Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Music, Like Clockwork: Modular Music Boxes with Rotating Wheels, Inspired by...

 
 

Sent to you by marcel via Google Reader:

 
 

via Create Digital Music by Peter Kirn on 2/8/11

Working with music in software means thinking a bit like a music box maker, using sequences to create note and rhythm machines. Nick Rothwell sends a project in which he literally engages the mechanical music box, with rotating electro-magnetic discs and a set of digital devices that recall their 19th-century predecessors. The designs are modular, interconnecting with one another into a little music box ensemble. And in another sign of the influence of the design of the monome, they explicitly nod to that hardware and its community as an aesthetic cue. (I have to admit, though, I'm more envious of this than the new arc.)

At the heart of the piece is a custom-made electro-magnetic rotary sequencer. Melodies are stored on a series of interchangeable, acrylic, 10" disks embedded with small magnets arranged in a regular circular grid. In the same way vinyl records are located on a turntable these disks are centered on a spindle and rotate over a 'play head' made up of a line of magnetic field sensors – effectively replicating but superseding the set of pins on the revolving cylinder that pluck the tuned teeth of a steel comb in the traditional device. Additional units are 'daisy-chained' to each other via single cables and include a self contained and controllable sound source (to hear and effect the musical output) and an animated representation of a dancing ballerina automaton – realised as a modern-day interpretation of the praxinoscope (the successor to the zoetrope – the popular visual parlour toy of its era – but which improved on it by replacing its narrow viewing slits with an inner circle of mirrors).

Inspired by the design of the second generation monome.org controllers these modular components draw on their minimalist design aesthetic and utilise a similar restricted material palette of walnut, brushed aluminium, translucent acrylic, and orange LEDs.

Nick aka Cassiel is part of the Monomatic trio, which:

…was initiated in 2007 as a collaboration, experimental playground and halfway house between the work of Anthony Rowe of squidsoup – art, research and play in creative interaction design using sound, physical and virtual space – and Lewis Sykes then of The Sancho Plan – a progressive audiovisual collective who explore the realtime interaction between music and video. Monomatic has since evolved and the current line up now includes Nick Rothwell a.k.a Cassiel – a composer, performer, software architect, programmer and sound designer.

http://www.monomatic.net/modular-music-box/

The work was shown as part of London's Kinetica, an exhibition of kinetic art over the weekend.

Rotating music box-style wheels is an elemental design in musical machines, which means there are countless works one could mention here. I'll leave that to comments, though, because I imagine you'll think of a few examples I haven't. Fire away.

Here's an early visualization Nick did of an unrelated project, rendered in Max for Live. I love the circular visualization; I've played with some similar sketches myself in Processing, but not in Max. Like a wheel inside a wheel…


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Fennesz és BJ Nilsen A38

 
 

Sent to you by marcel via Google Reader:

 
 

via alone,in a spaceship to Andromeda by sunnoliver on 2/4/11







fantasztikus volt.

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Does Sequencomat for the Now-Defunct Lemur Trump iPad Touch Sequencers? Watc...

 
 

Sent to you by marcel via Google Reader:

 
 

via Create Digital Music by Peter Kirn on 2/7/11

Interactive touch layouts for sequencers are something of a no-brainer – imagine if an analog pattern machine and the deck of the Starship Enterprise had a love child. But platforms come and go. And just because the iPad is the shiny, new thing – and remains the most affordable solution at the moment – doesn't mean you shouldn't learn from ideas beyond just the platform with an Apple logo. Almost a year ago, we saw some compelling sequencer ideas for the Lemur. Sadly, that hardware was discontinued in the fall. But the users keep using it.

Matthias Wille's Sequencomat has gotten far more powerful since we last looked at it. Far from catching up, indeed, he argues iPad apps are falling further behind – and he makes a good case for that. So hardware and software designers, take note.

It does sync, in both directions. It sends just about everything. It can randomize steps. You need the software on the host computer, not just the controller, but put it all together and there's some serious power here. Matthias gives us the overview:

  • detailed stepvalues for octave, note, velocity, length, CC, delay, steppropability (V2 had only trackvalues for those functions)
  • switchable randomfunction on each stepvalue for velocity, length, cc … very nice to variate some aspects of a pattern single and multiple track editing
  • 3 clocktype: Master, slave, rewire (and – I still wonder! – my own clock is more stable than most professional DAWs) for sure independent midichannel, timing and tracklength on each track (polyryhthmic patterns!)
  • 100 patterns to save and load in realtime

See the excellent overview video at top – or marvel as it works with an analog setup, below.

I asked Matthias to explain more about why he thought this was better than other solutions out there. He took a break from adding new functionality – freely-definable scales, note and octave randomization – to answer at some length.

I could edit this, but I think you'd lose some of the personality of this conversation, so here it unedited.

Lets start with some common differences:
- sequencomat is a plain midisequencer. it can only send midi… while most (all?) Ipad seq have a sample browser. That makes them more "standalone", and thats the main concept of an app. But to me it makes no sense, cause I have my drumracks inside my DAW (Ableton), so to change the sounds I am triggering I just change the note….
- some Ipad seq also have FX section. again this makes no sense to me, cause I can control that in my DAW by Midicontrolchange (CC) or with another page on my Lemur, which gives me more flexibility.

These both features are more a matter of taste, but it points out the difference of a controller integrated in a bigger system or a standalone you can use everywhere but are restricted if it comes to communication.
Now a list of functions most (all?) Ipad seq miss and even most classical hardware midi stepsequencers have not:

- independent steprange (1-16 steps each track) and timing.
technical this means that each track got its own clock section. Musically it means you can do polyrhythmic patterns…ever overlapping and changing. On typical 4 on the floor music this is meaningless…but if you want to go more experimental…. (Moltons (?) Ipad app (that one that syncs) got something simular, based on quater sections, but only for timing, not for steprange)

- independent midichannel on each track with possibility to change during play and saved within the patterns.
technical it was hard to get rid of the midihung that can appear if you change the channel while a note is played….the "note off" (damn midiprotocol) will be send on the new channel…so I had to cut these notes first. but only these notes, not all on this channel! musically it gives you much freedom, cause while in one pattern track 1 can be an epiano in the next pattern it can be a drumrack. (well, with that freedom some confusion can come in)

- stepvalues for velocity are quite a standard…. but I got also stepvalues for octave, note, length, CC, delay, steppropability.
With "octave" and "note" you can give every step another tone to trigger (most classic hardware seq have that), if you use a well organised drumrack, changing the octave will change the drumsound (different BDs all lay on pitch C) and with changing the note you can change the drumtype (e.g. snare on D).
"Length" is also a stepvalue on some hardware stepsequ, but mostly on a discrete scale (1/4 1/2 1), while I have continious scale. You can set the maximum on the maxpatch for better fine control ranging from 1-16 steps.
You can furthermore control 8 CC-values – each track has one attached, they are boundend in timing and steprange, but not in meaning. You can set the Midichannel and Controllernumber of those independent and – guess what – these are saved within the patterns…so again a lot of freedom in routing.

With "delay" you can delay each step in triggering and therefore create a groove. Swing would be to delay every second step. But you can go much more in detail… cause you can also control the amount of delay for each step. The predefined range is 0 – -50msec, but you can set it to whatever (-2000msec?) on the maxpatch for more experimental settings. The delay of a step is also reflected in the steplight, giving you a visual impression of the groove.
With Steppropability you can set some activated steps to only be triggered in lets say 30% and therefore create some variation of your pattern. Each step independent on each track, all saved within the patterns. The stepvalues reflect more "unlikeliness", cause the higher they are the more unlikely it is that the tone will be playsed (if set at all in the stepmatrix – sure). The unlikeliness values are compared with a random value that is triggered on 16th, 8th, 4th, 1 bar, 2 bar or 4 bars. Setting this to higher values will cause the same variation several times before changing. To give you visual feedback of the actual propability status (on/off) there are little LEDs on each step: If they are off – no tone.

- stepvalues for velocity, length, CC, delay got a "range" control on the left side. So you can control the range (e.g. 40-66 instead of 0-127) while the relative difference of the stepvalues still work. So you can fade in velocity…. Of course, that range is also saved within the patterns, independent for each track.

- stepvalues for velocity, length and CC got a randomfunction you can switch on for each step independently (!!!!). so if you want the velocity on step5 of track2 to variate, just push the little switch under the stepvalues. Or the length of step9 on track3? Or both? Or all? Every time those marked stepvalues are triggered they generate a new value. But remember – the output will ever stay within the range. (which makes a random much more usefull than plain 0-127) With this function you can surf on the border between total control and random. Thats what I love as an artist….discovering this border of controlled random. And this stepwise random is really a bomb…it makes this static thing "alive"!

