Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: mrmoonlight on January 18, 2014, 10:16:32 AM
-
Hi I already own a really good Amiga 1200 and a nice little Amiga 600 ,but I am very tempted to buy a Atari st just for the devil of it and was wondering if any one uses one now and could say which is best for music Atari or Amiga (http://search.aol.co.uk/aol/search?q=which+is+best+for+music+Atari+or+Amiga&s_it=spelling&s_chn=hp&v_t=aoluk-homePage50),,best wishes Brian.
-
That's an easy question to answer now, as the Amiga has a distinctive and unique grungy 8bit audio ability, the Atari only really had MIDI capability. Any modern computer will have infinitely better midi capability (most midi is sent via USB now), and also better software than any Atari... But I can still throw some Audio through my A1200 and use it as an FX box! :)
In 1987, I might be tempted to use an Arari... In 2014, the Atari is just a door stop.
-
There was some talk before about the Falcon being the preferred music tool of the time. A quick look at the specs confirms this:
Falcon: 16-bit with 8 stereo channels.
Amiga1200: 8-bit with 4 stereo channels.
I don't know much about Atari's though. I'm just looking at the specs. I think Bloodline might know.
*EDIT: shhit he already posted.
-
which is best for music Atari or Amiga
Depends. Amiga if you need to play the music directly on the computer, Atari if you don't need play the music directly on the computer.
Basically Amigas have better audio capabilities and Atari STs have better software. The Atari's built in MIDI port isn't so important here, because you can add one to an Amiga.
-
There was some talk before about the Falcon being the preferred music tool of the time. A quick look at the specs confirms this:
Falcon: 16-bit with 8 stereo channels.
Amiga1200: 8-bit with 4 stereo channels.
I don't know much about Atari's though. I'm just looking at the specs. I think Bloodline might know.
*EDIT: shhit he already posted.
The Falcon was a better machine for 1993, but I took the OP's question as looking at the machines now.
Back in the day, the Atari had better MIDI support and consequently more mature software. The Falcon just added good quality Audio to that.
Now, the cheapest PC/Mac will have better quality Audio, better software (for free), and better support for modern instruments (which tend to use USB over MIDI ports) than any Atari.
The Amiga on the other hand, can have a cheap MIDI box added, has some interesting software (some find these strange packages very creative, myself included) and still as a unique audio sound that can't be reproduced easily on modern hardware.
And yes. I will always throw my tuppence in a music thread ;)
-edit- for the record I do actually have an Atari ST here, but I'm only keeping it around so I can see AROS run on it one day ;) hahaha
-
Hi I already own a really good Amiga 1200 and a nice little Amiga 600 ,but I am very tempted to buy a Atari st just for the devil of it and was wondering if any one uses one now and could say which is best for music Atari or Amiga (http://search.aol.co.uk/aol/search?q=which+is+best+for+music+Atari+or+Amiga&s_it=spelling&s_chn=hp&v_t=aoluk-homePage50),,best wishes Brian.
Hi I have just read this about how the Atari st was musically tight with its midi arrangements ,{
The winner?
The Atari STe:
The Atari STe is monochrome in 640×480 max res, 8mhz, yes, 8mhz motorola 68000 processor, with 720k floppy drive and no hard drive, external mouse and monitor, a space hog. Doesn?t make noise though.
The timing is super tight with drums, if you put the drums on midi channel 1 and bass on midi 2, and put the hardware for the drums and bass 1 and 2 on the midi out chain, the drums and bass will be super tight. You can throw 170 bpm 32nd and 64th notes at it and doesn?t choke. It?s amazing.
If you are doing aggressive electronic, high temp, or glitchy stuff with hardware, these are the best sequencers. No PC or modern MAC can match it.
How tight is the Atari STe?
Tight to 1ms. of course this must be talking 20 yrs ago
-
Quoting one self is the first sign of madness. Just sayin...
-
Hi I have just read this about how the Atari st was musically tight with its midi arrangements ,{
The winner?
The Atari STe:
The Atari STe is monochrome in 640×480 max res, 8mhz, yes, 8mhz motorola 68000 processor, with 720k floppy drive and no hard drive, external mouse and monitor, a space hog. Doesn?t make noise though.
The timing is super tight with drums, if you put the drums on midi channel 1 and bass on midi 2, and put the hardware for the drums and bass 1 and 2 on the midi out chain, the drums and bass will be super tight. You can throw 170 bpm 32nd and 64th notes at it and doesn?t choke. It?s amazing.
If you are doing aggressive electronic, high temp, or glitchy stuff with hardware, these are the best sequencers. No PC or modern MAC can match it.
How tight is the Atari STe?
Tight to 1ms. of course this must be talking 20 yrs ago
If you want tight sequencing, you probably won't be using MIDI ;)
To be honest, the human ear can't really determine any discrepancy below about 12ms, and at high tempo it is even less sensitive. A modern PC/Mac would easily be able to get timings in at, or under, 5ms using USB2 or FireWire interfaces.
-edit- I would note that back in the day, latency of up to 100ms could be found at the end of long MIDI chains... It was awful, every device on the line would add a bit of lag... And the bit rate was only 32k, so long MIDI messages would cause delays on the bus... Thankfully MIDI over USB has basically solved that :)
-
Quoting one self is the first sign of madness. Just sayin...
LOL I wonder what the second sigh is ?
-
You could always use the superior ST software to control your Amiga by MIDI.
You'd get the best of both worlds then. :)
-
Hi Bloodline ,thanks for your help my friend ,I never thought it would be so complicated lol and I know the Atari is dated but I would like to try some thing a little different from todays music which to me has become totally dull and lacks imagine nation or it might be me ,hence the dabble with the Atari ,just my thoughts .
-
You could always use the superior ST software to control your Amiga by MIDI.
You'd get the best of both worlds then. :)
Hi and thank you ,and that's not a bad idea .
-
Hi Bloodline ,thanks for your help my friend ,I never thought it would be so complicated lol and I know the Atari is dated but I would like to try some thing a little different from todays music which to me has become totally dull and lacks imagine nation or it might be me ,hence the dabble with the Atari ,just my thoughts .
Well, Atari music software was always written for trained musicians... So wouldn't allow for the creatively that comes with ignorance ;)
As for what the Atari would actually output... Unless you have some interesting and unusual MIDI kit to hook it up to... Then you aren't going to making any noise at all! :)
Music now has been commoditised, most people just want to hear something that sounds like what they have already heard, they don't have the same relationship with music that we would have had many years ago. Music is easy to get and free. There is no discovery or investment from the audience, hence little incentive for creativity by the artists.
Back on topic, you are far more likely to make something unusual and exciting with the Amiga, which will not try and force traditional music values upon your work,than you can with an Atari.
-
I've also heard about the Atari having very tight MIDI timing, and I've even heard some people complain about Amiga's sloppy MIDI timing.
But seriously - I have been using Amiga's for MIDI for years and have never noticed any MIDI timing issues - even on dense MIDI arrangements.
People always say that the Atari had better MIDI software - but I don't see how this could be the case as it didn't have the best MIDI sequencer software EVER made: Bars & Pipes.
Only the Amiga has/had that - and it even works well under UAE.
I've never seen any MIDI-only sequencing software that can compare with the ease of use, flexibility and power of Bars & Pipes.
-
Ral-clan is quite right, Atari music software didn't really get much love after the early 90's... Mostly just updates and bug fixes to existing software, from Steinberg etc...
-
That's an easy question to answer now, as the Amiga has a distinctive and unique grungy 8bit audio ability, the Atari only really had MIDI capability. Any modern computer will have infinitely better midi capability (most midi is sent via USB now), and also better software than any Atari... But I can still throw some Audio through my A1200 and use it as an FX box! :)
To be perfectly fair, the weird combination of sporting an at at the time quite primitive YM2149 together with the comparably modern 68k affords the Atari ST to have a quite unique and grungy sound of its own that I would say surpasses the Amiga by far in the qualities you mention.
-
Ral-clan is quite right, Atari music software didn't really get much love after the early 90's... Mostly just updates and bug fixes to existing software, from Steinberg etc...
Hi I do thank every one for there input and I have managed to get a copy of Bars and Pipes for my Amiga ,but I just had to go and get myself the Atari st , so I have just bought this ,here's the read up
This is an st on steriods! It is a 520 fm ramped up to 4 meg. It has a 1040 cover on it.
Fully working and not yellowing like most old computers. Pics dont do it justice. Comes with atari mouse, 2 joysticks which i forgot to include in pictures.( only tested one) manuals, power and ed leads, loads of GameS! Not tested every game as that would take ages with this kit! Ones i did try worked fine though.
Boxed Games are
Godfather
Shadoworlds
Elite 2
Battlezone
Railroad tycoon
Leisure %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! larry
Nigel mansells g.p
Winter olympiad
World soccer
The atari family curriculum.
A bunch of other original games and a whole bunch of quality demo disks with ideas and tasters of some other top titles. A few copied games too.
An awesome package!
ps Thanks everyone Brian.
-
To be honest, the human ear can't really determine any discrepancy below about 12ms, and at high tempo it is even less sensitive.
Maybe not as timing differences, but they can still change the relative phase of the sounds, and especially on heavily time-variant sounds like drums and bass, that can make a difference.
Music now has been commoditised, most people just want to hear something that sounds like what they have already heard, they don't have the same relationship with music that we would have had many years ago. Music is easy to get and free. There is no discovery or investment from the audience, hence little incentive for creativity by the artists.
Well that's a damn poor excuse for not exercising creativity. Making good things is its own reward, and screw the people who want their same-old processed-cheese pop.
Anyway, yeah, the Amiga may be outclassed by modern gear if you look at straight specs, but specs-oriented thinking is a disease. Nobody ever listened to a '53 Les Paul and said "geez, it sounds so old! I'd be better off with something new and advanced!" Look at it as an instrument and the Amiga has a unique, gritty sound that's well worth playing with.
-
Ral-clan is quite right, Atari music software didn't really get much love after the early 90's... Mostly just updates and bug fixes to existing software, from Steinberg etc...
To me it looks Atari was preferred by professionals and Amiga by amateurs :-)
I mean, music productions created on Amiga are mostly mod songs while on Atari some composers got their creations to hit charts.
-
To me it looks Atari was preferred by professionals and Amiga by amateurs :-)
I mean, music productions created on Amiga are mostly mod songs while on Atari some composers got their creations to hit charts.
Thanks very much for the info ,this is one of the songs that the Atari was involved
{
http://youtu.be/lVL-zZnD3VU here's the tune
This January, musician Jyoti Mishra - aka White Town - recorded "Your Woman" in his bedroom using an old multitrack Tascam and an Atari. Four weeks later, it entered the UK charts at Number One.
-
What would you suggest as a modern music program? Something that's good for amateurs?
The Falcon was a better machine for 1993, but I took the OP's question as looking at the machines now.
Back in the day, the Atari had better MIDI support and consequently more mature software. The Falcon just added good quality Audio to that.
Now, the cheapest PC/Mac will have better quality Audio, better software (for free), and better support for modern instruments (which tend to use USB over MIDI ports) than any Atari.
The Amiga on the other hand, can have a cheap MIDI box added, has some interesting software (some find these strange packages very creative, myself included) and still as a unique audio sound that can't be reproduced easily on modern hardware.
And yes. I will always throw my tuppence in a music thread ;)
-edit- for the record I do actually have an Atari ST here, but I'm only keeping it around so I can see AROS run on it one day ;) hahaha
-
To be perfectly fair, the weird combination of sporting an at at the time quite primitive YM2149 together with the comparably modern 68k affords the Atari ST to have a quite unique and grungy sound of its own that I would say surpasses the Amiga by far in the qualities you mention.
I rather like the YM2149, so much so I've included it in a few projects recently.
Given a choice between an OPN2 or OPN3 chip and Paula, I'd take the Yamaha sound chip.
-
Can't say anything about the Atari since I never had one. But I had tons of fun with my Amiga's going back to the mid-eighties. I pretty much used Deluxe Music on my Amiga for all my compositions and added MIDI-capability with an ECE MIDI interface and Casio CZ-101 synth, and mixed them with an old Radio Shack mixer fed into a Sharp receiver and outputted to my BOSE speakers.
I'd like to eventually output some of that stuff on to modern media so I can upload them to Youtube like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orF17hcQwOc
Hi I already own a really good Amiga 1200 and a nice little Amiga 600 ,but I am very tempted to buy a Atari st just for the devil of it and was wondering if any one uses one now and could say which is best for music Atari or Amiga (http://search.aol.co.uk/aol/search?q=which+is+best+for+music+Atari+or+Amiga&s_it=spelling&s_chn=hp&v_t=aoluk-homePage50),,best wishes Brian.
-
Can't say anything about the Atari since I never had one. But I had tons of fun with my Amiga's going back to the mid-eighties. I pretty much used Deluxe Music on my Amiga for all my compositions and added MIDI-capability with an ECE MIDI interface and Casio CZ-101 synth, and mixed them with an old Radio Shack mixer fed into a Sharp receiver and outputted to my BOSE speakers.
I'd like to eventually output some of that stuff on to modern media so I can upload them to Youtube like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orF17hcQwOc
lol hey that's me doing the Amiga rock lol mrmoonlight and now I am going to try some Atari boogie lol Brian.
-
I've also heard about the Atari having very tight MIDI timing, and I've even heard some people complain about Amiga's sloppy MIDI timing.
This doesn't make any sense at a hardware level. The Amiga was multitasking though, so if the software wasn't written well then that could cause problems.
There is also http://aminet.net/package/mus/edit/camd which tried to become a standard, but I don't know how good that was.
Or you could use a c64
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BICygZRkKF4
-
To me it looks Atari was preferred by professionals and Amiga by amateurs :-)
I mean, music productions created on Amiga are mostly mod songs while on Atari some composers got their creations to hit charts.
I think that was mostly due to the fact that the Atari had a built in MIDI interface, while for the Amiga you had to buy an add-on.
If a non-tech savvy musician went into a computer store in the mid-1980s to buy his/her first computer for MIDI work, and the salesperson showed you two computers, but one had a MIDI interface built in (Atari) and the other did not, which do you think he/she would buy? Atari also marketed heavily to musicians because of this built-in feature.
That's pretty much the whole reason why Atari is more recognized in among musicians - but there's nothing the Atari could do that the Amiga could not.
Besides, lots of Amiga musicians got professional exposure - one that comes to mind right away is Calvin Harris, but I'm sure there were loads of others. The Amiga and the SunRise516 card means that a lot of Amiga composed music ended up on the soundtracks of TV shows and movies.
-
Thanks very much for the info ,this is one of the songs that the Atari was involved
{
http://youtu.be/lVL-zZnD3VU here's the tune
This January, musician Jyoti Mishra - aka White Town - recorded "Your Woman" in his bedroom using an old multitrack Tascam and an Atari. Four weeks later, it entered the UK charts at Number One.
Jaakko Salovaara (you probably never heard him) was using Atari to produce dance few hits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS16
-
To me it looks Atari was preferred by professionals and Amiga by amateurs :-)
I mean, music productions created on Amiga are mostly mod songs while on Atari some composers got their creations to hit charts.
There wouldn't have been any Jungle or DnB without Octamed (Though admittedly lots of it was made with Atari's and AKAI samplers) and commercial music is mostly sh1te anyway. ;)
-
Jaakko Salovaara (you probably never heard him) was using Atari to produce dance few hits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS16
Wow you are right .this is what he said in a interview,he used both the Amiga and the Atari
Why did you choose Cubase as your preferred music production software and how long have you been using it?
When I started back in the late ’80s I had an Amiga 500, which I used as a budget-friendly sampler, and an Atari ST running Cubase, which was controlling various MIDI equipment. It was this setup with a mixture of various synths, mixers and effects with which I made all my records up until 1997. I basically had a loop of 2-32 bars running on the sequencer and I mixed everything live to DAT, taking as many takes as needed, sometimes spending all day on a track, others making five release-worthy tracks a day.
-
http://www.medsoundstudio.webspace.virginmedia.com/infocus/12/focus_Gavin.htm
http://blogtotheoldskool.com/?tag=aphrodite
-
Hi just had a reply from Jyoti Mishra (https://plus.google.com/b/102708034322591022141/115784097247365917452)
and this is what he kindly wrote ,best wishes Brian.
1 comment
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-y3nRBQwWp2M/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAACSA/TpAnhxQhMvw/s49-c-k-no/photo.jpg) (https://plus.google.com/b/102708034322591022141/115784097247365917452) Jyoti Mishra (https://plus.google.com/b/102708034322591022141/115784097247365917452)
21:13 +
0
1
0
1
Reply
Yep, it was sequenced entirely on an Atari 520STFM using Sequencer One from Gajits, came free on the cover of ST Format magazine. :-D
Hi just adding a little more
What gear did you use to record ‘Your Woman?’
The gear I used was all pretty old and most of it was secondhand. The total value was just over £2000 (in 1997). This was it:
* Tascam 688 Midistudio (8-tracks on cassette)
* Atari 520STFM running Sequencer One (free prog off the front of ST Format magazine)
* Emax II (Akais – yeuchh)
* Casio CZ101 (cost 50 pounds)
* Roland JX3P
* Casio VL-1
* Crappy old electric guitar.
That was also pretty much all I used for the whole of the album, although I did get enough money in early ’97 to move to a digital 8-track (DA38) and get a beautiful Yamaha O2R mixer (swoon).
My “studio” for ‘Women In Technology’ was my spare bedroom which was approximately 9 feet square. With squeaky floorboards which you can hear on some of the vocal tracks (http://www.whitetown.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
-
http://www.medsoundstudio.webspace.virginmedia.com/infocus/12/focus_Gavin.htm
http://blogtotheoldskool.com/?tag=aphrodite
Well I am impressed there's a lot of talent on this forum and thanks for the post I will certainly have a longer look later ,very best wishes Brian.:banana:
-
For making music just with a computer amiga is much better, for midi is more important the software than hardware.
-
To me it looks Atari was preferred by professionals and Amiga by amateurs :-)
I mean, music productions created on Amiga are mostly mod songs while on Atari some composers got their creations to hit charts.
Michael Münzing und Luca Anzilotti were using Amiga and hit with some of their stuff the charts pretty successfully. SNAP was their commercially most successful project (The Power went #1 in many countries). But from the Amiga POV their project "16 Bit" is most interesting. The covers are just advertizing and praising the Amiga.
-
Madona working on Ray of Life
-
Madona working on Ray of Light
Quote .Inspired by motherhood, Hinduism, yoga and a "dwindling" English dance producer, the world’s most successful female singer set about reinventing herself. Armed with a "gaffer-taped" Atari and with her baby daughter manning the mixing desk, Madonna made Ray Of Light.
After hearing loads of opinions on both the Amiga and the Atari ,the humble Atari seems to be the choice of some of the best Artists whilst the Amiga which I think is brilliant has been left out in the shade some what ,it will be interesting when my Atari st arrives latter this week what hidden talent's she hides ,very best wishes Brian.
-
To me it looks Atari was preferred by professionals and Amiga by amateurs :-)
That split is basically correct, and is down to two things... Cubase and Notator.
Both of which were never released for the Amiga (though I understand ports existed at least internally at C-Labs and Steinberg).
These packages were the pinnacle of MIDI sequencing software and by 1993 were available on Mac and PC... And are still available now (as Logic Pro and Cubase), in vastly developed forms on modern hardware, no need to struggle with their dinosaur versions on a relic of a bygone era.
If mr moonlight is just wanting to play around with some vintage hardware, then the ST is a reasonable platform... Though I used the ST that's in my cupboard for about 5min, with the copy of cubase that came with it, before getting fed up it. A GUI should have at least 4 colours or everything looks the same! :-(
I mean, music productions created on Amiga are mostly mod songs while on Atari some composers got their creations to hit charts.
There were a few chart hits produced on the Amiga back in the day, difference is, the Amiga is still used... The Atari is just a museum piece.
-
To be perfectly fair, the weird combination of sporting an at at the time quite primitive YM2149 together with the comparably modern 68k affords the Atari ST to have a quite unique and grungy sound of its own that I would say surpasses the Amiga by far in the qualities you mention.
I rather like the YM2149, so much so I've included it in a few projects recently.
Given a choice between an OPN2 or OPN3 chip and Paula, I'd take the Yamaha sound chip.
Each to their own here, I find the YM2149 absolutely horrific. Though, I was able to easily reproduced a YM2149 like sound using Logic Pro X's built in Retro Synth for a friend who does like the sound.
Back on topic, none of the Professional Music packages on the Atari wasted time with the Atari's internal audio hardware.
Also we can add Depeche Mode's Ultra to the list of Albums that used an Atari ST for sequencing, as I noticed in a 1997 copy of Future Music.
-edit- actually three STs! Two running Notator and one running Cubase, plus a Mac running logic Pro (which was developed from Natator).
-
Each to their own here, I find the YM2149 absolutely horrific. Though, I was able to easily reproduced a YM2149 like sound using Logic Pro X's built in Retro Synth for a friend who does like the sound.
The whole Atari ST sound palette isn't something you can easily capture in something that isn't specifically made for the purpose. Check this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GErcGERdKsw) out.
I don't think you can you reasonably argue for the Atari ST sound being less distinct, unique and grungy than the Paula sound.
Back on topic, none of the Professional Music packages on the Atari wasted time with the Atari's internal audio hardware.
Back on topic? I think the above is highly relevant to the discussion. Whether the software is "professional" or not has nothing to do with the topic. As you said, the only reasonable use of these machines at this point is for whatever unique characteristics they had.
And no, the Atari ST isn't a "museum piece", people still use it for music.
-
The whole Atari ST sound palette isn't something you can easily capture in something that isn't specifically made for the purpose. Check this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GErcGERdKsw) out.
I don't think you can you reasonably argue for the Atari ST sound being less distinct, unique and grungy than the Paula sound.
Back on topic? I think the above is highly relevant to the discussion. Whether the software is "professional" or not has nothing to do with the topic. As you said, the only reasonable use of these machines at this point is for whatever unique characteristics they had.
And no, the Atari ST isn't a "museum piece", people still use it for music.
Urgh! Sounds like a fax machine.
-
If mr moonlight is just wanting to play around with some vintage hardware, then the ST is a reasonable platform... Though I used the ST that's in my cupboard for about 5min, with the copy of cubase that came with it, before getting fed up it. A GUI should have at least 4 colours or everything looks the same! :-(
There were a few chart hits produced on the Amiga back in the day, difference is, the Amiga is still used... The Atari is just a museum piece.
Hi that's not true ,The Atari is not
just a museum piece ,I have listened to quite a lot of the Atari music ,and I think it sounds ok and there are a lot of folk still using them ,so you cant really say its a museum piece ,I like the Amiga ,but the Atari has a sound that is interesting and different and in my opinion with todays music ,boy do we need some thing different or should we just put up with another talentless strung together boy/ Girl band ,I hope not ,best wishes Brian.
-
Urgh! Sounds like a fax machine.
My argument isn't about it being good or bad. For the record, I like it and Stu does draw crowds, but I'm arguing for its merits from the given set of parameters of being unique, distinct and grungy.
-
I don't think you can you reasonably argue for the Atari ST sound being less distinct, unique and grungy than the Paula sound.
It's probably a lot more distinct than Paula, which is just a sample player.
Whether the software is "professional" or not has nothing to do with the topic.
Anything that you use to earn a living with can be said to be professional ;)
-
These packages were the pinnacle of MIDI sequencing software and by 1993 were available on Mac and PC... And are still available now (as Logic Pro and Cubase), in vastly developed forms on modern hardware, no need to struggle with their dinosaur versions on a relic of a bygone era.
A matter of opinion. Personally, I find modern "music studio" packages to be just too damn big and overblown. Give me a decent tracker or an oldschool bare-bones MIDI sequencer any day.
-
Madona working on Ray of Light
Quote .Inspired by motherhood, Hinduism, yoga and a "dwindling" English dance producer, the world’s most successful female singer set about reinventing herself. Armed with a "gaffer-taped" Atari and with her baby daughter manning the mixing desk, Madonna made Ray Of Light.
After hearing loads of opinions on both the Amiga and the Atari ,the humble Atari seems to be the choice of some of the best Artists whilst the Amiga which I think is brilliant has been left out in the shade some what ,it will be interesting when my Atari st arrives latter this week what hidden talent's she hides ,very best wishes Brian.
I think that forming the impression that the Atari is better for music by basing that opinion on big stars who used it in the past might be skewed by geographics (i.e. the high presence of USA based big stars in the music industry).
An American (USA) musician (like Madonna) in the 1980s/90s probably had a much better chance of finding an Atari for sale in a local store than an Amiga. The Amiga was not well marketed / distributed in the States. Atari had a better presence there - so of course more American musicians would have ended up with it.
I'm not trying to say the Atari DIDN'T have more presence in the music industry than the Amiga. I'm just trying to say that any greater presence it did have WASN'T because it was actually more capable than the Amiga - the two machines were both quite capable. Atari's domination among musicians was rather that based on the fact that it had the built-in MIDI interface and that it was better marketed in the USA (which produces a high percentage of the commercial music the world is exposed to). The Atari was quite capable, but until you've tried Bars & Pipes on the Amiga, you haven't seen the full picture.
I'll agree with CommodoreJohn...if all you want to do is run a MIDI based studio, the older software IS better than the newer software. Try to find a currently developed, dedicated MIDI-only software sequencer for Windows 8. It's nigh impossible! There are only a couple I am aware of and they are not much better than the old MIDI packages from the 1990s. Running a full fledged DAW (Digital Audio Workstation - i.e. ProTools, CakeWalk) just to use only the MIDI section is overkill (not to mention that MIDI is often an afterthought in many of today's DAWs).
Just remember, when you're tallying all the artists that used Ataris vs. Amigas - make sure you have an equal ratio of American and non-American artists. I'll bet that outside the USA, the Amiga is more equally represented.
-
Each to their own here, I find the YM2149 absolutely horrific. Though, I was able to easily reproduced a YM2149 like sound using Logic Pro X's built in Retro Synth for a friend who does like the sound.
Back on topic, none of the Professional Music packages on the Atari wasted time with the Atari's internal audio hardware.
Also we can add Depeche Mode's Ultra to the list of Albums that used an Atari ST for sequencing, as I noticed in a 1997 copy of Future Music.
-edit- actually three STs! Two running Notator and one running Cubase, plus a Mac running logic Pro (which was developed from Natator).
Personally, I feel the same way about the C64s SID chip.
And the OPN2 has a lot of features that Paula lacks.
Later chips like that OPN3 are even more full featured.
But with Yamaha sound chips, it really comes down to which version you are using.
They produced several stripped down chips.
its interesting the bias here.
Yamaha sound chip produce "horrific" sound, but Commodore sound chips are somehow iconic, perfectly silly.
-
Michael Münzing und Luca Anzilotti were using Amiga
An interview with an old Amiga user (http://www.innerviews.org/inner/oldfield.html) a few people may know...
-
My argument isn't about it being good or bad. For the record, I like it and Stu does draw crowds, but I'm arguing for its merits from the given set of parameters of being unique, distinct and grungy.
I'm not totally averse to the YM sound, I have the following archive in my Droidsound playlist on my phone.
http://chiptune.de/complete/cta-ym.zip
I even like the sound of the Adlib cards in the hands of the right musician. JCH in particular.
-
An interview with an old Amiga user (http://www.innerviews.org/inner/oldfield.html) a few people may know...
Good reading my friend ,enjoyed it very much,best wishes Brian.
-
Back in the day the Atari was the big thing for music and the Amiga was the big thing for video.
There was an Amiga music scene but most of the pros used an ST with MIDI.
That said I believe there was one UK dance hit that used the Amiga sound chip so there was at least some Pro music Amiga activity.
PCs and Macs have long since taken over for recording but there is still a distinct mix of how they are used.
The modern DAWs and softsynths etc. are so good you can do everything in the computer now (Known as In-The-Box ITB).
There's plenty of people who still use external hardware because it's nicer to use and just use the computer as a glorified tape recorder (Out-of-the-Box OTB). This is what I do.
OTOH there are a surprising number of people around who have gone really oldskool and don't use computers at all.
If an Amiga is used now it's because Paula has a distinctive sound and that gives you an interesting sound to add.
-
Personally, I feel the same way about the C64s SID chip.
And the OPN2 has a lot of features that Paula lacks.
Later chips like that OPN3 are even more full featured.
But with Yamaha sound chips, it really comes down to which version you are using.
They produced several stripped down chips.
its interesting the bias here.
Yamaha sound chip produce "horrific" sound, but Commodore sound chips are somehow iconic, perfectly silly.
Not really, the TED was atrocious.
The SID is special because of the unique sound it makes, there is nothing else like it.
-
its interesting the bias here.
Yamaha sound chip produce "horrific" sound, but Commodore sound chips are somehow iconic, perfectly silly.
It has a lot to do with the huge amount of craptastic OPL2/3 music from the days of DOS gaming, I think. 90% of games with AdLib/SB support just picked random fart noises from the Visual Composer instrument library or used some third-party sound library with equally wretched patches for GM sounds, and that unfairly colored a lot of people's perception of FM as a whole (when even the OPL2 was quite a capable sound chip for the few who bothered to make any good use of it.)
Granted, there was a fair amount of bad SID music, too, but far less in overall proportion - and bad subtractive synthesis just sounds tinny and dull; bad FM sounds like a gastrointestinal apocalypse.
The modern DAWs and softsynths etc. are so good you can do everything in the computer now (Known as In-The-Box ITB).
The more I get my hands dirty with real hardware synthesis, the less I buy that softsynths are or will ever be as good as the real thing. They're useful for things I'll never be able to afford (Mellotron sounds, for example,) but they just don't cut it compared to hardware.
-
Yamaha sound chip produce "horrific" sound, but Commodore sound chips are somehow iconic, perfectly silly.
The YM2149 was a slightly updated version f the ay-3-8912
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AY-3-8912
So it's not really a "Yamaha" sound chip.
Back in the 8 bit days it was used on the Sinclair 128 and Amstrad CPC, where it didn't really get the number of people writing decent music to push the chip. I've never heard anything that matches the SID, which was the only really good commodore sound chip. If you have any examples you'd like me to listen to then I'd love to listen.
Paula isn't a commodore chip, but we'll go with that if you like. As a sample player it can do anything the YM2149 can do, but with more or less CPU required. Atari-ST demos spent a lot of CPU time trying to make it play samples, but generating samples in realtime on the Amiga would take some cpu time. I think the balance was right though.
-
A tribute to atari on a.org this time... is incredible how the amiga always loses on a.org, sorry for the comment but its funny.
-
A tribute to atari on a.org this time... is incredible how the amiga always loses on a.org, sorry for the comment but its funny.
lol no losers my friend just two brilliant computers and some excellent comments ,but funny yes.:laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1::laugh1:
-
A tribute to atari on a.org this time... is incredible how the amiga always loses on a.org, sorry for the comment but its funny.
Lol
I saw a video on YouTube not so long ago where some French guy was trying desperately to convince his viewers that the ST was superior in every way from a hardware capabilities point of view to the Amiga.
