Whats your favorite/'desert island' MPE sound generator?

Official support for: rogerlinndesign.com
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Roger_Linn wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 7:14 pm Yes, I’ve seen those and they’re good steps in the right direction.

I think that software instruments for embedded Linux hardware products won’t have much quality until:
1) a standard hardware platform for Linux-based embedded hardware instruments is agreed upon, so any software instrument will run on any hardware product, and
2) many hardware products exist that support such standard, so the market is big enough for software instrument makers to have incentive to support the format, and
3) software instrument makers are able to implement reliable copy protection on hardware instruments.
Quite a few big hurdles there, I'm sure you are well aware that this hugely slows the likely timescale and may stop this sort of thing really taking off at all.

I applaud the existing hardware devices that are open in some way, and I wish them well, even though most of them will remain in their own little niche worlds, used by enthusiasts with some great and flexible results, but not mainstream or attractive to commercial software instrument & effects developers.

While wearing both a dev and user hat, I like to take a step back and consider what factors make people want a hardware instrument rather than a computer in the first place. Clearly much hardware these days is a computer really, so what we are mostly talking about is a computer that is dedicated to specific tasks, with a physical interface to match. I wont try to do the whole subject justice here, but its interesting to study what things affect user perceptions. For example, slapping a reasonably large screen on the hardware, and relying on things like navigating menus, starts to head too much towards the computer experience for some people.

Having indulged in quite a lot of hardware over the last 18 months, its definately the physical interface (including many knob per function things etc) that is the main selling point for me. As such, I have become less interested in general purpose platforms that can run multiple soft instruments, and more towards things where the interface can be expertly crafted for that particular soft instrument. Sometimes less is more, and by avoiding having a general platform we avoid some of the hurdles you mention, and also avoid people making direct comparisons between the limits of the platform and what can be done on a traditional computer.

Its interesting, I dont know where its going, and I wish things were further ahead with various competing ecosystems than they are. There are certainly signs of some players in the game, coming from various different angles.

For example there is ELK MusicOS, which have been at the tradeshows a few times now and so far have focussed on making an embedded Linux platform that people will use to turn a particular VST, Reason rack extension etc into a hardware instrument. eg:

http://cdm.link/2019/05/hardware-reason ... xtensions/
http://cdm.link/2019/05/hardware-vst-st ... etrologue/

Not really possible to evaluate this without contacting them to form a commercial relationship, and there are no real consumer products resulting from this stuff yet.

A different angle/different piece of the puzzle (language and certain platform/DSP aspects) is being tackled by the JUCE people, with SOUL:

https://soul.dev

Anyway if I keep talking I will probably keep coming back to the dedicated hardware UI point. Linnstrument is a great example of managing to do a decent UI without a screen, and without the user having to remember tons of obscure things. Doable because of the limited scope for what the instrument does/amount of config options, and I'm sure it was still a challenge to fit all those labels into the available space!

When I look at a classic instrument that is highly regarded for its playability and extra expression, the Yamaha CS-80, I think the physical controls were a big part of this. Aftertouch was a first class citizen, with more than one physical slider to dictate its various influences over the synth. They could do this because it was a beast, but the actual synth architecture and number of parameters the aftertouch can control is limited. But I certainly keep this in mind when I think of what a stunning MPE instrument would be like, there will surely be controls for the MPE dimensions, right there, taking centre stage not an afterthought or menu item.

Post

By the way the UDO Super 6 synth is the first synth I recall seeing that has MPE printed on the physical interface, though its much to early to judge what their MPE implementation & UI will be like.

Post

SteveElbows wrote: Sun May 19, 2019 11:59 am
Roger_Linn wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 7:14 pm Yes, I’ve seen those and they’re good steps in the right direction.

