Hartmann R.I.P

[droolmaster0]

Well, LOL - if you want to use a Kyma as a rompler, I guess you might be able to.

What does that have to do with it?

How many voices could you get with 4-op FM for example?

But if you're using it as intended,

As who intended?

I thought it was a fully-programmable system, intended to allow the user as much flexibility as possible.

I don't think that even with 12 cards you'll wind up getting polyphony near what some current workstations get,

Is that the yardstick for 'huge' then? What polyphony do workstations get? And what kind of workstation? One of those rompler types?

Symbolic say

You can use 60 voices of samples on a basic system, and a fully loaded system gives you 545 voices.

Is 545 not 'huge' then?

i.e. if you are rating a synth on its polyphony, the Kyma would come out as ridiculously overpriced.

Not compared to, say, a Buchla 200.

I think that the context was clear, and my point was clear. If the ability to generate huge amounts of polyphony is a major criterion in judging all synths, then a Kyma would not rate as highly as some other synths that can generate greater polyphony. I think that the assumption was (in talking about a flexible synth like a Kyma) that you were using it to generate sounds of some complexity. But I guess I left you that loophole, so that you could jump in triumphantly and make your usual objection. The context, again, was a discussion of the Neuron, which does not generate much polyphony because the patches are quite complex. In a way, you're simply making my point, which is that on a complex instrument, the only way to get huge polyphony IS to generate simple sounds. If your goal is to get complex sounds, then you shouldn't be looking for tremendous polyphony.

[CrownRoyal]

Hi,

I feel sorry for the people who were involved with this project - they seem like really intelligent guys. I have some idea of the amount of sacrifices - personal, financial - that they must have made to create the Neuron, and it must be gutting for it to end like this. I do of course also have sympathy for those who have bought the product and found that it didn't work correctly on their system and are now left without support.

It's hilarious that you bring up Cameleon. I think that the sound quality of Cameleon is pretty bad. In any case, the vs sounds so much better than Cameleon that the fact that you bring up Cameleon suggests that you really don't have any idea of what it is like to play a Neuron.

That is your opinion, and you are of course perfectly entitled to it. Where I take issue is that you are implying that this is somehow the objective truth on the matter. Different people take different views.

For example, BT, a fellow Neuron owner -http://www.btmusic.com - takes a very different view. He's a professional composer who does a wide range of film soundtrack work, amongst other things. Here's what he said, in an unpromted, statement.

Camelon 5000, is the most impressive, liquid, evocative sounding soft synth I have ever heard. I will play my Neuron and then Camelon and can't figure out why they dont charge 5 grand for it.

I've never paid him anything BTW. Also, Hans Zimmer - http://www.hans-zimmer.com - who was also involved with the Neuron and can have any piece of gear he wants, took the time to come up to me at last NAMM and say that he really liked Cameleon and had used it and would be using it on various film projects. (In a somewhat embarrassing move I didn't recognise him, and so intially carried on my conversation with someone else, before figuring out who he was and having a chat. I've just seen he did the soundtrack for the new Wallace and Gromit film - I'll have to keep my ears open for signs of a Cameleon ).

As I say, I'm not saying that your view of Cameleon vs. Neuron is wrong. All I'm saying is that there are plenty of people who own a Neuron keyboard who love their Cameleons

Thanks
Ben

I was shocked to see BT quoted as saying, "soft-synths sound like $hit" in Music Tech (maybe it was Remix?) mag last month. It's in an ad for a hardware synth. I like BT but that really surprized me for a guy that says he uses soft-synths. I'll dig up the advert and snap a picture of it.

[munchkin]

The interesting thing is that all the puters on Sonics Arts courses have Max/MSP loaded and ready to go. When it comes to experimenting in sound the neuron isn't at the forefront.

That has a lot more to do with Max's market position then its capabilities. Sonically, it isn't head and shoulders above a lot of other great things. You probably won't find a Kyma on every computer at uni, either.