Even 25yrs later the old school yard arguments rage on. :)
-
It has a lot to do with the huge amount of craptastic OPL2/3 music from the days of DOS gaming, I think. 90% of games with AdLib/SB support just picked random fart noises from the Visual Composer instrument library or used some third-party sound library with equally wretched patches for GM sounds, and that unfairly colored a lot of people's perception of FM as a whole (when even the OPL2 was quite a capable sound chip for the few who bothered to make any good use of it.)
Granted, there was a fair amount of bad SID music, too, but far less in overall proportion - and bad subtractive synthesis just sounds tinny and dull; bad FM sounds like a gastrointestinal apocalypse.
There were quite some atmospheric usages of the OPL chips, like
dune 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WKBjmJCBHw
Doom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwxR8kho_-c
Veil of Darkness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSBHH2gZ9vE
Ascendancy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-11W4NP1hM
Ultima Underworld:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4sPSXm3R0
To name a few.
-
There were indeed; they were just unfortunately vastly outweighed by the crap...
-
There were indeed; they were just unfortunately vastly outweighed by the crap...
But they were, to me, so memorable that I have forgotten the rest I guess.
Like there were a lot of crap games on the Miggy and the C64 (or any system), but everyone remembers the best few.
-
The YM2149 was a slightly updated version f the ay-3-8912
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AY-3-8912
So it's not really a "Yamaha" sound chip.
Back in the 8 bit days it was used on the Sinclair 128 and Amstrad CPC, where it didn't really get the number of people writing decent music to push the chip. I've never heard anything that matches the SID, which was the only really good commodore sound chip. If you have any examples you'd like me to listen to then I'd love to listen.
Paula isn't a commodore chip, but we'll go with that if you like. As a sample player it can do anything the YM2149 can do, but with more or less CPU required. Atari-ST demos spent a lot of CPU time trying to make it play samples, but generating samples in realtime on the Amiga would take some cpu time. I think the balance was right though.
Spoken like someone convinced.
Yes, the YM series starts with a knock off but then moves to some very complex versions afterward.
By the time you get to the OPN3 (YM2608) you've got the built-in functions of the original, plus a six-channel FM synthesis sound system based around the YM2203, a single channel for 8 bit samples, and a six channel rhythm generator.
Considerably more complex than SID, and again, better than Paula (which never evolved).
And if you look, you'll find plenty of samples, with far more concurrent voices than SID or Paula can handle.
-
A tribute to atari on a.org this time... is incredible how the amiga always loses on a.org, sorry for the comment but its funny.
I'm agree. Especially when it looses to an Atari.... even funnier LOL.
-
There were indeed; they were just unfortunately vastly outweighed by the crap...
I honestly can't see your point as it equates the quality of the artist's work with the hardware.
And those previous examples of Adlib sound are a sterling example of how much better Yamaha sound generation is than that used in the C64 or the Amiga.
-
I honestly can't see your point as it equates the quality of the artist's work with the hardware.
I agree that this is an unfair view; nevertheless, it's the kind of unfair view humans are given to, frequently without even realizing it, because we tend to apply negative associations to pretty much anything involved in a negative experience, however indirectly. It's the same sort of logic that led to me thinking I just didn't like beer for about five years when all I'd had was Anheiser-Busch crap. A sensible conclusion? Not remotely, as I discovered later; nonetheless, kind of an understandable one.
And those previous examples of Adlib sound are a sterling example of how much better Yamaha sound generation is than that used in the C64 or the Amiga.
They're good examples of what even simple 2-op FM can do when used well, to be sure; however, arguing that FM is just unequivocally altogether better than other hardware is a little more difficult to support. The OPL2 has the advantage in terms of polyphony, certainly, and is capable of some lovely highs - but the Amiga is capable of a vastly broader range of timbres, and the SID, limited as it is, has (for most people, though I gather not for yourself) an extremely pleasing quality when used well.
-
Actually john,
This is a pretty silly disagreement overall.
The biggest problem I have with the YM series is the complications inherent in programming them.
None of the chips is really that useful without some decent software.
And now that I think about it, I've seen some great stuff done with D to A converters without sound synthesis chips.
It really comes down to good programming and musical ability.
Without those two, you can produce "crap" on any hardware.
-
True enough, that.
-
(Also, would've PMed this, but your inbox is full... - you've mentioned before that you were working on a homebrew project using a Yamaha FM sound source; do you have any words of wisdom to share on the subject? Our discussion has got me kinda hankering to come up with an OPL2-based keyboard synthesizer...)
-
Not really, the TED was atrocious.
The SID is special because of the unique sound it makes, there is nothing else like it.
90% of original SID tunes are crap. To make good use of it you had to be good coder and also understand limitations of the sound chip.
-
An interview with an old Amiga user (http://www.innerviews.org/inner/oldfield.html) a few people may know...
Amarok was composed on the Amiga!? Wow! That I didn't know, and basically nullifies any argument the ST guys can come up with.
Mr Moonlight will have post back here, his experiences with the platform when he has had a chance to play with it :)
-
90% of original SID tunes are crap. To make good use of it you had to be good coder and also understand limitations of the sound chip.
Indeed, same as with other synths.
The Adlib in the hands of JCH is lovely, just as the SID was in the hands of Galway, Hubbard and Huelsbeck.
I actually have Ocean Loader 2 as my ringtone. :)
-
Two Amigas linked together through a Yamaha mixer was my option for music creation, one Amiga produced the sounds and the other did the effects through Audiomaster II.
-
Amarok was composed on the Amiga!? Wow! That I didn't know, and basically nullifies any argument the ST guys can come up with.
Mr Moonlight will have post back here, his experiences with the platform when he has had a chance to play with it :)
I think that was an Atari, because of the sw used, he mixed up the names - someone checked the facts in some forum.
-
Since we're discussing the musical aesthetics of some audio chips here, I'd like to voice my opinion on one I have grown fond of.
The VIC I chip from the Commodore VIC-20 (MOS6560).
I know it's only capable of square waveforms - which one might think would make it sound like any other square wave chip. But it's got this weird, unique sound. The bass it produces is really growling with a lot of low harmonics. It's not a hugely versatile chip - but I find it has a lot of character.
It does have some rather nice capabilities in terms of sound - it can do three square wave voices and also has an additional noise channel.
Here is a link to VIC-I native audio:
http://youtu.be/rjb1orkZB-Q
People have also been able to use it to emulate a SID - so it can do SID sounds (not merely play a digitized SID music file):
http://youtu.be/8dMM4MqGuqU
http://youtu.be/YNgWU99iVIE
OH! And people have recently found that the VIC-I chip is capable of generating several other waveforms it was not designed to generate:
http://rga24.blogspot.ca/2008/10/fourier-series-of-vic-20-tone-generator.html
These new waveforms can be heard in the VIC-20 demo "Robotic Liberation" (which is quite impressive):
http://youtu.be/2SdGkkp1aq8
(wait until you get to about 1:07 when the Robot Master starts speaking).
-
Since we're discussing the musical aesthetics of some audio chips here, I'd like to voice my opinion on one I have grown fond of.
The VIC I chip from the Commodore VIC-20.
I know it's only capable of square waveforms - which one might think would make it sound like any other square wave chip. But it's got this weird, unique sound. The bass it produces is really growling with a lot of low harmonics. It's not a hugely versatile chip - but I find it has a lot of character.
It does have some rather nice capabilities in terms of sound - it can do four voices and also has a noise channel.
Here is a link to VIC-I native audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjb1orkZB-Q
People have also been able to use it to emulate a SID - so it can do SID sounds (not merely play a digitized SID music file):
http://youtu.be/8dMM4MqGuqU
http://youtu.be/YNgWU99iVIE
Listen to the sweet sound of the little VIC from 4:18 onwards. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxny-mqB4f8
-
Listen to the sweet sound of the little VIC from 4:18 onwards. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxny-mqB4f8
I don't know what happened there. That seemed to link to the wrong video (still a nice video). The demo I meant to link to of the VIC-20 audio is here:
http://youtu.be/rjb1orkZB-Q
-
Amarok was composed on the Amiga!? Wow! That I didn't know, and basically nullifies any argument the ST guys can come up with.
Mr Moonlight will have post back here, his experiences with the platform when he has had a chance to play with it :)
Bloodline, you seem desperate to "nullify" a counter argument.
I think the point we have all reached makes perfect sense.
Its really a matter of the skill to use the tools available.
For God's sake, some of these guys are pointing to fairly interesting pieces produced by a Vic I chip.
So, I have no problem continuing to support the YM2149 and its descendants.
And if we are actually talking music production, Ral-clan summarized the advantage pretty clearly awhile ago, "one had a MIDI interface built in (Atari) and the other did not".
-
90% of original SID tunes are crap. To make good use of it you had to be good coder and also understand limitations of the sound chip.
Like these. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l21rSchAE0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrqBYkco-Y
-
I think that was an Atari, because of the sw used, he mixed up the names - someone checked the facts in some forum.
Yeah, I thought that too, His mention of Notator is the giveaway, but the ST couldn't do sampling... So my guess is that it was an Amiga with something like SequencerOne, which was available for both platforms and worked much like Notator. :)
-
Amarok was composed on the Amiga!? Wow! That I didn't know, and basically nullifies any argument the ST guys can come up with.
Mr Moonlight will have post back here, his experiences with the platform when he has had a chance to play with it :)
Hi bloodline I will hold you to that because if I get a problem and this being a Amiga forum can I come back here if I need help with my Atari lol or is that taking it a bit far and expecting too much generosity from our wonderful Amiga community ,lol very best wishes and I have to say I have had a right chuckle reading all the comments Brian.
-
Like these. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l21rSchAE0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDrqBYkco-Y
THX 4 the Cubase64 link - I liked it much!
-
Yeah, I thought that too, His mention of Notator is the giveaway, but the ST couldn't do sampling... So my guess is that it was an Amiga with something like SequencerOne, which was available for both platforms and worked much like Notator. :)
If you read this article the Atari was mentioned... http://tubular.net/articles/1991_03
-
Oldfield didn't actually compose Amarok on the Amiga. He used it to quickly lay down idea tracks early or before a session and then followed the storyboard in a conventional way. I think he once related to Amarok as a long series of Jam sessions.
So the Amiga was a handy tool for indirect composition. From memory he used to do the same task on paper. Collecting ideas for a multitrack storyboard and noting them down sequentially (left to right) on paper.
-
If you read this article the Atari was mentioned... http://tubular.net/articles/1991_03
This article doesn't mention the method of composition using the "Amiga sketching" approach he mentions in the other interview. The Atari is simply listed as studio equipment, I would be more surprised if he didn't mention an Atari in a studio equipment list, the Atari MIDI sequencing software at the time was much more mature :)
-
I know he did another album around the same time as Amarok called, Heaven's Open. Aside from the contractual shadow at the time, the last instrumental track on that album is heavily sequenced by Atari I think. Lots of samples as well.
-
Hi I still not sure what was used on Mike Oldfield albums
(http://amigaworld.net/images/icons/posticon.gif) Re: MIKE OLDFIELD USED AMIGA TO CREATE & PRODUCE HIS ALBUM AMAROK
Posted on 17-Aug-2013 9:55:13 [ #18 (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38034&forum=27&25#715265) ] (http://amigaworld.net/images/avatar/034.gif) Member
(http://amigaworld.net/images/ranks/1block.gif) Joined: 9-Sep-2003
Posts: 61
From: overthere... @Trixie
I really think he used Creator on the Atari, because that's the precursor to Notator...
Mike Oldfield did use software from C-Lab: as told here (http://tubular.net/articles/1991_03)
So no Amiga i'm afraid.
P.S. I used to play around a lot with Midi software on the Amiga in the late 80's. According to a well known TV presenter/Musician in Holland who did use Amiga's (Hi-Tec band (http://www.musicmeter.nl/album/121997)) he was beta-testing Cubase for the Amiga, but apparently it never surfaced and I switched to Atari/Cubase for my Midi-needs (still used the Amiga for all other stuff
-
I'm still not sold... If Mike Oldfield didn't use an Amiga, how would he know the name. I've never seen him confuse the names of hardware before, in fact he has always been very pedantic about the hardware he uses. I'm not saying he did use an Amiga, I just don't see enough evidence yet to show he didn't :)
-
I'm still not sold... If Mike Oldfield didn't use an Amiga, how would he know the name. I've never seen him confuse the names of hardware before, in fact he has always been very pedantic about the hardware he uses. I'm not saying he did use an Amiga, I just don't see enough evidence yet to show he didn't :)
Hi and I too am not totally convinced as Mike Oldfield surely knew what he had used ,I half hope he did use the Atari but as with jare michael jare there's plenty to show he used the Atari ,no mistake ,I would love to know the real answer ,best wishes Brian.:):):)
-
For myself, the Amiga is as much an instrument as it is a machine for music production. I love the colour it adds to basic sounds. Non linear DAC, quantisation noise, aliasing they all add to Paula's charm.
I've never had any serious latency issues with midi. I expect having an accelerated machine helps. Although I believe the EClock timer should be more than accurate enough.
I've never tried it but I imagine ST emulation might be an option if you must use cubase or similar.
-
For myself, the Amiga is as much an instrument as it is a machine for music production. I love the colour it adds to basic sounds. Non linear DAC, quantisation noise, aliasing they all add to Paula's charm.
I've never had any serious latency issues with midi. I expect having an accelerated machine helps. Although I believe the EClock timer should be more than accurate enough.
I've never tried it but I imagine ST emulation might be an option if you must use cubase or similar.
Hi Karlos I have to agree the Amiga is a fine machine /instrument and I have been very impressed with the quality of the sound ,but after reading so much about the Atari and all the brilliant Artists that have used it ,the Atari must hold some thing very special for so many to have used it ,which is why I have just ordered but not yet received, this does not mean the end of my Amiga journey as the the Amiga are my pride and joy and will remain so .best wishes Brian
-
Hi Karlos I have to agree the Amiga is a fine machine /instrument and I have been very impressed with the quality of the sound ,but after reading so much about the Atari and all the brilliant Artists that have used it ,the Atari must hold some thing very special for so many to have used it ,which is why I have just ordered but not yet received, this does not mean the end of my Amiga journey as the the Amiga are my pride and joy and will remain so .best wishes Brian
What made the ST fantastic for music was the software, not the hardware. And, it is important to note that software still exists (on modern platforms). That said, I do have an ST here and I'm sure that you will get a lot out of it as a lover of vintage computer hardware :)
All true Amiga lovers should probably own an ST anyway ;)
-
Interesting and cool thread, and mrmoonlight you are my hero of the day! Loved that video haha!
On the subject I'd like to add: Never underestimate the obsolete!
Another perspective I tend to have in my head is that the Amiga is the "turntable of computers" - You don't have the in built sound source, you submit to intriguing limitations, and from there you can take anything and do everything.. be an inventive turntablist or producer =)
The most obscure professional music I've come across yet who made their mark using an Amiga is the Nasenbluten (nosebleed) group from New Zealand.. More 'mainstream' and familiar name for house/techno lovers might be Jori Hulkkonen from Finland.
What I do think helped the miggy a lot was its quick evolving 'breeding ground for the underground' - the demoscene, continuing from c64 amateurs keep hacking away, exploring, inventing, and cultivating each other so to speak. Karsten Obarski and the following tracker developers launched many a professional career in music (on many levels), for kids who got caught up in this popular activity of tracking their musical ideas or first experiments =)
The action and interesting stuff going on creatively in the amiga scene accellerated so fast in the early nineties.. as bloodline said so well, the creativity that comes with ignorance =D
For a kid it wasn't about being professional, but getting creative and becoming better at it.. so on a long term I'd say Amiga had much more impact than Atari, BUT in the end everything kinda comes together as you can say you were inspired by Mike Oldfield using an Atari but you were using an Amiga yourself for expressing it..
Anyways, personally I've come to the conclusion that I got one instrument I know well enough, and that's Protracker. Been doing a sort of a 'comeback' to digital music the recent couple of years, and checking out one of these obese DAWs - still there's no way I can write music the way ProTracker lets me express myself - so to speak. With its old look and feel and technique and trickery involved its like that one guitar you never really heard the likes of anytime since.. Some songs just couldn't have happened if they weren't done with that instrument, you know? =)
Well, that was just from my (scene)point of view. Have a good day!
-
Interesting and cool thread, and mrmoonlight you are my hero of the day! Loved that video haha!
On the subject I'd like to add: Never underestimate the obsolete!
Another perspective I tend to have in my head is that the Amiga is the "turntable of computers" - You don't have the in built sound source, you submit to intriguing limitations, and from there you can take anything and do everything.. be an inventive turntablist or producer =)
The most obscure professional music I've come across yet who made their mark using an Amiga is the Nasenbluten (nosebleed) group from New Zealand.. More 'mainstream' and familiar name for house/techno lovers might be Jori Hulkkonen from Finland.
Hi lol I have never been anyone's Hero before ,but I do thank you my friend and compliment you on a wonderful write up ,now I have just been on youtube and have to ask is this Nasenbluten you speak of ,because this is awesome and here's the link http://youtu.be/jky5-kKbY98
very best wishes Brian
ps Hi I have just read the notes that go along with the video and it mentions the Amiga 500 ,surely not lol
now I am getting excited lol
ps Wow I take my hat off to you my friend because the humble Amiga 500 which I have just read about not only starred on Nasenbluten,s music but lead the way ,nice one my friend and there's loads more of there Amiga based music on youtube by the same band ,thank you ever so much for posting its been a real treat ,very best wishes Brian.
-
I would love to see someone do an A/B comparison between Amiga & Atari to see if this claim of "rock solid timing" is actually true.
It's not that I don't believe the Atari had rock-solid timing, it's just that I don't believe that the Amiga had sloppy time in comparison. In my personal experience, the Amiga has always been just great with MIDI timing.
I'd like to see solid data to back up this Atari vs. Amiga claim - then I'll believe it.
On this thread someone reported the Amiga did quite well when testing a modern PC DAW vs. Atari vs. Amiga (do a search for the word Amiga):
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/165343-how-do-i-get-rock-solid-sample-accurate-midi-timing.html
-
They were amazing, doing things a quarter of a century ago that no one had dreamt of. It's sad that both machines never made it through to mainstream.
(http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/vitamins1.jpg)
-
I would love to see someone do an A/B comparison between Amiga & Atari to see if this claim of "rock solid timing" is actually true.
It's not that I don't believe the Atari had rock-solid timing, it's just that I don't believe that the Amiga had sloppy time in comparison. In my personal experience, the Amiga has always been just great with MIDI timing.
I'd like to see solid data to back up this Atari vs. Amiga claim - then I'll believe it.
The standard MIDI serial link has super sloppy timing anyway, it's a really slow data bus and as soon as you load it up with messages, it jams up randomly. When we used to use it in the studio back in the late 90's we would break the track up and record them to tape in separate passes if any of the synths bogged down. At that time I was still heavily using OctaMED SS and Amiga samples so latency wasn't an issue (or at least a known quantity when using 64Channel mode).
If I had a working Atari monitor I would do a MIDI AB test with my A500 and ST :-/
My guess is that they would show almost identical results... But I'm now curious as to how each would handle a large number of messages at a high BPM, I need to see evidence!
-
All true Amiga lovers should probably own an ST anyway ;)
JUST for saying when firing it up next to a Miggy: "ah this is by far not as good as the Amiga" :D
-
JUST for saying when firing it up next to a Miggy: "ah this is by far not as good as the Amiga" :D
Wow, I say something that paraphrases that when firing up my Mac while looking at my Amiga: "ah this is by far much better than my Amiga" :razz:
-
Hi and I too am not totally convinced as Mike Oldfield surely knew what he had used ,I half hope he did use the Atari but as with jare michael jare there's plenty to show he used the Atari ,no mistake ,I would love to know the real answer ,best wishes Brian.:):):)
He did say he used Amiga. For concept sketching. Never said he used it for recording composition.
-
He did say he used Amiga. For concept sketching. Never said he used it for recording composition.
Hi this is perfectly true because I cant find any thing where he actually said he recorded with the Amiga ,but just as a matter of interest did you ever make music using the Atari st or use the Atari as a way of controlling music in any way ,best wishes Brian.:lol::lol:
-
I would love to see someone do an A/B comparison between Amiga & Atari to see if this claim of "rock solid timing" is actually true.
I've never seen a comparison. The ST was usually compared to the PC which supposedly had absolutely abysmal timing. IIRC it was something to with how DOS/Windows did it.
-
I've never seen a comparison. The ST was usually compared to the PC which supposedly had absolutely abysmal timing. IIRC it was something to with how DOS/Windows did it.
Well, it might have had something to do with the fact that the PC's serial port couldn't do the proper baud rate required by MIDI, but only something close to it, which had to be translated to the proper baud rate by the MIDI interface. The Amiga's serial port of course can do the proper MIDI baud rate. Because of this, Amiga MIDI interfaces were much cheaper than those for the PC (until the Soundlaster/game-port thing came around).
-
Hi this is perfectly true because I cant find any thing where he actually said he recorded with the Amiga ,but just as a matter of interest did you ever make music using the Atari st or use the Atari as a way of controlling music in any way ,best wishes Brian.:lol::lol:
No Atari here I'm afraid.
The machines I've used for midi include:
86-89 c128 in 64 mode. I can't remember the midi sequencing software but it came with the midi interface.
89-97 Amiga 2000 with Dr T's Tiger Cub, Music X and later Bars and Pipes
94-99 PC with Korg AG-10 and Trax software. Also used the Amiga up until 97.
99-09 PC with SBLive, AG-10, and Studio 5 + Cakewalk 7-8.
Since 2010 I use a PC with USB Module and Sonar X1 DAW
-
Hi lol I have never been anyone's Hero before ,but I do thank you my friend and compliment you on a wonderful write up ,now I have just been on youtube and have to ask is this Nasenbluten you speak of ,because this is awesome and here's the link http://youtu.be/jky5-kKbY98
very best wishes Brian
Cheers, Brian!
Yes that's the same group, albeit they originate from Newcastle, OZ, not New Zealand.. my bad.
From Discogs.com this note: "Most famous for their raw productions on Amiga's ProTracker and their early records on Industrial Strength."
There's a photo with a couple of 1200s on their mixdeck, if you click "more pictures"
The wikipedia article on them have a link to an interview from 2005, with an artist named Dsico:
"What do you think is the most influential Australian music release of all time and why?
In a way, the most influential stuff for me was probably Nasenbluten and the Newcastle Hardcore scene.
I grew up around there and I just wouldn’t have ended up here without the radio show that Mark N used to do on 2NUR. Amiga 500 Hardcore was probably what got me into electronic music and especially making it."
-
Cheers, Brian!
Yes that's the same group, albeit they originate from Newcastle, OZ, not New Zealand.. my bad.
From Discogs.com this note: "Most famous for their raw productions on Amiga's ProTracker and their early records on Industrial Strength."
There's a photo with a couple of 1200s on their mixdeck, if you click "more pictures"
The wikipedia article on them have a link to an interview from 2005, with an artist named Dsico:
"What do you think is the most influential Australian music release of all time and why?
In a way, the most influential stuff for me was probably Nasenbluten and the Newcastle Hardcore scene.
I grew up around there and I just wouldn’t have ended up here without the radio show that Mark N used to do on 2NUR. Amiga 500 Hardcore was probably what got me into electronic music and especially making it."
Hi wonderful stuff my friend and great pic of the 1200 s going to read up now on the interview ,hard to believe the 500 was used so much ,but so pleased very best wishes Brian.
-
Well last time I posted I was awaiting an Atari st with 4mb upgrade ,well it arrived and the courier gave it to some one who did not even live in the same building as myself they even signed for it and that was the last we saw of it ,
but it did not end there I bought another Atari st off Ebay and had this delivered to my works address , which arrived and I could not wait to take it home ,so off I rushed and I arrived safely and eagerly but carefully set the Atari st up ,turned the power on and wow we were on fire ,unbelievable I know ,but true ,all that was left was the case and a very Smokey motherboard ,maybe I can repair it one day lol before I throw myself off a cliff lol
Meanwhile not one for giving up I spot a Atari STE with upgrade on Ebay and have bought that and again I am eagerly awaiting delivery
any way I have bought a Casio CTK-591 with midi in and midi out and as I already have a Amiga midi interface, connected all the midi cables and sound etc and have been putting the Amiga 1200 through its paces and I have to say it is brilliant ,taking in to account I am not used to midi and not completely sure what I am doing ,also I am using Music Deluxe 2 so all's well at the moment ,but still want to see what the Atari can do ,best wishes Brian.
-
WTF!? You must have grounds to make a claim for the loss of the package! Whoever stole it probably dumped it as soon as they realised it was anything "of value" :(
-
WTF!? You must have grounds to make a claim for the loss of the package! Whoever stole it probably dumped it as soon as they realised it was anything "of value" :(
Hi and yes a claim has gone in for the stolen one so we will have to wait and see,and the one that caught fire the seller gave a full refund and asked if I would like to keep the fire damaged one which I have and might put a new motherboard in it ,so all is not lost ,is there a good midi book or some information that I can get hold of only the Music Deluxe 2 has no manual ,best wishes Brian.
-
MIDI is really pretty simple - it's just one node telling another every note press/release, controller change (i.e. pitch bend,) patch change, etc. that happens, on one of 16 channels. Is there something specific about it that's got you confused?
Anyway, now that you're into MIDI, you're gonna have to get into collecting MIDI synthesizers... ;D
-
MIDI is really pretty simple - it's just one node telling another every note press/release, controller change (i.e. pitch bend,) patch change, etc. that happens, on one of 16 channels. Is there something specific about it that's got you confused?
Anyway, now that you're into MIDI, you're gonna have to get into collecting MIDI synthesizers... ;D
Hi yes when I need to raise the volume on a certain instrument I do not see any where in the music Deluxe 2 software to increase it just for that channel ,in yet it has to be there surly ,lol and is that software synthesizers or hardware synthesizers I need to be collecting lol
-
Ah. Deluxe Music 2 I think predates the introduction of channel-specific volume control to the MIDI standard and so it doesn't know about it. What you need there is to send CC #7 messages with the appropriate volume level on the appropriate channel. (This was the plain Volume CC before it was channel volume, so Deluxe Music might know it under that name.) Your CTK is certainly new enough to recognize it as such, in any case. You can see a listing of the official MIDI CCs here (http://www.midi.org/techspecs/midimessages.php#3). If DM2 gives you trouble with that (I'm not familiar with its interface, so I don't know,) the Expression CC sometimes functions similarly (though it might alter the timbre or something as well, depending on the synth in question.)
(And: hardware, hardware, hardware. Once you get a taste for the character of real old-school hardware synths, nothing else will do ;D)
-
Ah. Deluxe Music 2 I think predates the introduction of channel-specific volume control to the MIDI standard and so it doesn't know about it. What you need there is to send CC #7 messages with the appropriate volume level on the appropriate channel. (This was the plain Volume CC before it was channel volume, so Deluxe Music might know it under that name.) Your CTK is certainly new enough to recognize it as such, in any case. You can see a listing of the official MIDI CCs here (http://www.midi.org/techspecs/midimessages.php#3). If DM2 gives you trouble with that (I'm not familiar with its interface, so I don't know,) the Expression CC sometimes functions similarly (though it might alter the timbre or something as well, depending on the synth in question.)
(And: hardware, hardware, hardware. Once you get a taste for the character of real old-school hardware synths, nothing else will do ;D)
Truly grateful my friend I will get there in the end and will certainly have a go at what you suggest ,and I am going to have a quick look at some synths very best wishes Brian.
-
Hi yes when I need to raise the volume on a certain instrument I do not see any where in the music Deluxe 2 software to increase it just for that channel ,in yet it has to be there surly ,lol and is that software synthesizers or hardware synthesizers I need to be collecting lol
DeluxeMusic 2 does have volume control for individual staffs. Look for "ff" button on the Tool Window (It's below the eraser). It ranges from fff (loudest) to ppp (softest). It affects both the Amiga channels as well as the MIDI channels (if you use them).
I, myself, have a Casio CZ-101 synth, which I have had since the late 1980's. I got it in order to add another 4 channels to the 4 built-in to the Amiga for a grand total of 8 channels. I mixed the Amiga and Casio channels with a Radio Shack mixer before outputting them to my amplifier. Had a nice mix of Amiga Sampled sounds and the warm Synth sounds of the Casio. Composed quite a lot of tunes with this setup: Deluxe Music, ECE MIDI, Amiga 2000, Casio CZ-101, Sharp Receiver/Amp, Radio Shack mixer and a CZ Librarian/Bank Loader called CZAR. Never could figure out the Trackers though one day I hope to (OctaMED Sound Studio). Would also like to learn Bar's N Pipes as well.
-
Hi I already own a really good Amiga 1200 and a nice little Amiga 600 ,but I am very tempted to buy a Atari st just for the devil of it and was wondering if any one uses one now and could say which is best for music Atari or Amiga (http://search.aol.co.uk/aol/search?q=which+is+best+for+music+Atari+or+Amiga&s_it=spelling&s_chn=hp&v_t=aoluk-homePage50),,best wishes Brian.
You want a real flame war?
Amiga - Better sound chip, better TRACKER software
Atari - Built in MIDI, better Sequencer software
If you want a real killer its called ATARI FALCON, no Amiga can touch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon
-
You want a real flame war?
Amiga - Better sound chip, better TRACKER software
Atari - Built in MIDI, better Sequencer software
If you want a real killer its called ATARI FALCON, no Amiga can touch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon =
But which is better compared to the X1000? Thanks Vox, I swear I come to this forum just for the lulz sometimes. :whack:
-
DeluxeMusic 2 does have volume control for individual staffs. Look for "ff" button on the Tool Window (It's below the eraser). It ranges from fff (loudest) to ppp (softest). It affects both the Amiga channels as well as the MIDI channels (if you use them).
I, myself, have a Casio CZ-101 synth, which I have had since the late 1980's. I got it in order to add another 4 channels to the 4 built-in to the Amiga for a grand total of 8 channels. I mixed the Amiga and Casio channels with a Radio Shack mixer before outputting them to my amplifier. Had a nice mix of Amiga Sampled sounds and the warm Synth sounds of the Casio. Composed quite a lot of tunes with this setup: Deluxe Music, ECE MIDI, Amiga 2000, Casio CZ-101, Sharp Receiver/Amp, Radio Shack mixer and a CZ Librarian/Bank Loader called CZAR. Never could figure out the Trackers though one day I hope to (OctaMED Sound Studio). Would also like to learn Bar's N Pipes as well.
Hi thanks my dear friend you are right and I have got it sorted ,another piece in the jigsaw ,best wishes Brian
-
You want a real flame war?
Amiga - Better sound chip, better TRACKER software
Atari - Built in MIDI, better Sequencer software
If you want a real killer its called ATARI FALCON, no Amiga can touch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon
So many choices I am spoilt for choice ,truly grateful my friend best wishes Brian
-
....
I, myself, have a Casio CZ-101 synth, which I have had since the late 1980's. I got it in order to add another 4 channels to the 4 built-in to the Amiga for a grand total of 8 channels. I mixed the Amiga and Casio channels with a Radio Shack mixer before outputting them to my amplifier. Had a nice mix of Amiga Sampled sounds and the warm Synth sounds of the Casio. Composed quite a lot of tunes with this setup: Deluxe Music, ECE MIDI, Amiga 2000, Casio CZ-101, Sharp Receiver/Amp, Radio Shack mixer and a CZ Librarian/Bank Loader called CZAR. Never could figure out the Trackers though one day I hope to (OctaMED Sound Studio). Would also like to learn Bar's N Pipes as well.
I think a lot of people had similar setups at the time. I used a DX27 and an RZ-1 Drum machine to do the same; Extend the Amiga sample set. But I used Tiger Cub and Bars&Pipes. I dabbled with Trackers and Midi but found it too constraining.
-
I, myself, have a Casio CZ-101 synth, which I have had since the late 1980's. I got it in order to add another 4 channels to the 4 built-in to the Amiga for a grand total of 8 channels.
Nice :) The CZ's good stuff, although it didn't really suit me personally.
Truly grateful my friend I will get there in the end and will certainly have a go at what you suggest ,and I am going to have a quick look at some synths very best wishes Brian.
Heh :D I don't know a whole lot about what the market's like over in the UK, but you can generally get mid-'80s to mid-'90s synths pretty inexpensively (that covers late-period analog to the early days of multitimbral digital "workstation" stuff.) Your CTK will already cover most "workstation" bases fairly well (and your Amiga naturally fills the grittier "early sampler" role,) so I'd look at some full-fledged synthesizer gear (i.e. pieces that allow you to create your own sounds.) Here's my opinions on some gear I've used:
The Yamaha DX7 can be had pretty inexpensively ($200-400, depending on whether you get it locally or on eBay) on account of being such a huge seller in its day; the DX7-II has a bit different sound (less gritty, more clear - both are good, it just depends on what you want,) more patch memory, and better performance features. It's best-known for doing excellent metallic/percussive sounds (http://synthmania.com/dx7.htm) (like the famous '80s pop-ballad electric-piano sound,) but if you take the time to really learn your way around FM synthesis it's capable of an extremely wide variety of sounds. You can also get module versions of both (generally cheaper, and good if you're short on space.) The TX7 is a Mk.1 DX7 in a desktop form factor and stores all the performance settings with each voice (something the original DX7 needs an upgrade to do,) while the TX802 is a rack DX7-II that's eight-part multitimbral.
Yamaha made a bunch of other FM synths as well, mostly based on simpler 4-operator chips. The FB-01 half-rack module is basically the same voice architecture as the Sega Genesis/Megadrive. It's a lot more limited than the DX7s, but also a good bit simpler, and it goes dirt-cheap ($50 range.) The TX81Z is a slightly pricier ($80-120) full-rack module that extends the FB-01's voice architecture with some of the features it was missing from the DX7, as well as multiple operator waveforms (which greatly extends its range of sounds. (http://synthmania.com/tx81z.htm)) Both have eight voices and are eight-part multitimbral; the multitimbral mode in these is a bit primitive and awkward, but for a studio setting it's perfectly usable.
Roland's D-50 was the other big-name early digital synth; it's capable of some glorious sounds (http://synthmania.com/d-50.htm) and it's worth owning even just for some of the presets ("Fantasia" is still amazing despite being one of the most overused sounds ever.) It goes for more than the DX7, usually ($400-500-ish,) but it's worth every penny. If you want a lower-quality but cheaper version of the basic sound, the famous MT-32 module (http://synthmania.com/mt-32.htm) ($50-100) uses the same basic architecture (and is multitimbral, to boot.)
Transitioning between digital and analog, the Korg DW-8000 is a neat hybrid synthesizer - it generates single-cycle digital waveforms from ROM and runs them through analog filters and amplifiers, with the final stage being a digital delay that can be modulated for chorus-type effects. It goes for around DX7 prices ($200-300) and can produce some of the DX7's famous digital bell/piano sounds (http://synthmania.com/dw-8000.htm), but can also do some lovely analog-style pads and some neat spacey sounds that fall in between. There's also a rack version, the EX-8000, though it doesn't generally go any cheaper.
On the subject of analog synthesizers, you won't get the famous "big names" cheap unless you make an extraordinarily lucky find in someone's basement or something, but a lot of perfectly decent non-famous keyboards can be had fairly inexpensively. The Oberheim Matrix-6, for example, goes for $400-700 and has an extremely flexible voice architecture that can create some quite complex sounds; the sound isn't legendary, but it's plenty good. The only downside is that, like many later analogs, the voice parameters are all hidden behind a single set of data-entry controls (in this case, a set of membrane buttons.) Ugh...but on the other hand, it's that that allows the complex 90+ parameter voice architecture to begin with. There's a rack version, the Matrix-6R, that goes cheaper, and another rack version, the Matrix-1000, that has no onboard voice editing (you have to use a computer editor) but comes with a huge number of voices pre-loaded and twice the user-editable patch memory.
The Roland JX-10 is just a gorgeous instrument; it's like the analog synthesizer equivalent of a concert grand in that it just sounds ultra-classy (http://synthmania.com/mks-70_super_jx.htm) no matter what. It goes for $500-700, and if you want to avoid editing voices with the craptastic "alpha dial" the PG-800 programmer goes for another couple hundred (unless you get a good deal on the pair, as I did,) but it's just an ultra-lush, warm analog sound. Its little brother the JX-8P can be had cheaper, but the JX-10 is basically two 8Ps in a single keyboard, which can be layered or split for some wonderfully complex sounds. There's a rack version of the JX-10, the MKS-70, which has the advantage of a much better MIDI implementation, which allows the use of free computer voice editors in place of the PG-800.
The Korg MS-20 Mini ($600) is a modern reproduction of one of Korg's old analog monosynths; its monophonic nature limits its versatility for live performance, but of course in a studio situation you can stack as many tracks as you want - you can even make whole songs (http://soundcloud.com/commodorejohn/armageddon-practice) with it. It's got a great grungy, organic sound, and its semi-modular nature and direct panel control of every parameter means that it's great for learning how analog synthesis works. Good stuff :)
-
Wow what a post. I've always envied the DX-7 because I had a 27 of course. I wonder how much and how available the TX-7 sound module is?
-
TX7s seem to run in the $100-150 range. The downside is that, like the DX7, they're monotimbral; if you go another $100 or so higher you can get a TX802, which is multitimbral. Also, the TX7 has no onboard editing, but the DX7's editing facilities are no great shakes to begin with.
-
Wow what a super post this is and I do thank you commodorejohn (http://www.amiga.org/forums/member.php?u=7505)
totally amazing right down to the last detail ,this is going to take me quite a while to digest and I do appreciate it ,truly grateful my friend very best wishes and off to start reading Brian.
-
Glad to be of service :)
-
The D-50 is a lovely beast indeed.
-
The Roland JX-10 is just a gorgeous instrument; it's like the analog synthesizer equivalent of a concert grand in that it just sounds ultra-classy (http://synthmania.com/mks-70_super_jx.htm) no matter what. It goes for $500-700, and if you want to avoid editing voices with the craptastic "alpha dial" the PG-800 programmer goes for another couple hundred (unless you get a good deal on the pair, as I did,) but it's just an ultra-lush, warm analog sound. Its little brother the JX-8P can be had cheaper, but the JX-10 is basically two 8Ps in a single keyboard, which can be layered or split for some wonderfully complex sounds. There's a rack version of the JX-10, the MKS-70, which has the advantage of a much better MIDI implementation, which allows the use of free computer voice editors in place of the PG-800.
Yes, great synth spoiled by a truly abysmal MIDI implementation. However there is hope (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/817800-roland-mks-70-upgrade-modification-beta-testers-wanted.html).
BTW +1 for the DW8000. The keyboard can be flakey (the contacts get dirty) but it's got a great sound and is very good value.
The Korg MS-20 Mini ($600) is a modern reproduction of one of Korg's old analog monosynths; its monophonic nature limits its versatility for live performance, but of course in a studio situation you can stack as many tracks as you want - you can even make whole songs (http://soundcloud.com/commodorejohn/armageddon-practice) with it. It's got a great grungy, organic sound, and its semi-modular nature and direct panel control of every parameter means that it's great for learning how analog synthesis works. Good stuff :)
It wouldn't be my first choice. The knobby side is easy but the modular side is confusing and doesn't make much sense. That said, there is a very good series of videos on how to use it though on youtube (look up Automatic Gainsay).
I'm not knocking it as a synth though, it is a fantastic machine. Very unique sound and you can really push it once you get your head around the modular side.
BTW Great track. It shows how versatile it is - I wouldn't have guessed that was an MS-20.
This is a wonderful time to get interested in synths. There's so many available now and some of them are incredibly cheap. The Korg Volcas are an absolute bargain, but there's also the Microbrute and Minibrute, the Bass Station 2, Mopho, Minitaur, Doepfer Dark Energy and many more. Even Roland just announced VA (virtual Analogue) versions of some of their old gear.
For cheap polysynths there're VA synths like the Ultranova, Venom, Microkorg and soon System-1.
Analogue poly synths are more expensive but even they exist, DSI do several and there's also the Analog 4 / Analog keys from Elektron. When I sold the Walker the proceeds went to a DSI Tempest analogue drum machine / synth.
There's also a thriving modular scene especially in Eurorack.
Even the Amiga (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/904233-amiga-sampler.html) gets a mention now and again.
-
Yes, great synth spoiled by a truly abysmal MIDI implementation. However there is hope (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/817800-roland-mks-70-upgrade-modification-beta-testers-wanted.html).
Yeah; I'd have installed that in mine already if I didn't have the PG-800, just to be able to use a software programmer, but currently it works and I'd rather not mess with it...
It wouldn't be my first choice. The knobby side is easy but the modular side is confusing and doesn't make much sense. That said, there is a very good series of videos on how to use it though on youtube (look up Automatic Gainsay).
I think the important thing is that you don't even need to touch the modular side until you're ready to branch out, since it's pre-patched with a perfectly useable architecture. And then once you've gotten acquainted with that, you've got a whole other series of possibilities to explore.
BTW Great track. It shows how versatile it is - I wouldn't have guessed that was an MS-20.
Thanks :) It was a blast to make, too - I basically just sat down over the course of a weekend and knocked it out as I was rolling up different patches (just wish I'd written more of them down!)
This is a wonderful time to get interested in synths. There's so many available now and some of them are incredibly cheap. The Korg Volcas are an absolute bargain, but there's also the Microbrute and Minibrute, the Bass Station 2, Mopho, Minitaur, Doepfer Dark Energy and many more.