- single or multiple track editing. Normally you step through the tracks and choose a function. But what if you want to change the values of more than one track at once? No prob, switch to multiple track editing, choose more than one track (chosen tracks become red) and all values you enter will be routed to all tracks. (Funny, but this concept is not common sense…maybe because with mutliple track editing you can get no more feedback – what should be displayed if the values differ?) So you can change tempo or steprange of different tracks at once (nice breaks). Or fade in the velocity of a couple of tracks with the range object. Or the CCs (!). Or even the propability if you set the random value to "manual", this will cause fading in the "density" of a pattern.

- all of this saved within 100 patterns handled in realtime. jumps are done immediately giving you a good feel for interacting. But you can also activate a "automatic pattern chain", like play pattern 2, 3, 4. In random order or reverse? No prob. Jumping on 1/4 bar – 1/2 bar – 1 bar – 2 bar – 4bar….your choice. You can also "exclude" single tracks from pattern jumping if you want.

-step and track mute – independent from patterns for breaks…

-a X/Y pad for controlling a CC on each axis and /or triggering notes (vertical velocity, horizontal speed (syncable!)) all with nice ranges attached to the borders to control the min and max output.

-and finally 3 clock options: master, slave, rewire.
I had rewire only first on V1 but never was satisfied with the results. Especially Abletons Midiclock (using it as master or as rewiremaster) was f***ing bad. As long as you do not reach 50% CPU power it is ok, but after that it turns unstable…sure, these are only Milliseconds…but damn, they call it "Live" !! Some of my users told me, that Cubase is much better. But I decided to build my own clock. I did not rely on max standard clock, I build it from scratch…with very nice results. Now all users confirm, that my clock as master is the most stable one. (I still find it confusing….me building a better clock than Ableton?… the background might be, that ableton drops the clock first before they drop audio, while on my maxpatch the clock has the highest priority)

So – cocky or not – if it comes to plain stepsequencing, SequencomatV3 eats them all ;)

In a future update I will rework the pitch section: Octaves and Notes will be defined by the user. that means scales instead of 12tones each Octave. not only major or minor…nooooo…. free defineable scales – you just enter your keynote and the halftone steps. And for sure – then the random-stepvalue-switches makes also sense and will be there (I cutted it on octave and not only because it sounds so inharmonic on 12 tones)

An essential ingredient in getting all of this to work – a Max/MSP patch works with functionality back on your desktop host.

Okay, that's all well and good and fantastic – but the Lemur is now discontinued. So I was curious what Matthias' plans were – would he consider a future beyond the Lemur?

Yes, sure. But not the Ipad.
I thought about going on it…. my core engine is done in max, so why not make a touchOSC surface? Because TouchOSC (as great as it is) is generations behind the Lemur. Not only physics…hey, I do not use physics in my sequencer… but many control objects are missing (range!), leds are not handled in vectors (as far as I get it), there is no light interaction independent from on/off state, no moveable containers (well, I think in the last version they added this, not sure) and so on…. so it will not be simpley changing some paths in the maxpatch – if so I would have been already there, kickin some ass – it will be completely reconstruct everything.
And I do not want to do that if I then have to sell it for 10$. This pricetag of apps makes the Ipad unattrative to me. Not because I am a greedy guy, but because it isn´t worth it. Most users need support for their midisetup. Even this support will be more effortfull than 10$. And furthermore there is still that bidirectional communication issue. The Ipads WiFi can handle over 1500 values each pattern in realtime? Hahahaha…lol, never. It is not made for that.

So instead of competing with all these Apps, I think of giving my Sequencomat a control surface directly in Max and wait for more and more touchscreens coming to couple with any PC or Mac. Just as a 2nd monitor. As my sequencomat never was ment as a standalone, this fits much better. But we will see…this will not happen within the next half year. See, I am so happy that I have my dreamsequencer here… after the next update I will chill and make some music again. Because this is something I missed all the last 1 1/2 years… having time and energy for making music again and not only coding…. (and this is also a reason, why the music in my demovideos is a bit uninspired or boring…)

I'm way over my word quota, so I'm going to leave it at that. But while sometimes I actually prefer a simpler touch device, even I think the guy has some good points here. Keep in mind that we're talking the combination of the touch layout, the touch hardware, and then the software on the host. The iPad could certainly accomplish a lot of this (though not over an Ethernet cable), and we should assume the iPad is, in the long view, just the leading edge of a large wave of tablets.

