Company response to Generator 1.5 query

[KA4HJH]

>This may be true, but I really doubt that most of the software synths of
>today will work on the computers of ten years from now.  Can modern
>Powermacs run Turbosynth, for example?

Yes, they can, although the program is somewhat dated in the UI department
(it's designed to fit on the original Mac screen). It could really use some
spiffing up, as well as being recompiled to native PPC.

>Maybe they can - OK, I really
>don't know what I am talking about here. :)

That's OK, neither does anyone else. ;)

>Still, it seems that the
>commercial synth programs have less of a chance of running in the
>future, on future hardware, than academic programs like Csound or Common
>Lisp Music (these are closer to programming languages than simple
>programs). As processors change, programs that are designed to exploit
>the strengths of various processors will probably have to change in
>order to be able to use the new technology.  The state of the art
>computer music systems from 1990 ran on NeXT computers, and used the
>built in Motorola 56001.  These programs can't be easily ported over to
>run on general purpose processors without a whole lot of rewriting
>(although Common Lisp Music seems to have solved this problem nicely).

That's why you write your software to run a Pentium or a PowerPC, instead
of a DSP chip. Every audio plug-runs on one or both. It may not be as
effecient, but it'll be around tomorrow, in quantity. Did you know that
used 100-120 MHz PPC 601 daughtercards (PCB's with heatsinks, not bare
processors) are <$35 now? What if you could stick half a dozen in a box and
use it with a virtual synth or a digital recording program for effects
processing? Keep in mind too that most people just want the most bang for
the buck, and are not using something like CSound.

>It is frustrating when you realize that even the powerful
>microprocessors of today can easily be topped by a digital synth from 15
>years ago.  When running a real-time FM orchestra in Direct Csound on a
>Pentium II 300, my computer starts coughing at around 6 voices.  The DX7
>can output 16 far more complex FM voices, no problem, and you can buy
>one for $300 at any given pawn shop.

The flip side. Specialized hardware is faster. And limited. Can a DX7 be
modified for more modulation sources?

>Where is the $1000 music supercomputer?  I could use one right now!  I'm
>compiling my end-of-quarter projects for my computer music class.  The
>one-minute composition I was working on today took over 10 minutes to
>compile on a tricked-out Pentium II 400 Linux box.  Mind you, this is a
>drastic improvement over the mainframe computers originally used for
>Csound, and the techniques I am using (granular timestretching, digital
>reverb, digital filtering) are computationally expensive.  Still, it
>will be a long time before I can get these sounds live in realtime.

Multiple processors. And they don't have to be 400MHz PII's.

>Blather blah blah,

You said it.

-----

BTW

I checked it out and it's a killer. Go to

http://www.koblo.com/

and start downloading everything. Note: the Windows' versions aren't ready
yet. Sorry. For me this stuff buries ReBirth. Give me programmable devices.

Terry Bowman, KA4HJH
"The Mac Doctor"