Indeed - I'm keeping my eye out for a good deal on a Minibrute, I like the sound as I've heard it. The Volcas are a bit feature-light for my tastes (and I don't like the Buchla-esque capacitive keyboard thing,) but it certainly is astonishing to see full-fledged analog synths for a paltry $150 apiece!
Even Roland just announced VA (virtual Analogue) versions of some of their old gear.
For cheap polysynths there're VA synths like the Ultranova, Venom, Microkorg and soon System-1.
Bah, Roland's VAs are underwhelming even by VA standards. The demos I've heard from the System-1 are about what the MicroKORG was doing twelve years ago. And Korg just utterly ate their lunch (http://www.korg.com/us/news/2014/0217/), to boot :rofl:
-
The Korg MS-20 Mini ($600) is a modern reproduction of one of Korg's old analog monosynths; its monophonic nature limits its versatility for live performance, but of course in a studio situation you can stack as many tracks as you want - you can even make whole songs (http://soundcloud.com/commodorejohn/armageddon-practice) with it. It's got a great grungy, organic sound, and its semi-modular nature and direct panel control of every parameter means that it's great for learning how analog synthesis works. Good stuff :)
Commodore John - that MS20 track you did was very good.
I own several Korg Monotrons and just purchased a Korg Volca Keys - so I've been watching their analogue synth revival.
I also own a Juno-106, Alpha Juno-1, Yamaha DX100 and TX81z.
Also like to buy old 1980s home/toy keyboards whenever I can pick them up for a few bucks at thrift stores (the interesting ones before Casio etc. switched to stock PCM sounds for home keyboards).
Love the real hardware synth thing.
-
Commodore John - that MS20 track you did was very good.
I own several Korg Monotrons and just purchased a Korg Volca Keys - so I've been watching their analogue synth revival.
I also own a Juno-106, Alpha Juno-1, Yamaha DX100 and TX81z.
Also like to buy old 1980s home/toy keyboards whenever I can pick them up for a few bucks at thrift stores (the interesting ones before Casio etc. switched to stock PCM sounds for home keyboards).
Love the real hardware synth thing.
Casio CZ-101's are pretty cheap nowadays (about $100.00 US). Also, they were multi-timbral although they only had 4-voices. The higher end models CZ-5000, CZ-1 had 8-voices, but they are pricier.
-
Commodore John - that MS20 track you did was very good.
Thanks :)
I own several Korg Monotrons and just purchased a Korg Volca Keys - so I've been watching their analogue synth revival.
It's been pretty great, alright, and it's only getting better - Arturia doubling down on the success of the Minibrute, Korg recreating the freakin' Odyssey...what a great time to be getting into synths!
I also own a Juno-106, Alpha Juno-1, Yamaha DX100 and TX81z.
Lucky you, you've already got a Juno - prices on those suckers have been climbing crazily lately. I'd kinda like to get one, but at the prices they're getting lately, I'd just as soon pick up a Prophet 600...
Also like to buy old 1980s home/toy keyboards whenever I can pick them up for a few bucks at thrift stores (the interesting ones before Casio etc. switched to stock PCM sounds for home keyboards).
Yeah, there's some fun stuff in the low end that not many people know about. I'm still looking for a replacement for the broken Casio HT-6000 I used to have - it's a fully programmable hybrid synthesizer in the guise of a cheapo home keyboard! I've got a Yamaha PSR-48, as well, simply for the epic demo tune (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMV91alid0Y) :D
-
Interestingly on investigating the DX 7 and variants I came across FM7 from Native Instruments, an ASIO compliant Soft synth that does all the DXs in software and multi-voice. The demo on their web page sounded great. The really interesting part is it's now disappeared off their website entirely. Was there Wednesday and gone Thursday. Yamaha flexing copyright/brand protection?
-
Interestingly on investigating the DX 7 and variants I came across FM7 from Native Instruments, an ASIO compliant Soft synth that does all the DXs in software and multi-voice. The demo on their web page sounded great. The really interesting part is it's now disappeared off their website entirely. Was there Wednesday and gone Thursday. Yamaha flexing copyright/brand protection?
It's been superseded by FM8.
-
The real deal is inexpensive and sounds better, anyway, although I will admit that FM8 is the closest emulation of Yamaha FM I'm aware of.
-
Lucky you, you've already got a Juno - prices on those suckers have been climbing crazily lately. I'd kinda like to get one, but at the prices they're getting lately, I'd just as soon pick up a Prophet 600...
Well the Juno-106 is the original one I purchased back in 1985/86. But the Alpha, now that was a fortuitous situation. I found it in a thrift store for $39. I nearly flipped. It did need some restoration work on the keys (cleaning), but I think they sold if for so cheap because (unlike a home keyboard) it doesn't have a built-in speaker and perhaps they thought it didn't work.
Anyway, I'm very glad to have it, it's a nice synth and doesn't suffer the failure of the voice chips the 106 can.
-
Yeah, but it's got that awful "alpha dial" (does it do the stupidly counterintuitive thing it does on the JX-10 where it cycles slower the faster you spin it?) I'll take slightly unreliable but eminently usable over solidly-constructed tedium any day...
-
The alpha dial is worse than sliders, yes. I wish I had the full slider programmer for this thing. But it's not terrible. Much better than programming a Yamaha DX series synth with the membrane keyboard buttons.
I think MIDI-Quest for the Amiga allows one to program an Alpha-Juno. Otherwise there are a bunch of free editors for the Alpha Junos for other platforms.
But, yes, the 106 is my favourite.
I also enjoy the Roland SoundCanvas sounds, although they are not editable. I have an SC-55 that's been put to a lot of use (good pianos).
-
Yeah, I just picked up an SC-55K this week. It's surprisingly good for its time; baffling how the Windows soundfont version could be so much worse than a home-computer MIDI module from the mid-'90s...
-
It's been superseded by FM8.
Yes realised that on investigation. But I swear I got onto the website the other night and saw the FM7 product, demos and the screen shots. Black/brown console with green tic tac buttons; The memories. And the patch set was all the DX range patches. Couldn't see this on the FM8. Perhaps I was using an old browser version that showed me the old site.... ;)
Anyhows, it bought back memories of me recording my drum machine patterns into the Amiga 2000 (Tiger Cub) and playing them back into my DX27 instruments. Arrh when I had time to experiment.
Saw quite a few DX7s on SMeebay. Just don't have the room. Already have a good quality weighted keys Roland midi controller keyboard. So a soft synch is the best option. Especially since I upgraded my Sonar to X3 for my B'day.
:)
@commodoreJohn. I saw/heard the same thing with SB Live EMU Sound fonts vs my little Korg module. Chalk and cheese. Cheese being the Soundfonts. I found individually the patches sounded great but in the context of a piece they were all over the place.
-
Saw quite a few DX7s on SMeebay. Just don't have the room. Already have a good quality weighted keys Roland midi controller keyboard. So a soft synch is the best option. Especially since I upgraded my Sonar to X3 for my B'day.
Well, there's always the TX7/TX802...
@commodoreJohn. I saw/heard the same thing with SB Live EMU Sound fonts vs my little Korg module. Chalk and cheese. Cheese being the Soundfonts. I found individually the patches sounded great but in the context of a piece they were all over the place.
Yeah...although the patches don't even sound good individually on GM.DLS...
What's the "little Korg module?" I had an 05/RW (rack version of the X5) I quite enjoyed, and I've been keeping my eye out for a deal on an X5D ever since I had to sell it...
-
Korg AG-10. Audio Gallery. Great GM sounds for 1994. Still have it. It's been through many computers.
-
Nice :)
-
Well last time I posted I was awaiting an Atari st with 4mb upgrade ,well it arrived and the courier gave it to some one who did not even live in the same building as myself they even signed for it and that was the last we saw of it ,
but it did not end there I bought another Atari st off Ebay and had this delivered to my works address , which arrived and I could not wait to take it home ,so off I rushed and I arrived safely and eagerly but carefully set the Atari st up ,turned the power on and wow we were on fire ,unbelievable I know ,but true ,all that was left was the case and a very Smokey motherboard ,maybe I can repair it one day lol before I throw myself off a cliff lol
Meanwhile not one for giving up I spot a Atari STE with upgrade on Ebay and have bought that and again I am eagerly awaiting delivery
any way I have bought a Casio CTK-591 with midi in and midi out and as I already have a Amiga midi interface, connected all the midi cables and sound etc and have been putting the Amiga 1200 through its paces and I have to say it is brilliant ,taking in to account I am not used to midi and not completely sure what I am doing ,also I am using Music Deluxe 2 so all's well at the moment ,but still want to see what the Atari can do ,best wishes Brian.
Good evening Brian. How did it go with your Atari in the end? How does it compare with your Amiga experience? Do you prefer one over the other for your MIDI work? If so, please explain why. Thanks :)
-
The alpha dial is worse than sliders, yes. I wish I had the full slider programmer for this thing. But it's not terrible. Much better than programming a Yamaha DX series synth with the membrane keyboard buttons.
I think MIDI-Quest for the Amiga allows one to program an Alpha-Juno. Otherwise there are a bunch of free editors for the Alpha Junos for other platforms.
I have the MKS-50 (rack version of Alpha Juno 2) and there's a driver available for use with MSE (Midi System Explorer). It should probably work straight away as they use they use the same sysex.
It's actually fairly easy to write your own driver as long as you have the midi/sysex information for the synth
-
A-EON has OctaMED SoundStudio back in development. How about a Minimig based embedded device with built in MIDI and improved audio capabilities (higher res, many more channels, many audio in and outs, buildt in mixing and effects?), booting directly into OctaMED SoundStudio. Is that a sellable product?
-
A-EON has OctaMED SoundStudio back in development. How about a Minimig based embedded device with built in MIDI and improved audio capabilities (higher res, many more channels, many audio in and outs, buildt in mixing and effects?), booting directly into OctaMED SoundStudio. Is that a sellable product?
Potentially if its aligned to classic synths and their re-releases. GM (and variant) capabilities plus Sys-ex support for multiple devices...
but most of that capability is software. I suppose the many outs could be a selling point. Add a SID socket and access to it and you could have a handy retro sound setup. Dreaming again...
-
Beyond Time ^ MmcM (AY-8910/12) incomparable sound on Paula! :roflmao:
Favorite tunes:
- Fountain of sighs
- Guitar slinger
- Gcomp
- Axel goes funkey?!
- Drizzle
- Elysium
- Cannon Fodder
- Paradisio Bailando
- Condom Corruption
- Technological Death