Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    
    Re -1
    
    Nothing wrong with your basic premiss. I have a QX5 and wouldn't
    change it for any other sequencer I have seen to date. Other than
    a Qx5FD. However I use an Atari and Steph's buldump as a disk drive.
    
    I am not sure what sort of Rhythm sounds a TX is capable of. It
    does not have any drum samples as does the Roland MT32 which might
    be a better bet in your circumstances. 
    
    I have used the QX as a drum sequencer and prefer it to the basic
    drum machine type interfaces.
    
    				Paul.

    I don't believe you'll ever get decent sounding drums out of a synth
    module like the TX81Z. Drum machines are usually fairly high quality,
    dedicated samplers. They have *real* drum sounds digitally recorded.
    You could use a sampler as a drum machine, but the price is
    prohibitive.
    
    Many people, myself included, do use their sequencer instead of
    the programmer included in the drum machine. Generally it's more
    flexible and allows you to keep all your sequences in one place.
    I've often wished that the low end drum machines would leave the
    programmers out and knock a few bucks off the price, but I don't
    think anyone really does this.
    
    Rob

    Drum machines generally have a built in sequencer that can be slaved
    to your QX. This saves ALOT of memory. (A simple 1 bar drum pattern
    can eat up 14 notes per measure.)
    
    Edd

    
    Re-1 
    
    Edd what are you using for Sequencing these days. Is it the QX7.
    
    Since graduating to the QX5 I have never run out of memory for a
    song. Bear in mind these are mostly simple efforts. I have now also
    converted my S700 to permanant drum machine use which gives and
    extra boost and flexibility to my drum set-up at not to great a
    cost.
    
    				Paul.

    Yeah, I'm still using my QX-7... which undoubtedly explains my
    concern with memory. My drum patterns tend to be busy...
    
    Edd

    Well, any half way intelligent sequencer would treat the drum part
    (which is likely to be repetitive) as a special case, as does the
    MC-500.  It has a rhythm track that is programmed the way drum machines
    are programmed.  Saves much memory.  Only problem is it only supports
    99 different patterns, which may not be enough for an interesting
    song.  I dunno if they (Roland) eased this restriction on the MC-500
    Mark II.
    
    len.
    

	Yeah, I have a question about that.  Can the percussion sounds from
a D110 be accessed as a patch, so to speak?  I mean, sequence a rhythm track
composed of notes (for the various sounds) and then play it as well as the 
other voices normally allowed as a part of multi-timbrality?  Well, assuming
you can, how does the rhythm track on an MC-500 compare to a music track? 
I would assume, if both techniques work, that the music track would be more
flexible.  Yes?  No?

--mike--

    
    I am not sure I understood the question bu I think the answer is
    "Yes".
    
    				Paul.

    The way the MC-500 rhythm track works is as follows:
    
    There are up to 32 "rhythm instruments".  Each rhythm instrument
    is assigned a MIDI note number.  All rhythm instruments share the
    same MIDI channel (though I wish they'd make it possible to assign
    MIDI channels on an instrument by instrument basis).
    
    There are up to 99 "rhythm patterns" available, plus a whole bunch
    of predefined patterns which are nothing but rests.  Each rhythm
    pattern may be any length up to the equivalent of 8/4 (too bad if
    you wanna program a 13/4 raga.  Do it in 13/8 instead and halve
    the tempo).  Each rhythm instrument used in the pattern can be step
    time programmed, with its own resolution (from 64ths to half notes
    including all triplet values; if you want quintuplets or septuplets
    or nonuplets, too bad).  Within a pattern, you can't change the
    resolution; if you want 16th note triplets and 16th notes, you need
    to define *TWO* instruments that map to the same note number, one
    for the 16th triplets, one for the 16ths.
    
    The programming interface is a little "picture" of the pattern in
    resolvabble units; each position is either blank or gets a number
    from 1 to 8, designating a velocity level.  The mapping of the numbers
    1 to 8 onto the MIDI velocities from 1 to 127 can be specified on
    a song by song basis (along with the instrument to note number
    mapping, and the three character mnemonic for each instrument).
    
    The rhythm track is created by specifying which pattern gets played
    for each bar of the track.  The time signatures of the rhythm track
    define the time signatures of all other tracks. 
    
    len.
    

    
    
    Er I may be making a pillock of myself here but isn't twice speed
    13/4 actually 26/8. Or am I missing something.  13/8 would be 6.5/4.
    
    Yes?
    				Paul.
    
    
    
     

>	Yeah, I have a question about that.  Can the percussion sounds from
>a D110 be accessed as a patch, so to speak?  I mean, sequence a rhythm track
>composed of notes (for the various sounds) and then play it as well as the 
>other voices normally allowed as a part of multi-timbrality?  

Yes. About 63 percussion sounds are available on any one MIDI channel, spread
out over the keyboard however you like. Sort of like a big "patch".

/Mitch

    Okay...  so it looks like the expander is no help.  Now I'm looking for
    drum machine recommendations.  I've read the product literature, but
    I'm interested in practical experiences:  what do you get for the extra
    bucks when it comes to drum machines?  The ability to edit voices? (is
    this important?); wider assortment of voices? (what are the cheap ones
    missing?); better sound quality?; more sophisticated programming
    capabilities?  If it's the latter, does an investment in, say, an
    RX120/QX5 (low-end drum machine and middle-of-the-road sequencer) 
    combination make more sense than spending the same money on, say, the
    RX5 (big bucks drum machine)?  And, will it provide more flexibility
    for future growth?
    
    Again, I don't know.  I'm interested in hearing both sides...
    
    Thanks (again)!
    
     KC
    
    

    I like my QX5/TR-505 combo.  But, if I were to do it again, I'd
    probably go for a TR-626 or an HR-16.  I have a TZ already.
    
    By the way, a QX5FD?!?  Is that a joke, or for real?
    
    Steve

    Question:  What don't you like about the QX5?  (Or, what appeals to you
    about the TR-626 and/or HR-16?)
    
     KC
    

I have an HR16, a Korg DDD-5, and a D110. I like different sounds on all
three machines, but the cost is rather prohibitive unless spaced out over
several years. I have sampled all three onto an S550, and no longer
really use them, but that is an aside.

Korg DDD-5:

Listening closely to the Korg, I now can detect quite a bit of aliasing and
digital noise. The percussion sounds aren't bad, but the stock kick and toms
are very "hissy". The aftermarket cards have a great kick and snare which are
cleaner. This unit is somewhat more complicated to program, but very powerful
sequencer features, instrument editing, rugged hardware, excellent step
editing in both directions.

HR16:

Very clean, quiet sounds. Excellent natural acoustic sounds. Nice long crash.
Hardware quality is relatively poor (outside), nice design inside. The
sequencer is limited and full of frustrating oversights. If only the Korg
sequencer was in the HR16 sound generator.

D110:

A large variety of rarer sounds. Lots of nice reverbed snares, damped cymbals,
Latin percussion, etc. There are bird whistles, ratchets, swwwoooosshhh, etc.
This is a very cost effective module with professional quality sounds that
don't require much if any outboard DSP gear. The LA sounds are very useful
and my unit is very quiet. The crash cymbals are badly looped though.

dave

    re: .14
    The QX5 is a WONDERFUL box.  The tape dump actually works pretty
    well.  I guess the idea of a disk on it would seem like it might
    make it easier to do dumps.  But, as far as the QX5 goes, I am truly
    happy with it.  As to the drum machine, I like the 505.  Going to
    a 626 or an HR-16 would be an upgrade which for me would be of marginal
    worth.  But, if I *had* to buy a new machine I'd go for at least
    a step up.
    
    Steve

    
    
    re-?
    
    The QX5FD was announced in the last edition of the YAM user mag.
    It's a QX5 with a Floppy Drive. Now isn't that a surprise? I would
    have bought one a year ago. Not now though.
    
    I have no details of price it was just a picture and a caption.
                                   
    						Paul.
    
    

    Last issue?  I must not have gotten it, yet.  I'm looking at the
    August '88 issue of Aftertouch.  The tape dump facility hasn't failed
    me yet, so I would probably not be interested in upgrading unless
    my QX5 died, there are other new features, or Yamaha introduces
    an enticing upgrade path.
    
    Steve

                                                                       
    re-1
    
    I do not get aftertouch that must be the U.S. version. I can't remember
    what the UK mag is called. I would agree that tape dump is a good
    option and not worth a costly upgrade unless perhaps in a performance
    environment where time is an issue.
    
    I actually think in a studio environment that having battery back
    up of memory is preferable to the MC500 type approach of having
    to reload your song each time you enter the studio or worse still
    with an Atari of booting the machine, loading the software, loading
    the song. If like me you get your short sharp snaps in the studio
    rather than extended sessions then the 10 minutes taken to do the
    above can be a real bind.
    
    
    					Paul.
    

    Paul, it only takes 15 seconds to load a song from the MC-500. 
    
    Dave

    
    Yep I understand that. But if you spend 10 sessions working on a
    song. Thats quite a bit of valuable time wasted. which with a Qx5
    you don;t lose. Disks + battery backup is the answer. The same is
    true of samplers.
    
    How long does it take you from switching on, to being ready to go?
                                                
    					Paul.
    
    				

    From the moment I walk into the studio and shoo Merlin off the console,
    it takes about 1 minute to power everything up, boot up the MC-500
    and load the songs I want to work on.
    
    Saving 3 minutes (10 * 15 seconds interpreted generously) over 20
    hours (10 * 2 hours/session) doesn't seem worth the hassle of relying
    on batteries that die at the most inconvenient times.
    
    len.
    

    From the moment I walk into the dining room, less than one second
    (kick the power-strip on with one foot, throw the ESQ cover on the
    floor, hear the "THWOIKKKK" of the ESQ coming up).  Ready to play.
                                                         
    If I want the Xpander or the HR or the DX-100, I have to uncover
    them too.  Figure 1 second per...
    
    Since sometimes I do only "play" for 10 minutes or so this "instant-on"
    feature is worth it. (also the HR and the Xpander "jam" channel
    2, so I sometimes power-cycle the studio two or three times a night.
    I know it's not good for the equipment, but I haven't got around
    to TEMPEST-izing the Xpander or the HR yet. :-) )

    I know this has been asked before, but is there any danger in leaving
    equipment (such as TX7s) switched on all the time, and using a single
    power strip switch to control power up/down?

    I haven't had any trouble yet - but I don't want any either. 

-b

    Alesis recommends using the "leave it on and hit the powerstrip"
    scheme... 
    
    I powerup in 4 steps...
    
                       1. Powerstrip (DX, QX, RX, HR, MKS, 2 MVIIs and
                          Mirage (which is powered down via it's own
                          switch.)
    
                       2. Mirage. (Sometimes it powers up wierd so I
                          try to make a point of giving it a 'clean'
                          start instead of being part of the initial
                          draw...)
    
                        3. Korg 6:2 mixer
    
                        4. Peavey powered board comes up last to avoid
                           ramming transients down it's throat...
    
    Edd

    I spend more time taking equipment out of OMNI mode than I do
    reading things offa floppies.
    
    My SQ-80's memory is non-volatile so I almost never have to read
    offa floppy.
    
    	db

    The only thing I have to remember is to power up the MC-500 last
    - it sends an OMNI OFF on every channel on power up, so (given the
    default switcher configuration of everybody listening to the MC-500)
    everybody get set to the "right" state.
    
    len.
     

    What's this hubub?  All my SGUs (TX7s, ESQ-Ms, HR-16) power up with no
    problem.  I don't have to worry about OMNI mode - I set it once and it
    gets stored in non-volatile RAM somewhere. 

