MOTM

I just got my happy email and downloaded MOTM patch book #1, and it is 
great! Well worth the tiny price. Excellent job, Ken, and thank you 
Paul S. for making this available. The drum sounds are incredible.

skw

Agreed, with one "but" - only four patches?

Barry S.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott K Warren <scott@...> wrote:

>
> I just got my happy email and downloaded MOTM patch book #1, and it is 
> great! Well worth the tiny price. Excellent job, Ken, and thank you 
> Paul S. for making this available. The drum sounds are incredible.
> 
> skw

coyoteous wrote:
> Agreed, with one "but" - only four patches?

I didn't get one, but I would assume the important thing is showing you 
how to even get to the point that he did. Now you get to tweak.

It's not the "number" of patches, but the family of new sounds that
are opened up. If you listen to the audio files, he demonstrates
tweaking the various parameters to create new sounds from the same
patch, e.g. timpanii using the tom tom patch.

BTW, you can also get regular old kick and snares from these patches
too. Just tune the pitch and decays differently.

Moe

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "coyoteous" <antithesist@...> wrote:
>
> Agreed, with one "but" - only four patches?
> 
> Barry S.
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott K Warren <scott@> wrote:
> >
> > I just got my happy email and downloaded MOTM patch book #1, and
it is 

> > great! Well worth the tiny price. Excellent job, Ken, and thank you 
> > Paul S. for making this available. The drum sounds are incredible.
> > 
> > skw
>

... while one may skip the basics I do like to see the process of how 
someone like Ken approaches to get the desired sound.
And I do love the layout and clearness of the booklet!
Great work! Thanks!

    Michael.

coyoteous wrote:

> Agreed, with one "but" - only four patches?
> 
> Barry S.
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott K Warren <scott@...> wrote:
> 
>>I just got my happy email and downloaded MOTM patch book #1, and it is 
>>great! Well worth the tiny price. Excellent job, Ken, and thank you 
>>Paul S. for making this available. The drum sounds are incredible.

Understood, I *have*  been doing this for awhile. Any patch is a family of patches. When it 
said "book," I guess I expected a "book," not a leaflet! Don't get me wrong, I think the 
patches are interesting, nothing unconventional mind you, but interesting, nonetheless. 
There does seem to be a heavy reliance on non-MOTM/non-modular outboard EQ and FX. 
I expect Konkuro would have konkurred, though probably more harshly. The audio and 
narration are helpful, but it would be good to have the notes as text along with the patch 
(just in case you don't have an MP3 player module ;-). Please pardon me if it was 
mentioned that there were only four patches, I have to admit I just skim most of what goes 
through these groups (life, family, job, etc. - like the rest of you). Do I want my money 
back? -nah... I'll just consider it a donation. Page for page, I guess the way overpriced copy 
of the Strange book I got last year ($125) was a good deal after all, as it would cost about 
$200 at this rate. :-)

Barry S.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@...> wrote:

>
> It's not the "number" of patches, but the family of new sounds that
> are opened up. If you listen to the audio files, he demonstrates
> tweaking the various parameters to create new sounds from the same
> patch, e.g. timpanii using the tom tom patch.
> 
> BTW, you can also get regular old kick and snares from these patches
> too. Just tune the pitch and decays differently.
> 
> Moe
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "coyoteous" <antithesist@> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, with one "but" - only four patches?
> > 
> > Barry S.
> > 
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott K Warren <scott@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just got my happy email and downloaded MOTM patch book #1, and
> it is 
> > > great! Well worth the tiny price. Excellent job, Ken, and thank you 
> > > Paul S. for making this available. The drum sounds are incredible.
> > > 
> > > skw
> >
>

Again, agreed. I should have mentioned in my last message that the graphics and layout 
are very nice. I would readily pay $10 for the blank module templates used (or well, let's 
say, for all or most MOTM modules, wasn't someone working on this?) - maybe module 
templates would be a a good Stooge product or advertising freebie. Yes, booklet, 
pamphlet or leaflet are more accurate terms. As far as per patch price goes, I guess there 
aren't any standards. $2.50 a patch (or family of patches ;-) is probably in the middle to 
high end when compared with MIDI patches and sample collections, but not outrageous. 
Also, copy protection could be added (for free) with passwords for the download and/or 
archive and/or PDF.

Barry S.

P.S. Sorry about my word wrap, I'm using the web interface which used to have a check 
box that, while it did't correct their problem, it helped. I tried their "Rich-Text Editor 
(Beta)," which had it own set of problems - maybe it's better now.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Zacherl (aka TonTaub) " <egroups@...> wrote:

>
> 
> ... while one may skip the basics I do like to see the process of how 
> someone like Ken approaches to get the desired sound.
> And I do love the layout and clearness of the booklet!
> Great work! Thanks!
> 
>     Michael.
> 
> coyoteous wrote:
> 
> > Agreed, with one "but" - only four patches?
> > 
> > Barry S.
> > 
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott K Warren <scott@> wrote:
> > 
> >>I just got my happy email and downloaded MOTM patch book #1, and it is 
> >>great! Well worth the tiny price. Excellent job, Ken, and thank you 
> >>Paul S. for making this available. The drum sounds are incredible.

Agreed on the outboard stuff, but consider: 

1. The main attraction we have to Ken's sounds is its attention to
realism and "acousticness".

2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating complex
formants as required. 

I don't see how he could achieve those results at this time without
using the outboard gear. I'd rather have their use documented so that
I know everything it takes to achieve those results. I know how to
make a basic drum patch already, although many don't. If I can look at
the external EQ and comb filter settings and save myself an hour's
time, I've more than paid for the lesson.

This points out the need for the MOTM-450 filter bank and the MOTM-455
Formant Filter!

Moe

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "coyoteous" <antithesist@...> wrote:
> heavy reliance on non-MOTM/non-modular outboard EQ and FX.

Hey Moe,

> 2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating complex
> formants as required. 

...

> This points out the need for the MOTM-450 filter bank and the MOTM-455
> Formant Filter!

hehe, I was just about to post a comment if this modules could replace
the outboard EQ. 
(while I believe that's a purists approach since one virtually could
pack an EQ behind a 5U panel ;-)
However, I got a 450 on order and I'm looking forward to it!  

  ;-)  Michael.

The MOTM-450 filter bank will be useful for certain types of formant
shaping similar to what the graphic EQ does, except it offers cut
instead of boost/cut.

For complex multiple narrow nodes of "body resonance", we need
something more. The comb filter effect obtained from a stopped flanger
or phaser is one way. The only problem there is that you can't tune
each individual comb separately. The Moog String Filter has many
narrow bands with alternate bands tapped to two stereo outputs, but I
don't think they are tuneable.

Moe

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "tontaub" <egroups@...> wrote:

>
> 
> Hey Moe,
> hehe, I was just about to post a comment if this modules could replace
> the outboard EQ. 
> (while I believe that's a purists approach since one virtually could
> pack an EQ behind a 5U panel ;-)
> However, I got a 450 on order and I'm looking forward to it!  
> 
> 
> > 2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating complex
> > formants as required. 
> 
> ...
> 
> > This points out the need for the MOTM-450 filter bank and the MOTM-455
> > Formant Filter!
>

I'm curious if Ken's comb filter is analog.  If so, what brand?  An
analog MOTM comb filter would be incredibly cool.

Also, if you tune the Encore FS just right you get somewhat
comb-filter-like sounds.  Not exactly but close.

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@...> wrote:
>
> The MOTM-450 filter bank will be useful for certain types of formant
> shaping similar to what the graphic EQ does, except it offers cut
> instead of boost/cut.
> 
> For complex multiple narrow nodes of "body resonance", we need
> something more. The comb filter effect obtained from a stopped flanger
> or phaser is one way. The only problem there is that you can't tune
> each individual comb separately. The Moog String Filter has many
> narrow bands with alternate bands tapped to two stereo outputs, but I
> don't think they are tuneable.
> 
> Moe
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "tontaub" <egroups@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Hey Moe,
> > hehe, I was just about to post a comment if this modules could replace
> > the outboard EQ. 
> > (while I believe that's a purists approach since one virtually could
> > pack an EQ behind a 5U panel ;-)
> > However, I got a 450 on order and I'm looking forward to it!  
> > 
> > 
> > > 2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating
complex
> > > formants as required. 
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > This points out the need for the MOTM-450 filter bank and the
MOTM-455

> > > Formant Filter!
> >
>

Scott Warren writes:
>>Excellent job, Ken, and thank you Paul S. for making this available. The
drum sounds are incredible.<<

Thanks for the compliments.

Jay writes:
>>I didn't get one, but I would assume the important thing is showing you
how to even get to the point that he did. Now you get to tweak.<<

Exactly.

coyoteous writes:
>>When it said "book," I guess I expected a "book," not a leaflet!<<

I was assuming "patch book" was refering to the overall concept of buying
the individual parts over time like loose-leaf pages that would be added
together to eventually form a larger motm patch book.  It's hard to make a
book from a few drum patches, or vocal or flute patches for instance.

>>Page for page, I guess the way overpriced copy of the Strange book I got
last year ($125)<<

I'm surprised Paul S. isn't chiming in.  I myself get paid modules for patch
booklets.  Then whatever price he determines is out of my hands.  If I get a
module, he needs to make that back.  The lower the price the more people
that buy though.  But then again, there is more overhead in more orders.
That's his call.  Since these patches are only being bought by a few dozen
people as opposed to tens of thousands like a book would be, that comes into
play.  I myself would like to see it get into more hands, but I'm kind of
out of the loop on that part.  Since this is a new thing, everybody is
learning.  No polls were taken ahead of time to see what would be best.

Also, this is really about getting patches that can produce sounds of a lot
more realism and complexity than has previously been done.  Drum patches in
Roland's The Synthesizer book sometimes consist only of 3 to 4 modules, and
you end up with a cheap drum machine sound, as opposed to mine with up to
about 16 if you count the outboard fx.  Nobody who has read Strange's book
has produced a hauntingly realistic female voice patch.  Tomita had to use a
real female for a similar vocal sound.  Nobody has patched up a recorder
patch so real and expressive it could play in an ensemble of real recorders
and nobody would even notice it's fake.  Can't get a set of patches of a
train passing by.  So, I think some of this is getting something of a higher
level and better quality than what's out there.  Otherwise there probably
wouldn't be much need for this patch booklet in the first place.

mate_stubb writes:
>>Agreed on the outboard stuff, but consider:
1. The main attraction we have to Ken's sounds is its attention to
realism and "acousticness".
2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating complex
formants as required.<<

Right.  Addressing coyoteous here.  Some modulars have parametric EQ,
graphic EQ, delay, phaser, chorus, and filter bank modules.  MOTM does not.
Those are legitimate and much needed modules for doing many things, so I
don't consider them outboard gear so much.  If you have a multi-effects
device, you may already have most of that stuff already in a single unit.
Plus, it is a lot less expensive buying a separate graphic EQ than if
synthtech were to put one behind a panel and sell it.  And in the used
market some people are almost giving them away.  Plus the EQ can be removed
in those patches.  The filters could be altered, or other ones added.
Whatever gets you to the sound you want is all that is important in the end.

>>The MOTM-450 filter bank will be useful for certain types of formant
shaping similar to what the graphic EQ does<<

Sort of.  But it's too bad the motm isn't going after the extended filter
bank model, as the bands don't go up very high.  Also, the thing with fixed
filter banks in general is that with non-movable frequencies or resonances,
they don't always sit where you need them.  I can kind of get a low male
baritone vocal sound out of my Doepfer filter bank, but there is no way to
push it up a little for a more natural sounding and usable tenor voice.  I
had to use a Boss VT-1 Voice Transposer to shift formants up higher.