So – discuss.

http://www.tonvibration.de/SequencomatV3.html


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Make an Album in February Or Bust: The RPM Challenge, and Deadlines are Good

 
 

Sent to you by marcel via Google Reader:

 
 

via Create Digital Music by Peter Kirn on 2/2/11

Photo (CC-BY-ND) tianhua.

Record an album in the month of February, and have it in the mail by March 1: that's the RPM Challenge, and so far, some 6,000 acts have already delivered. Nathan Groth writes us with details (and apologies for late posting here, since that means you have… less time).

Long time reader of CDM. I'm also a coordinator of this little thing called the RPM Challenge, which is now into year #6. I think you may find it interesting and we would love to get some coverage in the hopes it may entice more people to get involved. I also think it's something the CDM community would find appealing.

While it's not geared specifically towards electronic or experimental musicians or usage of specific tools, it does represent a little local event that has gone global, while still running entirely (100%) by volunteers and donated server space. The website is also powered by open source code. With no corporate sponsorship, it's managed to curate one of the largest free music collections on the internet, plus it's a really neat idea!

It began as a idea based on National Novel Writing Month, and it was a strictly local affair in Portsmouth, NH at first. Over the years it's gone global, attracting people from as far off as Tokyo and McMurdo Station in Antarctica. Despite the reach, though, the great thing is that it's managed to be strongly local as well, and in that really lies it's power- it's managed to walk a fine line between an amorphous- internet based event and a strongly local one at the same time.
Enough babbling from me, I'm just an excited volunteer.

rpmchallenge.com

The competition is global, and there's a global listening party on March 26 – I hope we'll check in there. Do let us know if you get your music posted; Synthtopia posts the same call so perhaps we'll have a number of music tech blog-reading producers out there.

I'm not sure February will be right for everyone, but you'll know if it's right for you. As for the question of whether a month is enough time to produce an album, in some cases, it's actually harder to take longer. When I talked to Gold Panda back in October, he described the three weeks he had to make "Lucky Shiner" as the very element that made the production possible and satisfying:

I looked after their dog over Christmas and had my whole studio set up there. I have a really short attention span, so most tracks are done in a day, and then I'm bored with them. And if they turned out good, then they're good, and if I think that they're not really finished or whatever, then they get rendered to the hard drive and put into iTunes and sit in there forever.
I was never really a big fan of dogs before, so I kind of had this bonding with this dog called Daisy. She'd wake up really early and wake me up, and I'd take her for a walk, come back, start making tracks. And then after an hour or so, she'd want to go for a walk again or play. Every time I was getting into it, she'd kind of stop me and we'd go for a walk. It stopped me from overworking things, and I think that's what made it — [the album's] more simple and more direct. It was good to have a distraction while I was doing it.

It's a familiar scenario – both the three weeks, and the smaller periods of time are a kind of "timeboxing." (See my story on the Pomodoro Method.) I hope to talk more about productivity this week and next, so feel free to bring up ideas – and let us know if you're taking up the RPM gauntlet.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Handmade Effects, Grungy Goodness of the Gallolizer, and DIY Hardware FX

 
 

Sent to you by marcel via Google Reader:

 
 

via Create Digital Music by Peter Kirn on 2/2/11

The Gallolizer is a handmade multi-effects sound mangler, an array of dirty, delicious sound-destroying effects in a single handcrafted box. It's the work of a Spanish engineering and art collective called MP19, an Arduino-loving, free software-using, open source group of artists who turn those platforms into the kind of grungy sounds that make them happy. (And that, of course, is what it's really all about.)

But before we talk specifics, check out the video. We long ago departed the world of high-fidelity sound; this is digging your toes straight into the mud. I'll wait.

Got it?

Good – now onto technical details. Part of what allows the various dimensions of sound in the Gallolizer's repertoire is the sharing of schematics. Long before open source was even a term or fully-formed idea, hardware makers routinely borrowed ideas from schematics – it was hard not to – and apart from cases of gross abuse, the process was more or less a fact of life. Open source hardware and Internet sharing has since formalized that process, and made it a whole lot easier for beginners to try out making projects, thanks to ample and friendly documentation.

As a result, the Gallolizer is a window into a whole world of electronic sound ideas a tinkerer can try out. Here's how designer Gonzalo Garcia describes the ingredients:

An Arduino Bitcrusher based on Kyle McDonald's design (http://www.instructables.com/id/Lo-fi-Arduino-Guitar-Pedal/). We had improved the output for line level on all modes and a bit of warm in overall sound with some transistors in the output.

Ampeg Scrambler clone, based on 2n5306 darlington transistors for adding some darkness to bass and bass drums. You can transform hi-hats and snares in a more crispy sound.

Germanium fuzz is basically a NPN germanium transistors fuzzface for process sounds and add some germanium hiss.
LP Filter is based on Diego el de León's design (http://esquemasnoise.blogspot.com/2008/12/wilson-low-pass-filter.html) for a low pass filter and based himself on a Ray Wilson's design. Incredible resonance and a bit of analog distortion.
LoFi Delay, based on Rebote Delay from tonepad (http://www.tonepad.com/project.asp?id=51), with the infinite feedback mod and improved output for a bit of warm. We are planning to add a modulation mod to this nice delay.
Arduino Reverb based on lab3′s design (http://interface.khm.de/index.php/lab/experiments/arduino-realtime-audio-processing/), with an improved output for less noise and more warmth, based on transistors . We also add a mix control for controlling the amount of effect.

Kyle McDonald's Arduino-based lo-fi guitar pedal.

You can't buy a Gallolizer – it's a one-off design, unless you want to try to make them an offer. But the effects unit component will be released as a PCB and as open source hardware. It's funny, as I had also just been looking at Kyle's design (Kyle is such a Renaissance visual and sonic inventor, it kind of makes my head hurt), so this could be ripe for exploration. And there's no saying this is only for those who want to become avant-garde noise artists – everyone can use a little grunge sometimes, regardless of musical idiom.

Not open source hardware, but as it happens our friend Tom Whitwell (of the sorely-missed Music Thing blog) is doing beautiful DIY work of his own based on a project from musicpcb.com. He's also exploring techniques for housing and is making some lovely, tasteful decals, too, as you can see in the picture. I'm hoping Tom will share some of his work.

Echo Base PT2399 Delay

Photo (CC-BY-ND) Tom Whitwell. Click through for some Flickr chatter, and Tom trying to make me buy a Eurorack or something. (I'm broke. Seriously.)

Echo Base PT2399 delay pedal on Hohner Pianet T by MusicThing

Got DIY effects projects of your own, or requests? I'll also see if we can't find a good beginner project for everybody. I wouldn't mind an effects box to go with my MeeBlips.

Other wonderful projects:
http://mp19.wordpress.com/


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Arc: New Music Controller in Video, Detailed Q+A with monome Creator Brian C...

 
 

Sent to you by marcel via Google Reader:

 
 

via Create Digital Music by Peter Kirn on 1/21/11

Can minimalist controller design make even two knobs into a digital instrument? We'll soon see. The arc, the new controller from monome designer Brian Crabtree, contains just two high-resolution encoders (known to us in everyday usage as "knobs"). It makes no sound; every minute rotation and a push-button action are telegraphed to a computer. Everything that would make it musically interesting, then, is up to the makers of interactive software on the computer. At their disposal are interactive, brightness-adjustable LED displays that ring those encoders.

At US$500 (or $800 for a four-knob model), the results aren't cheap, challenging even loyal fans of the grid controller monome. What you get for your dollars, at least according to the creator, is materials and handmade construction. The case is made out of solid, sustainable walnut, the facing from aluminum. In grainy Internet video, it may look like there's plastic around the rings; it's not – it's glass. The slip mat is felt, sourced from small farms. I almost hesitate to point these things out, as it might make it seem as though the arc is expensive for the sake of being expensive, and that wouldn't be fair; ultimately, it's the arc's small-quantity, handmade, local construction that drives up the price, relatively speaking, in the iPhone world in which we live.

Anyway, whether you buy one or not, I think it'll be the question of how software can rise to the challenge of the arc's provocatively-minimal design that's more interesting. Brian has shot a first video experiment with one demo, in which you can see those LEDs providing feedback with the software, showing the position of loop points. Even this video only scratches the surface: Brian hopes that this won't just be a monome companion, but that some will find ways of using it on its own.