I think that software instruments for embedded Linux hardware products won’t have much quality until:
1) a standard hardware platform for Linux-based embedded hardware instruments is agreed upon, so any software instrument will run on any hardware product, and
2) many hardware products exist that support such standard, so the market is big enough for software instrument makers to have incentive to support the format, and
3) software instrument makers are able to implement reliable copy protection on hardware instruments.
Quite a few big hurdles there, I'm sure you are well aware that this hugely slows the likely timescale and may stop this sort of thing really taking off at all.
If the goal is hardware instruments with built-in sound hardware that permits each person to load his software instrument of choice, I don’t see an alternative. Do you?

It doesn’t matter to me if it’s Linux LV2 or VST compiled for embedded hardware or SOUL or something else. It seems the goal and the hurdles are the same.

Post

Roger_Linn wrote: Sun May 19, 2019 12:33 pm If the goal is hardware instruments with built-in sound hardware that permits each person to load his software instrument of choice, I don’t see an alternative. Do you?

It doesn’t matter to me if it’s Linux LV2 or VST compiled for embedded hardware or SOUL or something else. It seems the goal and the hurdles are the same.
Its not easy, no, which is why I started exploring alternative goals. I certainly didnt hide the fact that I think physical interface is key with hardware, leading me to explore a somewhat differing set of goals. I do have broader platform dreams still, but I'm far from convinced that this is an area that will see a successful standard in the coming years, whereas I really do expect to see more and more embedded systems that are crafted for just one or a handful of soft instruments.

Sticking to the goal you stated rather than my much narrower alternative, I do think its possible to take a step back on the three things you listed. Copy protection for example is its own world of hurt and when I include it in my thinking, the chance of seeing success in the next few years plummets in my mind. I could go on at length about all sorts of tedious details regarding this, but instead I will attempt to distill the 3 points into one broader one:

People just need a successful platform that they can be confident will generate them enough sales.

There does not have to be one standard, with tight copy protection and a whole plethora of hardware supporting this standard, though of course this would be the neatest solution. I only look elsewhere because it doesnt seem that likely.

What matters is that however many different standards and hardware options there are, one of them is successful enough that its worth it for developers. In practice, to avoid everything being stuck in a 'chicken and egg' situation, one or more backers of this platform will probably need to provide artificial incentives to get enough devs onto the platform in the early days. eg Roli take a chunk of that VC money and throw it at developers (just an example, in the case of Roli they probably already burnt much of those tens of millions of VC money on other things).

There arent too many examples of this stuff succeeding in my lifetime. iOS and the App store is the obvious example. Momentum and scale were on their side, and even Apple could not really replicate the success of the iOS app store with their macOS store, for example.

Post

Pardon my persistence, but I feel compelled to strengthen Steve's observations (and deductions) about purpose-built hardware and the merits of imposed limitations. This is about performance—electronic instruments to be played live like real instruments—that's what this particular hardware versus software debate is about, at least in so far as MPE is concerned anyway. We already have computers and controllers. What would be the point of even trying to compete with the likes of MainStage, Ableton, or Maschine, and their already exhaustive suite of software instruments and dedicated MIDI devices? This isn't about the tech nerds, sound designers, and bedroom producers of the world; it's about musicians. Most of the proficient players I know (for whom, I dare say, the LinnStrument was designed) don't care about the vast, yet rarely exploited, potential of software. We want robust, tactile hardware instruments, with immediate interfaces, great tone, and just enough flexibility to tweak said tone to taste. Why? Because music is about the notes you play, and about having an instrument that doesn't get in the way of said notes... Verbatim!

Roger has mused aloud, many times, about the irony of modern [electronic] music, and how it’s being made with yesterday's tech for the most part, but that's not entirely true from a production standpoint: i.e. the DAW environment has facilitated the making of the impossible, both sonically and musically speaking, for decades now. When it comes to performing electronic music, however, much of the humanity has indeed been lost, and that's what we're trying to get back, no?

As such, and as previously stated, I seriously don't think the ideal MPE synth is all that elusive a concept. Hell, there are only so many things to aspire to as a player. A relatively simple architecture, making use of the more malleable synthesis methods currently available {wavetables, physical modelling, Karplus-strong, etc.}, fed through a filter, with a handful of MPE-specific modulation options to allow for truly expressive playing... The tonal palette of such a synth would be virtually boundless compared to traditional instruments, and could be done posthaste. Waiting for the software industry to homogenize, like a herd of deer caught in the proverbial headlights, seems like an absurd waste of time to me. And I say this from the very personal perspective of a middle-aged, career musician, who only has so many years of making music left in front of him and would like to get on with it... Ahem!

Cheers!

Post

My point is pretty simple:
1) There are many good hardware and software synths on the market, and MPE is gradually being added to them.
2) I’m not a synth maker but rather a maker of better human interfaces for musical performance.
3) LinnStrument players appear to have a wide variety of tastes in sound generators.
4) It is my experience that many people prefer a complete musical instrument including built-in sounds. If I do make such a future integrated LinnStrument, I think it would be better if players could load the sound generator of their choosing rather that a one-size-fits-all solution. I could certainly include one synth by default, but I believe the choice is important.
5) In order to incentivize software synth makers to develop synths for such hardware instruments, an industry standard plug-in format and copy protection are needed. It’s a long-term goal that isn’t easy but I don’t see another way to provide hardware instruments with the wide sonic palette that people seem to want.

Post

afta8 wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 2:02 pm On the hardware front Axoloti is worth a mention, some third party enclosures are now available for it here: http://shop.hohumlab.com/product-category/axoctrl/ although some soldering is required to get it up and running. The patching environment is not the most intuitive either so not something for anyone looking for quick results.. that said, it is a flexible hardware solution that can be anything you want it to if you persevere
tiantong wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 6:53 am So, when are we going to see that dedicated synth for the Linnstrument?
A little box with a few knobs and holes, completely computer free...

I could take it to a desert island
John the Savage wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 10:17 pm Come on, tech industry, a little black box with a few knobs and a host port... Is that so much to ask? Korg, Novation... Anyone?
So, I just got my Linnstrument and Axoloti in the last couple weeks. I'm not ready to call the Axoloti my desert island synth, but I'm hoping to make it into a box that is very easy to plug and play, such that if I had a "keyboard" type gig to play, I could bring just my Linnstrument, my Axoloti-based sound module, and a keyboard amplifier and have my rig that is more-or-less equivalent to the simplicity of a guitar player's rig. Maybe in time it will be my desert island synth.

Compared to the software synths I've been using, the Axoloti was really quick to get running with some dynamic MPE patches. As you said afta8, using the patching interface is a daunting experience for the typical musician. It's actually not too bad though if you just load up the example patches and make modifications. There aren't a lot of MPE patches, but the ones that are there are quite good and showcase the Linnstrument nicely.

For my purposes, I do not care for the Axoctrl. I don't want to make a table-top synth. I have a friend that has a Continuum, and after spending time with that I wanted something that could be my "EaganMatrix" for Linnstrument. Spending all that money on a Continuumini for a touch controller I didn't intend to use was neither possible nor desirable. So, I'm hoping to make the Axoloti into a nice sound module with more of a rack-mount/amp-rack layout.
John the Savage wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 11:35 pm To that end, what do we need? Well, wavetable oscillators for starters, because they lend themselves well to 5D expression and offer the most timbral possibilities (especially if the user can create and load their own); and maybe a few token PCM samples (à la Korg) to cover EP sounds and the likes. Feed those into a subtractive, variable-state filter, and provide a comprehensive set of MPE-specific modulators... Done!
I'm so onboard with those ideas, and this is more-or-less what I intend to setup with my Axoloti. There is already a pretty cool wavetable example built in the Axoloti engine, and it loads up waves stored on the SD card. You could potentially set things up in ways that a user loading waves would only need to save them to the SD card, and wouldn't even need to touch the patcher interface.