>>For complex multiple narrow nodes of "body resonance", we need
something more. The comb filter effect obtained from a stopped flanger
or phaser is one way. The only problem there is that you can't tune
each individual comb separately. The Moog String Filter has many
narrow bands with alternate bands tapped to two stereo outputs, but I
don't think they are tuneable.<<

That's what I use my Nord Modular for.  40 bands of tunable very sharp
filters.  That's what I'm using for my latest Nord string sounds.

Mike Marsh writes:
>>I'm curious if Ken's comb filter is analog.  If so, what brand?  An analog
MOTM comb filter would be incredibly cool.<<

In the patch book, it's a digital Lexicon PCM-41.  For comb filtering it
doesn't make much difference sound-wise, except that you can usually go to
smaller or larger delays with digital if you need to, and quite often you
want inverted feedback which you usually don't get on an analog unit.

Michael Zacherl writes:
>>... while one may skip the basics I do like to see the process of how
someone like Ken approaches to get the desired sound.<<

In general terms of how I start from a blank sound and get to a finished
result, I can only best describe it as like how a painter mixes his primary
colors and b/w to get the color he wants.  First you kind of know what you
need to do to get close by knowing the basics of sound and timbre and its
shape and how to use a synthesizer to get close.  Then you need to be able
to hear where your sound currently is and what is wrong about it, and you
have to know what you need to change/add to get it to where it should be.

Dave Halliday writes:
>>Kenneth -- do you have any of your music available on CD?<<

No.  I have various synth demos around the web, but nothing done yet for a
full CD.


-Elhardt

Can you mention some actual "multi-effect" devices and send links?  I'm 
assuming these are stand-alone processors of the rack-mounted sort.

-Richard Brewster

Kenneth Elhardt wrote:

>2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating complex
>formants as required.<<
>
>Right.  Addressing coyoteous here.  Some modulars have parametric EQ,
>graphic EQ, delay, phaser, chorus, and filter bank modules.  MOTM does not.
>Those are legitimate and much needed modules for doing many things, so I
>don't consider them outboard gear so much.  If you have a multi-effects
>device, you may already have most of that stuff already in a single unit.
>Plus, it is a lot less expensive buying a separate graphic EQ than if
>synthtech were to put one behind a panel and sell it.  And in the used
>market some people are almost giving them away.  Plus the EQ can be removed
>in those patches.  The filters could be altered, or other ones added.
>Whatever gets you to the sound you want is all that is important in the end.
>
>  
>

Richard Brewster writes:
>>Can you mention some actual "multi-effect" devices and send links?  I'm
assuming these are stand-alone processors of the rack-mounted sort.<<

Yes, stand-alone rackmount effects.  I don't know what price range you'd be
looking at or what effects you might already have.  Not all multi-effects
units have EQ, and that's one of the more important things to have in this
application.  If you already have graphic and/or parametric EQs, then you
wouldn't need that in a multi-effects unit.

One that I like best is the T.C. Electronics M-ONE XL.  It can run two
effects at once and has a parametric EQ.  They also have a the M300.  It's
more limited and doesn't have EQ.

There's Lexicon.  Their MPX-1 has parametric EQ I believe, and does several
effects at once.  Their MPX-550 typically does one effect at once, and
doesn't have EQ.  Their new MX300 can do two effects at once, but there
isn't too much parameter control and no EQ I don't think.

The Behringer Virtualizer Pro has both parametric EQ and 8 band graphic EQ.

The Kurzweil Mangler also looks interesting, but I forget at the moment
everything it does.

If you're looking to spend thousands, then Eventide and Kurzweil have really
hi-end units that do every.

If you buy something used, older units do a lot more.  For instance
Roland/Boss VF-1, SE-70, SX-700 can do all kinds of things, do a bunch of
things at once, and all have parametric EQ.

So you'll have to google Lexicon, T.C. Electronics, Kurzweil, and Behringer
to find their sites.  Most have downloadable pdf manuals you can read and
see what they do in detail.

-Elhardt

coyateous writes:
>>Again, agreed. I should have mentioned in my last message that the
graphics and layout
are very nice. I would readily pay $10 for the blank module templates used
(or well, let's
say, for all or most MOTM modules, wasn't someone working on this?)<<

I put up an earlier version some time ago in a couple of different formats
that people could download.  I don't have those handy anymore.  But I've
since added a few more modules and revised the graphics a bit for this patch
book thing.  You would need some kind of object oriented drawing program.  I
use Corel Draw.  Last time I put online Corel Draw format and some generic
Windows format that could be used in most other programs.  A person could
then drag the modules around, replicate them, or delete the unused ones, and
create a blank patchsheet for their entire synth, then print out a bunch of
copies.  That's what I do.  I can put the the new files online.  I just wish
somebody else would put them on their site permanently for downloading so I
don't have to keep doing this all the time anytime my webspace changes or I
delete old stuff.

-Elhardt

You probably wanted to hear from Ken, but here are a few suggestions
anyway:

 * Roland SE-50 (noisy but cool) or SE-70 (more 'modern')
 * Lexicon sells several budget but great sounding rack devices (MX?)
 * Carvin sells a GREAT unit very cheap
 * Guitar multi-effects (BOSS, Korg, take your pick) work really well
on synths

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Richard Brewster <pugix@...> wrote:
>
> Can you mention some actual "multi-effect" devices and send links?  I'm 
> assuming these are stand-alone processors of the rack-mounted sort.
> 
> -Richard Brewster
> 
> Kenneth Elhardt wrote:
> 
> >2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating complex
> >formants as required.<<
> >
> >Right.  Addressing coyoteous here.  Some modulars have parametric EQ,
> >graphic EQ, delay, phaser, chorus, and filter bank modules.  MOTM
does not.
> >Those are legitimate and much needed modules for doing many things,
so I
> >don't consider them outboard gear so much.  If you have a multi-effects
> >device, you may already have most of that stuff already in a single
unit.
> >Plus, it is a lot less expensive buying a separate graphic EQ than if
> >synthtech were to put one behind a panel and sell it.  And in the used
> >market some people are almost giving them away.  Plus the EQ can be
removed
> >in those patches.  The filters could be altered, or other ones added.
> >Whatever gets you to the sound you want is all that is important in
the end.

> >
> >  
> >
>

Thanks.   I did hear from Ken.  Thought it was copied to the list.  
After hearing the effect of the graphic EQ on the patchbook drums, I am 
going to look into a multi-effect processor.  It will be part of my 
enhanced recording environment eventually.  I have a lot of research to 
do on these.

-Richard

Mike Marsh wrote:

>You probably wanted to hear from Ken, but here are a few suggestions
>anyway:
>
> * Roland SE-50 (noisy but cool) or SE-70 (more 'modern')
> * Lexicon sells several budget but great sounding rack devices (MX?)
> * Carvin sells a GREAT unit very cheap
> * Guitar multi-effects (BOSS, Korg, take your pick) work really well
>on synths
>
>Mike
>
>--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Richard Brewster <pugix@...> wrote:
>  
>
>>Can you mention some actual "multi-effect" devices and send links?  I'm 
>>assuming these are stand-alone processors of the rack-mounted sort.
>>
>>-Richard Brewster
>>
>>Kenneth Elhardt wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>2. There are no MOTM modules currently available for creating complex
>>>formants as required.<<
>>>
>>>Right.  Addressing coyoteous here.  Some modulars have parametric EQ,
>>>graphic EQ, delay, phaser, chorus, and filter bank modules.  MOTM
>>>      
>>>
>does not.
>  
>
>>>Those are legitimate and much needed modules for doing many things,
>>>      
>>>
>so I
>  
>
>>>don't consider them outboard gear so much.  If you have a multi-effects
>>>device, you may already have most of that stuff already in a single
>>>      
>>>
>unit.
>  
>
>>>Plus, it is a lot less expensive buying a separate graphic EQ than if
>>>synthtech were to put one behind a panel and sell it.  And in the used
>>>market some people are almost giving them away.  Plus the EQ can be
>>>      
>>>
>removed
>  
>
>>>in those patches.  The filters could be altered, or other ones added.
>>>Whatever gets you to the sound you want is all that is important in
>>>      
>>>
>the end.
>  
>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>