you are, your music will stutter and bark at every key change. At least, this is the problem I had with the Proteus/2. To avoid this, I used the roland Virtual Sound Canvas, a software synth that comes bundled with the Pitch Palette. Because it is "virtual", it can do sysex retuning much more quickly. It doesn't sound like the proteus, but I never liked proteus sounds anyway. To sample my work, and for more information on the Justonic software, you can visit my music page at... http://users.nni.com/source_of_goodness/ericarl.html My teacher, Denny Genovese, has written an excellent DOS program called MMT. It uses the pitch-bend method, cycling thru 8 midi channels for polyphony. I believe that with 95% of synths, the pitch-bend method is much faster and more flexible than the sysex method, if at the cost of maximum polyphony. 95% isn't really fair in this context, however, since a large number of synths don't even support sysex microtuning. >> Assuming that that's what you're asking about, there has been a bit of >> discussion about how to use pitch bend for microtonality. The tricky part >> clearly is how to synchronize it with note-ons under very legato playing. >> Since the either the pitch-bend message must precede the note-on or the >> reverse, you're going to have a "blurp" in pitch either at the attack of >> the current note or at the release of the previous note. > >MIDI transmits 3125 instructions per second. A pitch bend is 3 >instructions. To send 16 of these takes 3*16/3125*1000=15.36 ms, >or twice as much if you include the note-ons as well. Is this >really a problem? Not in my experience. I have used MMT with two Yamaha TX81Z's, the Proteus, and a Kawai K5m, and I have yet to hear a "blurp" from any style of playing whatever. MMT can't play midi files, but it does accept live midi data, and, if one is bent on playing midi files, a second computer can be used. Denny is looking to develope MMT further, and would appreciate any input in that regard. Before I close this message, I would like to make it clear that I am not an advocate of the pitch-bend method. Or of the tuning-table method. Any pitch-bend favoritism detected in this letter may be considered fair defense against those who seem to pick on it without considering cons of sysex or the work of artists like Denny and Jules Siegel, who use it to great effect. What I do believe, quite frankly, is that both of these methods suck. I don't think that any of us really believe otherwise -- it's all too easy to let which method is better and why obscure the fact that we're being handing our hats when it comes to a microtuning solution for midi. Now, I'm told that the Symbolic Systems Kyma setup is just about as good as can be, but I've never seen one. Has anyone seen one? Justonic is working on a synth designed for microtuning called the "Tone Palette". They claim it is several orders of magnitude quicker and higher-res than anything else. They've got a prototype, but are having problems getting to production. Find out more in the bowels of their site at www.justonic.com. Carl SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: alves@orion.ac.hmc.edu Subject: Re: 1/1 article PostedDate: 21-09-97 19:55:28 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 21-09-97 19:55:18-21-09-97 19:55:18,21-09-97 19:54:27-21-09-97 19:54:27 DeliveredDate: 21-09-97 19:54:27 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id C1256519.00626EC3; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:55:08 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03199; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:55:28 +0200 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:55:28 +0200 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03197 Received: (qmail 11638 invoked from network); 21 Sep 1997 17:55:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Sep 1997 17:55:15 -0000 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu