analoq

It does go well with Live. Notably, Imogen Heap recently performed on Letterman with a monome interfacing Live. Letterman plays with it and they even make a joke about it. Unreal. I remember that guy's site. Coincidentally, a bloke on the remix64 boards recently obtained a Novachord. In that thread I linked to an interesting resource: - 120 Years of Electronic Music All kinds of bizarre stuff there, like the gargantuan Telharmonium. cheers.

uh, there's no liberation there. I think you included the wrong link. But if you want to see a music video with gratuitous Moog Liberation shots, try . bah, where were you when this thread was desperate for responses. I have a monome, which is odd enough. I have some videos using it in some unique ways: - - I'm intrigued by the Opal and Axis sonome keyboards. Examples: - - I got to play with an Analogue Systems French Connection once. It's a controller based on the 1920s french synth, the Ondes Martenot. Examples: - - Amazing 1920s audio demo of the Ondes Martenot that I can't find at the moment, sorry cheers.

At least now he'll have a harder time appearing impartial while "proselytising".

I find this an all too apt achievement for FL's most vocal proponent.

I remember this game, glad to see some DOS love. Voted. cheers.

So would my request to remove the sex from my profile be granted (or at least acquiesced) based on my claims of inconclusiveness? Whether it helps my particular situation or not, I am in favour of there being a policy and what I see so far seems pretty reasonable.

Again, I'm with you in the real world; suggesting my argument logically extends to seeking permission from composers is a misrepresentation. Though you've made great pains to crowbar the remixer profiles in with the composer profiles they are still fundamentally different in origin: Composers have artist profiles by virtue of being credited for a composition in a video game. Remixers have artist profiles by virtue of being credited with a remix on OCR. The only way B can happen is by someone permitting their music to be on OCR. Comparing the artist profiles to third-parties like Wikipedia/IMDB is fair for composers but superficial for remixers because there is a relatively direct channel of communication between OCR and its remixers. Remixers are encouraged to volunteer personal information e.g. real name, etc. when they submit. Remixers are directly affiliated with the site whereas composers (aside from the very special ones) are not. To further illustrate, I have a profile on VGMdb and while there is information there I would like omitted, it doesn't bother me as much because I have zero affiliation with VGMdb. As well, they list authors for each page and anyone can see I'm not one of them. But because of my affiliation with OCR, there is no way for someone to know whether I had volunteered the information on my artist profile or not. That potentially gives my artist profile an authority it would not have in the absence of my affiliation. The solutions I've been getting at are: Have a policy for artist profiles amongst the plethora of site literature that remixers are encouraged to review before they submit. or Cite specific sources for all information on remixers' artist profiles. or Only display information that was explicitly volunteered by the remixer on their profile.

wow indeed, that's the last game I'd expect anyone to attempt a remix album for; the game is so obscure. I played through the shareware but my younger sister had the registered version. It did have some memorable music. cheers.

The remixing/workshop forum specifically, but that happened to be the only part of the board I was in the habit of following. So, I don't really know what my participation will be henceforth. Not angry, just curmodgeonly. Tu was du willst, you are exempt. Thank you all for the appreciative words, I have the utmost respect for you guys.

I never had an interest in performing, film/game scoring, selling albums or whatever most pursuits here are. My journey in music has been one of understanding and experimentation. I stand at the intersection of music and technology and observe all I can and when I have the opportunity I share what I’ve learned. For the last seven years this forum has been a primary opportunity for me to assist others on their journeys. Now I’d like to announce I will no longer attend to this forum. Who cares, right? Right, so let me enumerate some reasons why I won’t be missed: I read the first post to make sure I understand the needs of the OP. I read the replies to ensure I’m not repeating what’s already been said. If I can’t speak with sufficient knowledge on a subject I shut the fuck up. Just because I’ve invested the time to read and understand the thread does NOT entitle me to post in it. If I’m not sure about a claim or fact in my post then I look it up. When I am wrong, I own up to it. When someone else is wrong, I call them on it. If someone asks a stupid question or gives poor advice, I berate and ridicule them to negatively reinforce their behaviour. I don’t overwhelm people. I keep my posts short but I'm always ready with more info to give when needed. I don’t over generalise (or write guides). People come to a forum for advice tailored to their specific needs and that’s precisely the most helpful advice I can offer. Despite whatever credentials or experience I claim to have or how much effort I put into crafting advice, I accept that no one has to listen to me. Whether that’s all genuine introspection or a veiled plea to those who try to help is an exercise to the reader. But in the end I am content to let the blind lead the blind for whatever void my absence creates. On a lighter note, I give my sincere thanks to all of you who have been willing to listen and all of you who have had good information to impart. And if you have an interest in the cutting edge of music tech or music hackery, Peter Kirn of CreateDigitalMusic is developing a new site, Noisepages, which you're welcome to come chat/blog on along with me. cheers.

In my case I did genuinely offer the YouTube channel for my artist profile but on the (false) expectation it would not be extrapolated upon by site staff; had the (apparent) policy of the artist profiles been made clear to me I would not have volunteered a thing. So I do agree the profile policy, whatever it may be, should be available for everyone to review before they submit.

Monthly bump.

OK, I neglected the 'public' qualifier so I added it. But if you do happen to be a law enforcement officer and I happen to be operating a motor vehicle then I will be compliant in showing you my drivers license if asked. cheers.

If my weakly-referenced Youtube profile specified my sex I would consider that to be a good source. In this case you are concluding based upon my appearance and bearing in mind persons whose appearance does not “match” their assigned sex, your conclusion is a forgivable assumption but not necessarily factual. I’m not saying my sex is Space Alien or my birthdate is 10,000BC or my name is Britney Spears. I am not misrepresenting myself or providing disinformation. I have made a logical argument questioning the accuracy of the assumed sex on my artist profile so I requested that the dubious information be removed. I don’t consider that request to compromise the goals of the artist profiles given that I’ve consistently chosen not to volunteer the information in question within any authoritative, public context.

I've had a few people express interest in some of the projects I've been working on. My only reluctance to share them is that I'd have to support them on some level. Writing software is a lot of fun, but maintaining software is a lot of work. It would slow me down from developing new projects. But when I come up with something I think is worth maintaining I'll do just that and be making noise about it. I looked at a bunch of them, the best one I found was Screenium but it's a bit expensive for what I wanted it for so I bought iShowU instead which was closer to what I was willing to spend. Apologies to Siamey for drifting a bit, thanks for the 3.0 jailbreaking info though!

Much in the same way I'd prefer to avoid talking to the judge when contesting a traffic ticket, I'd prefer to avoid this conversation -- but it's my only hope for finding resolution. I've been waiting a month for a response so, bump.

Here's something for your iPods, a collection of four 1960s avant-garde electronic music works from the Columbia/Princeton University with descriptions: http://www.analogartsensemble.net/2009/06/electronic-music-from-columbia.html Included is early work from none other than Wendy Carlos.

Not sure who you would consider to be prominent OC ReMixers but if you're really curious you could contact them and ask. As for the forums in general, I made this chart a few weeks ago which should give you an idea: cheers.

I think the "out of the box" iPhone features are fine but at the same time I've had positive experiences with jail-breaking. There are certain kinds of apps that just aren't going to appear on the App Store. The main reason I jail-break is to experiment with on the phone. I don't have anything I want to put on the App Store so paying $100/year isn't worth it to me. Have you jail-broken the 3.0 software? I'm planning on trying it soon, let me know if there's anything to watch out for.cheers.

It is useless for the purpose you (initially) wanted it for. As for equalization, practical spectral details for common instruments can be found in many recording arts books and guides online.

That's what confuses me. If you understand that the data you're looking for is useless, why do you expect that someone would bother to host and maintain it? If you want it just to play with then you need to DIY.

There's a reason for that. Notice the instruments in the SHARC collection have something in common: all those instruments produce fairly static waveforms. Instruments in the saxophone family, the piano and certain percussive instruments have changing waveforms that don't lend themselves to a representative FFT analysis. Cymbals, for example, produce a range of changing inharmonic overtones; that's why a noise generator is used to approximate them in subtractive synthesis.

I'm not sure whether this is serious or satirical, but I liked it: "Compression Sound Art" Includes all Beatles songs, Beethoven symphonies, entire film soundtracks and more reduced to indecipherable glitches. Too unusual to pass up.

Distortion works too. "heavy, insane" distortion has the same effect as bit reduction: they both make the bits more uniform. Reduction to 1-2 bits is more understandable than "heavy, insane" so I went with that. However I don't think some unison saws will do the trick without the filter, the ringing harmonic is what creates the "granular" effect.

I don't think it is granular synthesis. Try taking any subtractive synth and patch a sawtooth or pulse wave thru a high resonance lowpass filter, the key follow on the filter should be at 100%. Then add a bit reduction effect, reduce to 1 or 2 bits. You'll need to adjust the cutoff point so that it's ringing on one of the harmonics and play with the preamp on the bit reduction to get most of the sound "pushed" thru the 1 or 2 bits. I can give more detail if necessary, cheers.