I want it in a rack-mount format with the plugs on the front panel. (Though I think I read elsewhere, John, you mentioned that you didn't like rack synths in regards to Deckard's Dream. I prefer rack synths to table tops... you can make everything so tidy.) I will add a patch selection screen, a rotary encoder for patch selection, and... I dunno. I'm not sure anything else is needed. Maybe a knob for the "release" parameter, since the rest of the envelope will be handled by the expression of the player on the Linnstrument. I intend to set up each patch to be fully MPE compatible, and be selected either by the rotary encoder or by MIDI message from the "preset" function on the Linnstrument. I want each patch to be set up to accept MIDI messages from the Linnstrument's CC faders on their default assignments, so there should be minimal setup and one shouldn't really need to ever touch the sound module.
tiantong wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 7:35 pm I was actually hoping for some company or indie developer taking the challenge. It has happened already but still no one has “nailed” it. It is, as Roger says, difficult as we all have different needs and ideas. But isn’t it what the Linnstrument is: someone’s idea realized and being accepted by a group of people? “The synth” is just there waiting.
I don't really want to get ahead of myself on this project, I'm just doing it for myself and I definitely don't intend to start a business selling these things. But I do intend to share all my designs, and the particular software setup I put together on the Axoloti. But, in the end I do intend to have a self-contained module purpose-built for the Linnstrument. Potentially, if other people wanted the same thing, I could help them build it, or sell them a pre-built for a reasonable price.

For that matter, if anyone is working on a similar Axoloti project, get in touch! We should collaborate.

Post

waraukaeru wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:55 am
John the Savage wrote: Thu May 16, 2019 11:35 pm To that end, what do we need? Well, wavetable oscillators for starters, because they lend themselves well to 5D expression and offer the most timbral possibilities (especially if the user can create and load their own); and maybe a few token PCM samples (à la Korg) to cover EP sounds and the likes. Feed those into a subtractive, variable-state filter, and provide a comprehensive set of MPE-specific modulators... Done!
I'm so onboard with those ideas, and this is more-or-less what I intend to setup with my Axoloti. There is already a pretty cool wavetable example built in the Axoloti engine, and it loads up waves stored on the SD card. You could potentially set things up in ways that a user loading waves would only need to save them to the SD card, and wouldn't even need to touch the patcher interface.

I want it in a rack-mount format with the plugs on the front panel. (Though I think I read elsewhere, John, you mentioned that you didn't like rack synths in regards to Deckard's Dream. I prefer rack synths to table tops... you can make everything so tidy.)
I've got nothing against rack synths per se. I did, however, recently retire a 14 space, shock-mounted fridge from my touring rig, in favour of more desktop units and pedalboards. Rack systems are bulky and heavy and cost a small fortune to fly with; so, for the sake of my back and my budget, I've opted to break my setup into smaller, lighter, more wieldy pieces. Also, when you have a lot of gear harboured in racks, if and when you need only one or two pieces, you're stuck either lugging the entire system with you or having to dismantle it. This also means that you need smaller racks in redundancy, if you travel like I do. This, of course, is not an issue if you're just setting up a studio space.

You might otherwise be recalling comments that I made, earlier in this thread, with regards Deckard's Dream simply not being the synth I'm looking for, in so far as its voice architecture and MPE implementation are concerned. Anyway...

I may yet grab and Axoloti, if only to fiddle around with it. Hell, they're cheap enough. But something tells me that it's just going to prove a make-work project (smirk). Still, keep us posted on your own progress, eh! I'd be curious to know how you get along with it.

Cheers!