    Are there lots of units that come up in OMNI by default?  That sounds
    like an undesirable feature. 

-b

    Lots of older Roland stuff powers up in OMNI.
    
    	db

    Wasn't it part of the 1.0 spec????
    
    Edd

    re .28, .29, .30 - yes, the MIDI spec REQUIRES that units power
    up in OMNI ON mode.  This was apparently done to make it "easier" for
    naive users to get their synths to make noises.
    
    len.
    

    
    
    re. 22
    
    Len. Just wait till you have a sampler with complex multisamples
    to laod at each restart! The 100 quid (Brad: Note usage) I spent
    on the Akai battery backup was well worth the  expense.
    
    Also The D50 now powers up in the state you left it. So they learned
    their lessons. I guess.
    
    
    				Paul.

    
    	I am thinking of adding either a KAWAI K-1m or a D-110 to my
    setup, which now includes a KAWAI K-5 synth and R-50 drum machine.
    The instrumental patches on both sound similar (D-50ish) although
    the D-110 seemed a bit quieter.  I REALLY like the percussion on
    the D-110!!  The drums on the K-1 are not as plentiful or varied
    (and I don't relish the idea of having to buy several more RAM cards
    to get a full complement of drums).  On the other hand, I prefer
    the user interface on the K-1 (I don't think I should have to pay
    extra for a PG-xx to program).  
    
    	Have any COMMUSICers spent time with both machines?  If I am
    thinking of trading the R-50 in for one of these, which would make
    the most sense to go for?  Which would complement the K-5's sounds
    the best?
    
    Thanx, 
    Bill Allen @MPO
    
    
    re .15
   
     PS  Dave, are you interested in selling your D-110?
    

    As I understand it, one of the beefs about the K1m (or K1r, I assume)
    is that you don't have a whole lot of editing capabilities and that
    although it can generate 16 voices, they can quickly get used up
    because layering voices is critical to getting more complex sounds.
    Also, there is little filter control.  The D110, on the other hand,
    gives you much more control over voice parameters and filtering
    and allows you to get very complex sounds without sacrificing voices.
    Also, there's more than just noise involved.  I believe the D110
    is 12-bit rather than 8-bit (like the K1), but I'm not sure on this.
    I am more sure that the audio path is cleaner, better, whatever
    on the D110.
    
    Steve

>     If I am
>     thinking of trading the R-50 in for one of these, which would make
>     the most sense to go for?  

Does the K-1 actually give you a "drum kit"?  I thought that it just had
     drum patches, but I could be seriously wrong.

The D-110 literally  gives  you  a drum kit on any 1 MIDI channel.  That
     is, up to 63  different drum sounds can be assigned to 63 keys of a
     keyboard all over 1 MIDI channel.

In this sense, I think only  the D-110 could functionally _replace_ your
     other drum machine.  (It replaced my TR-505).

/Mitch

    Anyone care to offer recent 'good' prices for the K1m or the D-110?
    
    dp

>     Anyone care to offer recent 'good' prices for the K1m or the D-110?

I purchased a  D-110  for  $700  at  1-800-4SA-MASH  (I think that's the
     number). It was delivered in a few days, tax free.

/Mitch

re .33 - Bill,

>     PS  Dave, are you interested in selling your D-110?

I've decided it's a keeper Bill, sorry. The drum sounds are excellent. There
are 63 distinct sounds. The built-in reverb takes care of DSP. The week spot
is the crash cymbal, which is not usable IMO. There are so many good sounds
that I am using it to layer with the D50 to get incredibly rich MIDI stacking.
The organ sounds are a bit "hissy" but the D50 takes care of those. There are
quite a few damped cymbals, Latin percussion, etc. That I have not found on
other drum machines. There are plenty of kicks, snares, and toms to choose
from, and they all sound nice to me. If you listen to the built-in demo
sequences, you can get a good idea of the capabilities. Many of the sounds
are quite nice in the context of an orchestrated tune. Perhaps even a short
crash mixed down wouldn't sound too bad. You'll have to be the judge. It is
a very flexible SGU. You can program it from the front panel quite easily
once you get on to the system. It is much like the D50. The manual is loaded
with information, but it is not presented in a manner that ties it in with
what a musician really wants to do. Fortunately, the D50 manuals are better
and the two are similar. The D110 is a miniature orchestra in a box. I would
recommend it primarily for sequencing in order to take advantage of the
multitimbrality. It does have overflow to pass on MIDI messages to another
D110 if you want to add another later.

 If you decide to get the D110, Sam Ash is the
cheapest I've seen (as mentioned earlier). Note 1523.1 is the DECMS
price bulletin board for the latest price quote and contact info. 

dave

re .38 
    Thanks Dave, for the update.  I went and listened to the D-110 again
    yesterday and am leaning towards it more and more.  There is a GUITAR
    CENTER out here, which wants about $795.00 for one.  I am thinking
    of offering them $500.00 and my 9-mos old KAWAI R-50 in trade. 
    Does that sound like a good deal?
    
    I read in ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN (?) that the D-110 does NOT respond
    to aftertouch.  That alone does not concern me, however, the reviewer
    also found that the D-110 when slaved to another synth would sometimes
    jam up.  He surmised this was happening because its MIDI buffer
    was being clogged with aftertouch and other data to which the D-110
    does not respond.  Have any of you D-110 owners experienced this?
    I would be slaving the D-110 from a KAWAI K-5 which does have after-
    touch (and a million other MIDI things). 
    
    Clusters,
    Bill Allen @MPO
    

>     also found that the D-110 when slaved to another synth would sometimes
>     jam up.  He surmised this was happening because its MIDI buffer
>     was being clogged with aftertouch and other data to which the D-110
>     does not respond.  Have any of you D-110 owners experienced this?

I don't think I've experienced this. I use an MKB-200 to drive the D-110
which does transmit aftertouch info.

If you're looking for complaints:

The string  sounds  and  the  acoustic  piano  sounds are almost entirely
useless to my ears in my applications.

Also, There  is  a feature documented in the manual which works in such a
way that the  64 patches are useless to me.  This problem only comes into
play when you want  to  use  a  memory card to gain an extra 128 timbres.

The problem is this:   A  program change (PC) message is supposed to call
up a new sound from internal memory if the instrument on that channel was
previously from internal memory, and similarly call  up  a new sound from
the memory card it was previously from the  memory  card.    This doesn't
work properly if you've just called up a new "patch" (which is the entity
which  decides  which instruments are from internal memory and which  are
from the memory card).  So you can call up a  patch  which might assign 4
instruments to internal memory and 4 to the memory card, but then  if you
send  a  PC  message  to  changes  the  sound  on any of the memory  card
intruments, they  revert  to one of the internal memory counds.  The will
always happen after you call up a patch.  The only way I've got it to not
happen is by staying  in  "play"  mode  (or  something  like that), where
you've just defined a patch  but  you have'nt gotten into "patch" mode to
call up that or any other  patch.    This  means  I  only  get to use one
"patch" ("configuration" of internal/memory card instruments) but I still
get to call up any sound from internal memory or the memory card.

I think you'll have to buy one to understand that.

/Mitch

Bill,

>    yesterday and am leaning towards it more and more.  There is a GUITAR
>    CENTER out here, which wants about $795.00 for one.  I am thinking
>    of offering them $500.00 and my 9-mos old KAWAI R-50 in trade. 
>    Does that sound like a good deal?
    
How much did you pay for the R-50? If it is worth $200 to you (for crash
cymbal, sequencer, etc) I would keep the R-50 and buy the D110 from Sam
Ash for $700. Then, if you decide to dump the R-50, you could sell it for
whatever the market will bear. You tend to really take a bath when you do
tradeins.

>    I read in ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN (?) that the D-110 does NOT respond
>    to aftertouch.  That alone does not concern me, however, the reviewer
>    also found that the D-110 when slaved to another synth would sometimes
>    jam up.  He surmised this was happening because its MIDI buffer
>    was being clogged with aftertouch and other data to which the D-110
>    does not respond.  Have any of you D-110 owners experienced this?
>    I would be slaving the D-110 from a KAWAI K-5 which does have after-
>    touch (and a million other MIDI things). 

I have experienced a problem that may be related to this. The D50 and Kurzweil
MIDI board I use both have aftertouch. When I step entered Mapleleaf Rag, I used
the D50 keyboard. I'm using an MC500 sequencer. When I play the Mapleleaf Rag
back at about 120 beats per minute, some of the notes drop out. There are never
more than 8 notes being played at once. I'm using the Acoustic Piano 1 timbre.
When I slow down the tempo, the missing notes gradually come back until at
about 90 bpm every note sounds ok. I cannot tell if it is a voice reassignment
problem, MIDI buffer overflow, software bug, or what. I tried it on a D10 and
did not have the same problem. I also tried it on a brand new D110 in the store
and did not have the problem (playing real fast live). Your aftertouch info
might be a clue.

dave

    I have a hard time believing that a D-110 *WON'T* respond to aftertouch
    - or even that a/t "clogs it up". 

    My Oberheim pre-MIDI dinosaur with a MIDI mod has no trouble passing
    a/t thru, even though it doesn't respond to it.  I think the reviewer
    might have been drinking lunch.  Howzaboutit, Dave O., Mitch?  Do
    these things really ignore a/t?

-b

>    I have a hard time believing that a D-110 *WON'T* respond to aftertouch
>    - or even that a/t "clogs it up". 

Apparently the D110 does not respond to aftertouch. I'm going to experiment
by filtering the aftertouch out of my sequence, and also checking the status
of the overflow on/off switch in the D110. I may have inadvertently turned it
on. Also, the D110 has dynamic partial allocation, not dynamic polyphony
allocation. If a timbre uses 6 or 8 partials, the 32 partial pool is rapidly
used up. Many timbres can be simplified (eliminate a partial or 2) without
degrading the sound too much. This frees up more partials for more voice
polyphony. If my experiments are unsuccessful, I will take the unit to
Wurly's and experiment some more there.

dave

    I'm interested in discussing "using a sequencer to drive/program
    a drum machine".
    
    This seems like the best note to do it.
    
    In the past, I've used the drum machines built-in sequencer to
    program drum parts.  This was fine for awhile when I didn't
    stray too far from straight time and my fills were pretty
    simple, but as I've learned more about drum programming and started
    doing some more 'ambitious' things in that area, I've found
    (Len'll love this) that several limitations of my drum machine,
    the vaunted Alesis HR-16, have frustrated me to the point that
    I'm trying to program the drums entirely from my sequencer (Ensoniq
    SQ-80 which is similar to the ESQ-1 sequencer).
    
    Since lots of us own HR-16's I'm sure eyebrows have been raised
    by my statement regarding "limitation" limitations.  So I'll
    list them:
    
    	o Lack of backstep feature
    
    	o I just can't get used to the beat + fraction notation which
    	  MIDI software just loves, but is not the way musicians
    	  think.   I don't think of a 8th note as 48/96s.  This
    	  was a bad mistake in the user interface.
    
    	o I have convinced myself that there is a serious resolution
    	  problem in the HR-16.  Basically, for things
    	  like small rolls, minute timing feels, the HR-16 does NOT
    	  play things back exactly as I play them on the pads.
    
    	  I have verified this by recording simutaneously on my SQ-80
    	  and then THRU to the HR-16 (as well as on the HR and then THRU
    	  to the SQ-80).  What the HR plays is definitely different
    	  from what the SQ plays back (which seems indistinguish from
    	  what I played into it).
    
    	o I find it easier to get things like flams, triplets and dynamics 
    	  the way I want them by playing a keyboard rather than the pads.
    	  The pads just don't seem responsive enough, especially for
    	  flams and triplets (notes in fairly rapid succession).
    
    	  I now do flams by setting up two "pads" for slightly different
    	  snare sounds (one fairly normal sound, the other varies between
    	  a slightly  detuned snare or a rim shot or side-stick depending
    	  on what seems "right".   I have the regular snare programmed
    	  to MIDI note D4 (I think), and the "other" snare programmed
    	  to D#4.   Although it's hard to describe exactly how I hit
    	  those two adjacent keys to get a flam, it's probably not hard
    	  for you to guess what I do which is basically keep my fingers
    	  together such that the D# hits a little a head of when the D
    	  does.  
    
          I've found that I can get it right just about every time this
    	  way - I.E. I never have to go back and "reprogram" flams by
    	  punching in, or shifting, etc.  I just record them when I record
    	  the snare line.
    
    	o The HR-16 does not respond to MIDI PROGRAM (pattern) change quickly enough.
    	  I.E., if you send a program change at the beginning of each
    	  sequence, the HR will play the previous sequence one more time
    	  and THEN go to the new one, presumably because the program change
    	  occurred after the clock interval that is the start of the
    	  pattern (after it looped).
    
    	  Rumor has it that this is fixed in a new version of the software.
    	  THe fix actually is that it can change patterns in mid stream
    	  I believe.  I don't think most sequencers that have PROGRAM change
    	  settings associated with tracks/sequencers (as opposed to having
    	  the program change data "in" the track) send out the program
    	  change AHEAD (predictively) before the new sequence starts.
    	  This is fine for synths because it's only important that it
    	  be sent before the first NOTE, but for this application in
    	  drum machines it has to be sent before the first beat.
    
    Anyway, that's the why's.  Onto the real topic.
    
    There are lots of problems you buy by NOT using the drum machines
    sequencer.  Obviously, a drum machine sequencers software and hardware
    are dedicated to one purpose and thus can be customized for that
    applcation (and they are).
    
    As Len pointed out earlier, any sequencer (PC-based, dedicated,
    integrated synth/sequencer, whatever...)that portends to supporting
    creating rhythm tracks will do so by recognizing that a rhythm track
    is inherently different and providing special features for it.
    Those features pretty much coincide with what you might normally
    expect to find on a drum machine.
    
    o Separate "track" or "subtrack" for EACH instrument
    
    The MC-500 sorta does that, but from what I've read in Len's reviews
    it's a partial implementation.  According to my understanding of it,
    
      o  you can't do all the things to a rhythm track instrument that you
         can to a regular track (separate MIDI channel for example)
    
         I don't know what else you can't do, but some of the things
    	 I'd like to apply separate for each instrument are
    	 quantization; shifiting the domains of time and velocity, etc.;
    
    And there are a few things that a drum machine can do for each
    instrument that I wonder what sequencers support:
    
    	o Ability to erase notes in real time
    
    	o Ability to add notes in real time (this is a MERGE operation)
    
    	o Ability to set the overall dynamic level of each instrument
    	  (not all drum machines will support this and those that do
    	  almost certainly do it via SYSEX as on the HR-16, although
    	  one can also do it, with some restrictions, via program change
    	  on the HR-16)
    
    	o Although this is really just an extension of the last bullet
    	  item, one would really like to be able to configure the kit
    	  (in HR-speak, the voices, MIX, and tuning) entirely via MIDI
    	  as if the HR was just another SGU.
    
    	  One would like the sequencer to understand those things, rather
    	  than force you to go to SYSEX.  But this may be dreaming...
    
    
     Time to get some work done... more later...
    
    	db

	I must say, I have reached pretty much the same conclusion, although
	for different reasons in some cases. 

	Basically I haven't programmed the HR-16 or the DDD-1 since I
	got the ST. Even though there are still limitations, I get what
	amounts to better resolution and more realistic sounds by abandoning
	the keypads and program architecture of the '16 and the DDD-1. 

	Of course, there are some annoying conflicts with this setup. You
	still have to actually save a pattern in the HR-16 in order to
	get it to save your mappings. So now I have a bunch of 1,2,3 and 4
	measure "garbage" patterns because you never hit the "play" button
	anyway, except to hit a note to tell the stupid machine to actually
	remember your mapping.

	What I'd rather have is a rackmount SGU devoted to playing percussion
	sounds. Too bad there is no such beast.

	/pjh

    You can do most of what you want with the MC-500's new software
    release, the S-MRC-500.
    
    They've made it possible to assign MIDI channel per rhythm instrument.
    There is no "overall level" per instrument though.  You can route
    the rhythm track to either or both of the MIDI outputs.  You used
    to be able to enter flams by using the shift key when you enter
    the dynamic level (1-8; the mapping from these 8 values to MIDI
    velocities is the same for all instruments, but can be set on a
    song by song basis) for the instrument into the rhythm grid, but
    the S-MRC documentation doesn't talk about flams at all.  The
    "openness" of the flam is determined by the currently selected
    resolution.
    
    One annoying feature of the way the MC-500 handles rhythm patterns
    is that you can't use "incommensurate" step sizes at the same time
    (e.g., 16th note triplets and 16th notes; the common step size is
    64th note triplets, which isn't supported, and would be hellacious
    to deal with anyway).  You can get around this by assigning the same
    sound to two instruments, and programming the 16th notes in one
    instrument and the 16th note triplets in the other.  This is not
    a problem with phrase tracks, which can resolution (step size) as
    needed.
    
    I'm surprised that the HR-16 has quantization problems - I thought
    it used the same 96 ppq clock resolution that the MC-500 uses.
    96 ppq at 120 bpm works out to about 5 milliseconds per tick, which
    is right at the ragged edge of detectability for most people.
    
    Editing features like time shifting, note by note replacement, velocity
    compression or expansion, etc. are done by copying the rhythm track
    to a phrase track and applying the S-MRC's mindboggling array of
    editing features.  Most editing operations can be performed between
    any two clock ticks (with special easy to use support for edits
    on bar boundaries) with the events to be edited qualified by MIDI
    channel and range of note numbers.  In addition, you can control
    the extent of quantization (i.e., you can specify a percentage of
    the difference between what you start with and what the quantization
    resolution implies that actually gets applied to the event), and
    you can "phase" things in so tempo, quantization or velocity changes
    don't take place abruptly.
     
    Unfortunately (and understandably), you can't copy a phrase track
    back to the rhythm track.  It would have been nice, though, if they'd
    provided a means to copy a single bar of a phrase track into a rhythm
    pattern, either using the current set of defined rhythm instruments
    (ignoring undefined notes), adding (currently undefined notes) to the
    current set, or defining a new set from scratch.
    
    One nice thing the S-MRC supports is bar by bar dynamics - in addition
    to the 8 level dynamics specified by the pattern, you can specify
    a dynamic offset applied to the use of that pattern in a specific
    bar, so you can do crescendos in the rhythm track (used to be able
    to do this only in a phrase track) without having to create copies of
    the same basic pattern that differ only in dynamic level.
    
    In addition, the S-MRC has added some features that make it easier
    to move from rhythm instrument to rhythm instrument; the rhythm
    grid only applies to one instrument at a time.
    
    You can program a pattern in step time or in real time from any
    MIDI source.  You can have up to 240 patterns per song, and a song
    can be up to 999 bars in length.  Patterns now can be any length
    (time signature) from 1/32 to 32/2, and you can mix time signatures
    freely.  However, the rhythm track sets up the time signature for
    the corresponding phrase track bars, so you can't have a different
    time signatures playing at the same time; you can have different
    time signature serially, though.  Also, you no longer program "rest"
    bars via predefined dedicated pattern numbers; now you just provide
    the rest bar's time signature.
    
    I set up kits at the HR-16 as blank patterns and the use the patch
    change mechanism to select the pattern/kit at the beginning of the
    song.  So far, I have found no need to change kits in the middle of
    a song, but this could be a useful way of increasing the apparent
    number of voices available.
    
    The MC-500's combination of 32 rhythm instruments, MIDI channel
    per rhythm instrument, two MIDI outputs, 240 patterns, and the copy
    to phrase track for unrestricted editing (with 100000 notes onboard,
    the rhythm track's storage efficiency is no longer an absolute
    necessity) capability is quite powerful.  I just use my drum machines
    as SGUs.  None of their sequencers come close to capability of the
    MC-500/S-MRC combo.  The R-8, may, however change this.
    
    len.
      

    RE: HR-16 quantize problems...I'm beginning to suspect that the
    problems I've encountered (programming via MIDI and a pad) are a
    timing problem internal to the HR...ie: if it's busy responding
    to a note on via MIDI it has a slight time delay prior to actually
    adding that note to a pattern it's programming at the same time.
    I don't have a clue how I'd ever verify this.
    
    This probably should n't be a big surprise some other drum machines don't
    transmit MIDI and output sound at the same time (TR707), probably
    because they use old microprocessor technology (if they use micro's
    at all HR doesn't).
    
    dbii

> < Note 1640.47 by PAULJ::HARRIMAN "Menus 'n mice...Men Usin' Mice" >
> 	What I'd rather have is a rackmount SGU devoted to playing percussion
> 	sounds. Too bad there is no such beast.

I had the same  feeling  last summer.  That's when I sold the TR-505 and
     bought the D-110.   63  percussion  sounds,  rackmount, no built in
     sequencer.

I have been doing drum parts  on my generic sequencer for 1.5 years now.
     I don't miss drum machine programming in the least.

/Mitch

    We discussed a rackmount drum SGU earlier, and I still think it's a
    good idea. 

    After spending a substantial amount of time with an Alesis tech, here's
    what I can tell you (Dave) about your gripes: 

	o Lack of backstep feature		being done as I write
    	o Beat + fraction notation		you're stuck
    	o resolution problem in the HR-16	improved (in 1.09), usually
						  due to quantization value
    	o MIDI PROGRAM (pattern) change		fixed in 1.09

    1.09 also sends/responds to song position pointer.  Alesis will upgrade
    your machine for nothing more than the cost of UPSing the box to them
    (cost me $3.50 from Ohio). 

    While SYSEX implementation would be nice, it would be even nicer
    to be able to access all 49 samples via MIDI, as well as being able
    to define different "note zones" for each sample (kind of a built-in
    mega-multiple-split option).

    Like Paul, I have an ST and have no desire to go back to the "pattern"
    mode of programming on the drum machine - I find that there's just not
    enough variation when using patterns (how many flavors of a 4 bar riff
    can you mix up?).  I tend to use one or two very large patterns (682
    beats) on the HR-16 and use the pads to punch in a basic rhythm track,
    then dump that track to the ST.  I then go back and punch in variations
    from the KX76 or in step mode using using a few unused tracks, merge,
    and step edit (specifically, delete) mode. 

    (BTW - the lack of program change being sent at the "proper" time is
    not the fault of the HR, but of the (E)SQ sequencer, which sends all
    patch change info at clock tick 1.  I had this problem on my ESQ-1 but
    have not had it with MasterTracks, which sends change info at tick 0.
    I've had no problem with delayed change on either 1.06 or .09.) 

    Anyway, while this is great for variation and control, I find that a
    drum track can absorb quite a bit of sequencer memory.  Another thing
    that I used to do when I had the ESQ-1 was to punch the basic track
    into the drum machine and then record fills and "embellishments" using
    a track in the ESQ.  It seemed to work out pretty well. 

