Fairlight-CMI

My response to this most exciting and intriguing of situations can be found
on my blog..

 

http://failedmuso.blogspot.com/2008/11/fairlight-cmi-iv.html

 

Regards,

 

Rob.

From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net
Sent: 04 November 2008 11:58
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?

 


There have been discussions from time to time about replicating the CMI
using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited success because
the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware used in
the original design.

In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest challenge was
to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent aspects of the
hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make the
Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what makes a
Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.

When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my imagination
ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that could be
configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA (Field
Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware, the essence
of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital hardware form. 

To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download the
brochure here:
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf

I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the original
Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs, sample
libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.

So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a faithful
reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?

This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or III, but run
on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would come
directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency introduced by
the PC.

At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the level of
interest in this project and whether the significant investment in R&D will
be worthwhile.

The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold for
approximately $US5,000.00.

So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a Fairlight CMI
at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the buyers be and
how would I tap into them?

What do you think?

Peter Vogel

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1766 - Release Date: 04/11/2008
08:26

Hallo Peter,

I was visiting this group to post about a faulty diskdrive when I saw 
your post.
Great to see that you are still thinking about the cmi.
I think there might be quite some people out there who would be 
intrested in such a system.

When buying my IIx I also payed for the collectors value.
Not just to pose., but for me some older electronic instruments realy 
mean something special and I think that's true for a lot of cmi 
ethousiasts.
then again., if the system would faithfully reproduce the series III 
sound and capabilities I would be seriously tempted.

cheers,
David

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, <peter.vogel@...> wrote:
>
> 
> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating the 
CMI
> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited success 
because
> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware 
used in
> the original design.
> 
> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest 
challenge was
> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent 
aspects of the
> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make the
> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what 
makes a
> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
> 
> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my 
imagination
> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that 
could be
> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA 
(Field
> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware, the 
essence
> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital hardware 
form. 
> 
> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download 
the
> brochure here:
> http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%
20Brochur
> e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 
> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the original
> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs, 
sample
> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
> 
> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a 
faithful
> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
> 
> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or 
III, but run
> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would come
> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency 
introduced by
> the PC.
> 
> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the level 
of
> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in 
R&D will
> be worthwhile.
> 
> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold 
for
> approximately $US5,000.00.
> 
> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a 
Fairlight CMI
> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the 
buyers be and

> how would I tap into them?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Peter Vogel
>

There have been discussions from time to time about replicating the CMI
using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited success because
the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware used in
the original design.

In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest challenge was
to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent aspects of the
hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make the
Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what makes a
Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.

When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my imagination
ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that could be
configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA (Field
Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware, the essence
of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital hardware form. 

To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download the
brochure here:
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf

I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the original
Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs, sample
libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.

So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a faithful
reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?

This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or III, but run
on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would come
directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency introduced by
the PC.

At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the level of
interest in this project and whether the significant investment in R&D will
be worthwhile.

The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold for
approximately $US5,000.00.

So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a Fairlight CMI
at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the buyers be and
how would I tap into them?

What do you think?

Peter Vogel

Hi Peter,

This sounds interesting. 

Do you mean to say you would replicate the CMI digital logic in the FPGA but that the analogue 
parts would be emulated using DSP? Or would there be an extra board with the analogue filters etc 
on it? What about the CMI light pen, would that be emulated in some way on the PC?

What is be the intended market life of the CMI IV? Although the existing CMI models have been 
kept working many decades after being discontinued, what will happen when the CC-1 card is 
discontinued and PC hardware and Windows software versions change? Will the CMI IV continue to 
be updated and supported?

Would you be looking to extend and improve on the CMI design? Could we expect larger memory 
sizes and other added processing/synthesis features in addition to the authentic CMI sound, UI and 
mojo?

/Tristan

Quoting peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net:

> 
> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating the
> CMI
> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited success
> because
> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware
> used in
> the original design.
> 
> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest
> challenge was
> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent aspects
> of the
> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make the
> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what
> makes a
> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
> 
> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my
> imagination
> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that could
> be
> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA
> (Field
> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware, the
> essence
> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital hardware
> form. 
> 
> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download
> the
> brochure here:
> http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
> e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 
> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the original
> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs,
> sample
> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
> 
> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a
> faithful
> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
> 
> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or III,
> but run
> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would come
> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency
> introduced by
> the PC.
> 
> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the level
> of
> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in
> R&D will
> be worthwhile.
> 
> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold
> for
> approximately $US5,000.00.
> 
> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a
> Fairlight CMI
> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the buyers
> be and
> how would I tap into them?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Peter Vogel
> 
>

To answer Tristan's questions:
	
>	Do you mean to say you would replicate the CMI digital logic in the
FPGA but that the analogue 
>	parts would be emulated using DSP? Or would there be an extra board
with the analogue filters etc 
>	on it? What about the CMI light pen, would that be emulated in some
way on the PC?

There would be no analogue parts, it would all be emulated in the FPGA.
	
>	What is be the intended market life of the CMI IV? Although the
existing CMI models have been 
>	kept working many decades after being discontinued, what will happen
when the CC-1 card is 
>	discontinued and PC hardware and Windows software versions change?
Will the CMI IV continue to 
>	be updated and supported?

That is of course a concern of any hardware sort software product. The
intention would be to continually update the software. The hardware has
vastly more capacity than is required for the series II emulation, so there
will be room for expansion. 
	
>	Would you be looking to extend and improve on the CMI design? Could
we expect larger memory 
>	sizes and other added processing/synthesis features in addition to
the authentic CMI sound, UI and 
>	mojo?

Yes, certainly. If you look at what the CC-1 card does today, you will see
that there is horsepower to burn. From Fairlight website:

What can be achieved with just ONE CC-1 card

*  Capable of sampling frequencies up to 384Khz
*  Able to manipulate audio at 72bit floating point
*  Processes up to 230 hi res audio channels at 48Khz
*  Delivers 8 fully parametric bands of EQ on EVERY channel
*  Delivers 3 Stages of Dynamics on EVERY channel
*  Delivers 72 user definable mix busses from Mono to 7.1
*  Provides a 64 channel audio bridge for 3rd party PlugIns
*  Supports up to 220 physical I/Os per CC-1 card, Analogue, Digital or MADI

So the Series IV could be much more capable than the Series III, and
potentially run an excellent mixer and hard disk recorder at the same time.
The issue of course is development cost, which is why I'm considering an
entry point that will provide the revenue for further development.

Best regards,

Peter
	
	/Tristan
	
	Quoting peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net
<mailto:peter.vogel%40vogelfamily.net> :
	
	> 
	> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating
the
	> CMI
	> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited
success
	> because
	> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware
	> used in
	> the original design.
	> 
	> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest
	> challenge was
	> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent
aspects
	> of the
	> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make
the
	> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what
	> makes a
	> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
	> 
	> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my
	> imagination
	> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that
could
	> be
	> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA
	> (Field
	> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware,
the
	> essence
	> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital
hardware
	> form. 
	> 
	> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download
	> the
	> brochure here:
	>
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
r> 
	> e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
	> 
	> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the
original
	> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs,
	> sample
	> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
	> 
	> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a
	> faithful
	> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
	> 
	> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or
III,
	> but run
	> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would
come
	> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency
	> introduced by
	> the PC.
	> 
	> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the
level
	> of
	> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in
	> R&D will
	> be worthwhile.
	> 
	> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold
	> for
	> approximately $US5,000.00.
	> 
	> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a
	> Fairlight CMI
	> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the
buyers

	> be and
	> how would I tap into them?
	> 
	> What do you think?
	> 
	> Peter Vogel
	> 
	>

Hello Peter,

I think your project is very interesting. Does this mean that the CC1  
would be
able to emulate the variable frequency technology used in the CMI ?  
And play
many voices in parallel ?

Regards.

     Laurent.

Does anyone know what the SX-20 costs ? 
Also is there a dealer in the US that sells the CC-1?
Kevin Kelley 

--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net> wrote:

From: Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net>
Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:20 PM






To answer Tristan's questions:

> Do you mean to say you would replicate the CMI digital logic in the
FPGA but that the analogue 
> parts would be emulated using DSP? Or would there be an extra board
with the analogue filters etc 
> on it? What about the CMI light pen, would that be emulated in some
way on the PC?

There would be no analogue parts, it would all be emulated in the FPGA.

> What is be the intended market life of the CMI IV? Although the
existing CMI models have been 
> kept working many decades after being discontinued, what will happen
when the CC-1 card is 
> discontinued and PC hardware and Windows software versions change?
Will the CMI IV continue to 
> be updated and supported?

That is of course a concern of any hardware sort software product. The
intention would be to continually update the software. The hardware has
vastly more capacity than is required for the series II emulation, so there
will be room for expansion. 

> Would you be looking to extend and improve on the CMI design? Could
we expect larger memory 
> sizes and other added processing/synthesi s features in addition to
the authentic CMI sound, UI and 
> mojo?

Yes, certainly. If you look at what the CC-1 card does today, you will see
that there is horsepower to burn. From Fairlight website:

What can be achieved with just ONE CC-1 card

*  Capable of sampling frequencies up to 384Khz
*  Able to manipulate audio at 72bit floating point
*  Processes up to 230 hi res audio channels at 48Khz
*  Delivers 8 fully parametric bands of EQ on EVERY channel
*  Delivers 3 Stages of Dynamics on EVERY channel
*  Delivers 72 user definable mix busses from Mono to 7.1
*  Provides a 64 channel audio bridge for 3rd party PlugIns
*  Supports up to 220 physical I/Os per CC-1 card, Analogue, Digital or MADI

So the Series IV could be much more capable than the Series III, and
potentially run an excellent mixer and hard disk recorder at the same time.
The issue of course is development cost, which is why I'm considering an
entry point that will provide the revenue for further development.

Best regards,

Peter

/Tristan

Quoting peter.vogel@ vogelfamily. net
<mailto:peter. vogel%40vogelfam ily.net> :

> 
> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating
the
> CMI
> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited
success
> because
> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware
> used in
> the original design.
> 
> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest
> challenge was
> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent
aspects
> of the
> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make
the
> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what
> makes a
> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
> 
> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my
> imagination
> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that
could
> be
> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA
> (Field
> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware,
the
> essence
> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital
hardware
> form. 
> 
> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download
> the
> brochure here:
>
http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/ Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochur
<http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/ Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochu
r> 
> e%20for%20WEB% 20VIEW.pdf
> 
> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the
original
> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs,
> sample
> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
> 
> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a
> faithful
> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
> 
> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or
III,
> but run
> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would
come
> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency
> introduced by
> the PC.
> 
> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the
level
> of
> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in
> R&D will
> be worthwhile.
> 
> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold
> for
> approximately $US5,000.00.
> 
> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a
> Fairlight CMI
> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the
buyers

> be and
> how would I tap into them?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Peter Vogel
> 
>

Hi Laurent,

Yes, I would think the CC-1 could do a huge number of tracks. How many would
you like?

It would use exactly the same variable frequency technology as the CMI.

The sound would be identical, except there would be an option to turn off
the "special" sound if you want, so you just get clean samples.

And of course the CMI emulation would be just one task running on the PC so
you can still run your other favourite toys in a different window.

Peter  


________________________________

	From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurent LEMAIRE
	Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 5:29 AM
	To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
	Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
	
	

	
	Hello Peter,
	
	I think your project is very interesting. Does this mean that the
CC1 
	would be
	able to emulate the variable frequency technology used in the CMI ? 
	And play
	many voices in parallel ?
	
	Regards.
	
	Laurent.

Hi Peter,

I'm not a professional musician, just a hobbyist and a collector of  
old synths.

I understand that such product could interest professionals who would  
like to have the Fairlight sound and avoid the issues of using an old  
gear.

I'm not in this situation. I love old machines. Virtual instruments &  
emulators do not inspire me... I prefer real instruments and a good  
old analog mixer...

But if you release this product, I would definitively like to listen  
it. It may change my mind...  ;-))

Regards.

     Laurent.

The SX-20, CC-1 (the Crystal Core Card) and DREAM II software come as a
package and can only be supplied as a whole. At today's exchange rate the
above come in at around $9000.00 if you supply a PC. This will give you a
192 track Disk Recorder, 8 band EQ and 3 stage Dynamics on every channel,
all at the same time with no resource allocation problems, 32 busses, MADI
I/O, two 9 pin ports, tri-level sync, SMPTE and enough I/O to give you up to
7.1 surround. You then have to choose which Tactile surface best suits your
needs, most people these days are choosing the Xynergi MPC.

 

Anyway, checkout the FairlightUS WEB site at www.fairlightus.com to see all
the available options and please call me if you need any clarification. 

 

I was in R&D for 20 years at Fairlight in Sydney as a senior software
engineer and wrote much of the software for all of the CMI series (and
beyond). The CC-1 platform is quite simply a technical masterpiece and its
capabilities are yet to be fully exposed.

 

Regards

[Steve Rance]

 

 <http://www.fairlightus.com/> SteveRance

 

From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kevin kelley
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 14:04
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?

