LETTERS to Electronic Musician

Sep 1, 2001 12:00 PM

OUT OF CONTROL

Thanks for the excellent article about MIDI winds (“In Control,” May 2001). However, I take issue with the review of the Akai EWI3020. Akai may have worked extensively on the EWI in the past, but it has done nothing to it in at least five years. Furthermore, the module is unnecessarily huge — a full-depth 2U rackmount unit, which makes it unwieldy for road use.

Perhaps Akai bought too many large rackmount cases about six years ago and needs to recoup its investment. On the other hand, the new MIDI EVI, custom-built by Nyle Steiner, offers significant improvements to Akai's product line, namely better MIDI compatibility and more features. In addition to being MIDI compatible, the MIDI EVI has a control voltage (CV) output (a much more sensitive response than MIDI).

Many EWI owners are waiting to get their hands on an improved MIDI EWI, if only Nyle Steiner would build one.
Ernie Mansfield
via e-mail

Ernie — I agree that the EWI sound modules are large and unwieldy. I also agree that the Steiner MIDI EVI is a big improvement to the Akai EWI in terms of features and MIDI capabilities, and it does have a CV output. However, not many synths are available that can take advantage of that feature, and it's difficult to access because it's carried on an unused conductor within the MIDI cable. To access it, you need to build a box that routes that conductor to a CV output. On the other hand, the Akai sound modules can process external analog signals through their filters and amp sections, which the EWI controls. That capability is not available on any other MIDI wind controller.
— Scott Wilkinson

STARR SEARCH

I've been reading EM for almost 15 years. I've always looked to it for information about what's happening in the MIDI, synth, and recording worlds, and usually I have been satisfied with the articles.

However, I noticed that the article about alternative MIDI controllers (“In Control,” May 2001) didn't mention Starr Labs' Ztar line of alternative controllers. I own a Ztar Z2, with the ingenious Ztar synth controller neck, and an electric guitar with a hex MIDI pickup. I've been following guitar synthesis trends since the mid-'80s and have never encountered an interface like the Ztar's. It not only brings guitarists a fairly straightforward way to trigger synth sounds but also works within MIDI's limitations as a keyboard interface protocol.

The Ztar deserves way more attention than it has received. Please include it in the next relevant article about MIDI controllers or, better yet, dedicate an article to exploring it.
Michael LaMeyer
via e-mail

Michael — I agree that Starr Lab's controllers offer an outstanding degree of control and MIDI implementation that is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with mainstream MIDI guitars. Nonetheless, the focus of my article was on mainstream controllers. Starr's instruments, however closely they resemble guitars, are not mainstream controllers.

Associate editor Gino Robair and I covered several Starr controllers in the August 2000 cover story, “The Outer Limits”; “What's New” in the July 2001 issue has a write-up of the Starr Z6 and Z6-S; and a review of the Starr Z1 and Z1-S is in progress.
— Marty Cutler

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Larry the O's comments in “Final Mix: Stuck in the Middle” (June 2001) are right on the money.

I am the broadcast and recording engineer for Atlantic Records' Internet department, and I own a commercial studio in New York City. At Atlantic, I use a Digidesign Pro Tools/24 system (hardware and software), a Yamaha O2R digital mixer, and a pair of Genelec monitors. At my studio, I use a Mark of the Unicorn (MOTU) 2408mkII system (hardware and software); a Mackie 32-8 analog mixer; Mackie HR824 monitors; Event 20/20 monitors; and a consumer monitoring setup, which consists of an Onkyo M-501 power amp, a pair of Allison bookshelf speakers, and a Panasonic boom box, all for A/B comparisons. Both studios use Mac G3s. I have a clear understanding of what Larry the O is talking about.

For the high-profile Atlantic recordings, the tracking gets done on the Pro Tools system, recorded in 24-bit, 48 kHz format. I then transfer the tracks to a FireWire hard drive and bring them to my studio for post-production work. There was a time when that would have been impossible without having an expensive setup to handle the critical applications of truly professional work — but not anymore. Although Atlantic's pro system is great, you can't beat the modern midrange audio systems. No matter what audio sequencing software you use, the 2408's I/O can compete with the big dogs.