-b

>     o Separate "track" or "subtrack" for EACH instrument

If your generic sequencer has enough tracks, you can slice and dice them
     any way you want. I usually use 2-7 tracks for percussion parts.

>       o  you can't do all the things to a rhythm track instrument that you
>          can to a regular track (separate MIDI channel for example)

Not sure I understand that one.

>          I don't know what else you can't do, but some of the things
>     	 I'd like to apply separate for each instrument are
>     	 quantization; shifiting the domains of time and velocity, etc.;

Again, if you've  got  enough  tracks,  and  your sequencer can do these
     things for each track, then you're all set.

>     	o Ability to erase notes in real time

I don't know of any generic sequencers that do this. I don't miss it.

>     	o Ability to add notes in real time (this is a MERGE operation)

Set one track to play  in  loop,  record  new  notes  onto another track
     (although the new notes may not loop).

/Mitch

    I must have the patience of a saint. Lack of step-back excepted,
    I have no problem programming my HR-16.
    
    Just what kind of stuff are you folks doing?
    
    Edd (who_also_lives_in_harmony_with_a_QX-7)

    re .47 and rack mount drum SGUs - the Korg DRM-1 is exactly that.
    The only problem is the sounds are reported to be not too great.
    A sampler that supported heavy-duty multisampling (i.e., "splits"
    with one sample per note) would also do.  Anybody know how well
    the Roland U-110 does in this regard? 
    
    What I'd really like is a robust, rack mounted, sequencer-less
    HR-16-like device with extensible sounds.  See my lenDrum note
    somewhere in this conference.  I think the note was titled "The
    Ultimate Drum Machine" or something like that.
    
    len.
    

    
    Akai do a rackmount drum expander which is quite good. I had it
    out on loan about 3 weeks ago. It had a terrible user interface
    16 bit sounds 8 assaignable outs, about 490 pounds.
    
    Pro-24 which I have also been trying out recently has a good drum
    edit screen which allows you to set up at least 2 kits and then
    it works verys similar to one of the normal drum machines. It has
    a grid to edit very similar to one of the roland drum machines it
    allows you to record your base pattern in real-time and the select
    a number of bars from this pattern and loop them adding or removing
    events with the mouse. This pattern is then treate as a normal pattern
    along with any other in the sequencer.
    
    					Paul
    

RE < Note 1640.50 by HPSRAD::NORCROSS "Schedule, Schedule, ...and Schedule" >

	A D110 may be well and good, but the amount of CONTROL you may have
over the individual drum sounds is limited.  

	I'd like a rack-mount unit with individual outs/assignable outs, high
quality sounds, and expansion ports for upgrading sounds when the general tide
of 'what sounds hot' shifts (such as gated snares, etc.).

	Dan

> < Note 1640.56 by NRPUR::DEATON >
> 	A D110 may be well and good, but the amount of CONTROL you may have
> over the individual drum sounds is limited.  

     Yeah, that's true. no built-in individual volume or effects.

> 	I'd like a rack-mount unit with individual outs/assignable outs

     D-110 has 'em.   you  can  send  any  drum  sound  to  any of the 6
     individual outs, or you can  place  any  drum sound anywhere in the
     stereo field of the stereo outs.

> high quality sounds,

  Yeah, they're not the best, but I find them to be all I need.

> and expansion ports for upgrading sounds when the general tide
> of 'what sounds hot' shifts (such as gated snares, etc.).

  It does have a slot for memory  cards.  Don't know what's available or
     to what degree the drum tones can  be  replaced.   In fact, I don't
     think  the  drum tones can be replaced.   They  should've  made  it
     possible, since the slot is already there.

/Mitch

    I tracked down "The Ultimate Drum Machine" note, it's 1466.  My
    proposed machine is described in 1466.8, and there's some followup
    discussion.  I just reread the proposal, and I'll be danged if it
    ain't a neat machine.  I sure wish someone could build one.
    
    len.
    

>    (BTW - the lack of program change being sent at the "proper" time is
>    not the fault of the HR, but of the (E)SQ sequencer, which sends all
>    patch change info at clock tick 1.  I had this problem on my ESQ-1 but
>    have not had it with MasterTracks, which sends change info at tick 0.
>    I've had no problem with delayed change on either 1.06 or .09.) 
    
    Has anyone been able to verify that this feature (pattern change)
    works on an ESQ-1 with with 1.09?
    
    	db

    

    
    I have gotten some program change glitches with my CZ-5000 when
    using it for drums.  Although the program change goes out before
    the note on, the synth apparently can't respond fast enough if there
    is more than one program change happening at the same time and/or
    the tempo is very high.  
    
    This would seem to be a microprocessor bandwidth issue. I would
    guess the CZ uses a Z80...any idea what the HR-16 has for a CPU?
    
    
    

RE: .59

    I can't comment on the ESQ, Dave, but I have a few sequences using MTP
    where I change drum patterns in the middle of a phrase with nary a
    glitch (using 1.09 - didn't have the sequences written before my
    upgrade). 

    I'd run in and give it another go, except that my new version of MTP
    (2.5B) went south, and I have to get another disk.  Sigh. 

-b

    re. 46
    	I thought that most of you old timers were sequencing your drum
    sounds out, that is avoiding the drum machine's sequencer.  In fact,
    I have seen a lot of hype in the press about the HR-16 being used
    for this.  I rarely use my R-50's sequencer anymore, prefering to
    get whatever sounds I need from the R-50 and the D-110 seperately,
    and combine them on my PC-based sequencer (SequencerPlus MKII).
    This has much more flexibility and that's where the 32 tracks really
    come in handy.  I think my drumming also sounds infinitely more
    realistic.
    
    re .47
    	The D110 really fits the "rhythym SGU" bill for me.  There are
    some cards out now with "new" drum sounds, which I just loaded into
    my D110 editor/Lib.  I haven't spent that much time with them, but
    they do sound like some welcome variety.  (Although I think they
    are based on the same basic tones as the stock sounds).
    
    re. 56
    	I thought you did have the ability to control the volume of
    individual rhythym sounds at individual outputs.  It might be arcane
    doing it through the D110's interface, but I'm sure there's a way
    to assign output volume in a patch setup for rhythym.
    
    Clusters,
    Bill Allen @MPO
    

    re: .52
    
    Mitch,
    
    > Not sure I understand
    
    The points I  made that you quoted were in the context of things
    that the MC-500 didn't seem to do (according to various descriptions).
    
    >> o Ability to erase notes in real time
    
    > I don't know of any generic sequencers that do this.  I don't
    > miss it.
    
    It's the fastest way to erase an errant crash or misplaced note.
    Going into step mode to do those kinds of things seems like a
    waste of time, to me at least.
    
>>     	o Ability to add notes in real time (this is a MERGE operation)

>Set one track to play  in  loop,  record  new  notes  onto another track
>     (although the new notes may not loop).
    
    This is not the same thing.
    
    The real advantage to MERGE is that you can add new notes at each
    iteration without having to create a new track each time.  All
    the drum machines I've ever used have allowed that and most of the
    people I've seen program drum machines in real time depend on that.
    
    	db

>     re. 56
>     	I thought you did have the ability to control the volume of
>     individual rhythym sounds at individual outputs.  It might be arcane
>     doing it through the D110's interface, but I'm sure there's a way
>     to assign output volume in a patch setup for rhythym.

I believe there  is only "overall volume" for the rhythm setup.  I could
     be wrong.   But  if  you  route  an  individual  sound  out  to  an
     individual  output,  then you  can  use  your  external  mixer  for
     individual volume control.  This  will  also  remove the individual
     percussion sound from the internal reverb path.

/Mitch

    The step edit/erase function using MTP is almost as fast as doing a
    "live delete" on a drum machine.  Like Mitch, I find that aspect of a
    drum machine sequencer not very useful. 

    The "overdub" (merge in play) recording method certainly has its
    advantages, though - BUT ... 

    If you record the basic tracks on the HR, then dump them into a "real"
    sequencer (such as MTP or MC500), you have the best of both worlds. 

-b

    re: .65
    
>    If you record the basic tracks on the HR, then dump them into a "real"
>    sequencer (such as MTP or MC500), you have the best of both worlds. 

    If the HR didn't have the resolution problem.
    
    Another problem with this suggestion is that it pretty much implies
    swapping MIDI cords or purchase of a device like the MX-8 or 
    having a loop in your MIDI network.
    
    How is your MIDI network arranged Brad?  Presumably you have
    SEVERAL devices sending to the Atari, one of them being the HR
    which also has to receive from the Atari (assuming you do what
    you've suggested).
    
    	db

RE: 1640.62 by MUSKIE::ALLEN
    
    Could you tell us more about the new sound cards you have for the
    D110? (Perhaps a new note is called for...)  Thanks -
    
    Tom
    

> < Note 1640.67 by STAR::BENSON >
>     Could you tell us more about the new sound cards you have for the
>     D110? (Perhaps a new note is called for...)  Thanks -

Please, oh  please,  don't  start  another  note.  Use the existing D110
     note.  DIR/TITLE=110 will point you to it.

I was going to ask  the  same question, in the appropriate note, but you
     did it first.

/Mitch

> < Note 1640.63 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "Yo!" >
>                      -< RE: .52 (real-time erase & MERGE) >-

This whole 'real-time  erase  and  merge'  issue is indeed a hard one to
     discuss through Notes.

It's funny, Dave, you  mention  real-time,  but yet you're talking about
     looping on a pattern,  which is not 'real-time' with respect to the
     progression of a song.

Drum machine programming is fundementally different from Drum Sequencing
     simply because one is "programming" and  the other is "sequencing".
     I don't do drums one pattern at a time.  I record drums that I play
     as the song plays in parallel.

I don't think I want to debate this a  whole  lot  since the differences
     are in how we like to create songs.

As an aside,  with MTP, you don't need to go from  "real-time"  mode  to
     "step-time"  mode.    you  can  record  in  real-time and have  the
     step-edit window open at the same time, so if there is  a  note out
     of place, you just erase it on the screen (you do have  to stop the
     sequence from playing though).

No flames  or  anything  like  that.   It's just a complex issue to talk
     about in "batch" like this.

/Mitch

RE: .66 (db)

>resolution problem

    Like I tried to say earlier, newer revs of the s/w are much better
    about this - turning off quantization during record (of tough passages)
    all but eliminates the problem.  I had a problem once where the HR got
    a beat behind (stupidity on my part, IMO).  Anyway, I loaded into MTP,
    selected the portion of the track that was outa whack, and did a MOVE
    NOTES X CLOCKS TO LEFT command.  Fixed the problem in about 2 seconds. 

    Either way for me, it's a non-issue. 

>MIDI mapping

    An MX8 would be nice and one way to do it ... another way is to put the
    HR as follows: 

	+--> AtariST ---> MIDI cloud ---> HR16 ---> KX76 --->+
	|						     |
	+<-------------------------------------------------<-+

    Make sure ECHO MIDI IN TO MIDI OUT is OFF.  (An aside - the KX76 merges
    in to out; MIDI clock and active sensing must be disabled at powerup to
    work properly.) 

    To use the HR as an SGU only, set SYNC to INTERNAL ONLY and turn off
    MIDI CLOCK OUT. 

    To use the HR as a slave (real drumbox), set SYNC to MIDI & INTERNAL
    and turn off MIDI CLOCK OUT. 

    To dump from the HR to the Atari, set up the HR in slave mode (above)
    and press RECORD on the Atari.  Works like a champ. 

-b

RE -1