Darwin Grosse

In the last article, we did a lot of setup - we got input/output handling in place, and added a compressor to the processing chain as an example of an “effect module”. In this article, we will continue adding effects, including a dual overdrive module and a three-stage EQ/Filter module. With these additions we will further explore Max 5’s user interface options, as well as taking a look at some of the “tweaks” that make Max/MSP functions a little more guitar-faithful.

Download the patch used in this tutorial.

First up is an overdrive processor.  I’ve found that the way to get the most variety with this sort of processor is to have two overdrive~ objects in series with a lowpass filter between them; the result is a controllable distortion/overdrive capable of some crazy variations. I have, again, encapsulated the overdrive functions in a subpatcher (in this case, called od_handler), which implements the dual overdrive~ setup, as well as a selector~ that provides the bypass functionality.

I’ve also added a level adjustment that allows us to tame the output levels post-overdrive~. This can be very handy, since some of the more extreme overdrive settings can cause high levels (both real and perceived). I’ve also connected a meter~ object to the output of the subpatcher, giving me a way to eyeball the output of the compressor-overdrive combination.

Next up is the creation of a EQ/Filter modules.  This is going to use the cascade~ filter, which is a version of a biquad filter that takes lists of coefficients to create a complex filter curve. In order to control it with simplified controls, we will use a function of the filtergraph~ object that converts frequency/level combinations into biquad-type coefficients.

By now, you should be able to see the design pattern in use: I create a subpatcher with the “guts” of the effect module, then attach controls for all of the variable parameters. Open the “filter_handler” subpatcher to examine the DSP funtions used. Most of this subpatcher converts the incoming values into useful frequency and level values, then sending them into filtergraph~ objects. I could have just as easily used filtercoeff~ objects, but using the filtergraph~ lets me see the individual filter settings, helping me verify that the individual filter parameters are being set correctly. The coefficient outputs of the filtergraph~ objects are “pak’d” into a list of 15 floating point values (five for each filter), then prepended with the cascade message. This informs connected filter objects that more than one coefficient set will be used to create a complex filter.

This list is now sent to a cascade~ object, which implements the equivalent of serial biquad filters that implement the cascaded filter settings. This could just as easily be implemented as several biquad~ objects, but using the single cascade~ object allows us to keep the signal count down.

An important addition to this subpatcher is filter clearing. Biquad filters are based on delay lines that can occasionally get overloaded. In these cases, the filter is “blown”, and will not produce any output. The easiest way to fix a blown filter is to send it a clear message, but the downside is that it resets all of the filter coefficients, but doesn’t update any of the user interface elements that control the filter. So, in this case, when we receive a message in the “clear filters” inlet, it not only sends a clear message to the cascade object, but also sends a bang to receivers of the “fil_clear” send object.

There is only one receiver of fil_clear: a receive object embedded in the subpatcher called “filter_clearer”. This simply resets all of the user interface elements to default values, providing visual feedback of the filter’s newly cleared state. It is important to implement a function like this whenever you are working with MSP filters, since blowing a filter is a common problem when experimenting with extreme filter settings.

Put the patch into Presentation Mode, and you will see that I’ve reordered the modules to maintain the row-column orientation of the signal flow. I’ve also added level meters at the end of each row. This is something that I’ve learned to do for performance patches - to place meters in strategic places, helping me to see “where” something is wrong when something goes wrong. As this patch develops, we will place a meter at the end of each row, combining useful debugging information with a cool, flashy display.

I also decided to make the visual EQ/Filter display very large in Performance Mode. This helps me see the result of subtle changes, and gives a better visual indication in the heat of battle. If you want to create and add modules of your own, you might want to make this part of the patch a little smaller - but be careful, since the EQ module can have a pretty drastic effect on your sound, and you will want as much control as possible.