The power has been brought back to the people by the outstanding efforts of companies such as MOTU, Echo, and so many others. Larry the O is right when he says that rough times are ahead with new operating systems, protocols, and software. If you can ride out the storm, it's only going to get better.
A. J. Tissian
via e-mail

STOP IT — WE'RE BLUSHING

As I have been considering the purchase of a new computer for audio, I sent an e-mail inquiring about Windows ME versus 2000. Thanks to the magazine and associate editor Dennis Miller for the timely and immensely helpful response and for the pleasant surprise of seeing my letter in the June 2001 issue.

EM is the highly valued center of my music-reference library. As a reader for more than ten years, I have many issues to revisit, all of which contain good, trustworthy advice. My projects continue to improve not only with practice but also from reading each issue.

Thanks to the entire staff, which consistently does an excellent job. You should sleep well knowing that you help many people pursue their passion with confidence and satisfaction. You really do make a difference.
Brian Strines
via e-mail

IT'S A MYTH-TERY

Dan Phillips's article (“Debunking Digital-Audio Myths,” May 2001) covered many interesting points. I found it frustrating, however, when he failed to provide at least basic definitions for topics such as fixed- versus floating-point calculations. I know that's an important topic because I've heard of it so many times in descriptions of computer-music gear. However, Phillips basically said that there is a distinction between the two — they result in different calculations by the computer — but gave no explanation of what they are. I still don't know whether one is better than the other.

Likewise, he wasn't clear about how plug-in compressors and limiters have certain “frequency-related issues.” What does he mean by saying compressors and limiters “work by modulating one audio-rate signal with another audio-rate signal”? Does audio rate refer to the sampling rate? That section, which I really needed to understand, wasn't written in clear terms — unless you're a total tech head.

I'm making the same observation that a reader (“Letters,” May 2001) recently made. Please have nontechnical editors edit the articles to make sure at least basic definitions are provided for the lexicon used in more technical sections. Take a look at the articles in your sister publication Remix, in which almost everything is explained clearly.
Michael Arana
New York

Michael — The question of fixed point versus floating point was mentioned as a side point, so I could spare only a few paragraphs. It's a highly technical subject, and a complete discussion could easily fill an entire article.

The two formats have varying ways of approaching the possible range of values. For audio, think of the difference between silence and full-scale signal. Floating point has finer resolution near zero than at larger values, resulting in greater dynamic range; fixed point has constant resolution throughout its range, culminating in finer resolution for larger values.

Bit resolution is often not the same when comparing fixed- and floating-point hardware, which makes apples-to-apples comparisons difficult. Some tasks may be easier or more processor-efficient, depending on the choice of fixed or floating point; even chips capable of both may have fairly contrasting capabilities when doing one or the other.

As for which calculation is better, I don't have an easy answer. Highly regarded digital signal processing programmers have differences of opinion on the matter. Some point out disparities in ease of programming; others point to algorithms that seem to work better in one case or the other. Because the experts disagree, it's safe to say that you don't need to worry about it.

My point was not that one is better but simply that, in some cases, they may not produce identical results, and if a developer implements the same synth or effect on floating-point and fixed-point systems, the two may sound slightly dissimilar.

Regarding compressors and audio-rate signals, audio rate means a signal with its frequency in the audio range, approximately 20 Hz to 20 kHz. A compressor's gain control may respond to incoming audio so quickly that it produces signals within that range.

With 1 ms attack and release times, for instance, a compressor can act like a 500 Hz oscillator. That may produce frequencies significantly higher than 500 Hz, depending on the waveform shape created by the attack and release characteristics.

The frequency produced by the gain control interacts with the frequency of the signal being processed and produces aliasing noise if the combined frequencies exceed half the sampling rate (the Nyquist frequency). To diminish aliasing, use slower attack and release times and, if possible, use processors or plug-ins with higher internal sampling rates.
— Dan Phillips

Michael — We do indeed have nontechnical copy editors working on the stories. However, EM has never been an entry-level magazine with respect to the articles' technical level. We constantly do a balancing act. On one hand, we don't want to lose readers who lack an extensive technical background, so we try to explain the underlying technical issues when we can. On the other hand, if we never assume a certain level of technical knowledge, we can't discuss more advanced issues that are of interest to our many technically savvy readers.

Fixed- versus floating-point calculation is a good example of a highly technical issue about which we had to assume readers already had some knowledge.
— Steve O

WE WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK.

Address correspondence and e-mail to “Letters,” Electronic Musician, 6400 Hollis Street, Suite 12, Emeryville, CA 94608 or emeditorial@primediabusiness.com. Published letters may be edited for space and clarity.