 


Does anyone know what the SX-20 costs ? 

Also is there a dealer in the US that sells the CC-1?

Kevin Kelley 

--- On Tue, 11/4/08, Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net> wrote:

From: Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net>
Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 5:20 PM

To answer Tristan's questions:

> Do you mean to say you would replicate the CMI digital logic in the
FPGA but that the analogue 
> parts would be emulated using DSP? Or would there be an extra board
with the analogue filters etc 
> on it? What about the CMI light pen, would that be emulated in some
way on the PC?

There would be no analogue parts, it would all be emulated in the FPGA.

> What is be the intended market life of the CMI IV? Although the
existing CMI models have been 
> kept working many decades after being discontinued, what will happen
when the CC-1 card is 
> discontinued and PC hardware and Windows software versions change?
Will the CMI IV continue to 
> be updated and supported?

That is of course a concern of any hardware sort software product. The
intention would be to continually update the software. The hardware has
vastly more capacity than is required for the series II emulation, so there
will be room for expansion. 

> Would you be looking to extend and improve on the CMI design? Could
we expect larger memory 
> sizes and other added processing/synthesi s features in addition to
the authentic CMI sound, UI and 
> mojo?

Yes, certainly. If you look at what the CC-1 card does today, you will see
that there is horsepower to burn. From Fairlight website:

What can be achieved with just ONE CC-1 card

*  Capable of sampling frequencies up to 384Khz
*  Able to manipulate audio at 72bit floating point
*  Processes up to 230 hi res audio channels at 48Khz
*  Delivers 8 fully parametric bands of EQ on EVERY channel
*  Delivers 3 Stages of Dynamics on EVERY channel
*  Delivers 72 user definable mix busses from Mono to 7.1
*  Provides a 64 channel audio bridge for 3rd party PlugIns
*  Supports up to 220 physical I/Os per CC-1 card, Analogue, Digital or MADI

So the Series IV could be much more capable than the Series III, and
potentially run an excellent mixer and hard disk recorder at the same time.
The issue of course is development cost, which is why I'm considering an
entry point that will provide the revenue for further development.

Best regards,

Peter

/Tristan

Quoting peter.vogel@ <mailto:peter.vogel%40vogelfamily.net>  vogelfamily.
net
<mailto:peter. vogel%40vogelfam ily.net> :

> 
> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating
the
> CMI
> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited
success
> because
> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware
> used in
> the original design.
> 
> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest
> challenge was
> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent
aspects
> of the
> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make
the
> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what
> makes a
> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
> 
> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my
> imagination
> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that
could
> be
> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA
> (Field
> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware,
the
> essence
> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital
hardware
> form. 
> 
> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download
> the
> brochure here:
>
http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/ Fairlight%
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
r>  20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochur
<http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/ Fairlight%
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
>  20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochu
r> 
> e%20for%20WEB% 20VIEW.pdf
> 
> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the
original
> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs,
> sample
> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
> 
> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a
> faithful
> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
> 
> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or
III,
> but run
> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would
come
> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency
> introduced by
> the PC.
> 
> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the
level
> of
> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in
> R&D will
> be worthwhile.
> 
> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold
> for
> approximately $US5,000.00.
> 
> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a
> Fairlight CMI
> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the
buyers

> be and
> how would I tap into them?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Peter Vogel
> 
>

At this stage it's just an idea, although I'm confident it can be done very
well using the CC-1. The question is how many people would pay say $5,000
for this, when you can buy other soft synths much cheaper.  I would need to
be confident that there is a signifcant market to justify the investment in
developing it. 
 
What do you think it is about the CMI that makes it so special, and does
that still apply today? 


  _____  

From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Laurent/LIFELIKE
Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 7:59 AM
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?



Hi Peter 


As a professional composer in electronic music i can tell you that there
would be a lot of people interested in that kind of emulation.
Also you're right with software update, its possible to push further the
concept while using the power of
today's dsp etc...
I guess a 24/32 tracks would be fantastic, and on the other hand the
possibility to switch from a FIIX to a III in terms of the sound i mean
would be really cool.
Are you really working on this ? If its possible to get involved in this
project i would be glad to help.
Best

Laurent Ash
--


Le 5 nov. 08 à 20:32, Peter Vogel a écrit :


Hi Laurent,

Yes, I would think the CC-1 could do a huge number of tracks. How many would
you like?

It would use exactly the same variable frequency technology as the CMI.

The sound would be identical, except there would be an option to turn off
the "special" sound if you want, so you just get clean samples.

And of course the CMI emulation would be just one task running on the PC so
you can still run your other favourite toys in a different window.

Peter 

________________________________

From: Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurent LEMAIRE
Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 5:29 AM
To: Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?




Hello Peter,

I think your project is very interesting. Does this mean that the
CC1 
would be
able to emulate the variable frequency technology used in the CMI ? 
And play
many voices in parallel ?

Regards.

Laurent.








<winmail.dat>

I don't think Fairlight has a Mac version on the radar at the moment.  But
I'll ask.
 
What do you think of  a completely self-contained device, that is, a small
PC with the CC-1 installed, optionally built into a keyboard. Just some
audio/digital/network I/Os and a VGA and QWERTY connector on the back?


  _____  

From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:31 PM
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?





Hello Peter!

The possibility of finally owning a Fairlight, even as a software version,
is an exciting prospect indeed. I've been a fan of the Fairlight and its
sounds for years (I just turned 39 a few days ago) and the question I pose
to you is this: would there ever be a version for the Macintosh platform? I
guess it would depend on Fairlight producing a CC card for it, yeah?

Thank you for reading. :-)
-Dave


  _____  

From: Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net>
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 4:20:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?



To answer Tristan's questions:

> Do you mean to say you would replicate the CMI digital logic in the
FPGA but that the analogue 
> parts would be emulated using DSP? Or would there be an extra board
with the analogue filters etc 
> on it? What about the CMI light pen, would that be emulated in some
way on the PC?

There would be no analogue parts, it would all be emulated in the FPGA.

> What is be the intended market life of the CMI IV? Although the
existing CMI models have been 
> kept working many decades after being discontinued, what will happen
when the CC-1 card is 
> discontinued and PC hardware and Windows software versions change?
Will the CMI IV continue to 
> be updated and supported?

That is of course a concern of any hardware sort software product. The
intention would be to continually update the software. The hardware has
vastly more capacity than is required for the series II emulation, so there
will be room for expansion. 

> Would you be looking to extend and improve on the CMI design? Could
we expect larger memory 
> sizes and other added processing/synthesi s features in addition to
the authentic CMI sound, UI and 
> mojo?

Yes, certainly. If you look at what the CC-1 card does today, you will see
that there is horsepower to burn. From Fairlight website:

What can be achieved with just ONE CC-1 card

* Capable of sampling frequencies up to 384Khz
* Able to manipulate audio at 72bit floating point
* Processes up to 230 hi res audio channels at 48Khz
* Delivers 8 fully parametric bands of EQ on EVERY channel
* Delivers 3 Stages of Dynamics on EVERY channel
* Delivers 72 user definable mix busses from Mono to 7.1
* Provides a 64 channel audio bridge for 3rd party PlugIns
* Supports up to 220 physical I/Os per CC-1 card, Analogue, Digital or MADI

So the Series IV could be much more capable than the Series III, and
potentially run an excellent mixer and hard disk recorder at the same time.
The issue of course is development cost, which is why I'm considering an
entry point that will provide the revenue for further development.

Best regards,

Peter

/Tristan

Quoting peter.vogel@ vogelfamily.  <mailto:peter.vogel%40vogelfamily.net>
net
<mailto:peter. vogel%40vogelfam ily.net> :

> 
> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating
the
> CMI
> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited
success
> because
> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware
> used in
> the original design.
> 
> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest
> challenge was
> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent
aspects
> of the
> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make
the
> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what
> makes a
> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
> 
> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my
> imagination
> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that
could
> be
> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA
> (Field
> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware,
the
> essence
> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital
hardware
> form. 
> 
> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download
> the
> brochure here:
>
http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
r> Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochur
<http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
> Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochu
r> 
> e%20for%20WEB% 20VIEW.pdf
> 
> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the
original
> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs,
> sample
> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
> 
> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a
> faithful
> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
> 
> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or
III,
> but run
> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would
come
> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency
> introduced by
> the PC.
> 
> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the
level
> of
> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in
> R&D will
> be worthwhile.
> 
> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold
> for
> approximately $US5,000.00.
> 
> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a
> Fairlight CMI
> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the
buyers

> be and
> how would I tap into them?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Peter Vogel
> 
>

Hello Peter,


although I am not a Fairlight but a Synclavier user, I follow this forum due to my 
appreceation of the original CMI's sound, concept and design.

In my humble opinion your exiting proposal to create a CMI-IV unsing today's technology 
could hit a market-gap, if it was executed with the same strong conceptual foundation as 
the original CMIs.

At the moment there is no High-End Computer Musical Instrument available, that would 
enable the creative musician to work intuively by integrating deep performance, recording 
and sound design capabilities in one coherent instrument.
Wich is what the Fairlight CMI and the NED Synclavier achieved in their day.

Looking at what is available today:

1. A system freely combining a standard PC/MAC, any software, a controller keyboard and 
external AD/DA:
A standard System like this does not give you the best possible sound quality, it is 
unstable, and due to its lack of integration it is not verry intuitive.
The user interface arguably hinders the creative process.

2. A workstation keyboard like the Korg Oasis:
A pretty well integrated Instrument, but technically and software-wise it does not 
represent the state of the art. In terms of sound qualitiy it can't even compete with a 20 
years old CMI-3 or a Synclavier.

3. DSP based Workstations like Kyma:
Great sound design tool, but not necessarily an intuitive musical instrument.


Now if you compare the pricetags of the aforementioned, I am pretty sure, customers 
(including myself) would be willing to pay more than the proposed $US5,000.00 if the 
CMI-4 came with its own specialized keyboard controller/user interface, that would match 
the CC-1's audio processing capabilities in terms of Quality and Design.


Best regards,
Fabian

 



--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, <peter.vogel@...> wrote:

>
> 
> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating the CMI
> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited success because
> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware used in
> the original design.
> 
> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest challenge was
> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent aspects of the
> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make the
> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what makes a
> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
> 
> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my imagination
> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that could be
> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA (Field
> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware, the essence
> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital hardware form. 
> 
> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download the
> brochure here:
> http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
> e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 
> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the original
> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs, sample
> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
> 
> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a faithful
> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
> 
> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or III, but run
> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would come
> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency introduced by
> the PC.
> 
> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the level of
> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in R&D will
> be worthwhile.
> 
> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold for
> approximately $US5,000.00.
> 
> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a Fairlight CMI
> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the buyers be and
> how would I tap into them?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Peter Vogel
>

----- Original Message -----

Hi Colin,

The Crystal Core in not a sound card - it's a parallel procesing engine
that's maybe 100 times more efficient at processing audio than a
Pentium-style processor.

To understand the finer points, this is worth reading:
http://www.fairlightau.com/Downloads/Public/Crystal%20Core%20Technology%20Wh
ite%20Paper%20October%202006.pdf

You will see that implementing a synth and mixer on the CC-1 can achieve
performance far beyond what can be done on a PC's processor, or even a GPU.

I agree it's more expensive than a soft synth, but the performace is not
comparable. The CC-1 can give high-end results at a modest cost.

Best regards,

Peter

(BTW I can't speak for Fairlight but I would think you'll run into trademark
issue if you call your device Fairlite!)

 
________________________________

	From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Colin Ross
	Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 11:47 PM
	To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
	Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
	
	

		Hi Peter I must say it great and a honour having you on the
forum so thanks being a member and thanks for all your input.
	Is there any other sound card that could be used. $5000 sound alot
in todays market for a sound card. There so many cards out there and alot
alot cheaper. Would it not be better going down the virtual route. Software
based. I'm working on a system around the Series III but computer based.
White 19 inch rack computer case, 2.4 Duel Core processor built in. 500GB
hard drive, 4 GB Ram. 19 inch midi 192 sound card 16 ins 16 outs, to a white
master keyboard with alot of controllers on it. At the moment i'm looking
for a 17 - 19 inch touch screen. All i need is help with the software which
i want to base around the series III with aload of modern features and you
have a Series IV for about £1500-£1700. Tell me what you think. I know i
cant use Fairlight but was thinking of calling it Fairlite Series IV or just
Series IV
	Colin Ross
	Moderator
	
	--- On Thu, 6/11/08, Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net>
wrote:
	

		From: Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net>
		Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
		To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
		Date: Thursday, 6 November, 2008, 12:21 PM
		
		

		At this stage it's just an idea, although I'm confident it
can be done very
		well using the CC-1. The question is how many people would
pay say $5,000
		for this, when you can buy other soft synths much cheaper. I
would need to
		be confident that there is a signifcant market to justify
the investment in
		developing it. 
		
		What do you think it is about the CMI that makes it so
special, and does
		that still apply today? 
		
		_____ 
		
		From: Fairlight-CMI@ yahoogroups. com
<mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com>  [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@
yahoogroups. com <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> ]
		On Behalf Of Laurent/LIFELIKE
		Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 7:59 AM
		To: Fairlight-CMI@ yahoogroups. com
<mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> 
		Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
		
		Hi Peter 
		
		As a professional composer in electronic music i can tell
you that there
		would be a lot of people interested in that kind of
emulation.
		Also you're right with software update, its possible to push
further the
		concept while using the power of
		today's dsp etc...
		I guess a 24/32 tracks would be fantastic, and on the other
hand the
		possibility to switch from a FIIX to a III in terms of the
sound i mean
		would be really cool.
		Are you really working on this ? If its possible to get
involved in this
		project i would be glad to help.
		Best
		
		Laurent Ash
		--
		
		Le 5 nov. 08 à 20:32, Peter Vogel a écrit :
		
		Hi Laurent,
		
		Yes, I would think the CC-1 could do a huge number of
tracks. How many would
		you like?
		
		It would use exactly the same variable frequency technology
as the CMI.
		
		The sound would be identical, except there would be an
option to turn off
		the "special" sound if you want, so you just get clean
samples.
		
		And of course the CMI emulation would be just one task
running on the PC so
		you can still run your other favourite toys in a different
window.
		
		Peter 
		
		____________ _________ _________ __
		
		From: Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight- CMI%40yahoogroup
s.com>
		yahoogroups. com
		[mailto:Fairlight- CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight- CMI%40yahoogroup
s.com>
		yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Laurent LEMAIRE
		Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 5:29 AM
		To: Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight- CMI%40yahoogroup
s.com> yahoogroups. com
		Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
		
		Hello Peter,
		
		I think your project is very interesting. Does this mean
that the
		CC1 
		would be
		able to emulate the variable frequency technology used in
the CMI ? 
		And play
		many voices in parallel ?
		
		Regards.
		
		Laurent.
		
		<winmail.dat>

Hi Peter, 

My vote would be on a more self contained version as mentioned below. I can see there being all sorts of problems with motherboard compatibility problems and so on, let alone when we next have another update from microsoft or a new round of processors/hardware etc. If its kept as a Fairlight supplied PC or computer, I would hope it would solve 99% of those problems from the start or certainly to minimise them.  

The sound of the fairlight, especially the SIII has always had a depth and richness well beyond any other keyboard or sampler I've ever played or owned (and thats a heck of a lot of them), $5K to get the playback performance the card could offer not only as with the SII/SIII sound but as a whole multitrack studio with the option of having 'that' sound would make it very appealing to me and many others, sure, its not a budget machine but neither is a Protools HD setup with similar capabilities, especially if you add better quality AD/DA converters into the cost. 

I'd also like to see the option of having the user interface closer to the originals rather than the 12million different colours, full frame rendered animation and special sound effects that plagues so much software these days. 

If it could be done for the money, I'd have no hesitation (but I may need to save up for a while).

Best regards, Martin 






--- On Thu, 6/11/08, Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net> wrote:
From: Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net>
Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 6 November, 2008, 12:25 PM










    
            I don't think Fairlight has a Mac version on the radar at the moment.  But

I'll ask.

 

What do you think of  a completely self-contained device, that is, a small

PC with the CC-1 installed, optionally built into a keyboard. Just some

audio/digital/ network I/Os and a VGA and QWERTY connector on the back?



_____  



From: Fairlight-CMI@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@ yahoogroups. com]

On Behalf Of Dave

Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:31 PM

To: Fairlight-CMI@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?



Hello Peter!



The possibility of finally owning a Fairlight, even as a software version,

is an exciting prospect indeed. I've been a fan of the Fairlight and its

sounds for years (I just turned 39 a few days ago) and the question I pose

to you is this: would there ever be a version for the Macintosh platform? I

guess it would depend on Fairlight producing a CC card for it, yeah?



Thank you for reading. :-)

-Dave



_____  



From: Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@ vogelfamily. net>

To: Fairlight-CMI@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 4:20:37 PM

Subject: RE: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?



To answer Tristan's questions:



> Do you mean to say you would replicate the CMI digital logic in the

FPGA but that the analogue 

> parts would be emulated using DSP? Or would there be an extra board

with the analogue filters etc 

> on it? What about the CMI light pen, would that be emulated in some

way on the PC?



There would be no analogue parts, it would all be emulated in the FPGA.



> What is be the intended market life of the CMI IV? Although the

existing CMI models have been 

> kept working many decades after being discontinued, what will happen

when the CC-1 card is 

> discontinued and PC hardware and Windows software versions change?

Will the CMI IV continue to 

> be updated and supported?



That is of course a concern of any hardware sort software product. The

intention would be to continually update the software. The hardware has

vastly more capacity than is required for the series II emulation, so there

will be room for expansion. 



> Would you be looking to extend and improve on the CMI design? Could

we expect larger memory 

> sizes and other added processing/synthesi s features in addition to

the authentic CMI sound, UI and 

> mojo?



Yes, certainly. If you look at what the CC-1 card does today, you will see

that there is horsepower to burn. From Fairlight website:



What can be achieved with just ONE CC-1 card



* Capable of sampling frequencies up to 384Khz

* Able to manipulate audio at 72bit floating point

* Processes up to 230 hi res audio channels at 48Khz

* Delivers 8 fully parametric bands of EQ on EVERY channel

* Delivers 3 Stages of Dynamics on EVERY channel

* Delivers 72 user definable mix busses from Mono to 7.1

* Provides a 64 channel audio bridge for 3rd party PlugIns

* Supports up to 220 physical I/Os per CC-1 card, Analogue, Digital or MADI



So the Series IV could be much more capable than the Series III, and

potentially run an excellent mixer and hard disk recorder at the same time.

The issue of course is development cost, which is why I'm considering an

entry point that will provide the revenue for further development.



Best regards,



Peter



/Tristan



Quoting peter.vogel@ vogelfamily.  <mailto:peter. vogel%40vogelfam ily.net>

net

<mailto:peter. vogel%40vogelfam ily.net> :



> 

> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating

the

> CMI

> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited

success

> because

> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware

> used in

> the original design.

> 

> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest

> challenge was

> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent

aspects

> of the

> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make

the

> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what

> makes a

> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.

> 

> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my

> imagination

> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that

could

> be

> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA

> (Field

> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware,

the

> essence

> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital

hardware

> form. 

> 

> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download

> the

> brochure here:

>

http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/

<http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/ Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochu

r> Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochur

<http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/

<http://www.fairligh tau.com/download s/public/ Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochu

> Fairlight% 20NEW%20CC- 1%20Brochu

r> 

> e%20for%20WEB% 20VIEW.pdf

> 

> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the

original

> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs,

> sample

> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.

> 

> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a

> faithful

> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?

> 

> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or

III,

> but run

> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would

come

> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency

> introduced by

> the PC.

> 

> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the

level

> of

> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in

> R&D will

> be worthwhile.

> 

> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold

> for

> approximately $US5,000.00.

> 

> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a

> Fairlight CMI

> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the

buyers

> be and

> how would I tap into them?

> 

> What do you think?

> 

> Peter Vogel

> 

>

> Hi Peter,
>
> My vote would be on a more self contained version[...]
> I'd also like to see the option of having the user interface closer to the
> originals rather than the 12million different colours

Second- will gladly wait fos Series IV (Instead of Series III) if it's
gonna be a standalone worrkstation with simplistic CMI legacy.

I would like to chime in with Fabian on this. 
Im using a combo of Kyma and Synclavier as my main
Synthesis tools. 
There simply is no high end system like a CMI-IV
available today.

I would be more than happy to pay $5k for a dedicated
high end system like CMI IV. 

Now, how would you solve something like individual
clock speed per voice card? 

Cheers!
Tobias

--- d_40q <retinalburn@ngi.de> wrote:

> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> 
> although I am not a Fairlight but a Synclavier user,
> I follow this forum due to my 
> appreceation of the original CMI's sound, concept
> and design.
> 
> In my humble opinion your exiting proposal to create
> a CMI-IV unsing today's technology 
> could hit a market-gap, if it was executed with the
> same strong conceptual foundation as 
> the original CMIs.
> 
> At the moment there is no High-End Computer Musical
> Instrument available, that would 
> enable the creative musician to work intuively by
> integrating deep performance, recording 
> and sound design capabilities in one coherent
> instrument.
> Wich is what the Fairlight CMI and the NED
> Synclavier achieved in their day.
> 
> Looking at what is available today:
> 
> 1. A system freely combining a standard PC/MAC, any
> software, a controller keyboard and 
> external AD/DA:
> A standard System like this does not give you the
> best possible sound quality, it is 
> unstable, and due to its lack of integration it is
> not verry intuitive.
> The user interface arguably hinders the creative
> process.
> 
> 2. A workstation keyboard like the Korg Oasis:
> A pretty well integrated Instrument, but technically
> and software-wise it does not 
> represent the state of the art. In terms of sound
> qualitiy it can't even compete with a 20 
> years old CMI-3 or a Synclavier.
> 
> 3. DSP based Workstations like Kyma:
> Great sound design tool, but not necessarily an
> intuitive musical instrument.
> 
> 
> Now if you compare the pricetags of the
> aforementioned, I am pretty sure, customers 
> (including myself) would be willing to pay more than
> the proposed $US5,000.00 if the 
> CMI-4 came with its own specialized keyboard
> controller/user interface, that would match 
> the CC-1's audio processing capabilities in terms of
> Quality and Design.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Fabian
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com,
> <peter.vogel@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > There have been discussions from time to time
> about replicating the CMI
> > using a software emulation. These efforts will
> have limited success because
> > the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities
> of the hardware used in
> > the original design.
> > 
> > In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware,
> my greatest challenge was
> > to minimise the distortions and artifacts that
> were inherent aspects of the
> > hardware available at that time. In effect, we
> struggled to make the
> > Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate
> details of what makes a
> > Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly
> etched in my brain.
> > 
> > When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine
> last year, my imagination
> > ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous
> capabilities that could be
> > configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI
> hardware in its FPGA (Field
> > Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's
> CMI hardware, the essence
> > of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in
> digital hardware form. 
> > 
> > To fully appreciate the astounding potential of
> the CC-1, download the
> > brochure here:
> >
>
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur

> > e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> > 
> > I also recently discovered that ALL the IP
> relating to the original
> > Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and
> filter designs, sample
> > libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au
> in Sydney.
> > 
> > So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile
> to develop a faithful
> > reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware"
> of the CC-1?
> > 
> > This would perform identically to the original CMI
> series II or III, but run
> > on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The
> MIDI input would come
> > directly into the CC-1 so there would be no
> problem of latency introduced by
> > the PC.
> > 
> > At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to
> assess the level of
> > interest in this project and whether the
> significant investment in R&D will
> > be worthwhile.
> > 
> > The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and
> software) might be sold for
> > approximately $US5,000.00.
> > 
> > So my question is, what do you think of this idea?
> How would a Fairlight CMI
> > at this sort of price be received by the market?
> Who would the buyers be and
> > how would I tap into them?
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > Peter Vogel
> >
> 
>

Hi Tobias,

Could you explain what you mean by "individual clock speed per voice card?"

When you say "high end system", do you mean high performance (as in
excellent sound quality) or large capacity (number of tracks) or something
else?

What in particular would appeal to you about a CMI-V?

Thanks for your input,

Peter

________________________________

	From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tobias Enhus
	Sent: Friday, 7 November 2008 7:06 PM
	To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
	Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Fairlight CMI series IV?
	
	

	I would like to chime in with Fabian on this. 
	Im using a combo of Kyma and Synclavier as my main
	Synthesis tools. 
	There simply is no high end system like a CMI-IV
	available today.
	
	I would be more than happy to pay $5k for a dedicated
	high end system like CMI IV. 
	
	Now, how would you solve something like individual
	clock speed per voice card? 
	
	Cheers!
	Tobias
	
	--- d_40q <retinalburn@ngi.de <mailto:retinalburn%40ngi.de> > wrote:
	
	> 
	> Hello Peter,
	> 
	> 
	> although I am not a Fairlight but a Synclavier user,
	> I follow this forum due to my 
	> appreceation of the original CMI's sound, concept
	> and design.
	> 
	> In my humble opinion your exiting proposal to create
	> a CMI-IV unsing today's technology 
	> could hit a market-gap, if it was executed with the
	> same strong conceptual foundation as 
	> the original CMIs.
	> 
	> At the moment there is no High-End Computer Musical
	> Instrument available, that would 
	> enable the creative musician to work intuively by
	> integrating deep performance, recording 
	> and sound design capabilities in one coherent
	> instrument.
	> Wich is what the Fairlight CMI and the NED
	> Synclavier achieved in their day.
	> 
	> Looking at what is available today:
	> 
	> 1. A system freely combining a standard PC/MAC, any
	> software, a controller keyboard and 
	> external AD/DA:
	> A standard System like this does not give you the
	> best possible sound quality, it is 
	> unstable, and due to its lack of integration it is
	> not verry intuitive.
	> The user interface arguably hinders the creative
	> process.
	> 
	> 2. A workstation keyboard like the Korg Oasis:
	> A pretty well integrated Instrument, but technically
	> and software-wise it does not 
	> represent the state of the art. In terms of sound
	> qualitiy it can't even compete with a 20 
	> years old CMI-3 or a Synclavier.
	> 
	> 3. DSP based Workstations like Kyma:
	> Great sound design tool, but not necessarily an
	> intuitive musical instrument.
	> 
	> 
	> Now if you compare the pricetags of the
	> aforementioned, I am pretty sure, customers 
	> (including myself) would be willing to pay more than
	> the proposed $US5,000.00 if the 
	> CMI-4 came with its own specialized keyboard
	> controller/user interface, that would match 
	> the CC-1's audio processing capabilities in terms of
	> Quality and Design.
	> 
	> 
	> Best regards,
	> Fabian
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> ,
	> <peter.vogel@...> wrote:
	> >
	> > 
	> > There have been discussions from time to time
	> about replicating the CMI
	> > using a software emulation. These efforts will
	> have limited success because
	> > the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities
	> of the hardware used in
	> > the original design.
	> > 
	> > In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware,
	> my greatest challenge was
	> > to minimise the distortions and artifacts that
	> were inherent aspects of the
	> > hardware available at that time. In effect, we
	> struggled to make the
	> > Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate
	> details of what makes a
	> > Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly
	> etched in my brain.
	> > 
	> > When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine
	> last year, my imagination
	> > ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous
	> capabilities that could be
	> > configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI
	> hardware in its FPGA (Field
	> > Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's
	> CMI hardware, the essence
	> > of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in
	> digital hardware form. 
	> > 
	> > To fully appreciate the astounding potential of
	> the CC-1, download the
	> > brochure here:
	> >
	>
	
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
r> 

	> > e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
	> > 
	> > I also recently discovered that ALL the IP
	> relating to the original
	> > Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and
	> filter designs, sample
	> > libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au
	> in Sydney.
	> > 
	> > So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile
	> to develop a faithful
	> > reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware"
	> of the CC-1?
	> > 
	> > This would perform identically to the original CMI
	> series II or III, but run
	> > on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The
	> MIDI input would come
	> > directly into the CC-1 so there would be no
	> problem of latency introduced by
	> > the PC.
	> > 
	> > At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to
	> assess the level of
	> > interest in this project and whether the
	> significant investment in R&D will
	> > be worthwhile.
	> > 
	> > The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and
	> software) might be sold for
	> > approximately $US5,000.00.
	> > 
	> > So my question is, what do you think of this idea?
	> How would a Fairlight CMI
	> > at this sort of price be received by the market?
	> Who would the buyers be and
	> > how would I tap into them?
	> > 
	> > What do you think?
	> > 
	> > Peter Vogel
	> >
	> 
	>

Hi all,

I think the same Tobias way... Even if, I am Fairlight and Synclavier user, and 
other synthetizers.

For the professionals most important is the reliability of the machine and the 
return on investment !

And obviously as for all the price !

Me, I practise the music in leisure, is not my work !

Therefore, I am not in this commercial logic !

I seek machines which bring a reality more in spite of the constraints of 
reliability and support of maintenance, which is inenvisageable by a professional !

Is for that I use Fairlight CMI IIx, some Synclavier and also that I' still use 
of NeXT Cube IRCAM with 10 DSP (http://jbemond.free.fr/?cat=20) !

Therefore, one CMI IV is interesting, but what obstructs me is the fact that 
needs a dedicated PC for this application…

And that for the CC-1 turns only under Windows (is badly because not fiable in 
the time).

It is certain that when Fairlight left this small jewels, they had once more 
advances compared to competition and mainly Digidesign which do not like the CC-1 !

Elsewhere, Digidesign systematically remove all the messages which spoke about 
it on their forum ;) amusing not:)

For me, I like have some new functions in the CMI IV :

Like : Tempo and sample tools, bpm and tempo calculators to help us to deal with 
samples, time-stretch, pitch-shifting, calculator and tools for know : tempo, 
delays, sampling, rates, sample lengths, notes, sampling, frequencies, hertz, 
beats, measures, drum loops, transposing.

I am always interested by what is done of nine ;)

I like to grope to feel the machine !

Best regards,

JB

Hi Peter,

I'm an avid Series IIx user. 

To place my remarks in context: my main samplers are the Emulator III, Series IIx and NI 
Kontakt 3. I don't make music for a living.

Given the fact that the CC1 is the main component I see two possible ways of realizing a 
Series IV.

1. As a stand alone unit that continues the concept behind the previous series. An all in 
one sampling workstation hardware solution.

2. As a software application + CC1 card solution. The user supplies his own PC and 
controller.

If you'd choose for concept 1 then the strengths of a new Fairlight for me would be:
- Intuitive hardware interface with no mouse or light pen. Lots of dedicated knobs and 
controllers, and perhaps a multi touch touch screen
- Pristine sound quality and the possibility of emulating the IIx and III sound
- Including the IIx and III libraries
- Emulation modes of the IIx and III on-screen user interface
- Its main focus should be sampling, sample editing and sound processing (think: Kyma, 
Neuron, Technos Acxel)
- Compatible with most common sample library formats

Personaly I'd go for concept 2 and start a partnership with Native Instruments where an 
altered version of Kontak would be the front end application controlling the CC1. As an 
extra I'd add a sampling option since Kontakt is only a sample playback application. I'd 
also add the option to emulate the Series IIx and III sound qualities. And of course include 
the IIx and III libraries. 

For me, Kontakt 3 has the best interface and feature set on the market. But not the best 
sound.

Concept 1 would get my $5000. Concept 2 OTOH should be in the $2500 - $3000 price 
range.

David
http://dvdborn.blogspot.com

Hey!
For me, sound quality, speed and reliability is the
most important. Sound with depth and organic
character. More so than track count and flashy
graphics.

The Synclavier sampler changes its sample pitch by
changing the clock speed of the card that the sample
is loaded onto. Polyphony depends on how many cards
are in the system. The output from all cards are
summed up in the analog bus. 
This makes for a very pleasant rich sound, quite like
an array of tape machines with vari speed. 

The inherit problem with a computerbased system is the
steady master clock. If you want to change the pitch
of the sample, you have to do a a software realtime
varispeed conversion with up/down sample on the output
to match the master clock. This introduces unwanted
coloration and aliasing. 

Cheers!
Tobias 


--- Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net> wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by "individual clock
> speed per voice card?"
> 
> When you say "high end system", do you mean high
> performance (as in
> excellent sound quality) or large capacity (number
> of tracks) or something
> else?
> 
> What in particular would appeal to you about a
> CMI-V?
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> 
> Peter
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Tobias Enhus
> 	Sent: Friday, 7 November 2008 7:06 PM
> 	To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> 	Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Fairlight CMI
> series IV?
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	I would like to chime in with Fabian on this. 
> 	Im using a combo of Kyma and Synclavier as my main
> 	Synthesis tools. 
> 	There simply is no high end system like a CMI-IV
> 	available today.
> 	
> 	I would be more than happy to pay $5k for a
> dedicated
> 	high end system like CMI IV. 
> 	
> 	Now, how would you solve something like individual
> 	clock speed per voice card? 
> 	
> 	Cheers!
> 	Tobias
> 	
> 	--- d_40q <retinalburn@ngi.de
> <mailto:retinalburn%40ngi.de> > wrote:
> 	
> 	> 
> 	> Hello Peter,
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> although I am not a Fairlight but a Synclavier
> user,
> 	> I follow this forum due to my 
> 	> appreceation of the original CMI's sound, concept
> 	> and design.
> 	> 
> 	> In my humble opinion your exiting proposal to
> create
> 	> a CMI-IV unsing today's technology 
> 	> could hit a market-gap, if it was executed with
> the
> 	> same strong conceptual foundation as 
> 	> the original CMIs.
> 	> 
> 	> At the moment there is no High-End Computer
> Musical
> 	> Instrument available, that would 
> 	> enable the creative musician to work intuively by
> 	> integrating deep performance, recording 
> 	> and sound design capabilities in one coherent
> 	> instrument.
> 	> Wich is what the Fairlight CMI and the NED
> 	> Synclavier achieved in their day.
> 	> 
> 	> Looking at what is available today:
> 	> 
> 	> 1. A system freely combining a standard PC/MAC,
> any
> 	> software, a controller keyboard and 
> 	> external AD/DA:
> 	> A standard System like this does not give you the
> 	> best possible sound quality, it is 
> 	> unstable, and due to its lack of integration it
> is
> 	> not verry intuitive.
> 	> The user interface arguably hinders the creative
> 	> process.
> 	> 
> 	> 2. A workstation keyboard like the Korg Oasis:
> 	> A pretty well integrated Instrument, but
> technically
> 	> and software-wise it does not 
> 	> represent the state of the art. In terms of sound
> 	> qualitiy it can't even compete with a 20 
> 	> years old CMI-3 or a Synclavier.
> 	> 
> 	> 3. DSP based Workstations like Kyma:
> 	> Great sound design tool, but not necessarily an
> 	> intuitive musical instrument.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Now if you compare the pricetags of the
> 	> aforementioned, I am pretty sure, customers 
> 	> (including myself) would be willing to pay more
> than
> 	> the proposed $US5,000.00 if the 
> 	> CMI-4 came with its own specialized keyboard
> 	> controller/user interface, that would match 
> 	> the CC-1's audio processing capabilities in terms
> of
> 	> Quality and Design.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Best regards,
> 	> Fabian
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> 	> <peter.vogel@...> wrote:
> 	> >
> 	> > 
> 	> > There have been discussions from time to time
> 	> about replicating the CMI
> 	> > using a software emulation. These efforts will
> 	> have limited success because
> 	> > the "Fairlight sound" relies on the
> peculiarities
> 	> of the hardware used in
> 	> > the original design.
> 	> > 
> 	> > In the days when I was the designing CMI
> hardware,
> 	> my greatest challenge was
> 	> > to minimise the distortions and artifacts that
> 	> were inherent aspects of the
> 	> > hardware available at that time. In effect, we
> 	> struggled to make the
> 	> > Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the
> intimate
> 	> details of what makes a
> 	> > Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly
> 	> etched in my brain.
> 	> > 
> 	> > When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core
> Engine
> 	> last year, my imagination
> 	> > ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous
> 	> capabilities that could be
> 	> > configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI
> 	> hardware in its FPGA (Field
> 	> > Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the
> 1980's
> 	> CMI hardware, the essence
> 	> > of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully
> in
> 	> digital hardware form. 
> 	> > 
> 	> > To fully appreciate the astounding potential of
> 	> the CC-1, download the
> 	> > brochure here:
> 	> >
> 	>
> 	
>
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
>
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
> r> 
> 	> > e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 	> > 
> 	> > I also recently discovered that ALL the IP
> 	> relating to the original
> 	> > Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and
> 	> filter designs, sample
> 	> > libraries etc are still retained by
> Fairlight.au
> 	> in Sydney.
> 	> > 
> 	> > So I have been wondering if it would be
> worthwhile
> 	> to develop a faithful
> 	> > reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual
> Hardware"
> 	> of the CC-1?
> 	> > 
> 	> > This would perform identically to the original
> CMI
> 	> series II or III, but run
> 	> > on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The
> 	> MIDI input would come
> 	> > directly into the CC-1 so there would be no
> 	> problem of latency introduced by
> 	> > the PC.
> 	> > 
> 	> > At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market
> to
> 
=== message truncated ===

Peter,
The appeal to me in a system like say a CMI-IV, are
not the qualities of an experimental platform like a
Kyma system (as someone suggested).
The appeal to me is much more basic. I rather want a
simple, the audio sampler version of a really really
good sushi chefs knife. Not a swizz army knife. The
best Sushi knife there is if possible. Not totally
unlike the original CMI III software/ hardware design,
but with a few well chosen modern upgrades.

- My main interest in the CMI system is as a sampler
and music instrument.
It's a digital instrument with a strong analog feel.
It is the sound u get when you pitch something down 2
octaves that rings well with me. The very organic
quality of the sound. 
One major thing that both the Synclavier and the CMI
III lack, are filters. This would be a very nice new
feature for the next gen CMI. 

- It would absolutely be great to get a few disk
recording tracks. But I don't think competing with
current recording systems like Pro Tools, is the idea
here. Rather go for quality and simplicity. 8 tracks.
16 tracks or perhaps even 24. But no need for dub
stage size sessions here. Again, simplicity and
superior sound quality. Features like vari speed,
EQ/filters and dynamics would be very nice.

- User interface should be all about functionality. No
color unless color is needed and has a function etc.
Keep commands to actual buttons and stay away from too
much mouse movement. Speed and tactile interaction is
the key.

- If a custom chassi is better for ease, sound.,
consistency, sex appeal, then great! Custom chassi it
is! Don't hold back on a Rolls Royce. As long as it
doesn't become 'bling". No blue LEDs for no reason
etc. 

- Dedicated RAM based system, to ensure rock solid
stability. And why not loads of it. I could easily see
myself with a 30 gig RAM system, if possible.

Now, what is sound quality really? Why do I use Pro
Tools for certain things and Synclav for other? I
would perhaps describe it as organic personality. 
I use my synclav in very un orthodox ways (by general
digital audio standards). Ex I normalize a sound, then
continue to over gain it to get distortion from the
cards. Sounds amazing! Layer bunches of samples on
top, all with different playback speeds. Sounds huge!
Sample something in at super low level, then normalize
the file. Best noise ever! Basically I bend, kick and
torture those synclav soundcards backwards and
forwards, just because they give interesting results.
Unlike if you try to do the same in say Pro Tools (try
to clip a file in PT and see how good that sounds).

This is why I wonder about the basic hardware design
of a CMI-IV. I'm sure it is possible to port the
software, and perhaps mimic some aspects of the
original hardware. But, it is important to remember
that  this is more than just nostalgia.  If I want
nostalgia, then I would buy the original no matter
what. What I am interested in is to improve upon an
already successful design. Make something better. Not
just more convenient, but sonically better. 
If you look at the market right now, there simply
aren't any high end pro samplers out there. Sure you
have scores of sampler software, but nothing still
beats a well calibrated Synclavier or CMI III, even to
this day. Let's change that!

How would you mimic the hardware architecture of the
voice cards? All running in tandem, but at different
clock speeds depending on what note you press on the
keyboard? Just the virtue of having multiple cards,
has the same effect as stacking up multiple analog
mono synths, a very pleasant and rich sound.

The sound you get when slowing down a sound to less
than a quarter of its original speed. A very pleasant
sound on a tape machine or a Synclavier, but usually
not interesting nor good sounding on a software
sampler.
Do you think it's possible to solve this in software?
If you think it is, and if you think more DSP would
solve it, then don't hold back. This is the weakest
link of any software sampler for sure. I would
sacrifice a lot of extra features (read DSP) just to
get to the very best vari speed sound possible. If it
could even match that aspect of the original CMI III
or the Synclav, I would be absolutely thrilled! 

I don't know how it worked on the CMI III, but on the
Synclav you have analog VCA's that also brings a
certain analog quality. It also effectively made the
output of the sound always 16 bit "analog floating
point?", as the sound always retained full resolution
regardless of level. 
Now VCA's are much easier to simulate in software. 
Although easier to generate, they should not be
overlooked as they bring a very important part of the
sound. Perhaps analog modeling?


Cheers!
Tobias



--- Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net> wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by "individual clock
> speed per voice card?"
> 
> When you say "high end system", do you mean high
> performance (as in
> excellent sound quality) or large capacity (number
> of tracks) or something
> else?
> 
> What in particular would appeal to you about a
> CMI-V?
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> 
> Peter
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Tobias Enhus
> 	Sent: Friday, 7 November 2008 7:06 PM
> 	To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> 	Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Fairlight CMI
> series IV?
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	I would like to chime in with Fabian on this. 
> 	Im using a combo of Kyma and Synclavier as my main
> 	Synthesis tools. 
> 	There simply is no high end system like a CMI-IV
> 	available today.
> 	
> 	I would be more than happy to pay $5k for a
> dedicated
> 	high end system like CMI IV. 
> 	
> 	Now, how would you solve something like individual
> 	clock speed per voice card? 
> 	
> 	Cheers!
> 	Tobias
> 	
> 	--- d_40q <retinalburn@ngi.de
> <mailto:retinalburn%40ngi.de> > wrote:
> 	
> 	> 
> 	> Hello Peter,
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> although I am not a Fairlight but a Synclavier
> user,
> 	> I follow this forum due to my 
> 	> appreceation of the original CMI's sound, concept
> 	> and design.
> 	> 
> 	> In my humble opinion your exiting proposal to
> create
> 	> a CMI-IV unsing today's technology 
> 	> could hit a market-gap, if it was executed with
> the
> 	> same strong conceptual foundation as 
> 	> the original CMIs.
> 	> 
> 	> At the moment there is no High-End Computer
> Musical
> 	> Instrument available, that would 
> 	> enable the creative musician to work intuively by
> 	> integrating deep performance, recording 
> 	> and sound design capabilities in one coherent
> 	> instrument.
> 	> Wich is what the Fairlight CMI and the NED
> 	> Synclavier achieved in their day.
> 	> 
> 	> Looking at what is available today:
> 	> 
> 	> 1. A system freely combining a standard PC/MAC,
> any
> 	> software, a controller keyboard and 
> 	> external AD/DA:
> 	> A standard System like this does not give you the
> 	> best possible sound quality, it is 
> 	> unstable, and due to its lack of integration it
> is
> 	> not verry intuitive.
> 	> The user interface arguably hinders the creative
> 	> process.
> 	> 
> 	> 2. A workstation keyboard like the Korg Oasis:
> 	> A pretty well integrated Instrument, but
> technically
> 	> and software-wise it does not 
> 	> represent the state of the art. In terms of sound
> 	> qualitiy it can't even compete with a 20 
> 	> years old CMI-3 or a Synclavier.
> 	> 
> 	> 3. DSP based Workstations like Kyma:
> 	> Great sound design tool, but not necessarily an
> 	> intuitive musical instrument.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Now if you compare the pricetags of the
> 	> aforementioned, I am pretty sure, customers 
> 	> (including myself) would be willing to pay more
> than
> 	> the proposed $US5,000.00 if the 
> 	> CMI-4 came with its own specialized keyboard
> 	> controller/user interface, that would match 
> 	> the CC-1's audio processing capabilities in terms
> of
> 	> Quality and Design.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Best regards,
> 	> Fabian
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> 	> <peter.vogel@...> wrote:
> 	> >
> 	> > 
> 	> > There have been discussions from time to time
> 	> about replicating the CMI
> 	> > using a software emulation. These efforts will
> 	> have limited success because
> 	> > the "Fairlight sound" relies on the
> peculiarities
> 	> of the hardware used in
> 	> > the original design.
> 	> > 
> 	> > In the days when I was the designing CMI
> hardware,
> 	> my greatest challenge was
> 	> > to minimise the distortions and artifacts that
> 	> were inherent aspects of the
> 	> > hardware available at that time. In effect, we
> 	> struggled to make the
> 	> > Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the
> intimate
> 	> details of what makes a
> 	> > Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly
> 	> etched in my brain.
> 	> > 
> 	> > When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core
> Engine
> 	> last year, my imagination
> 	> > ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous
> 	> capabilities that could be
> 	> > configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI
> 	> hardware in its FPGA (Field
> 	> > Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the
> 1980's
> 	> CMI hardware, the essence
> 	> > of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully
> in
> 	> digital hardware form. 
> 	> > 
> 	> > To fully appreciate the astounding potential of
> 	> the CC-1, download the
> 	> > brochure here:
> 	> >
> 	>
> 	
>
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
>
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
> r> 
> 	> > e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 	> > 
> 	> > I also recently discovered that ALL the IP
> 	> relating to the original
> 	> > Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and
> 	> filter designs, sample
> 	> > libraries etc are still retained by
> Fairlight.au
> 	> in Sydney.
> 	> > 
> 	> > So I have been wondering if it would be
> worthwhile
> 	> to develop a faithful
> 	> > reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual
> Hardware"
> 	> of the CC-1?
> 	> > 
> 	> > This would perform identically to the original
> CMI
> 	> series II or III, but run
> 	> > on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The
> 	> MIDI input would come
> 	> > directly into the CC-1 so there would be no
> 	> problem of latency introduced by
> 	> > the PC.
> 	> > 
> 	> > At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market
> to
> 
=== message truncated ===

Peter,

I completely agree with Tobias on this topic.

It has much been talked about and I am sure you are well aware of the technical details 
+ allthough I run the risk of repeating what Tobias has already stated,
I feel, In order to make the point (to others involved in this discussion), I need to 
somewhat start from the beginning.
So here goes again:


Sound Quality...

The reason these old sampling workstations (Fairlight, Synclavier, and in partially PPG, E-
mu II, III (not IIIX) still sound so good clearly and audibly lies in their basic design.

They all use a dedicated DA-converter for each voice played back.
The signal from each DAC is then led through a VCA to impose volume envelopes or real-
time effects and summed with other voices in the analog domain.

In a system like this, a 16Bit signal stays 16bit, even if it is played back at very low 
volumes.
Surely the VCA would add some analog noise to the signal,
but it is essentially the same technology as used in big SSL or Neve desks
and people seem to live with the results from these pretty well.

As Tobias has allready stated, the digital readout rate of the samples on these old 
samplers is used to vary playback pitch much like on a vari-pitch analog tape. 
Again no basic digital degradation of the sound. 
Every single sample gets played back exactly as it was recorded, only in sped-up or 
slowed down succession. 
If you listen to a slowed down analog tape playback It sounds is amazing, smooth, 
organic, powerful. 
Compared to this ANY algorithmic pitch change sounds rediculous.

In a standard hardware sampler like a Akai S1000 (same goes for all existing Software 
samplers) the playback of a recorded sound is manipulated in the digital domain.

If you play a 3-voice chord,  the samples are merged in realtime (recalculated) and played 
back as one new sound file.
The same goes for any change of pitch or volume. 
These calculations impose audible errors onto the sounds. 
If you take into acount that these errors add up, then by the time you run a complete 
playback from your standard sampler in realtime, what you hear is only a vague 
aproximation of what was once recorded. 
And quite different from what you would hear if all these recordings were played back by 
lets say individualy pitchable high-quality analog reel-to-reel recorders.

The difference between these two technical approaches (the hardware- and the software-
aproach) to sampling are very very very audible indeed.


On a Synclavier I oftentimes find myself to prefer a short single sample to using a big 
multi sampled instrument.
This is because the sampler's transposition sounds so good. It is not so much a matter of 
realism but of musicality.
If you look at the excellent CMI II sound library, some of the best sounds consist of just 
two short samples, mapped across the whole keyboard.
These sounds have stood the test of time far better then version 15 of the 50Gig 32 
Samples per key Gigapianowhatever.


Don't get me wrong here, I am not tying to make a point for 150kb size samples in 
general.
I just try to describe what the essence of sound quality on an instrument like the CMI-IV 
sould be measured against.

It would be amazing to be able to combine the sound quality of the old high-end systems 
as described above, with today's huge multisamples. 
In my opinion the key to creating a classsic today would be:
Lots of memory and fast/easy access to huge sound librarys, played back with lots of 
voices in the best possible quality.
(User interface and form factor are a different topic)

If it is possible to achieve this using todays technoligies GREAT! 
I do not care if it is done by hardware or software, in the analog or digital domain...
...as long as it stands up against the yardstick sound, set by these old Fairlights and 
Synclaviers some 20years ago.

Oh, yes, allmost forgot: I wouldn't mind If the CMI-IV came to sound even better than the 
aforementioned... 
...and yeah, right Tobias: Some filters would be cool!


Best regards,
Fabian




--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Enhus <tobias@...> wrote:

>
> Peter,
> The appeal to me in a system like say a CMI-IV, are
> not the qualities of an experimental platform like a
> Kyma system (as someone suggested).
> The appeal to me is much more basic. I rather want a
> simple, the audio sampler version of a really really
> good sushi chefs knife. Not a swizz army knife. The
> best Sushi knife there is if possible. Not totally
> unlike the original CMI III software/ hardware design,
> but with a few well chosen modern upgrades.
> 
> - My main interest in the CMI system is as a sampler
> and music instrument.
> It's a digital instrument with a strong analog feel.
> It is the sound u get when you pitch something down 2
> octaves that rings well with me. The very organic
> quality of the sound. 
> One major thing that both the Synclavier and the CMI
> III lack, are filters. This would be a very nice new
> feature for the next gen CMI. 
> 
> - It would absolutely be great to get a few disk
> recording tracks. But I don't think competing with
> current recording systems like Pro Tools, is the idea
> here. Rather go for quality and simplicity. 8 tracks.
> 16 tracks or perhaps even 24. But no need for dub
> stage size sessions here. Again, simplicity and
> superior sound quality. Features like vari speed,
> EQ/filters and dynamics would be very nice.
> 
> - User interface should be all about functionality. No
> color unless color is needed and has a function etc.
> Keep commands to actual buttons and stay away from too
> much mouse movement. Speed and tactile interaction is
> the key.
> 
> - If a custom chassi is better for ease, sound.,
> consistency, sex appeal, then great! Custom chassi it
> is! Don't hold back on a Rolls Royce. As long as it
> doesn't become 'bling". No blue LEDs for no reason
> etc. 
> 
> - Dedicated RAM based system, to ensure rock solid
> stability. And why not loads of it. I could easily see
> myself with a 30 gig RAM system, if possible.
> 
> Now, what is sound quality really? Why do I use Pro
> Tools for certain things and Synclav for other? I
> would perhaps describe it as organic personality. 
> I use my synclav in very un orthodox ways (by general
> digital audio standards). Ex I normalize a sound, then
> continue to over gain it to get distortion from the
> cards. Sounds amazing! Layer bunches of samples on
> top, all with different playback speeds. Sounds huge!
> Sample something in at super low level, then normalize
> the file. Best noise ever! Basically I bend, kick and
> torture those synclav soundcards backwards and
> forwards, just because they give interesting results.
> Unlike if you try to do the same in say Pro Tools (try
> to clip a file in PT and see how good that sounds).
> 
> This is why I wonder about the basic hardware design
> of a CMI-IV. I'm sure it is possible to port the
> software, and perhaps mimic some aspects of the
> original hardware. But, it is important to remember
> that  this is more than just nostalgia.  If I want
> nostalgia, then I would buy the original no matter
> what. What I am interested in is to improve upon an
> already successful design. Make something better. Not
> just more convenient, but sonically better. 
> If you look at the market right now, there simply
> aren't any high end pro samplers out there. Sure you
> have scores of sampler software, but nothing still
> beats a well calibrated Synclavier or CMI III, even to
> this day. Let's change that!
> 
> How would you mimic the hardware architecture of the
> voice cards? All running in tandem, but at different
> clock speeds depending on what note you press on the
> keyboard? Just the virtue of having multiple cards,
> has the same effect as stacking up multiple analog
> mono synths, a very pleasant and rich sound.
> 
> The sound you get when slowing down a sound to less
> than a quarter of its original speed. A very pleasant
> sound on a tape machine or a Synclavier, but usually
> not interesting nor good sounding on a software
> sampler.
> Do you think it's possible to solve this in software?
> If you think it is, and if you think more DSP would
> solve it, then don't hold back. This is the weakest
> link of any software sampler for sure. I would
> sacrifice a lot of extra features (read DSP) just to
> get to the very best vari speed sound possible. If it
> could even match that aspect of the original CMI III
> or the Synclav, I would be absolutely thrilled! 
> 
> I don't know how it worked on the CMI III, but on the
> Synclav you have analog VCA's that also brings a
> certain analog quality. It also effectively made the
> output of the sound always 16 bit "analog floating
> point?", as the sound always retained full resolution
> regardless of level. 
> Now VCA's are much easier to simulate in software. 
> Although easier to generate, they should not be
> overlooked as they bring a very important part of the
> sound. Perhaps analog modeling?
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> Tobias
>

Hi Tobias & Fabian,
 
Many thanks for such thoughtful comments.

All the issues you raised can be addressed by the approach I am considering.
Vari-speed for sure. No loss of resolution from summing, sure. That's
because the Crystal Core is not a DSP, it is a bunch of gates that can be
configured to make whatever is needed for the task.

If you are interested in the technicalities, read this whitepaper:
http://www.fairlightau.com/Downloads/Public/Crystal%20Core%20Technology%20Wh
ite%20Paper%20October%202006.pdf

Here's one relevant part (the whole paper is worth a look). You will see why
this platform spaked my imagination.

4. Dynamic Resolution Optimization
The World's first combination fixed/floating point professional media
platform --
with variable precision.
There are two established signal processing paradigms that are used in
professional
digital media systems: fixed point and floating point. Whether they are
using fixed or
floating point, current systems also have a fixed precision from end to end.
For example,
they are either 32 bit fixed point OR 32 bit floating point. Each paradigm
has advantages
as discussed further below.
A unique feature in the design of the CC-1 architecture allows Fairlight to
implement both
paradigms in the Crystal Core.
Fairlight's revolutionary Dynamic Resolution Optimization (DRO) architecture
enables the
optimal precision needed for a specific task to be used within each of its
Nodes. This
uncompromising design means ultra-precise 72-bit fixed point can be used in
CC-1's EQ
Node, while optimal 36-bit floating point can be used in the Mixing node. In
areas where
extreme precision is not required, CC-1 adjusts the precision accordingly.
For example,
audio metering is more than adequately specified at 16-bit fixed point. DRO
is unique,
and is patented by Fairlight worldwide.
Dynamic Resolution Optimization (DRO) provides unsurpassed quality by
allowing the
best processing for the task at hand. This not only improves quality, but
exponentially
increases efficiency, providing greater performance at a lower cost.
Traditional systems must maintain the highest precision required from end to
end, using
either fixed point or floating point paradigms (not both). These aging and
inflexible
architectures are made to look like costly compromises, and dinosaurs with
inherent
disadvantages for some tasks.
DRO supports both sides of the resolution debate as referenced below by
delivering a
solution and without the need for any compromise.
"The double precision 48-bit processing is used when long time constants are
required.
This occurs when low frequency filters are on the job and when compressors,
expanders
and limiters are used with their relatively slow attack and release times.
If 24 bits are all
that are available when more precision is required, the results are a
problem. The
function misbehaves and the least damaging result is poor sound quality. The
worst
result is amplifier or loudspeaker damage due to a misbehaving DSP
crossover, making
double precision a must-have for superior audio."
( Greg Duckett and Terry Pennington of Rane Audio, "Superior Audio Requires
Floating
Point", published on the Rane Audio website
http://www.rane.com/note153.html)
Another example:
"The first observation is that digital filtering when we allow the user to
select high-Q, very
low-frequency filters is difficult at the best of times. Even 64-bit
floating point can produce
significant error energy if the best filter forms are not used. Even for
floating point, it is
important to use forms that have normalized state variables so that
imbalances in the
state values do not lead to further degradation of the precision of the
result. Clearly, the
performance of 32-bit floating point and 24-bit integer will be considerably
inferior to that
of 64-bit floating point, so we might conclude that it is not possible to
achieve high-quality
results for these extreme filter settings. Furthermore it is shown that
sweeping the
settings of a filter with time excites some aberrant behavior when the state
variables are
not normalized, even with 64-bit floating-point arithmetic. 48-bit integer
is proposed as a
compromise between economic realizability and ultimate precision. The
increased
headroom and guard bits allowed by the format provide enough precision to
allow some
extreme filter settings and still preserve a 24-bit result after several
stages of processing."
( Andy Moorer - pioneering digital audio engineer and currently head of
computer science
at Adobe. 48-BIT INTEGER PROCESSING BEATS 32-BIT FLOATING POINT FOR
PROFESSIONAL AUDIO APPLICATIONS, available at
http://www.jamminpower.com/PDF/48-bit%20Audio.htm)
DRO serves as yet another example of the disruptive nature of Crystal Core
technology.
DRO's dramatically improved performance, greater efficiency and lower cost
signals the
end of the legacy media processing era.



Peter

Hi all  - 
love the idea a of series IV with two provisos;
 1. that there be some backwards compatibility with my old series III, rev 5.4 so that i can 
transfer files and sequences.
2. that the card can work with Apple Hardware and OS since i am commited (like many) to 
using MACS to make music.

I'd be there with my $ delighted to extend my Fairlight use into the future.

Billyrock



--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Bernard EMOND <jbemond@...> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
> 
> I think the same Tobias way... Even if, I am Fairlight and Synclavier user, and 
> other synthetizers.
> 
> For the professionals most important is the reliability of the machine and the 
> return on investment !
> 
> And obviously as for all the price !
> 
> Me, I practise the music in leisure, is not my work !
> 
> Therefore, I am not in this commercial logic !
> 
> I seek machines which bring a reality more in spite of the constraints of 
> reliability and support of maintenance, which is inenvisageable by a professional !
> 
> Is for that I use Fairlight CMI IIx, some Synclavier and also that I' still use 
> of NeXT Cube IRCAM with 10 DSP (http://jbemond.free.fr/?cat=20) !
> 
> Therefore, one CMI IV is interesting, but what obstructs me is the fact that 
> needs a dedicated PC for this application

> 
> And that for the CC-1 turns only under Windows (is badly because not fiable in 
> the time).
> 
> It is certain that when Fairlight left this small jewels, they had once more 
> advances compared to competition and mainly Digidesign which do not like the CC-1 !
> 
> Elsewhere, Digidesign systematically remove all the messages which spoke about 
> it on their forum ;) amusing not:)
> 
> For me, I like have some new functions in the CMI IV :
> 
> Like : Tempo and sample tools, bpm and tempo calculators to help us to deal with 
> samples, time-stretch, pitch-shifting, calculator and tools for know : tempo, 
> delays, sampling, rates, sample lengths, notes, sampling, frequencies, hertz, 
> beats, measures, drum loops, transposing.
> 
> I am always interested by what is done of nine ;)
> 
> I like to grope to feel the machine !
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> JB
>

Peter,
I am very exited that you have a modern working
approach to solving the sound issue.
A modern solution is ultimately probably better for
many reasons. As long as the results are equal or
better than the original.

As most audio people, I'm also a Mac guy, but if it's
to the benefit of using the CC-1 card, and actually
getting what we all want sonically. then PC is no
problem for me at all. Sound comes first in the
priority list. 

Sign me up!

Tobias


--- billyrockplay <billyrockplay@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi all  - 
> love the idea a of series IV with two provisos;
>  1. that there be some backwards compatibility with
> my old series III, rev 5.4 so that i can 
> transfer files and sequences.
> 2. that the card can work with Apple Hardware and OS
> since i am commited (like many) to 
> using MACS to make music.
> 
> I'd be there with my $ delighted to extend my
> Fairlight use into the future.
> 
> Billyrock
> 
> 
> 
> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Jean-Bernard
> EMOND <jbemond@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I think the same Tobias way... Even if, I am
> Fairlight and Synclavier user, and 
> > other synthetizers.
> > 
> > For the professionals most important is the
> reliability of the machine and the 
> > return on investment !
> > 
> > And obviously as for all the price !
> > 
> > Me, I practise the music in leisure, is not my
> work !
> > 
> > Therefore, I am not in this commercial logic !
> > 
> > I seek machines which bring a reality more in
> spite of the constraints of 
> > reliability and support of maintenance, which is
> inenvisageable by a professional !
> > 
> > Is for that I use Fairlight CMI IIx, some
> Synclavier and also that I' still use 
> > of NeXT Cube IRCAM with 10 DSP
> (http://jbemond.free.fr/?cat=20) !
> > 
> > Therefore, one CMI IV is interesting, but what
> obstructs me is the fact that 
> > needs a dedicated PC for this application

> > 
> > And that for the CC-1 turns only under Windows (is
> badly because not fiable in 
> > the time).
> > 
> > It is certain that when Fairlight left this small
> jewels, they had once more 
> > advances compared to competition and mainly
> Digidesign which do not like the CC-1 !
> > 
> > Elsewhere, Digidesign systematically remove all
> the messages which spoke about 
> > it on their forum ;) amusing not:)
> > 
> > For me, I like have some new functions in the CMI
> IV :
> > 
> > Like : Tempo and sample tools, bpm and tempo
> calculators to help us to deal with 
> > samples, time-stretch, pitch-shifting, calculator
> and tools for know : tempo, 
> > delays, sampling, rates, sample lengths, notes,
> sampling, frequencies, hertz, 
> > beats, measures, drum loops, transposing.
> > 
> > I am always interested by what is done of nine ;)
> > 
> > I like to grope to feel the machine !
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > JB
> >
> 
> 
> 
>

Hi Peter,

Interesting to say at least.

However: as a IIx user, first thing that comes to my mind is lack of
good service and upgrades.

In 1979 I bought a brandnew Motorbike, limited edition even. And even
today ALL parts can be obtained.

How different is the story for my IIx, and all the other CMI systems,
which cost 20 times the amount I paid for the bike.

Look at the trouble it takes to even get a floppydrive replacement or
a HD.

From this point of view, I wonder what would happen if the card from
the IV system dies on me in the future????

My advice: Improve support.

Kind regards,

Peter Kersten.

You should be proud of what you created Peter. A CMI system is
something very special and it should not die a slowly death. Keep in
mind that many musicians get very attached to their instrument. It
sorta becomes part of them. Bob Moog understood this very well. Hope
you do so to.






--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, <peter.vogel@...> wrote:
>
> 
> There have been discussions from time to time about replicating the CMI
> using a software emulation. These efforts will have limited success
because
> the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities of the hardware
used in
> the original design.
> 
> In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware, my greatest
challenge was
> to minimise the distortions and artifacts that were inherent aspects
of the
> hardware available at that time. In effect, we struggled to make the
> Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate details of what
makes a
> Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly etched in my brain.
> 
> When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine last year, my
imagination
> ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous capabilities that could be
> configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI hardware in its FPGA (Field
> Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's CMI hardware, the
essence
> of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in digital hardware
form. 
> 
> To fully appreciate the astounding potential of the CC-1, download the
> brochure here:
>
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
> e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 
> I also recently discovered that ALL the IP relating to the original
> Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and filter designs, sample
> libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au in Sydney.
> 
> So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile to develop a faithful
> reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware" of the CC-1?
> 
> This would perform identically to the original CMI series II or III,
but run
> on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The MIDI input would come
> directly into the CC-1 so there would be no problem of latency
introduced by
> the PC.
> 
> At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to assess the level of
> interest in this project and whether the significant investment in
R&D will
> be worthwhile.
> 
> The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and software) might be sold for
> approximately $US5,000.00.
> 
> So my question is, what do you think of this idea? How would a
Fairlight CMI
> at this sort of price be received by the market? Who would the
buyers be and

> how would I tap into them?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Peter Vogel
>

Hi Peter,

I think you have a great product that will certainly fill a void in 
musical production right now.  I think the price to performance/ 
feature ratio is definitely on par with other companies, such as Open 
Labs, who are building computer based workstations.  If you haven't 
heard of them, check them out here: http://www.openlabs.com/

For a quick example of price:

Timbaland Special Edition NeKo $4,999

Hope that helps!

Lance
 

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Vogel" <peter.vogel@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Tobias & Fabian,
>  
> Many thanks for such thoughtful comments.
> 
> All the issues you raised can be addressed by the approach I am 
considering.
> Vari-speed for sure. No loss of resolution from summing, sure. 
That's
> because the Crystal Core is not a DSP, it is a bunch of gates that 
can be
> configured to make whatever is needed for the task.
> 
> If you are interested in the technicalities, read this whitepaper:
> http://www.fairlightau.com/Downloads/Public/Crystal%20Core%
20Technology%20Wh
> ite%20Paper%20October%202006.pdf
> 
> Here's one relevant part (the whole paper is worth a look). You 
will see why
> this platform spaked my imagination.
> 
> 4. Dynamic Resolution Optimization
> The World's first combination fixed/floating point professional 
media
> platform --
> with variable precision.
> There are two established signal processing paradigms that are used 
in
> professional
> digital media systems: fixed point and floating point. Whether they 
are
> using fixed or
> floating point, current systems also have a fixed precision from 
end to end.
> For example,
> they are either 32 bit fixed point OR 32 bit floating point. Each 
paradigm
> has advantages
> as discussed further below.
> A unique feature in the design of the CC-1 architecture allows 
Fairlight to
> implement both
> paradigms in the Crystal Core.
> Fairlight's revolutionary Dynamic Resolution Optimization (DRO) 
architecture
> enables the
> optimal precision needed for a specific task to be used within each 
of its
> Nodes. This
> uncompromising design means ultra-precise 72-bit fixed point can be 
used in
> CC-1's EQ
> Node, while optimal 36-bit floating point can be used in the Mixing 
node. In
> areas where
> extreme precision is not required, CC-1 adjusts the precision 
accordingly.
> For example,
> audio metering is more than adequately specified at 16-bit fixed 
point. DRO
> is unique,
> and is patented by Fairlight worldwide.
> Dynamic Resolution Optimization (DRO) provides unsurpassed quality 
by
> allowing the
> best processing for the task at hand. This not only improves 
quality, but
> exponentially
> increases efficiency, providing greater performance at a lower cost.
> Traditional systems must maintain the highest precision required 
from end to
> end, using
> either fixed point or floating point paradigms (not both). These 
aging and
> inflexible
> architectures are made to look like costly compromises, and 
dinosaurs with
> inherent
> disadvantages for some tasks.
> DRO supports both sides of the resolution debate as referenced 
below by
> delivering a
> solution and without the need for any compromise.
> "The double precision 48-bit processing is used when long time 
constants are
> required.
> This occurs when low frequency filters are on the job and when 
compressors,
> expanders
> and limiters are used with their relatively slow attack and release 
times.
> If 24 bits are all
> that are available when more precision is required, the results are 
a
> problem. The
> function misbehaves and the least damaging result is poor sound 
quality. The
> worst
> result is amplifier or loudspeaker damage due to a misbehaving DSP
> crossover, making
> double precision a must-have for superior audio."
> ( Greg Duckett and Terry Pennington of Rane Audio, "Superior Audio 
Requires
> Floating
> Point", published on the Rane Audio website
> http://www.rane.com/note153.html)
> Another example:
> "The first observation is that digital filtering when we allow the 
user to
> select high-Q, very
> low-frequency filters is difficult at the best of times. Even 64-bit
> floating point can produce
> significant error energy if the best filter forms are not used. 
Even for
> floating point, it is
> important to use forms that have normalized state variables so that
> imbalances in the
> state values do not lead to further degradation of the precision of 
the
> result. Clearly, the
> performance of 32-bit floating point and 24-bit integer will be 
considerably
> inferior to that
> of 64-bit floating point, so we might conclude that it is not 
possible to
> achieve high-quality
> results for these extreme filter settings. Furthermore it is shown 
that
> sweeping the
> settings of a filter with time excites some aberrant behavior when 
the state
> variables are
> not normalized, even with 64-bit floating-point arithmetic. 48-bit 
integer
> is proposed as a
> compromise between economic realizability and ultimate precision. 
The
> increased
> headroom and guard bits allowed by the format provide enough 
precision to
> allow some
> extreme filter settings and still preserve a 24-bit result after 
several
> stages of processing."
> ( Andy Moorer - pioneering digital audio engineer and currently 
head of
> computer science
> at Adobe. 48-BIT INTEGER PROCESSING BEATS 32-BIT FLOATING POINT FOR
> PROFESSIONAL AUDIO APPLICATIONS, available at
> http://www.jamminpower.com/PDF/48-bit%20Audio.htm)
> DRO serves as yet another example of the disruptive nature of 
Crystal Core
> technology.
> DRO's dramatically improved performance, greater efficiency and 
lower cost

> signals the
> end of the legacy media processing era.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
>

Peter,

You asked: 

>What do you think it is about the CMI that makes it so special, and
does that still apply today?<

First of all: The sound. I have had the luxurious position to test
almost every sampler and many synths that exist and I found that the
Fairlight IIx is a class of it's own. The things this baby can do in
the low frequency range is simply breathtaking. Even nowadays there is
nothing that can keep up with it I think. Also the sound is very much
alive. Take arr1. hit a chord and put it on hold than sit back in an
easy chair and enjoying this for an hour is no problem at all. Yes,
this still applies today.


My reference for the sound used to be (and still is): Art of Noise for
the IIx and Yello for the series III.... 

It must be said that it matters a lot what kind of speaker system is
used to listen. A good headset is okay too, but I prefer a good
speaker set. My favorites are JBL L-150. They are very capable to
reveal fantastic detailed low frequencies.

What makes the IIx special too: The way it looks and feels to work
with. This also still applies today.

Also I like to mention the structure and possibilities the IIx offers
as a synthesizer. 8 bit resolution makes far more sense when drawing
waveforms compared to 16 bit. Also special is how the IIx makes you
adjust samplerate so each frame has one wavecycle. This makes it a
very powerfull wavetable synth. Playing with loop start and length is
fantastic. Harmonic envelopes.... fantastic also. Very interesting is
the "plot" mode, which creates peaks. Sounds like crickets,
insects........ Very nice.. Heck, the IIx can even do advanced LA
synthesis....
Sit behind this baby and you are set for a journey of great fun every
time.

Is a CMI still special in todays world (2008)?

Systems I, II and IIx : Yes VERY special even.
System III : I guess yes, but have to work with it first to test it,
so I leave that up to other list members that own one.

Would a IV be a desired product? Yes!
If it can reproduce the exact same sound, it would become a very
desired product in my opinion. I would probably get one.....

Regards,

Peter Kersten.





--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Vogel" <peter.vogel@...>
wrote:
>
> At this stage it's just an idea, although I'm confident it can be
done very
> well using the CC-1. The question is how many people would pay say
$5,000
> for this, when you can buy other soft synths much cheaper.  I would
need to
> be confident that there is a signifcant market to justify the
investment in
> developing it. 
>  
> What do you think it is about the CMI that makes it so special, and does
> that still apply today? 
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Laurent/LIFELIKE
> Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 7:59 AM
> To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Peter 
> 
> 
> As a professional composer in electronic music i can tell you that there
> would be a lot of people interested in that kind of emulation.
> Also you're right with software update, its possible to push further the
> concept while using the power of
> today's dsp etc...
> I guess a 24/32 tracks would be fantastic, and on the other hand the
> possibility to switch from a FIIX to a III in terms of the sound i mean
> would be really cool.
> Are you really working on this ? If its possible to get involved in this
> project i would be glad to help.
> Best
> 
> Laurent Ash
> --
> 
> 
> Le 5 nov. 08 à 20:32, Peter Vogel a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> Yes, I would think the CC-1 could do a huge number of tracks. How
many would
> you like?
> 
> It would use exactly the same variable frequency technology as the CMI.
> 
> The sound would be identical, except there would be an option to
turn off
> the "special" sound if you want, so you just get clean samples.
> 
> And of course the CMI emulation would be just one task running on
the PC so
> you can still run your other favourite toys in a different window.
> 
> Peter 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurent LEMAIRE
> Sent: Thursday, 6 November 2008 5:29 AM
> To: Fairlight-CMI@ <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com

> Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Fairlight CMI series IV?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> I think your project is very interesting. Does this mean that the
> CC1 
> would be
> able to emulate the variable frequency technology used in the CMI ? 
> And play
> many voices in parallel ?
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Laurent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <winmail.dat>
>

Great thoughts Tobias and great idea to think about a CMI IV Peter,
please let me give some thoughts, too... 


Basing the original CMI operating system and features on a CC-1 will
be definitely nice. But nowadays there are much more possibilities
regarding workflow and GUI design as it was necessary in those days.
Of course the limitations led to special solutions which should be
remembered when designing the "new" GUI. 

But the main point will be the sound... the sound of the CMI was
created by its hardware components which was the best available. Today
you get better components for less money but are you sure you want
this? To have a clean and sterile sound? It is a different thing
emulating a "vintage" sound or having the original hardware as you all
will agree. You cannot emulate the small electric and chaotic things
which happen in analog hardware. By the way, having REAL good
converters is still very expensive (and you are not sure if you will
have the dynamics and the sound of the old machines)...

Lets have a small calculation:

5000$ - cc-1 card
3000$ - 8 channel AD conversion (benchmark Apogee AD-16)
3000$ - 8 channel DA conversion (benchmark Apogee DA-16)
2000$ - rack mount case for modules (height 8U)
????$ - fee for software development, service, warranty, shipping,...

Now get your "dream system"... having e.g. 8 inputs and 24 outputs
would generate a system of minimum 20k$... 

Just being able to use the old Fairlight sounds is not a big thing,
but having the real sound quality of the machines will be very hard to
reach. 

Greetz,

Michael 

P.S. The BIG and rich sound of the old systems came from the fact that
each output was dedicated to ONE voice so the quality will lose the
power when you will try to get more than one voice mixed/multiplexed
to a single output.

Thanks for your thoughts Michael. 
 
I think it will be possible to emulate the random things qualities of the
original analog circuits. Of course analog parts do it easily but with
suffuicuent processing power I think it can be done, perhaps with a control
that lets you select from 100% analog sound to 100% digital sound?
 
Regarding your cost calculation, I'm not sure why you would want all the
analog i/o.  I expect the CMI-4 would do all the mixing in the CC-1 and
output direct to disk or digital interface to teh outside world.
 
I would hope the whole kit including CC-1, I/O for Midi, a couple of analog
channels for monitoring, including software, would be included in the $5k
price.
 
Best wishes,
 
Peter


  _____  

From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Michael
Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 9:21 AM
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Some more thoughts, Fairlight CMI series IV?



Great thoughts Tobias and great idea to think about a CMI IV Peter,
please let me give some thoughts, too... 

Basing the original CMI operating system and features on a CC-1 will
be definitely nice. But nowadays there are much more possibilities
regarding workflow and GUI design as it was necessary in those days.
Of course the limitations led to special solutions which should be
remembered when designing the "new" GUI. 

But the main point will be the sound... the sound of the CMI was
created by its hardware components which was the best available. Today
you get better components for less money but are you sure you want
this? To have a clean and sterile sound? It is a different thing
emulating a "vintage" sound or having the original hardware as you all
will agree. You cannot emulate the small electric and chaotic things
which happen in analog hardware. By the way, having REAL good
converters is still very expensive (and you are not sure if you will
have the dynamics and the sound of the old machines)...

Lets have a small calculation:

5000$ - cc-1 card
3000$ - 8 channel AD conversion (benchmark Apogee AD-16)
3000$ - 8 channel DA conversion (benchmark Apogee DA-16)
2000$ - rack mount case for modules (height 8U)
????$ - fee for software development, service, warranty, shipping,...

Now get your "dream system"... having e.g. 8 inputs and 24 outputs
would generate a system of minimum 20k$... 

Just being able to use the old Fairlight sounds is not a big thing,
but having the real sound quality of the machines will be very hard to
reach. 

Greetz,

Michael 

P.S. The BIG and rich sound of the old systems came from the fact that
each output was dedicated to ONE voice so the quality will lose the
power when you will try to get more than one voice mixed/multiplexed
to a single output.

Dear Peter,

I would need the outputs as even today with the huge process in sound 
quality in digital people STILL use hardware compressors, Mic Preamps, 
effects etc due to their sound. What you want to create would only be 
a "protools" system based on fairlight workflow and technology. But 
Protools offers inputs and outputs exactly for this purpose. If you 
want to do the mixing inside CC-1 card you can by an existing DREAM or 
Xynergi system. The CMI was about the sampling, the sound and in my 
opinion many (if not all by a few exceptations) will integrate a new 
CMI into their existing system and connect it to a mixing desk. 

I agree that emulating analog circuits is possible but you will never 
get the real feeling. And have a look at todays analog hardware 
emulations, Arturia is doing a very good job there but have a look at 
the consumption of CPU power they need... please do not underestimate 
this. 

And... if you do Midi you surely want to trigger external synths and 
to get them into the system I personally would like to have them all 
connected to the system so I do not have to patch. That's why I also 
want many inputs and outputs as option... ;-) 

All the best,

Michael

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Vogel" <peter.vogel@...> 
wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts Michael. 
>  
> I think it will be possible to emulate the random things qualities 
of the
> original analog circuits. Of course analog parts do it easily but 
with
> suffuicuent processing power I think it can be done, perhaps with a 
control
> that lets you select from 100% analog sound to 100% digital sound?
>  
> Regarding your cost calculation, I'm not sure why you would want all 
the
> analog i/o.  I expect the CMI-4 would do all the mixing in the CC-1 
and
> output direct to disk or digital interface to teh outside world.
>  
> I would hope the whole kit including CC-1, I/O for Midi, a couple of 
analog
> channels for monitoring, including software, would be included in 
the $5k
> price.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Peter
> 
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-
CMI@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael
> Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 9:21 AM
> To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Some more thoughts, Fairlight CMI 
series IV?
> 
> 
> 
> Great thoughts Tobias and great idea to think about a CMI IV Peter,
> please let me give some thoughts, too... 
> 
> Basing the original CMI operating system and features on a CC-1 will
> be definitely nice. But nowadays there are much more possibilities
> regarding workflow and GUI design as it was necessary in those days.
> Of course the limitations led to special solutions which should be
> remembered when designing the "new" GUI. 
> 
> But the main point will be the sound... the sound of the CMI was
> created by its hardware components which was the best available. 
Today
> you get better components for less money but are you sure you want
> this? To have a clean and sterile sound? It is a different thing
> emulating a "vintage" sound or having the original hardware as you 
all
> will agree. You cannot emulate the small electric and chaotic things
> which happen in analog hardware. By the way, having REAL good
> converters is still very expensive (and you are not sure if you will
> have the dynamics and the sound of the old machines)...
> 
> Lets have a small calculation:
> 
> 5000$ - cc-1 card
> 3000$ - 8 channel AD conversion (benchmark Apogee AD-16)
> 3000$ - 8 channel DA conversion (benchmark Apogee DA-16)
> 2000$ - rack mount case for modules (height 8U)
> ????$ - fee for software development, service, warranty, 
shipping,...
> 
> Now get your "dream system"... having e.g. 8 inputs and 24 outputs
> would generate a system of minimum 20k$... 
> 
> Just being able to use the old Fairlight sounds is not a big thing,
> but having the real sound quality of the machines will be very hard 
to
> reach. 
> 
> Greetz,
> 
> Michael 
> 
> P.S. The BIG and rich sound of the old systems came from the fact 
that

> each output was dedicated to ONE voice so the quality will lose the
> power when you will try to get more than one voice mixed/multiplexed
> to a single output.
>

By the way, one more reason for having the analog outputs would be the 
sound of them like some people here asking still for voice channel 
cards. They know that they made the sound also... :-) 

Greetz,

Michael 


--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <michael.maeurer@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
> 
> I would need the outputs as even today with the huge process in 
sound 
> quality in digital people STILL use hardware compressors, Mic 
Preamps, 
> effects etc due to their sound. What you want to create would only 
be 
> a "protools" system based on fairlight workflow and technology. But 
> Protools offers inputs and outputs exactly for this purpose. If you 
> want to do the mixing inside CC-1 card you can by an existing DREAM 
or 
> Xynergi system. The CMI was about the sampling, the sound and in my 
> opinion many (if not all by a few exceptations) will integrate a new 
> CMI into their existing system and connect it to a mixing desk. 
> 
> I agree that emulating analog circuits is possible but you will 
never 
> get the real feeling. And have a look at todays analog hardware 
> emulations, Arturia is doing a very good job there but have a look 
at 
> the consumption of CPU power they need... please do not 
underestimate 
> this. 
> 
> And... if you do Midi you surely want to trigger external synths and 
> to get them into the system I personally would like to have them all 
> connected to the system so I do not have to patch. That's why I also 
> want many inputs and outputs as option... ;-) 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Michael
> 
> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Vogel" <peter.vogel@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts Michael. 
> >  
> > I think it will be possible to emulate the random things qualities 
> of the
> > original analog circuits. Of course analog parts do it easily but 
> with
> > suffuicuent processing power I think it can be done, perhaps with 
a 
> control
> > that lets you select from 100% analog sound to 100% digital sound?
> >  
> > Regarding your cost calculation, I'm not sure why you would want 
all 
> the
> > analog i/o.  I expect the CMI-4 would do all the mixing in the CC-
1 
> and
> > output direct to disk or digital interface to teh outside world.
> >  
> > I would hope the whole kit including CC-1, I/O for Midi, a couple 
of 
> analog
> > channels for monitoring, including software, would be included in 
> the $5k
> > price.
> >  
> > Best wishes,
> >  
> > Peter
> > 
> > 
> >   _____  
> > 
> > From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Fairlight-
> CMI@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Michael
> > Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2008 9:21 AM
> > To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Some more thoughts, Fairlight CMI 
> series IV?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Great thoughts Tobias and great idea to think about a CMI IV 
Peter,
> > please let me give some thoughts, too... 
> > 
> > Basing the original CMI operating system and features on a CC-1 
will
> > be definitely nice. But nowadays there are much more possibilities
> > regarding workflow and GUI design as it was necessary in those 
days.
> > Of course the limitations led to special solutions which should be
> > remembered when designing the "new" GUI. 
> > 
> > But the main point will be the sound... the sound of the CMI was
> > created by its hardware components which was the best available. 
> Today
> > you get better components for less money but are you sure you want
> > this? To have a clean and sterile sound? It is a different thing
> > emulating a "vintage" sound or having the original hardware as you 
> all
> > will agree. You cannot emulate the small electric and chaotic 
things
> > which happen in analog hardware. By the way, having REAL good
> > converters is still very expensive (and you are not sure if you 
will
> > have the dynamics and the sound of the old machines)...
> > 
> > Lets have a small calculation:
> > 
> > 5000$ - cc-1 card
> > 3000$ - 8 channel AD conversion (benchmark Apogee AD-16)
> > 3000$ - 8 channel DA conversion (benchmark Apogee DA-16)
> > 2000$ - rack mount case for modules (height 8U)
> > ????$ - fee for software development, service, warranty, 
> shipping,...
> > 
> > Now get your "dream system"... having e.g. 8 inputs and 24 outputs
> > would generate a system of minimum 20k$... 
> > 
> > Just being able to use the old Fairlight sounds is not a big 
thing,
> > but having the real sound quality of the machines will be very 
hard 
> to
> > reach. 
> > 
> > Greetz,
> > 
> > Michael 
> > 
> > P.S. The BIG and rich sound of the old systems came from the fact 
> that
> > each output was dedicated to ONE voice so the quality will lose 
the
> > power when you will try to get more than one voice 
mixed/multiplexed

> > to a single output.
> >
>

I think he does mean High-End-Performance in matter of sound. :-) 

Greetz,

Michael 

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Vogel" <peter.vogel@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Tobias,
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by "individual clock speed per voice 
card?"
> 
> When you say "high end system", do you mean high performance (as in
> excellent sound quality) or large capacity (number of tracks) or 
something
> else?
> 
> What in particular would appeal to you about a CMI-V?
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> 
> Peter
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tobias Enhus
> 	Sent: Friday, 7 November 2008 7:06 PM
> 	To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> 	Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Fairlight CMI series IV?
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	I would like to chime in with Fabian on this. 
> 	Im using a combo of Kyma and Synclavier as my main
> 	Synthesis tools. 
> 	There simply is no high end system like a CMI-IV
> 	available today.
> 	
> 	I would be more than happy to pay $5k for a dedicated
> 	high end system like CMI IV. 
> 	
> 	Now, how would you solve something like individual
> 	clock speed per voice card? 
> 	
> 	Cheers!
> 	Tobias
> 	
> 	--- d_40q <retinalburn@... <mailto:retinalburn%40ngi.de> > 
wrote:
> 	
> 	> 
> 	> Hello Peter,
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> although I am not a Fairlight but a Synclavier user,
> 	> I follow this forum due to my 
> 	> appreceation of the original CMI's sound, concept
> 	> and design.
> 	> 
> 	> In my humble opinion your exiting proposal to create
> 	> a CMI-IV unsing today's technology 
> 	> could hit a market-gap, if it was executed with the
> 	> same strong conceptual foundation as 
> 	> the original CMIs.
> 	> 
> 	> At the moment there is no High-End Computer Musical
> 	> Instrument available, that would 
> 	> enable the creative musician to work intuively by
> 	> integrating deep performance, recording 
> 	> and sound design capabilities in one coherent
> 	> instrument.
> 	> Wich is what the Fairlight CMI and the NED
> 	> Synclavier achieved in their day.
> 	> 
> 	> Looking at what is available today:
> 	> 
> 	> 1. A system freely combining a standard PC/MAC, any
> 	> software, a controller keyboard and 
> 	> external AD/DA:
> 	> A standard System like this does not give you the
> 	> best possible sound quality, it is 
> 	> unstable, and due to its lack of integration it is
> 	> not verry intuitive.
> 	> The user interface arguably hinders the creative
> 	> process.
> 	> 
> 	> 2. A workstation keyboard like the Korg Oasis:
> 	> A pretty well integrated Instrument, but technically
> 	> and software-wise it does not 
> 	> represent the state of the art. In terms of sound
> 	> qualitiy it can't even compete with a 20 
> 	> years old CMI-3 or a Synclavier.
> 	> 
> 	> 3. DSP based Workstations like Kyma:
> 	> Great sound design tool, but not necessarily an
> 	> intuitive musical instrument.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Now if you compare the pricetags of the
> 	> aforementioned, I am pretty sure, customers 
> 	> (including myself) would be willing to pay more than
> 	> the proposed $US5,000.00 if the 
> 	> CMI-4 came with its own specialized keyboard
> 	> controller/user interface, that would match 
> 	> the CC-1's audio processing capabilities in terms of
> 	> Quality and Design.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Best regards,
> 	> Fabian
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> 	> <peter.vogel@> wrote:
> 	> >
> 	> > 
> 	> > There have been discussions from time to time
> 	> about replicating the CMI
> 	> > using a software emulation. These efforts will
> 	> have limited success because
> 	> > the "Fairlight sound" relies on the peculiarities
> 	> of the hardware used in
> 	> > the original design.
> 	> > 
> 	> > In the days when I was the designing CMI hardware,
> 	> my greatest challenge was
> 	> > to minimise the distortions and artifacts that
> 	> were inherent aspects of the
> 	> > hardware available at that time. In effect, we
> 	> struggled to make the
> 	> > Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the intimate
> 	> details of what makes a
> 	> > Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly
> 	> etched in my brain.
> 	> > 
> 	> > When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core Engine
> 	> last year, my imagination
> 	> > ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous
> 	> capabilities that could be
> 	> > configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI
> 	> hardware in its FPGA (Field
> 	> > Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the 1980's
> 	> CMI hardware, the essence
> 	> > of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully in
> 	> digital hardware form. 
> 	> > 
> 	> > To fully appreciate the astounding potential of
> 	> the CC-1, download the
> 	> > brochure here:
> 	> >
> 	>
> 	
> http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-
1%20Brochur
> <http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-
1%20Brochu

> r> 
> 	> > e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 	> > 
> 	> > I also recently discovered that ALL the IP
> 	> relating to the original
> 	> > Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and
> 	> filter designs, sample
> 	> > libraries etc are still retained by Fairlight.au
> 	> in Sydney.
> 	> > 
> 	> > So I have been wondering if it would be worthwhile
> 	> to develop a faithful
> 	> > reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual Hardware"
> 	> of the CC-1?
> 	> > 
> 	> > This would perform identically to the original CMI
> 	> series II or III, but run
> 	> > on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The
> 	> MIDI input would come
> 	> > directly into the CC-1 so there would be no
> 	> problem of latency introduced by
> 	> > the PC.
> 	> > 
> 	> > At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market to
> 	> assess the level of
> 	> > interest in this project and whether the
> 	> significant investment in R&D will
> 	> > be worthwhile.
> 	> > 
> 	> > The Fairlight Series IV (CC-1, I/O box and
> 	> software) might be sold for
> 	> > approximately $US5,000.00.
> 	> > 
> 	> > So my question is, what do you think of this idea?
> 	> How would a Fairlight CMI
> 	> > at this sort of price be received by the market?
> 	> Who would the buyers be and
> 	> > how would I tap into them?
> 	> > 
> 	> > What do you think?
> 	> > 
> 	> > Peter Vogel
> 	> >
> 	> 
> 	>
>