source file: m1386.txt Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 12:35:44 -0500 Subject: RE: delurking (synthesizer tuning capabilities) From: "Loffink, John" > From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) > ...And the MR series, and apparently the ASR-X, comply with the MIDI tuning standard which, as I understand it, has well-defined provisions for dynamic intonation. I recommend the Ensoniq ASR-X over the ASR-10 because of improvements other than the microtonal features. Currently it is the best (keyboardless) workstation for full keyboard scales, with the Korg Trinity series as a strong second choice. But I recall someone mentioning that the dynamic intonation feature was not implemented in the MR Rack. > Now that is of course assuming that you're restricting yourself to > matching octave boundaries on the keyboard with octave boundaries in the > tuning. I'll be hornswaggled if I can tell how on Earth people do this, > but the apparent truth of the matter is that the most common way to map > more than 12 steps per octave to a keyboard is mapping them linearly, > successive steps in the tuning to successive keys on the keyboard. > > But anyway, if you're willing to admit that possibility, you can, for > example map a dynamic JI scheme to 19-toned subsets rather than 12-toned > subsets, you might be able to get by with 8 tables even with fairly exotic > harmony. > You're forgetting the 4 pitch table selection limit. Anyway, since I don't have a generalized keyboard it is easier for me to match the 12 note per octave limit of my keyboard to my just intonation scales, and then switch between scales if I need some new intervals. Matching octave boundaries for scales over 12 notes would make things easier, in my opinion. I was never able to visualize a linear mapping properly. The limit here is our interface to the piano keyboard, not the intonation tables. > >The most flexible microtonal architecture I've seen in a commercial > >synthesizer is the Yamaha TX802. You can define up to 64 keyboard scales > on > >a cartridge, and then assign each part to any of the scales. > > That sounds interesting. Are those "keyboard scales" completely > arbitrary though? > > If so, then I'd say you're right that they've got Ensoniq beat, and I > think I have some product investigation to do! If not, then I'd have to > see what are the restrictions. If for example, all Cs (for example) must > be exact octaves apart, or if the step size between all pairs of adjacent > keys has to be the same or of limited resolution, I'm not terribly > interested. (Those are, as I understand it anyway, the limitations that > the K2500 puts on you. Although they apparently have something or other > to > at least partly get around that; I think it's called a "function".) > > Oh, is the TX802 still a current-produced product? > Each note is tunable over the full MIDI range (uses same programs and pitch tables as DX7IIFD). It's FM timbres make a good counterpoint to today's wavetable synthesis. The Yamaha TX802 has been out of production for quite some time, but you can pick up used units fairly easily for $300-$400. You need a memory cartridge to do the 64 tuning tables, however, so make sure it comes with one as those are difficult to find these days. K2000/K2500 octave-based intonation tables allow retuning over the entire MIDI range for each note. Even the tonic can be retuned, which is why it makes modulation in just intonation so easy. nTET and nCET scales can be created at the program level by adjusting a few parameters, and are unlimited in step size. Resolution is 1 cent or better if done correctly (see my web site). > From: sethares@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu (William Sethares) > > >The other problem is that the Ensoniq pitch table sysex codes were > never fixed through 3 generations of samplers (EPS, EPS-16 Plus and > ASR-10). > > This is somewhat misleading. It is possible to store the Ensoniq > tuning tables in your computer. I know since I wrote a program > several years ago to do just this. (Unfortunately, it was on an Atari > computer, so it will be of limited usefullness to most). Thus - the > problem is not with the "Ensoniq pitch table sysex codes", but rather > that the authors of the software did not bother to implement the > Ensoniq pitch tables. As far as I know, though, you cannot update > them except by sending a whole pitch table, that is, you cnnot retune > "one note" at a time. > You are correct. I was mistaken on the Ensoniq SysEx codes -- chalk it up to faulty memory. Only the individual note SysEx codes (realtime updates) are broken, not the pitch table SysEx dump. In fact, 5-6 years ago I worked on a patch editing template for EPS and EPS-16 Plus Pitch Tables for Sound Quest's "MIDIQuest" generic MIDI patch editor, available for most computer platforms. It shows all the pitch adjustments at once. But it updates the table by dumping the entire thing, rather than just changing each parameter. As I recall it only worked on the first pitch table, but I could probably fix that if anyone is interested in it. I also had working instrument and layer templates. The wavesample template was never completed due to several obstacles, the worst being that wavesample "all" editing SysEx did not work. These SysEx problems were eventually acknowledged by Ensoniq, after much arm-twisting on my part. > From: Xou Oxno > > I own a 05R/W. 12 note scales, +/- 99 cents range per note. > One user tuning. I'm 99% sure the whole family has those specs. > I know the Trinity does. I think the X5DR has twice as many voices - 64. > Older Korg equipment has the +-50 cents limitation. I'm not sure where the cutoff date/line is. I'm dependent on user feedback to keep the Microtonal Synthesis Web Site up to date since I cannot possibly get access to all those instruments. From: "Andrew L. Kaye" I'm actually looking for a module that is not limited to 12-note scales. Thanks, Andrew Kaye In that case I recommend Ensoniq's MR Rack or ASR-X, Korg's Trinity series or an Emu module. If price is an issue then used Yamaha FM synthesizers and Ensoniq samplers can usually be found for less than $600, but then you give up the internal effects buses of the current units. > From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) > > I don't claim to have used much SysEx stuff to my Ensoniq gear, but I > seem to recall that it implements a "virtual keypad" interface, meaning > that SysEx messages simulate fingers hitting keys of the keypad. If so, > then in concept I would think that you could retune some note by virtual > keystrokes, then extrapolate (duplicate in all octaves, or whatever > interval) it. > The EPS SysEx virtual keypad interface had problems that kept it from being useful. As I recall I tried to use it to select pitch tables to get past the 4 pitch table selection limit, and it kept switching back to the instrument parameter page instead of the layer page that I needed to access. John Loffink jloffink@pdq.net