With the addition of the overdrive and EQ/Filter units, we have created tools to sculpt the sound of the guitar. Next, we will add a few more “effect-y” modules, including a smooth phaser and a modulating delay line. Until then, have fun with our new modules, and try to make some of your own using some of the techniques we’ve developed.


max-5-guitar-processor-part-2

Max 5 Guitar Processor, Part 2

T.U.

Krynn is a multiband stereo distortion developed by Luca Favaro (T.U.) based on a concept design by SY/IN. It is distributed by HIDE Productions | H-4.

FREE download available on the video description of the YouTube here:


Krynn is a multiband stereo distortion developed by Luca Favaro (T.U.) based on a concept design by SY/IN. 

krynn

Krynn

stkr

a collection of waveshaping functions and demos, requires Max 6.0.4 or later.

- update, v. 1.0.1 - added 21 abstractions for those users without a full Gen license

- this is not a complete set of tools, but a collection of in-progress… things, inspired by this thread from the forums:

https://cycling74.com/forums/valve-distortion

- some waveshaping functions to get you started - side-by-side for comparison, in GenExpr format (but embedded in a Max patch - no Gen license required)

- and some reusable GenExpr code, two full abstractions & helpfiles, 21 basic abstractions


stkr-waveshaping

stkr.waveshaping

Garrett

A.u.t.o.m.n.e. / Autumn : renew is an audiovisual performance performed by Frédérique Santune at the Open Ear (http://openear.wordpress.com/) Cinema event on the 11th of March 2008. The software, Untitled designed by Garrett Lynch, allowed the artist to perform live with a video through voice and gesture.

project29-automne-⁄-autumn-renew-untitled

Untitled (for A.u.t.o.m.n.e. ⁄ Autumn : renew)

In an earlier article, Andrew Benson and Ben Bracken went through the process of connecting a guitar to a Max-based processing system, and creating a few guitar-oriented effects patches. In this series of articles, I will be building a Max-based guitar processing "rig", and will give you the opportunity to look over my shoulder as I design and implement this system.

The first thing I did was to plan the processing chain that I would create. I wanted a rather typical guitar rig, with the addition of a looping delay line. I decided on the following functional graph:

I also made a few decisions about general program functionality. Since this will be a stand-alone program/patch, I wouldn't worry about limiting system usage; therefore I wouldn't wrap subpatches inside of poly~ objects (to reduce their CPU load when unused). Also, I decided to take full advantage of the Max 5 Presentation Mode layout, allowing me to code in a convenient way and worry about the performance layout in a separate step.

Since I am a dyed-in-the-wool tweaker, I wanted to structure the code in such a way that I could manipulate it easily - even during live performance. This means that I needed to create an easily-to-follow patch that was well-labeled, and I needed to encapsulate at a level conducive to on-the-fly changes.

Finally, in order to build this quickly, I decided to beg, borrow or steal as much of the programming as possible without resorting to the use of VST plug-ins (which would reduce tweak-ability). Throughout these articles, you will see me reuse older code, appropriate from other applications and use third-party objects whenever necessary. I also take full advantage of some design patterns I've developed that allow for quick coding of more complex patch routings.

Since this is a stand-alone patch, we need to control our own input and output. Let's start by creating an input section. If you open the patch GtrProc-1.maxpat, you will see that I have discrete patch segments that correspond to the individual functions described in my processing graph. Place the patch into Presentation Mode, and you will see that these segments jump into a "rack style" package that is easy to follow during performance.

Move back into Patching Mode, and look at the top-left section of the patch. It is labeled "Input", and includes several controls connected to an abstraction named "input_handler". Double-click on the input_handler subpatcher to see its contents.

This subpatch is pretty simple: it contains a number of adstatus objects that allow my controls to display and alter the audio settings used at runtime. The function is similar to using the DSP Status window, but exposes only those items I considered important for realtime performance. Since I don't use the adstatus object very often, I don't know the functional arguments by heart. While I could have used the documentation to learn about the object, I decided to steal the functions from the help patch instead!