Post

Roger_Linn wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 1:14 am My point is pretty simple:
1) There are many good hardware and software synths on the market, and MPE is gradually being added to them.
2) I’m not a synth maker but rather a maker of better human interfaces for musical performance.
3) LinnStrument players appear to have a wide variety of tastes in sound generators.
4) It is my experience that many people prefer a complete musical instrument including built-in sounds. If I do make such a future integrated LinnStrument, I think it would be better if players could load the sound generator of their choosing rather that a one-size-fits-all solution. I could certainly include one synth by default, but I believe the choice is important.
5) In order to incentivize software synth makers to develop synths for such hardware instruments, an industry standard plug-in format and copy protection are needed. It’s a long-term goal that isn’t easy but I don’t see another way to provide hardware instruments with the wide sonic palette that people seem to want.
From my perspective you are dead on here Roger. I understand that if I were a touring rock and roll musician I would have a radically different sent of priorities. Tragic though it might be, for me the Linnstrument is really about sheer fun and part of that fun for me has been fooling around playing sampled or modeled versions of instruments that I have played for real (piano, sax, guitar), on a format that I find intuitive and expressive (as opposed to the disconcertingly awful experience of playing sax or guitar on a keyboard....something I never did if I could avoid it). For me playing these sounds on the Linnstrument is truly enjoyable. Of course different, and less sophisticated and deep than the real thing, but deeply satisfying from a players perspective, at least in my experience.

When I first bought the Linnstrument I assumed I would never play, say, a piano sound. I thought I would mainly use vst synths, which I have fooled around with a bit and enjoy spending time doing a little sound design, although I am as yet pretty poor at it. So I had guessed that would be what I would wind up doing with it for fun: designing and playing expressive sounds with software vsts and the Linnstrument.

And while I do some of that, I have mostly spent my time playing piano, guitar, sax, etc., with an almost a guilty sense of pleasure, almost a sense of shame that I am over-indulging my inner musical dilettante. But I do so often with unbridled amazement at how satisfying and full the experience is, which is easier since I don't have to watch myself do it. I mean nobody could fool me into thinking I am getting expedited admittance to the cool kids club because I understand the aesthetics of some dude playing sax (or whatever) on the Linnstrument is never going to be top notch

But my guess is there are plenty of other dorky sinners out there too, who have hours of fun fooling around with Linnstrument, without major concern about life on the road because that's not our life. And part of that kind of sinful fun is, for me anyway, an over-indulged timbre palette. Having the option to play many different softwares is very important to me. That is a big part of the fun. But having one onboard synth, however well outfitted and awesome it might be, would barely be a value-add. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice, but unless there was a way to retrofit mine for less money, I wouldn't be buying a new linnstrument to get that feature.

So of course, we all have our different priorities, but I suspect I am not alone in wanting to feed this inner demon of sometimes too much choice that the Linnstrument is a great and noble enabler of.

Post

I have that vision to go out in the park or an arbitrary jam, unpack my LinnStrument and just play. I can do that already, but its quite a bit of patching required. I have a little speaker with a powerbank, and an iPad. The iPad is giving me all the choice of synths and sounds Roger is talking about an internal hardware should deliver.
Some of the cabling causes a problem. What about a version of the LinnStrument which simply has added a powerbank a USB hub and bluetooth Midi?
In terms of control, the success of modular and tabletop setups is for the reason that you get all these knobs you can tweak. The limitation to a single architecture has the advantage, that you know what each knob is doing. It outweights the flexibility of software synths for some musicians, and listening to their music justifies that limitation...
But with the LinnStrument we have 50 knobs in our finger tips, add a breath and bite controller and a footpedal, and you get more control than a musicians brain can handle. Usually I can happily noodle with a handful of presets I know in and out.
An Eaganmatrix built into a LinnStrument would be all the hardware synth I would want. For me it is not a problem, that I would need a computer to do the sound design, I’d prepare it at home. If I need more, there is still the iPad and/or computer even on the road would take less space than any hardware synth...
I had a little talk with Edmund Eagan at superbooth and could play the Eagan Matrix with the LinnStrument. He did not think about selling the tiny little board yet. It should be dead simple to put it into a LinnStrument. Audio out and maybe two buttons to change presets on the left side of the LinnStrument, combined with a powerbank...

Post

Those two buttons might be redundant since we have preset switching from within Linnstrument's UI already. Yeah, +1 for Eagan Matrix (or equivalent) built into Linnstrument!

As of now, I'm toying again with the idea of Axoloti built into additional wooden body and mounted to Linnstrument from below. Wooden body would also serve as accoustic resonator, utilizing DML exciter and battery powered amplifier. Something like crude La Voix du Luthier's Onde.

I've done some experimentation with DML exciters, accoustic resonator and Axoloti even before Onde was announced. I was practically resonating the body of Berwall case I use to carry Linnstument in (along with other gear, for LS only there's better case). It worked surprisingly well if the loudness was kept moderate. Low frequency response really surprised me. Higher volumes naturally rattled free metal parts, resulting into accoustic distortion which was mostly unpleasant yet it worked well with some sounds :) Then the lack of time stopped the project.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post

I like how this topic has hit a nerve and generated so many good responses. A few quick thoughts:

* A future LinnStrument with sounds doesn't need to replace a LinnStrument without sounds. The one with sounds would simply cost more and appeal to those who prefer a complete solution without fiddling with MIDI.

* I don't see the merit in increasing LinnStrument's price to add Bluetooth MIDI and a battery because of the current Bluetooth latency, and the fact that most people in videos play LinnStrument on a table. However, there are lots of wireless MIDI products, and for those that want it integrated into LinnStrument, it wouldn't be very difficult to put such components into a small, similarly-shaped box that bolts onto the 2 screw holes at LinnStrument's right end.

* John made a good comment about preferring synthesis over emulations of acoustic instruments, and I actually share his opinion. That said, I don't draw a line between the two but rather observe that certain timbres--regardless of whether they are acoustic or synthetic--rise to popularity based on their merits. Examples I have enjoyed include the sax, guitar, violin, Jam Hammer's early MiniMoog sound, Pat Metheny's guitar-synth sound, Keith Emerson's solo synth sound on "Lucky Man" and a variety of synth sounds used on dance recordings. They all take advantage of a particularly technology, be it tightened strings, wind tubes & reeds, or oscillators & filters. And this is why, when I ponder the merits of a LinnStrument with built-in sounds, I favor the idea of permitting sounds of any technology, old or new.

Post

Roger_Linn wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 1:42 pm* John made a good comment about preferring synthesis over emulations of acoustic instruments, and I actually share his opinion. That said, I don't draw a line between the two but rather observe that certain timbres--regardless of whether they are acoustic or synthetic--rise to popularity based on their merits. Examples I have enjoyed include the sax, guitar, violin, Jam Hammer's early MiniMoog sound, Pat Metheny's guitar-synth sound, Keith Emerson's solo synth sound on "Lucky Man" and a variety of synth sounds used on dance recordings. They all take advantage of a particularly technology, be it tightened strings, wind tubes & reeds, or oscillators & filters. And this is why, when I ponder the merits of a LinnStrument with built-in sounds, I favor the idea of permitting sounds of any technology, old or new.
I generally prefer synthesis over samples for the expressive possibilities. One thing in particular with Samples... they can sound 'off' with wider range pitchbends. Not all synthesis is great for pitchbends too. Kaivo in particular sounds beautiful and natural doing pitchbends.

Post

Yes, and expressive control tends to spotlight the problems of samples. That's why for orchestral winds and bowed strings, I prefer Audio Modeling's instruments because their physical modeling and other tricks deliver the sonic accuracy of samples but without any of the problems, like the pitch bend problem you mentioned.

Post

Tj Shredder wrote: Tue May 21, 2019 6:41 am
I had a little talk with Edmund Eagan at superbooth and could play the Eagan Matrix with the LinnStrument. He did not think about selling the tiny little board yet.
Did you get the impression he was open to the idea? I've no idea how much of the hardware end is his work - I'd always assumed it was a collaboration with hakken audio?

Post Reply

Return to “Roger Linn Design”