From u6n71@keele.ac.uk Sat Dec 20 16:09:47 EST 1997 Article: 90202 of alt.fan.frank-zappa Xref: utcsri alt.fan.frank-zappa:90202 Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!server5.netnews.ja.net!keele!not-for-mail From: AJ Wilkes Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank-zappa Subject: Re: vai's zappa transcriptions Date: 18 Dec 1997 09:45:54 GMT Lines: 235 Sender: AJ Wilkes Distribution: world Message-ID: <67arci$eks$1@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk> References: <19971216145100.JAA02482@ladder01.news.aol.com> <19971216151900.KAA04347@ladder01.news.aol.com> <34991fd8.35374603@news.erols.com> <34a3262e.4322817@news.total.net> <67apj1$dft$2@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: jabez.kis.keele.ac.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970709; sun4u SunOS 5.5.1] AJ Wilkes wrote: : The Synclavier was one of the first of it's kind, and hideously expensive. : Nowadays, or even ten years ago, it's just a bit of an oddity; MIDI : equipment and samplers have come a long way since then, and very few people : are using Synclaviers except for projects like digital audio for films, at : which it apparently excels. : I found some info on it last year; if you want me to post it again, let me : know. Well, I was bored so I posted it anyway. These are just the opinions of three guys I contacted last year. Hope you like it. > I'm looking for information/specs on the NED Synclavier. If anyone has > any articles available, or knows of any web sites that would help me, > please reply through mail - I probably won't get the chance to check > these groups much. What exactly do you want to know? The Synclavier started in the very early 80's (or maybe even around 1979); and it came in a lot of very different configurations. There are only a handful of the original Synclavier (which looks funky, a bit homebrew); things started rolling with the SynclavierII. In the beginning this was an additive synth (with a bit FM thrown in) with a 61-key, non-velocity keyboard. It came with various numbers of voices (8, 16, 24, 32..., maybe also just 4), had one or two disk drives and plenty of RAM - 56 kByte max!:-) It already sported a built-in sequencer with "total recall" which is still not very common on the market. Optionally you could watch all sound parameters on a VT100 terminal or edit sequences there, too. I have one of those systems. Later came a sampling option with hard disk support, a resynthesis option and the Synclavier grew to become the kind of instrument usually associated with its name - a high-end production center. Coming next were the bigger keyboard (76 wooden keys with veloocity and polyphonic pressure), a bigger sequencer with 200 tracks, sampling to hard disk and so on. The Synclavier became one of the first hard disc recorders. Sometimes in the mid-90's the original company (New England Digital) folded; for various reasons I think. Apparently a group of Synclavier owners managed to revive parts of the company so there is still support for the instruments around, and maybe even a few new developments. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Regards, Malte Rogacki gacki@sax.sax.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't forget to TURN ON THE SYNTHESIZER. Often this is the reason why you get no sound out of it." (ARP 2600 Owner's Manual) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > So I'm just interested on the capabilities of the machine; polyphony, > sampling specs etc. > > Is it a wonder machine or not, compared to modern MIDI equipment? The thing about the Synclavier is that you can do all midi/dsp and D to D functions within the one project. For instance on one TV show, I would have system exclusive messages firing off to external effects while sequencing sampled footsteps (synced to pictures running at half speed) while the D to D is playing back as well. Each midi event displays in a very usable list (excellent filters). Basically there are many ways to do the same thing so in that respect it is a great machine. The only limitation is the amount of ram made available for polyphony (I only had a 32 voice). As a musical instrument it is overburdened with functionality and unnecessary button pushing. The closest machines would be the Emu E111 and Fairlight 11 with CMI. A Synclavier timbre has up to four layers of sound. Each layer, or partial timbre, has its own set of sound files, harmonic structure and volume envelope. You have FFT, FM Synthesis and only lacks in recent DSP and synthesis developments. As a sound designers tool it was wondefull owing to the ease of sound transfer between the D to D and Synclavier. The sampling rate is variable up to 100k with 96 MIDI tracks. The learning curve is so great I would never suggest it as a creative tool unless you used the complete system with a D to D. I used a mac interface with a weighted keyboard rather than the NED keyboard (which has a ribbon controller). As a MIDI editor it is amazing but there are far cheaper and *smaller* tools to do the job available today. It is the original monolithic application comparable only to Windoze 95 and 97 :-) I've got some specs lying around somewhere - I'll send them on if I locate them in my next room clean out - due soon. -- Roland Morris Sorry it has taken me so long to answer, but I have been very busy. The Synclavier is a very encompassing instrument, but I will try to answer your questions with some detail... >Well, I don't know if you're aware of Frank Zappa, but he used to use a >Synclavier at the end of his career - apparently, he spent around a quarter >of a million dollars on his system, and I was just wondering what >capabilities it had. I don't think he used direct-to-disk, just the >sequencing side of things. Those all seem to be in the ballpark other than when he used it. He had been a Synclavier owner/operator for years. My understanding is that he had major upgrades done in the last year of his life, for example tons and tons of what we call Poly RAM. That is, RAM dedicated to sampling. He was very much a perfectionist, and although I never met him, other owners I know had. >Anyway, I'd like to know how something like that compares to modern day MIDI >and samplers. I've got a few cheap MIDI boxes, KORG O5RW, that sort of >thing, and as far as sequencing goes, I wouldn't have thought that there's >anything a modern PC/Mac program can't do that a Synclavier can. So the >difference is probably in the sampling? Differences: there are a ton. Seems you relate some to sampling, so that first. The Synclavier sampling began as a mono, direct to disk and then became "Sample-to-Memory" and in the mid-80's used then unheard of amounts of RAM - up to 32 Mb. Sounds crazy today, but original 4 MB cards were about $7800.00. Yes, everything Synclavier was VERY expensive, but was simply (and in many cases, still is) unavailable elsewhere. For example I added my sampling in 1986 or so after renting a small Poly (sampling) system for a year. (Became a Synclavier II owner in 1981). But since 1986 I have had stereo 50k sampling (at ANY rate down to 1k) and mono sampling at 100k. Yes, 100k. And yes, we do use it - and Zappa surely did. So our samples tend to be large to very large to being actual performances. >Newer samplers can be expanded; one by EMU can go to 128Mb and 128 >polyphony, yes? And they must use the same sampling rate as a Synclavier, so >why is this machine so special? Or isn't it?! Some of this I answered above. But they are really entirely different beasts. I have been doing Music Printing since 1981. And resynthesis of samples into FM additive sine waves (up to 128 sine waves WITH phase AND pitch relationships - AND these can be crossfaded up to every 5 milliseconds! By the way, the FM synthesis engines in the Synclavier, although they are 8 bit (designed in 1977), use FM modulation. This was nearly 8 years before the DX-7. And our FM modulation is carrier based and rational, like the good old analog ring modulator days. Oh ya , to my understanding no other device samples at 100k. What has been related to me is that Zappa used the Synclavier for lots of reasons, one of which was that he could input music into it that human beings simply cannot play. He was a huge fan of multiple and (to most) bizarre time signatures. The synclavier easily allows that. Remember, these capabilities existed WAY before MIDI! The primary advantage to the SYnclavier in my mind is two-fold. First: it is an all encompassing central system - the only one with all the pieces. Kind of like a ginsho knife commercial (it slices, dicess, etc...) It can synthesis, sample, re-synthesize, print the music, drive more MIDI devices than most of us can imagine, sequence, compile to the old University music languages, (or accept entry from them), import standard MIDI files, export to standard MIDI files, change samples to other types sound files (wave, mac, etc., etc,) and ALL of these can instantly be in relation to: beats, measures:beats, seconds, minutes:seconds, frames, and/or SMPTE. And I haven't even discussed Direct-to-Disk (multi-track hard disk recording internally linked to the sequencer and able to accept imports of Film industry standard cue lists). SOooooo, summing this up, the Synclavier enables cross-overs in and out of all the production disciplines from film, to TV, to multi-media, to Rock, jazz, and publishing. Second: my personal opinion is that the keyboard interface of the Synclavier is THE most efficient entry tool yet developed. Sequencing is easy, very fast, and super adaptable. The memory recorder has 200 tracks (since 1989) and lots and lots of capabilities. For example it can record 16 MIDI tracks simultaneously - and can justify (quantize) them at the same time if you want. But the button panel is so intuitive and so fast, that it still amazes me. Most Synclavier owners are spoiled rotten in that if ANYTHING takes a couple of seconds, we're going nuts. MIDI is just a huge frustration! But it is also a lifesaver as we can use all the new goodies right along with our systems. Well, I have rambled on and on. Sorry. There have been a FEW decent articles in the trades over the years about the Synclavier, but most of the time it has gotten a really bad rap because of it's expense. But how many OTHER computer systems designed in the late 70's and mid 80's do you know of that are still earning their keep? Remember, the Synclavier is all discrete circuitry. Yes, there are chips (lots and lots of themj), but there are no VLSI as there simply wasn't the money. Money? Ya. Most of the dollars went into marketing and software developement. I should have put #3 above as our operating system(s). Did you know that for years our software upgrades were free? Well, it just got huge. And towards the end of NED (New England Digital), the bulk of R & D time was going into Direct-to-Disk and new items that cost NED it's existance (the Fostex 2000 was the NEXT Synclavier hard disk recorder). I hope I haven't bored you to death. Let me know your comments and any questions you might have. Sincerely, Lee ------------------ Lee R. Kopp lee@kopperhead.com -JK- '?' -