By viewing the help patch, I can learn about the function of an object. However, all help patches are also functional Max patches. In this case, I was able to unlock the adstatus.maxhelp patch, copy the functional objects that I needed, then paste them into my subpatcher. By connecting a few inlets and outlets, I'd created the small and efficient input setup handler that I needed.

In addition to setting the DSP Settings, I also want to control gain at this point. This is especially important with an instrument-driven patch, since different input hardware will provide vastly different levels. In my case, I may be using an IK Multimedia StealthPlug, a mixer with an audio interface, or even a direct connection into my Mac's audio input - so I want good control of my front-end gain. I did this by adding a *~ object to the input section, then routed the input into this control. By using a scale control, I'm able to change the normal range of the gain knob (0-127) into a range that goes from 0.0 (silent) to 2.0 (double-volume).

The next stage of the patch is a compressor. Since compression can have a very significant effect on the sound of the instrument, I wanted detailed control over its parameters. Therefore, I am using number boxes (rather than knobs) to control the values; this gives me precise control over the compressor's operation without having to guess at a knob's output value.

Again, this section is mostly a set of controls connected to an abstraction named "comp_handler". Double-click on this subpatcher to view its contents. This is a very simple subpatch; I've just borrowed the komp subpatcher (found in examples/effects/kompressor/lib of the Max folder) without change. I set a one parameter (lookahead) directly with a loadbang, but mostly expose the functions directly to the main patcher. Since this subpatcher is so simple, why didn't I just use komp directly in my main patch?

In the future, I may want to develop my own compressor system, or I may choose to implement the omx-based compressor included with MSP. I may even break down and use a VST compressor. In any of these cases, I would want to change the compressor "engine" without having to disturb my main patcher. By placing the compressor in a subpatch, I can change the underlying compression engine without ever having to change the top-level patch or the user interface.

This is a "high detail" compressor, giving me the kind of control I want for a flexible rig. If you aren't that familiar with compression, though, it may seem a little intimidating. Here are a few settings that I've found useful with this processor:

 (Sidebar) In each of the processing areas, you will see a small grey panel - it doesn't seem to do anything. However, when you switch into Presentation Mode, you should see these panels expand to become the background of the individual processing sections. This is an example of using the Presentation Mode's ability to change an object's geometry to keep my patching view clean, but give me an attractive user interface.

The final processing section for this tutorial controls the output. This section will be familiar to any Max/MSP programmer - it's the basis for audio output in almost any audio patch. The output of the compressor is sent to the two faders, which provide left/right volume control. The signal is then routed to an EZDAC~, which is also our DSP on/off control. If you have your guitar (or other instrument) plugged into the computer, you can check the settings on the input module, turn on the DSP, turn up the volume and hear your instrument through the patch.

However, it's not always convenient to test with an actual instrument. For example, some of this patch was done while I was waiting in an airport. The last thing the PSA wants to see is for me to pull out a guitar and start wailing. What I've done is to include a "test fixture" - some standard audio generating code - that I can use to test the patch as it is being built. You will notice that this section (labeled "test fixture") gives me the opportunity to load and play a file or to generate noise. This is a small bit of code I've copied from another patch of mine - I use it as a test fixture for almost every audio patch I write.

The output of this fixture is routed to a send~ object labeled "test". This audio is received in the input section, at the same point that my patch would see an instrument from the audio input. This way, I can test patches without having an instrument plugged in, helping me to be productive when the guitar isn't easily available.

We've created the basic I/O blocks for our performance patch. In the next article, we will expand it by adding a good-sounding distortion/overdrive system and a highly controllable filter/EQ. In the meantime, work with this basic patch, learn to understand the routing between the objects and explore the use of the compressor. Until next time - have fun!


In an earlier article, Andrew Benson and Ben Bracken went through the process of connecting a guitar to a Max-based processing system, and creating a few guitar-oriented effects patches. In this series of articles, I will be building a Max-based guitar processing "rig", and will give you the opportunity to look over my shoulder as I design and implement this system. 

max-5-guitar-processor-part-1

Max 5 Guitar Processor, Part 1

Ben Nevile

Amnon Wolman creates music with technology and for instruments with two distinctive features: first, a subtle and complex relationship with popular culture and second, a concern for the dramatic nature of sonic evolution. His first release on the c74 record label is "Dangerous Bend." In this conversation with Ben Nevile, Wolman discusses his romantic compositional techniques and reveals the unusual nature of his introduction to computer-based music.

Can we start with a bit of your history? Where do you get your ideas? What are your earliest musical memories?

I was born and raised in Israel. In 1968 I spent a year in Los Angeles which connected me to American popular culture in a way that was not present in my life before. I played classical instruments throughout my early years. I served in the Israeli army for three years - compulsory. Not a pleasant experience but not very traumatic either. I first acknowledged to myself that I was gay when I was 17 and to the world when I was 25. That was not a simple or easy route.

My first musical memories are of family singing. We had Friday dinners at home with the whole family and we would sing together. It was a highly physical activity. I felt the music in my body and mouth and ears more than hearing it as an outsider and an audience member. The first major classical piece that I was involved with as a youngster singing in a children's choir was Bach St. Matthew's Passion when I was 12. It made a huge impression on me and is probably the single moment when I realized that I needed to be a musician. It was like a drug, I felt elated.

So how did you become involved with computers?

In 1981 when I was completing my masters in composition at Tel Aviv University, the Lebanon war started in Israel. I wanted a way out, so I applied for a student exchange scholarship from the government of the Netherlands. I received the grant to do something in music that I could not do in Israel. I heard that there was a small group at the University of Utrecht - Institute for Sonology - that was working on computer music. At the time I was this strange combination of a politically minded, conceptual, somewhat minimal romantic composer... and I suspect I still am. I guess some conceptual music is highly romantic, and to be political implies some romanticism and naiveté too...

Anyway, I decided to go to Utrecht because I thought that using the computer to create music was a terrible idea, that it was cynical and mechanical. As often happened to me at that age I had very strong opinions about things I knew nothing about. I decided that I needed to know more about it in order to talk intelligently against it. But I was bitten by the bug, and the idea of creating sounds on my own has been very exciting and the highlight of my day ever since.

Tell me, was there something specific that caused you to change your mind?

Yes, it was working with sounds that changed my mind. I love imagination, and when working on a score for instruments imagining what it would sound like was a wonderful fantasy. But now, since 1982, I can put my hands in the dirt. I can design the exact sounds I want, and just listen to them evolve - not pitch, not rhythm.

After Utrecht I applied for graduate studies at Stanford where I was off and on until the end of 1989. From 1990 I've been teaching at Northwestern University, and from 1994 I also hold a position at Tel Aviv University.

How does your time at the two schools compare?

I feel safer as a teacher in Israel. I never question my language and my cultural references. My English is good, yet still I am not sure which words I may use with which person. When is it appropriate to use a slang word and which one, and what does it say about you when you use it? The same is true for cultural references. I know what it says about me if I say that I like the Beatles, that is safe, but when I say that I like Madonna, Tom Waits and Xenakis I know what it would mean for my students, and maybe my colleagues, but my other friends? People I meet in political activism groups? In Israel I feel that I know exactly what they mean, even though I may be wrong. I have less definition as a person here. For a long while it made my life easier because I could define myself, but now I miss being clear.

I really like the music on your C74 CD.  I find it incredibly soothing.

I can't decide if I like the description "soothing!"

Well, it's soothing to me. Most of the music I listen to is jagged... it's nice to hear something smooth. Is that not how you think of your music?

Interesting. It is not how I think of my music, mostly because of my politics. I guess for too long I've stood on barricades saying that music is an art and as such it presents many things, not just beauty and relaxation. But then I go and create music that is soothing... it feels weird in the context of my self-perception. But there is not a whole lot one can do about this. There is always a distance - huge I suspect - between the ideology and the art one creates. In the end I sit at the computer and listen to what I create and decide if it is what I want to create and ideology is never in the room during those times.

Is there anything that you've composed that comes more from an ideological standpoint, or has your creative process always been quite separate?

I think that the creative process is always an amalgamation of everything, the intellectual and the emotional. But I guess what I am talking about is the rigors of taste. That is, if I have an ideological or conceptual vision for a piece, by the time I work on it the final choices are about "what does this sound like" and "I like this" or "this is too much" or "this is too beautiful, what will the neighbors say." I don't have many voices of this last kind, the "what will my colleagues and friends say," but every once in a while I realize and chuckle when I finish a section and think to myself how so-and-so would like this...

But to make a long answer even longer, I think the final cut is irrational, and I've never finished a piece where I thought, "oh it does exactly what I decided in advance - so it's okay, even though it does not sound so great." I've always gone and fixed it, started all over, or scrapped it. I hate to admit my romantic streak, but the final decision is always left to my senses.

What compositional techniques did you use on this CD, both inside and outside of Max?

Mostly I used processed sounds. I have worked in the past with synthesis, but the last several years have been almost entirely based on processed recordings. I make recordings everywhere, with people and in nature, and then I process them in different ways. From filtering to different versions of granular synthesis using the recordings as the basis for the brain. I use a lot of time distortion, and different algorithms of phase vocoding.

I think that the idea of processing a recording of, say, a family conversation is very powerful. Somehow I feel that the essence of the sound stays. Even if I am the only one who knows where the sounds came from, some of the magic of the personality and the situation are folded into the sounds. Obviously the actual physical properties are inherent to the sound too. I think perhaps the most personal statement I can make about the pieces you called "soothing" is that I don't hear them as such because I listen to the sounds. A slight change, a disappearance of a harmonic, or an emphasis on a group of harmonics makes huge dramas in my listening experience and does not sooth me... but I know I hear sounds differently than other people.

Sure - you've made the sounds, so you understand them in a deeper way than anyone else, and your listening is therefore completely different. What has had the most direct effect on the romantic inclinations of your musical direction?

The most important musical influences were my teacher in Israel Abel Ehrlich, and John Cage- I met him in Stanford in 1985 and we remained friends until his death. Other influences have been friends and colleagues, usually young composers who were compatriots as students or faculty members and then a few of my own students. There are a few prominent names: Chaya Czernowin, Osnat Arbel, Yuval Shaked, Bill Schottstaedt, Joanathan Berger, Richard Karpen, Michael Pisaro, Jay Alan Yim, Kunsu Shim, Gerhard Staebler, Jeff Kowalkowski and Jenny Walshe. Most are not computer music people, and represent either an influence on my conceptual/intellectual side or the romantic side.

Listening to the greats, some of whom I had the luck to study with, has also obviously refined my process but listing them seems a little more removed from my day to day activity. With everyone on that list I can recall numerous conversations that altered some part of my thinking and helped me refine my own sense of music. I have no doubt that my personal relationships changed my sound world drastically. Most importantly there's my partner Eyal Levinson who helped me get back into listening after several years of trying to avoid music...

In the last little while several composers have told me they don't enjoy listening to music any more.  What pushed you away?

For many years it was hard to listen to music "for fun" for me. It was too much work. I enjoyed silence. I still would rather get home to a quiet house. I know for a fact that it is hard for me to work on creating music while listening to music. If I wake up in the morning and listen to the radio it's hard for me to get into composing. This is why I've become a morning person, and compose before anything else. Also I think I became a musician because I like being active at this game, the playing of music. Listening to music is a passive activity, you don't get to do anything, and it's a different activity, a luxury. I know many musicians who are bored in concerts unless they are on stage.

Yes. So how does that relate to something like "the communal techno machine," where there was mass participation... or was that something completely different? 

Hmm... that started because I wanted to create a piece based on the Andy Warhol Diaries. These were not really "diaries" as such. He would call "the factory" every day and tell the person who was keeping the diaries, Patricia Hackett, what he did the day before and how much it cost. This was done because he was audited yearly by the IRS. But little details crept in. For example, and I am paraphrasing off the top of my head, "I had lunch with Jacqueline Onassis, she had a great hat, $10..." etc. It describes an important period of US history between 1975-1985, for me, and it describes it as a pointillistic picture full of insignificant or important details without a hierarchy. This period is when the liberal community's only ideology was "live and let live" and the right wing community developed a very clear ideology and agenda. It is also the period of the last big gay parties and the beginning of AIDS.

I decided to use the texts and realized it would have to be a really long piece - 11 hours. At the time Canton Becker was a student of mine, and he was a rave fanatic. I knew nothing about it and he introduced me to techno music and the rave scene. I suggested to him that in order to create music for the piece he should build the communal groove machine, which would, with the help of others on the internet, allow us to create the music needed for the piece. He built it under my direction. Indeed at the last moment I discovered that we forgot to add a transposing element to it, so most of the piece is in C...

Ha, that's funny.  How long did you say the piece lasted?

How were the people on the internet able to affect the music?  In what form was their input?

The techno machine had a library of rhythm sections, bass lines, chord progressions, and feels - tempo accents, etc. People would respond to questions by choosing or entering new bass lines, or new rhythms and then it would create the song that they imagined but could not hear. The resulting information was interpreted through a MAX patch written with Matt Moeller that allowed us to mix the songs. The final production of the songs was done with the help of other students, most prominently Andy Knight. The piece also involved three actors/singers for which I wrote parts and a series of videos created by H.D. Motyl.

It was a fantastic experience. The communal groove machine was interesting in many ways, but most profoundly, for me, because it gave me a glimpse on how many people compose and have a clear idea of what their music should sound like, even though they are not musicians. You must remember this is the internet before browsers, only text was moving around. As part of the machine we asked people to include a description of the songs as they thought they should come out, hoping to use it as an indication for the mixing and production. People were very forthcoming, very clear and precise. I was very excited: composition was no longer an artistic activity for specialists, it was open for anyone who had ideas.

You mentioned The Beatles, Madonna, Tom Waits... how has your relationship with popular culture affected your artistic output?

I have a relationship with popular culture. It is part of who I am, part of my thinking and musical world. How it falls into my work is hard to explain. The Andy Warhol Diaries is a clear example where an element of popular culture was the impetus for the piece. In other pieces it may be a sound, or a formal musical element using only four chords...

It's hard to explain. I don't write popular music, that is, I have not in 20 years. But I do listen, when I listen, and it's a part of my sound world. My friend the composer Michael Pisaro once suggested to me that in order to incorporate pop music successfully into classical music you have to let go of your respect and love for it. To my mind, most composers my age find that hard to do. So the pieces seem to be orchestrations of pop music with a large orchestra, or with computer music. It seems that I may have decided that perhaps I too can not do it, so I just don't try. I don't try to create popular music with my music, but I use ideas from popular music as metaphors for some of the pieces I create.

Learn more about Dangerous Bend, the Amnon Wolman CD on the C74 label, by clicking here. You can visit Amnon's personal web page by clicking here.

Amnon Wolman creates music with technology and for instruments with two distinctive features: first, a subtle and complex relationship with popular culture and second, a concern for the dramatic nature of sonic evolution. His first release on the <a href="http://www.cycling74.com/c74music">c74 record label</a> is "Dangerous Bend." In this conversation with Ben Nevile, Wolman discusses his romantic compositional techniques and reveals the unusual nature of his introduction to computer-based music.

Search Results