MOTM

>
>
> Here are 2 more Cloud Generators showing features available with the
> "Expander Module".
>
> READ THIS FIRST TO AVOID PANIC
>
> Both demos show how the internal parameters can be modified by the *ROTARY
> ENCODERS* in real time. So, each 'detect' is a set parameter, and as we are
> rotating through the sound 'jumps'. This *does not happen* with control
> voltages, there will be nice smooth transitions (no zippering).
>
> OK, now that we got that out of the way:
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/sine_2opfm.mp3
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/sqr_bwmod.mp3
>
> The first demo is a simpe 2-operator FM patch changing the modulation index
> (just like a DX-7). The second demo is a square 'cloud' that is having the
> bandwidth of the noise for the chous/spread being varied.
>
> Currently, there are ~50 different parameters that are under user control.
> These can be saved as a general "patch". 6 parameters at a time are under
> the rotary encoders, in 9 'pages'.
>
> Paul S.
>
>

> Paul, have you made any more decision regarding the digital interface to
> the cloud generator? With all of these parameters being able to code a
> computer based editor would seem a big plus. I know some people prefer to
> keep their computer and modular segregated but I'm always looking for more
> ways to use my computer with my modular.

>> Paul, have you made any more decision regarding the digital interface
>> to the cloud generator? With all of these parameters being able to
>> code a computer based editor would seem a big plus. I know some
>> people prefer to keep their computer and modular segregated but I'm
>> always looking for more ways to use my computer with my modular.
>
> Hmmm... I haven't really thought about it (having direct link from the
> Expander to a computer). It could be:
>
> a) serial port
> b) MIDI port
> c) USB
> d) Ethernet
>
> The added hardware cost is $10-$15 (my cost) per module, so I guess the
> question to ask is:
>
> a) who wants to volunteer to write the editors
> b) is a burden cost of say $30/module worth it (everyone pays it)
>
> This would push the planned cost of the Expander from $189 to say $219.
> Big deal?
>
> Paul S.
>

>
>
> my vote would be ethernet with control via OSC ... wouldn't require any
> proprietary software. could control it from almost anything.
>
>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 11:45 AM, David Moylan wrote:
>
>> My vote is for USB or Ethernet, preferably USB. I use a laptop so don't
>> have a direct serial port. Midi is very standard but inherently limited
>> and again I'd need an adaptor. Although Midi might enable the CG to
>> respond to other hardware, I think the main point here is to develop a
>> computer to CG interface so why not use the standard computer
>> jack/protocols. Ethernet is cool (put your CG under internet control!),
>> but I think USB makes more sense overall.
>>
>> I'll volunteer to write an editor (especially if it means I get hardware
>> early :) ). I can do it in Java which should be able to handle any of
>> the interface options and theoretically do it cross platform. I use OSX
>> so I will make sure it covers OSX as well. I'm a programmer by trade
>> but am more of the make-it-work type than the make-it-look-pretty type
>> so would be open to a collaborator on the graphic end even if just for
>> photoshop work.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Paul Schreiber wrote:
>> >> Paul, have you made any more decision regarding the digital interface
>> >> to the cloud generator? With all of these parameters being able to
>> >> code a computer based editor would seem a big plus. I know some
>> >> people prefer to keep their computer and modular segregated but I'm
>> >> always looking for more ways to use my computer with my modular.
>> >
>> > Hmmm... I haven't really thought about it (having direct link from the
>> > Expander to a computer). It could be:
>> >
>> > a) serial port
>> > b) MIDI port
>> > c) USB
>> > d) Ethernet
>> >
>> > The added hardware cost is $10-$15 (my cost) per module, so I guess the
>> > question to ask is:
>> >
>> > a) who wants to volunteer to write the editors
>> > b) is a burden cost of say $30/module worth it (everyone pays it)
>> >
>> > This would push the planned cost of the Expander from $189 to say $219.
>> > Big deal?
>> >
>> > Paul S.
>> >
>>
>
>

>
> my vote would be Ethernet with control via OSC ... wouldn't require
> any proprietary software. could control it from almost anything.

On 9/3/07, strohs56k <strohs@...> wrote:

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Snipes <jsnipeslists@...> wrote:
>
> my vote would be Ethernet with control via OSC ... wouldn't require
> any proprietary software. could control it from almost anything.

My vote is also for Ethernet because:

1. you can talk to an Ethernet device with standard network protocols
(UDP or TCP) where as with USB you potentially need a device driver on
the computer end of the connection

2. like MIDI (by way of optocouplers), Ethernet (by way of pulse
transformers) has galvanic isolation = no ground loop between computer
and audio equipment

3. Ethernet allows for really long cables = computer doesnt need to be
located right next to the audio equipment to make the connection


My second choice would be MIDI but Ethernet is much cooler

-seth





Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:motm-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:motm-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Ethernet is a really really bad idea for anybody who intends to travel or
> tour with the module.

> Ethernet is a really really bad idea for anybody who intends to travel
> or tour with the module.
> Having to carry around a hub and/or something to DHCP an IP to it, plus
> ethernet cables would all be a huge PITA.

On 9/3/07, groovyshaman <groovyshaman@...> wrote:

Ethernet == OS agnostic

Maybe your definition of agnostic is different than mine. So be it. Makes me wonder... ;)


I have a bad feeling about this integration of computer and analog equipment - it seems that no matter what path is chosen, parts of the interface part of the deal is going to be obsolete in a few years, and/or software and drivers will be hard/impossible to find, and meanwhile the analog bits of all this are still going to be working perfectly. Computer systems tend to go obsolete very quickly, even when supported by the largest of companies, which isn't the case this time. Anyone remember the cassette based patch storage system that shipped with the yamaha tx81z? That was a case where "someone" had to make a decision about what kind of hardware<>software interface to use. I also think about the serial port that was on the back of my old paia proteus II - while it came with some scant documention that was supposed to be useful to potential programmers, no software was ever actually written for it according to John Simonton

That said, I'd vote for ethernet cables - they're a fairly well established, widely supported protocol. You're still going to have hardware/software issues that might be supported for a little while, but unless there's major money behind it, I'd seriously doubt if that support would last long.

A question along these lines, as I don't know nuthin' about the programming side of this - is the ethernet plug on my macbook easily accessible to a programmer who wanted to write the kind of code involved in this kind of hardware<>software interface? Is it similarly accessible on say, a standard pc type box - would the code be fairly easily portable? Implementing this interface and then only having software that works on pc's (for example) would be unacceptable to me. Would usb be more practical from a programming point of view? Midi? I'd assume that midi would be the least desireable, as it's such a slow protocol, but I could be wrong.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Drake
sduck409@...
makeme1witheverything@...

> USB == specific device drivers for Linux, Winbloze, OSX, ...

On 9/3/07, groovyshaman <groovyshaman@...> wrote:

Ethernet == OS agnostic

Maybe your definition of agnostic is different than mine. So be it. Makes me wonder... ;)

I have a bad feeling about this integration of computer and analog equipment...

Maybe your definition of analog is different than mine. I though this thread was about the "DSP Engine"-powered Cloud Generator. ;-)
--
john

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
>
> > Paul, have you made any more decision regarding the digital
interface to
> > the cloud generator? With all of these parameters being able to
code a
> > computer based editor would seem a big plus. I know some people
prefer to
> > keep their computer and modular segregated but I'm always looking
for more
> > ways to use my computer with my modular.
>
> Hmmm... I haven't really thought about it (having direct link from the
> Expander to a computer). It could be:
>
> a) serial port
> b) MIDI port
> c) USB
> d) Ethernet
>
> The added hardware cost is $10-$15 (my cost) per module, so I guess the
> question to ask is:
>
> a) who wants to volunteer to write the editors
> b) is a burden cost of say $30/module worth it (everyone pays it)
>
> This would push the planned cost of the Expander from $189 to say
$219. Big
> deal?
>
> Paul S.
>

> On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 21:15 -0400, groovyshaman wrote:
>> USB == specific device drivers for Linux, Winbloze, OSX, ...
>
> Not necessarily. You could use one of the existing standard low level
> data protocols. I would also worry about reliable low latency packet
> delivery with ethernet. Does data need to move in performance
> real-time? How much data?
>

> Hmmm... I haven't really thought about it (having direct link from the
> Expander to a computer). It could be:
>
> a) serial port
> b) MIDI port
> c) USB
> d) Ethernet
>
> The added hardware cost is $10-$15 (my cost) per module, so I guess the
> question to ask is:
>
> a) who wants to volunteer to write the editors
> b) is a burden cost of say $30/module worth it (everyone pays it)
>
> This would push the planned cost of the Expander from $189 to say $219. Big
> deal?
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>

NOTICE: This electronic mail message and its contents, including any attachments hereto (collectively, "this e-mail"), is hereby designated as "confidential and proprietary." This e-mail may be viewed and used only by the person to whom it has been sent and his/her employer solely for the express purpose for which it has been disclosed and only in accordance with any confidentiality or non-disclosure (or similar) agreement between TEAC Corporation or its affiliates and said employer, and may not be disclosed to any other person or entity.