A recent post on the official monome site provides additional details:

  • 256 steps per revolution, with integrated push button
  • 64 leds per ring, each led independently has 16 levels of brightness
  • arc two: 6" x 3.5" x 1.5"
  • arc four: 10.5×3.5" x 1.5"
  • Ordering Feb. 18, ships first week March
  • Initial run: 50 of each. (Yeah, that'll sell out fast, even in this economy.)

A design like this rightfully raises questions – even doubts – so I've spoken with Brian to see how he sees his latest creation.

arc, alongside a monome. The combination is likely to be the most popular, if for no other reason than the arc's appeal to the monome audience. But creator Brian Crabtree says that isn't exclusively the intent of the design. All photos courtesy monome.

CDM: Who is this for? Is it primarily a companion to the monome, or might you imagine people using it as a controller on its own?

Brian: fundamentally it's for people who are interested in exploring new methods of interaction. the arc is simply a high-resolution encoder and a bunch of lights. like the open decoupled grid, it's a blank canvas which provides the same opportunity to invent, share, and generally think differently about process.

while certainly it makes sense integrated into larger systems or paired with a grid device, i'm hoping the extreme constraints will also prompt ambitious, minimalist performance tactics. and it's not simply a fancy volume knob. the visual feedback has sufficient depth to facilitate much more exacting use of the input. i do see the possibility of interesting two-knob applications that make good use of visual feedback and various modes.

Price seems to be a debate no matter what things cost, so let's ask it another way – realizing many people aren't familiar with what goes into manufacturing and how that impacts price, where does the cost of an arc go? What are the major sources of its cost, specifically?

like the grid devices before it, the arc had several tricky design challenges. it's often more difficult to achieve a minimalist aesthetic, which is perhaps counter-intuitive.

the materials, sources, and people we chose to work with account for the cost. the enclosure is milled solid black walnut, harvested in central pennsylvania. aluminum work, anodizing, glass cutting (that is not plastic), laser cutting, sheet metal fabrication, circuit assembly, and pcb manufacturing all happen in the eastern US. we're deeply invested in our local economy.

there's no one part that makes the device expensive– it's the total number of custom parts that seem somewhat cheap on their own– and there are a lot of them. i'll be sharing some photos of the construction process when we get a chance.

of course, there's the fact that these devices are hand-made in very small batches– we don't get huge discounts on quantity orders.

but comparing prices is a bit silly– we're not really competing with yamaha or novation or the like. if you truly appreciate what goes into these devices and what they do (and don't do), i think you will find the pricing fair and reasonable.

With just two encoders on the main model, there's a lot of focus, obviously, on just these controls. In practical use, as you get your hands on this thing, how much do you find having the additional resolution makes a difference? Can you really make movements small enough to take advantage of it?

tiny movements can be tracked– 256 steps per revolution– and the large knob allows for greater physical control. high resolution is a major benefit. there's room for more subtle gesture in controllers, and i'm hoping room for thoughtful, slow, and maybe even quiet musical contours.

the integrated pushbutton allows for press-sweep-release gestures, toggling, or however the application would like to interpret the data. in a way it doubles the input streams per knob– turning while pressed, turning while depressed. with the correct app design this feels remarkably natural.

How are those messages sent via OSC?

there's a simple format similar to other monome devices. we're about to release a new serial-osc server (called serialosc) which will make for a much more plug-and-play experience.

encoders send out delta values: +1, -1, -2 for example. they don't have an absolute position, so it's up to the software to count and transpose these values. it makes for much more interesting translation of what knob movement means– for example you could map a single "tick" to be 1 normally but 0.1 when holding the button down– coarse/fine movement.

the led ring has a flexible and detailed set of messages. set a single led, set all leds to one value, set a range of leds to a value, or send a whole array of 64 led values in one OSC packet. these optimizations allow for incredibly fast refresh rates, resulting in very smooth animation.

the leds support variable brightness with 16 values per led. i see a lot of potential here– layers, waveform mapping, background vs. foreground, reactive metering…

As I recall from our conversation, USB connections are different than on the monome, yes? Will you use USB class for control as well as serial-over-USB? How will the arc connect to software?

we're using ftdi again. long boring story! some other time.

Ed.: FTDI refers to a chip manufacturer. Long story short, this involves having a USB device act as a standard, non-USB serial port, which involves drivers. (Fun fact: those drivers are now rolled into recent kernels on Linux, which makes life easier for free software users.) The arrangement works, and in the past people have appreciated the performance they get out of the arrangement. It does (likely) knock out the possibility of using your arc with an iPad.

Don't try this at home: the arc's more complex design means it's not as suited to be a kit, says Crabtree. But you can expect a similarly open community and attitude from its designer.

Why only two (or four) encoders, and not more?

you can already get more encoders elsewhere, but without resolution of input or output. we generally don't like reinventing things that already exist.

for this project i think having too many elements detracts from the focus. we'd prefer a high degree of detail.

What patches have you seen created so far for this?

that's a funny question given only one prototype exists at the moment! but the monome forum seems to have already brainstormed several pages of possibilities– one user even created a flash app for realizing detailed diagrams.

the community really surprised me on this one. i figured new apps would come about quickly once the actual devices were out in the wild, but never did i imagine apps were getting first versions before the hardware was ready.

The first run is limited, but if it's a big success, do you anticipate making larger runs later?

certainly, though we'll follow our same methods which have proved successful over the years– releasing in editions, and trying to create enough to meet demand but not much more. it's still just kelli and me building, and it's not great to have extra parts laying around.

Brightness you noted was addressable; how would you control brightness on the LED rings?

/enc/ring/set n x s
where n = encoder number, x = led number, s = state/brightness (0-15)

Presumably if people wished to add, say, accelerometer and/or tilt, they could do so? (This wound up creating interesting variations to control on the monome.)

i've done a huge redesign of the electronics, modularized and standardized. we're working on a tilt upgrade that should be a matter of plugging in a small ribbon cable.

Will any component of this, beyond bundled software, be released under an open source license, or is it already? (I think perhaps the USB chip you're using already is?)

i'm looking at licenses (some which you referred me to) and expect to post firmware and schematics and everything. it's not realistic for people to make a DIY version (complicated boards, insanely tiny parts), and we won't be making a kit version (though we will have an encoder module that will plug into the new mk).

most importantly, the protocol will be open source. both the serial and OSC protocol. so smartphone emulators and arduino clones will be possible and encouraged.

Because the hardware is not available under an open source license and cannot be freely redistributed, I wouldn't call monome or arc "open source hardware." At the same time, it's different in significant ways from conventional proprietary hardware, and it does have genuinely open source protocols and software. Perhaps "modifiable" is another word. Without getting stuck on labels, how would you describe what the monome is? And you've talked about some other priorities you have that exist outside the open source discussion that seem they also merit conversation; can you comment on that?

i agree, it may need another name.

i'm slightly ambivalent about the label "open source hardware." it's come to mean more than simply having the sources available, which was my original goal. people should absolutely know how their equipment works and be able to modify it if desired. it's turned into a different conversation, about freedom– the most anonymous free-market sort of freedom. and this is a good conversation to have, but it somehow left the realm of sharing and went somewhere else. i wish more people were interested in discussing resource use, materials, and local economics– these are very real issues concerning physical goods. the open source hardware debate seems to have inherited too much from the open source software ideology.

overall i'm a proponent of communicating with people. if you'd like to use someone's work, contact them and chat about it. licenses are only a starting point.

Side note – OSC messages + Arc

TheAlphaNerd posts via comments this excerpt of Brian on the forums. This should be considered a draft of the OSC implementation, but I think is interesting nonetheless.

To simplify this… there are 64 leds per encoder. There are 16 stages of brightness. Leds can be changed as a group or individually

"most of this is still tentative, could endure minor refinements before the end of the month.

in short:

from device:
/enc/delta n d
where n is encoder number, d is change (ie 1, -1, +2)
/enc/key n s
where n is encoder number, s is state (0,1)

the refresh is incredibly fine and fast, so unless you're really throwing the knob, you rarely get beyond 1 or -1 on delta.

that said, it's "up to you" to keep a counter when writing your own apps. i'll be making a bunch of "helper" apps and templates to provide high-level functionality to app writers.

one thing to consider– being able to set rotation limits (setting ranges), "chunking" the display into 16 sections, having the rotation speed (fine vs course) be set by the button press.