In which case I'm not sure where the neuron fits in to the sound designers arsenal of tools.

It fits in as a boutique, specialized tool. It was never aimed at educational programs or mass marketing, the price tag alone makes that obvious. That's a big reason why in terms of marketing, the VS was a terrible idea.

Having tried the Neuron and having heard a lot of demo clips, I have never heard anything that makes it unique. It isn't even the only synth based on neural network models, there's this thing, too (but it's price tag is just as ugly). But the Neuron was designed differently than a lot of things, so maybe it let you access certain sounds in an easier fashion. The Neuron certainly has a neatness factor to it.

I disagree, Max/MSP is ubiquitous because it's so versatile. There are other modular environments and they are used in sonic design but if you want to use sound to control installations and create sonic environments then Max/MSP is very useful. When you use it with Jitter to create multimedia installations then it's head and shoulders above almost everything else. And it doesn't cost the earth like Kyma and those boutique instruments you refer to. I also question whether the neuron is a curiosity to turn to for unique sounds. Why spend the cost of Max/MSP/Jitter on one VSTi?

[whyterabbyt]

I think that the context was clear

Yeah, so much so that you had to state it explicitly later.

and my point was clear.

Whatever your point supposedly was, talking arbitrarily about the polyphony of a system like the Kyma, which can be expanded, as though it was a closed system, was pointless.

I think that the assumption was (in talking about a flexible synth like a Kyma) that you were using it to generate sounds of some complexity.

You feel free to make assumptions. Im not making any, so I'll ask you explicitly what you mean when you fail to clarify adequately, okay?

But I guess I left you that loophole, so that you could jump in triumphantly and make your usual objection.

The fact that you dont adequately contextualise doesnt mean what I was doing was an 'objection'. It was an attempt to seek clarification from someone who failed to provide it.

[droolmaster0]

Note that my original statement referred to "huge" numbers of voices, which was in the context of polyphony as a major factor when judging a synth like a Kyma or Neuron which is generating complex, cpu intensive sounds.

Sounds that'd be like, oh, 20 or 30 voices, then. In "the context of of polyphony as a major factor when judging a synth like a Kyma or Neuron which is generating complex, cpu intensive sounds". Being as thats pretty 'huge' compared to the Neuron which I believe had 8-voice polyphony at maximum complexity.

Oh, you must be right then. Well, it's pretty easy to design sounds on the kyma that will only give you 1 or 2 voices (or less) with 4 cards. Now, of course, we get into what we mean by 'complex', because on a Kyma it's so open ended. the point again is - if max polyphony is more important than the complexity of the results, then the Neuron and Kyma are not going to rate in the forefront of synths available today. If you want to claim that since a Kyma can generate 5,000,000 notes of sample playback, the Kyma is not an example of this, then go right ahead. I never claimed that it wasn't possible to design some complex sounds on a Kyma that got more voices than on a Neuron. And, of course, if you're then talking about a 12 card Kyma, you're also talking about $10,000+, so any concept of relative value in relation to the polyphony is out the window. For that price you could get 3 Neurons.

[whyterabbyt]

Oh, you must be right then.

About what? Im asking you to quantify your very fuzzy statements with something concrete. Not making statements.

I think 30 voices is 'huge' compared to 8. Do you agree or disagree?

Are you afraid to quantify things for some reason?

If you want to claim that since a Kyma can generate 5,000,000 notes of sample playback, the Kyma is not an example of this, then go right ahead.

Im not making claims. Im asking you to quantify yours.

[cptgone]

Hmm...the Cameleon vs Neuron thing. It seems that the cachet of a thing is considered greater by some people according to the price tag rather than actual capability. I think this is at the nub of this debate and that's why there's a misanthropic delight in sniggering at the demise of the Neuron. It's not big, it's not clever but it's kind of understandable.

There's also the big claims by Neuron, the high price, the bugs...

Too bad they went down. But even I saw that coming

[droolmaster0]

Oh, you must be right then.

About what? Im asking you to quantify your very fuzzy statements with something concrete. Not making statements.

I think 30 voices is 'huge' compared to 8. Do you agree or disagree?

Are you afraid to quantify things for some reason?

If you want to claim that since a Kyma can generate 5,000,000 notes of sample playback, the Kyma is not an example of this, then go right ahead.

Im not making claims. Im asking you to quantify yours.

You are asking me to quantify what doesn't need to be quantified in the context. I think that, obviously, when generating complex sounds, the Kyma and the Neuron both, do not generate as much polyphony as some workstations. Is that in doubt. so, in the context of synths being judged primarily on polyphony, or with polyphony as a major factor, both synths are at a distinct disadvantage, assuming that with the Kyma (given that you can generate simple sample playback if you wanted)you are generating complex sounds.

Sure - 20 vs 8 is a lot. but that has nothing to do with the context of my quote.

You try to bully people here a lot, and obviously think a lot of yourself. fine. YOu are enjoying, with some desperation, finding technicalities that you can isolate and object to. But the argument is pretty clear, and I think is one that you would agree with, were you simply not so interested in simply winning and proving how intelligent you are.

[bmanic]

You won't get huge numbers of voices on a Kyma either,

That really depends on what the voices are doing and how many DSP cards you have, surely?

Yeah. With seven cards, I get a lot of polyphony, even for complex things. Next month, my Kyma gets maxed out, so I shouldn't have too many worries. Still, Kyma is like any other software modular in that you might not get the same amount of polyphony you would expect from an optimised synth performing the same tasks.

Mind you, they ALL have more polyphony than our modulars...

Scot.. did I ever tell you how much I hate you and how much I'd love to be in your shoes?




- bManic

[shamann]

I disagree, Max/MSP is ubiquitous because it's so versatile. There are other modular environments and they are used in sonic design but if you want to use sound to control installations and create sonic environments then Max/MSP is very useful. When you use it with Jitter to create multimedia installations then it's head and shoulders above almost everything else. And it doesn't cost the earth like Kyma and those boutique instruments you refer to. I also question whether the neuron is a curiosity to turn to for unique sounds. Why spend the cost of Max/MSP/Jitter on one VSTi?

No, I disagree with you.

Max is versatile/cool/useful/massive, but so are lots of things like CSound, Reaktor, Supercollider, Nyquist, Pure Data, Jmax, Bidule, CPS, etc etc. But Cycling 74 have actively targeted educational facilities in their market focus, and have done a good job of it (and I don't think would disagree with the assessment). Plus Max started out as an institutional creation, has been around for years, was well-positioned to being marketed as the de facto option for sound design on Macs for many years, has developed versatile pricing and licensing for institutional site operations, and so on. Boutique by its very nature is exclusive, as it is marketed at a select group whom the manufacturer knows how to communicate with. Price tags often reflect that "only like-minded need apply" mentality. And Max is a lot more expensive than PD, but Cycling 74 have worked hard on its market position/desirability.

Market strategy plays a much bigger factor in userbase than you're letting on.

But I agree for audio/visual applications, Max is really leading the way. I'd say for controller development, it is, too. But those things have nothing to do with sound design exclusively, they are about a/v and controllers.

[Urs]

I was shocked to see BT quoted as saying, "soft-synths sound like $hit"

When Brian says "Dude, this is the $hit!", he means it as a compliment. At least, when talking about my stuff

Urs

[whyterabbyt]

You are asking me to quantify what doesn't need to be quantified in the context.

Just because you dont want to quantify it doesnt mean that quantifying it is 'not needed'. I wanted quantification, ergo I 'needed' it.

so, in the context of synths being judged primarily on polyphony, or with polyphony as a major factor, both synths are at a distinct disadvantage, assuming that with the Kyma (given that you can generate simple sample playback if you wanted)you are generating complex sounds.

Your context seems to change continously to suit yourself.

Note that my original statement referred to "huge" numbers of voices, which was in the context of polyphony as a major factor when judging a synth like a Kyma or Neuron which is generating complex, cpu intensive sounds.

Sure - 20 vs 8 is a lot. but that has nothing to do with the context of my quote.

Then you seem to be changing your context. You said the Kyma was not capable of generating a 'huge' number of voices. You didnt contextualise.

When you want to talk about the Kyma not being capable of large numbers of voices, you seem to want to do so in the context of 'complex' voices. You seem to want to ignore the context of simpler voices, comparitive to the workstations you mentioned.
You want to define 'huge' in one context (simple voices) but reuse it conflatedly in another (complex voices).

In other words you seem to selectively change context for the same thing dependent on what you are responding to.

Note that my original statement referred to "huge" numbers of voices, which was in the context of polyphony as a major factor when judging a synth like a Kyma or Neuron which is generating complex, cpu intensive sounds.

ie you're talking about 'huge polyphony' for a complex synth, yes?

Or is that 'huge polyphony' for a simpler synth?

You try to bully people here a lot, and obviously think a lot of yourself. fine.

Ah, I wondered how soon before you'd get to the ad hominems. How pathetic of you.

YOu are enjoying, with some desperation, finding technicalities that you can isolate and object to.

No, no desparation. Except from yourself, who seems to need to contradict yourself merely to keep going.

But the argument is pretty clear, and I think is one that you would agree with, were you simply not so interested in simply winning and proving how intelligent you are.

Your 'argument' seems to depend on a context which you shift at will. That's not 'pretty clear' by any standards.

And if 'getting some actual information' is what you consider my 'winning' then no wonder you're trying so hard not to give me any. Its you who's trying to 'win' something.

Whatever. At the end of the day you made a vague and arbitrary statement with no justification to back it up. You've failed to explain it, and you move the goalposts of what it refers to every time you're asked. You've obviously got so much invested in your fan-boyism you can't even give a straight answer to a straight question any more. Your statement means precisely nothing, which is what I suspected. Have fun with your little flag-waving shtick, because your posts have zero information content.

[droolmaster0]

I think that the context was clear

Yeah, so much so that you had to state it explicitly later.

and my point was clear.

Whatever your point supposedly was, talking arbitrarily about the polyphony of a system like the Kyma, which can be expanded, as though it was a closed system, was pointless.

I think that the assumption was (in talking about a flexible synth like a Kyma) that you were using it to generate sounds of some complexity.

You feel free to make assumptions. Im not making any, so I'll ask you explicitly what you mean when you fail to clarify adequately, okay?

But I guess I left you that loophole, so that you could jump in triumphantly and make your usual objection.

The fact that you dont adequately contextualise doesnt mean what I was doing was an 'objection'. It was an attempt to seek clarification from someone who failed to provide it.

I give up. Yes - the context had to be stated because you raised your objections out of context, seemingly because you didn't bother to try to understand it. Once the context was explained, you continued to argue, because after all, you'll never back down.

At this point it's just name calling, essentially. I claim that the context was clear, you claim that it wasn't. But your endurance is greater than mine.

[HanafiH]

He doesn't have two neurons to rub together.

BOOM BOOM!

[droolmaster0]

You are asking me to quantify what doesn't need to be quantified in the context.

Just because you dont want to quantify it doesnt mean that quantifying it is 'not needed'. I wanted quantification, ergo I 'needed' it.

I will reply to this one more thing. This is a perfect example to the type of linguistic and semantic distortion you engage in to 'prove' your point. By saying that something doesn't "need" to be quantified, the meaning is that all relevant information is provided, and that additional detail is not necessary. To claim that YOU required it may be a true statement, however, that is changing the meaning somewhat. Stating that something isn't necessary because it is provided, or implied by context, is not the same thing as insisting that it is objectively necessary because you simply refuse to understand what is being said. Words don't have meanings lurking behind them - their meaning is in their use, and you are trying to win this little point with the same kind of silly technicality that you love to win arguments with.