mutator patch


    Jan 25 2006 | 1:38 pm
    Hi list,
    I found this at the clavia homepage:
    http://www.clavia.se/products/nordmodular/software.htm
    a patch which mutates the sound in an interesting way.
    I am shure it is also possible in max/msp, and it would be
    a cool improvement (in fact I was considering looking for a G2 machine, after
    reading about this mutator thing, but hey, max/msp should be able to do this too!!)
    Just wanted to give an idea for a new cool patch, if somebody is bored ;O)
    would be a big thing for the new share site!
    cheers
    sascha

    • Jan 25 2006 | 3:02 pm
      The Galaxy voice editor/librarian had something similar on its "Factory"
      menu. "Shade two" interpolated all of the parameters of one voice to the
      corresponding parameter of another. I forget the name of the other process
      but it also took two voices of your choice and created a bank of new voices
      using the "guide" voices as the limits of random choice for each of the
      parameters. When I was using a bank of Proteii and a TX816 as my touring
      orchestra, I wrote max patches that did this in real time. You can hear the
      TX816 in "Five Summer Scenes" and thereal time mutation in "Colony." Both
      are on my web site.
      Slainte,
      Gary Lee Nelson
      Oberlin College
      www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson
    • Jan 26 2006 | 6:58 am
    • Jan 26 2006 | 8:25 am
      Hi Roman,
      Shure I would like to help you!
      Could you pls send me (or to the list, so all could
      participate and help) your "mutator"-patch?
      I
    • Jan 26 2006 | 10:27 am
      It doesn't offer the nice pictures like the clavia editor, but you
      should be looking at pattrstorage for your 2-point interpolation
      needs. With some work, one could use pattrstorage to perform
      specifiable randomization of named parameters in a patch, too.
      All that said, the G2 is a _great_ instrument and you should get one
      anyway!
      jb
    • Jan 26 2006 | 11:56 am
      @jeremy
      Is the g2 also good for noisy, droning experimental sounds?
      Is it really useful for physical modelling?
      I had a nord modular (1.version) but gave it away, because it sounded too cold for me (but I had great fun making patches).
      I don
    • Jan 26 2006 | 3:07 pm
      Mutation is the easy part. What was always difficult was finding the
      information about data format and sysex codes in the synth. Only a few
      synths include enough documentation about midi implementation. The Proteus
      manual was particularly good and the Yamaha X series became well-known
      because of its wide-spread use and a lot of hacking.
      Here are some issues that I recall in writing your own mutator in max....
      Interpolation is not linear for many voice parameters, for example these in
      the Proteus,,,
      sample number - samples are not stored in an order that makes perceptual
      sense even if we knew everything about adjacency in timbral space. I created
      my own map based on subjective judgments and instrument classifications.
      LFO wave shapes - is a square wave half way between a sine and a
      triangle?
      Parameters that link controllers to synth parameters
      And this in the X series...
      algorithm number.
      Using Galaxy's random patch mutator produced a lot of voices that didn't
      make any sound. It was a great way to "shop" for unusual voices but I did
      not think of it as mutation in the usual sense - i.e. Small developmental
      steps.
      If your synth has on-board editing things can be easier. You can use max'
      sysexin to watch what happens when you press the buttons on the synth. In
      particular you want to know the codes for requesting data dumps from the
      synth. Having that you can capture data, modify it in max and then send it
      back.
      Once again I suggest my piece, "Colony" as an example of doing this in real
      time. Voices are loaded from the synth, bred and then sent back.
      Slainte,
      Gary Lee Nelson
      Oberlin College
      www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson
    • Jan 27 2006 | 3:26 pm
      Some responses to Raman....
      Midi controllers - I was referring to the connection of midi controllers to
      parameters of a voice patch. It would make little sense if controllers A &
      C were being used for some purpose and a mutation reassigns to controller B
      that may not even exist.
      Requesting voice parameters - the Proteus, as I said, is very permissive
      about this. You can send messages to change individual parameters with
      short sysex messages interleaved with other other time-sensitive data. This
      also works on some Yamaha synths.
      Work - some things require work. Just because a synth manufacturer didn't
      think a parameter should have midi control doesn't mean a composer should
      accept it.
      Single device - I found writing custom control patches well worth the effort
      when I had spend >$10K on hardware synths. The idea of custom control is
      the very reason we have MSP.
      Colony - you can hear it along with other works at
      Cheers,
      Gary Lee Nelson
      TIMARA Department
      Oberlin College
      www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson
    • Jan 27 2006 | 5:12 pm
    • Jan 27 2006 | 9:04 pm
    • Jan 27 2006 | 10:55 pm
      On 1/27/06 4:04 PM, "Roman Thilenius" wrote:
      > do not overestimate the priviledges you have.
      > the designer of the synthesizer decides what a parameter is
      > or if he documents it in the manual.
      Many hardware designers were/are out of touch with "experimental" composers.
      Moving away from hardware synths to software like MSP, SuperCollider,
      csound, RTCmix and the like solve some of the problems of going down the
      road less traveled. I still write music for traditional instruments and I
      accept and revel in their limitations but once over the threshold into
      digital media I no longer want to do things the way they have always been
      done. I no longer have to.
      > with the same logic you could invent new parameters where there
      > is also no sysex link - and rewrite the operation system of the
      > synth. because you are the composer.
      I DO invent new parameters and relationships between parameters crossing the
      line between image and sound with ease BECAUSE the designers of
      MAX/MSP/Jitter DO understand that the invention of tools is part of the
      artistic process.
      > and tomorrow you want to choose another president. because you
      > are the composer.
      I don't know where you live but I have reasons beyond being a composer to
      choose a new president...but I'll express those views on another list -
      perhaps dumpthatchump.org
      Cheers,
      Gary Lee Nelson
      TIMARA Department
      Oberlin College
      www.timara.oberlin.edu/GaryLeeNelson