what about a rotating led cycle that's an LFO (or sample playback)? turning the know pulls at the velocity like a turntable. push down the knob and it applies a friction brake. hold it down and spin one way to give it a serious push, let go and it runs free.

etc.

protocol to device:
/enc/ring/set n x s
set led x (0-63) of encoder n to state s (0-15)
/enc/ring/all n s
set all leds of encoder n to state s (0-15) like /clear on monome grids
/enc/ring/map n d[64]
map array d (64 values) to encoder n, like /frame on grids"

It's still early days for the arc, as it awaits production and more patches and creativity. I hope to offer more on it as that happens.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

LFO Everything, Max for Live, and Attribution

 
 

Sent to you by marcel via Google Reader:

 
 

via Create Digital Music by Peter Kirn on 1/24/11

This afternoon, I feel obligated to offer some explanation. Following my post about Julien Bayle's LFO Everything module for Ableton Live, several readers and a forum thread on the Ableton Live forum raised concerns that a portion of Julien's Device was adapted from another developer's work without attribution. Heated discussion on the Live forum spilled over into our comment thread. I was contacted by Edward Majcher, the developer of the original patch in question, entitled Device LFO, and have been in communication with Mr. Majcher and Mr. Bayle since. This would certainly qualify as a violation of the Creative Commons license under which Device LFO was released, as it would infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any non-public domain patch. Over the course of the weekend, several readers on the Ableton forum were able to demonstrate what Mr. Majcher had told CDM, that a portion of Device LFO was reused in LFO Everything without being attributed. (See the two threads, if you wish: the original LFO Everything thread, and one following allegations of plagiarism.) I was unaware of any of these concerns when I originally posted the article.

The portion in question is not the entire patch, but a specific subpatcher that handles parameter control in Live.

Mr. Bayle has since confirmed to me that he used a portion of a patch in LFO Everything that was not his, failing to attribute it to its original creator. He describes the incident as unintentional, and says it was not malicious. He has released a 1.6 update to LFO Everything, replacing the parameter control components with a new JavaScript technique, and he has made the rewrite open source under a Creative Commons attribution license. (Mr. Majcher separately verified that the new technique is original to Mr. Bayle.) That said, it was certainly not my own intention to point to a patch that in any way infringed on another's work.

Mr. Majcher expressed a desire to move on from the incident, and as the original developer, I think the best course of action is one that benefits his work and the developer community as a whole.

I can say that the tone of discussions on the forum (and to some extent comments on this site) have become what I would characterize as emotional, independent of the parties directly involved. I did not wish to add to those discussions. I know Mr. Bayle, I've performed on a program with him, I can verify he's an experienced and capable developer, and he's in the past contributed to the Max community and music making community at large. I am not arguing his original release was in the right, and I don't defend the way he responded to the situation, but I'm sorry to see that it's happened. Having been introduced to Mr. Majcher's work, I'm equally impressed by his output, I'm very sorry indeed that his work was appropriated without credit, and I'm sorry that I was not fully confident of the sequence of events until today.

Looking beyond this particular case, to avoid this happening in the future, it's hard to over-emphasize the importance of careful attribution, particularly when things like Max patches are routinely constructed from snippets lying around your hard drive. Whether or not you believe Mr. Bayle was in the right, it is all to easy to do something similar. I do not see this question as directly connected to whether or not something is "open source." Whatever the license – including popular free software licenses like GPL, BSD, and Apache – whether open source or proprietary, any work that is not explicitly public domain requires attribution. Any work in the US (and many other countries) automatically receives copyright protection. This is an area about which we all must be very careful, both for legal and, more importantly, ethical reasons. Whether any of us is perfect, we can, at least, endeavor to do better, and to communicate with other developers. That's not a direct comment on this case; it's simply a lesson worth taking away, whether you're an "open source" developer or not.

Also, independent of this issue, since readers brought this up, CDM can't cover everything, our coverage isn't perfect, and not every single blog post should be considered an endorsement. Maxforlive.com has a superb library of Devices and resource, and worth exploring. If there are devices of particular interest, do let me know about them; we have an open comment form. Feel free to send in tips more than once if you feel strongly; my inbox is a crowded place. Even before concerns about LFO Everything, I heard from readers who felt I had omitted other work somehow by design. That is, believe me, never my intention.

Thanks to those who were directly in touch regarding LFO Device and LFO Everything.


 
 

Things you can do from here: