More Dumble than Dumble!

[JHP]

RJM Amp Gizmo.

[Mark]

D'oh, so John Suhr posts here, I didn't think he was into such forums, as I didn't think they'd shed much light for him?

live and learn.

[Luddy]

There is rapidly growing culture of Max/MSP users who program the software to detect pitches and use the converted MIDI numbers as variables in all kinds of audio and MIDI messages. For example, I could program Max to detect when I started playing notes below G3 (a fifth below middle C). If these notes are used more than the higher notes, a MIDI message could be sent to the pre-amp to turn down the bass, or any combination things that I might like have the amp do in certain situations. In terms of capturing the guitar sound with a mic or line input, it is pretty easy and reliable to do this kind of tracking.

Now, since I teach this stuff, I am well aware that there are two different cultures involved in this. The non-computer crowd is just not going to get it and don't want to be bothered. But the laptop crowd is getting larger and more adept all the time. I have wanted something like this for a long time. I could handle the laptop part on my end, but I have no way of accessing the pre-amp controls.

For those who believe that computers should not be involved in guitar playing, nothing will persuade them, I have learned. But they are really speaking out of ignorance and lack of experience.

[LeftyStrat]

For those who believe that computers should not be involved in guitar playing, nothing will persuade them, I have learned. But they are really speaking out of ignorance and lack of experience.

I don't think that is the only factor. The problem in the past is most designers of MIDI controlled preamps went the route of early MIDI synths, in that you have this small display that is a peephole into a gigantic menu system, with a limited number of rotary encoders.

I'm a programmer by trade, but even I found this frustrating. If I'm playing a gig and need to roll off some bass, I want to walk over and turn a knob, not wade through three levels of nested menus.

And my experience with several MIDI preamps (JMP-1, GSP2101, and some A.R.T preamp I no longer remember the model of), left a lot to be desired in the computer interaction. Most had hideous SysEx implementations, few had great support for continuous controllers, and you were pretty much left to selecting presets.

The GSP2101 and it's cousin the TSR24, had enormous potential, in they were almost a hardware/DSP implementation of Max/MSP. They had FX building blocks that you could place in any order with multiple paths. Unfortunately, they never documented the SysEx, so no one could write a decent editor for them. Thus you were reduced to peeping through a pinhole to map out the universe.

To do it right would require that to you treat the tone stack in most amps as part of the modeling, and provide a separate *real* eq that was a master over all programs.

If my "Program 1: Marshall Crunch" was boomy in a particular room, then it is likely my "Program 2: Fender Clean", along with my "Program 3: Dumble Lead" are also going to be boomy.

Of course, if you want the ultimate flexibility, and want to fully embrace computers with guitars, just use amp modeling software and dump the tube amp.

[Mark]

If I'm playing a gig and need to roll off some bass, I want to walk over and turn a knob, not wade through three levels of nested menus.

This is the thing that kills MIDI. In the end turning up a knob is the simplest method and you don't have to read through a lot of material to do it.

To effectively use MIDI you have to know how to use it and there doesn't seem to be an abundance of people out there willing to help. I encountered this problem with Line 6, they gave me info, but I had no idea how to use it.

As far as modeling software goes, I use Podfarm and while it does produce some nice tones, it doesn't sound like an amp. I think the attack on the note is wrong on the modeling stuff. To my ears the guitars sounds like it has been recorded, which is great for recording as it is so simple, even using it as an effect is simple.

For MIDI to take off it has to be easily accessible. If you guys know something about MIDI that the rest of us don't, please post up info to simplify it for the rest of us.

I think this even applies to John Suhr, people have to feel comfortable with the product, MIDI stuff tends to be here today gone tomorrow, while amps have a longer life, mind you it shouldn't be that way, but as far as I can tell that is the present view of MIDI.

[LeftyStrat]

MIDI is nothing more than a communication protocol. It has been very successful over the years, but honestly it is obsolete. OSC is probably the successor, since networking and ethernet are pretty cheap.

What we really want to do is strip away the previous or current technologies that would influence what we might want to do, and really look at the possibilities.

From an engineers point of view, it might be possible to build a system where we could programmatically change the plates and cathodes, as well as the connections and tonestack, to reproduce any amp ever made.

Unfortunately, even if you duplicated a tweed fender preamp, it won't sound like a tweed unless you also duplicate the crappy power supply.

Truth is, a great amp is like this weight suspended among many springs, and has this chaotic aspect to it.

Computers are great at repeatability. Repeatability is great for sucky music.

[Max]

Repeatability is great for sucky music.

The fact, that e. g. Anne-Sophie Mutter these days uses exactly the same Dunn-Raven Stradivarius whenever she performs on stage or in the studio doesn't lead to "sucky music", at least not in my opinion.

In the contrary:

IMO a consistent timbre and attack etc. of an instrument is very important for most musicians when performing. It's exactly this feeling to be "at home" with your instrument that sets free the creativity of a musician based on his total confidence not only in regard to himself but also in regard to his tools.

And I think everyone here will remember some uninspired performance of one of our heroes because she/he wasn't able to "repeat" her/his usual sound on a certain stage.

And I am rather sure, that RF wouldn't complain too much about a dozen more amps waiting for him on any stage all over the world to exactly "repeat" the tone of #102.

So, if after perhaps some more years of psychoacoustic research and further progress in regard to computing power etc. some of the members here should perhaps be able and willing to build a "clone" of a different kind, I wouldn't be too surprised at least.

Cheers,

Max

[Mark]

Unfortunately, even if you duplicated a tweed fender preamp, it won't sound like a tweed unless you also duplicate the crappy power supply.

I agree about the power supply effecting tone. I learnt this by experimenting with a Tweed Champ. When a signal is applied the rail voltage feeding the output transformer increases, yet the pre-amp compresses as the rail decreases by nearly 100VDC. This happens because the screen grid conducts and drops available voltage to pre-amp, thus the compression.

I don't think pre-amp compression is a factor in R.F.'s #0102 amp. There are two 40uF caps on the pre-amp which I imagine would keep the pre-amp voltage quite stable.

The fact, that e. g. Anne-Sophie Mutter these days uses exactly the same Dunn-Raven Stradivarius whenever she performs on stage or in the studio doesn't lead to "sucky music", at least not in my opinion.

There has been quite a lot written about Stradivarius not being in their original condition. I can't say I know anything about them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi ... -myth.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius

http://www.jeffsextonwrites.com/2011/03 ... rius-myth/

Here are a few random items.

As I've said before the attack on the note sounds wrong on modeled amps, the are very flexible and are a great recording tool. A great practise amp too. I think more work is required on modeling amps. My 0.02c

[LeftyStrat]

Repeatability is great for sucky music.

The fact, that e. g. Anne-Sophie Mutter these days uses exactly the same Dunn-Raven Stradivarius whenever she performs on stage or in the studio doesn't lead to "sucky music", at least not in my opinion.

Perhaps, I should have phrased that differently. Static, rigid, and predictable comes to mind.

Ever tried to play along with a first generation drum machine? It's not much fun.

[greenbottle]

For anyone interested, Sliicon Chip:- an Austrailian electronics hobbyist
magazine has in the October 2011 edition, published a "Usb to Midi"
interface. It runs from a PIC18F14K50 microcontroller which handles USB enumeration and exchanges MIDI data packets. It will be available from Silicon Chip preprogrammed or the programme dowoloaded from their site. They also note that during development of the project that they
down loaded two free programs.
"Notation Player" available from www.notation.com and
"Anvil Studio 2011" available from www.AnvilStudio.com

Back orders of the magazine should be available from www.siliconchip.com. If they run out they will do photostat copies for you.

Alan

[Max]

Static, rigid, and predictable comes to mind.

IMO opinion your metaphor confuses a certain character of a musical instrument as beeing responsible for a certain character of the music played with it.

The predictability of a tool's performance IMO is precisely what makes a tool a tool. And IMO this is of course the same with musical instruments.

When a musician picks up his violin, guitar, horn, grand piano, or Dumble amp, IMO he will be very pleased about the fact, that it is rather predictable what tone his grand piano produces if he touches the keys.

So I would propose not to blame the predictable charakter of the functions of a musical instrument, that IMO lies in the nature of any tool, for a predictable and perhaps boring character of the music that is created by using this tool without inspiration.

Cheers,

Max

[pamaz67]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaAGG9qV ... re=related.
I know the guy and many italian players are using his stuff.
Definitely very rock style oriented. But look at the pots.
He uses some motorized rv4.
I agree with John Suhr. I am not convinced there is a market for such stuff, but from the technical side , it's a very nice exercise.
Furthermore, I ask myself why in a dumble based amp you'll require a motorized setup.
All the tone variation are literally in your hands ( and your picking attitude).

Paolo

[LeftyStrat]

So I would propose not to blame the predictable charakter of the functions of a musical instrument, that IMO lies in the nature of any tool, for a predictable and perhaps boring character of the music that is created by using this tool without inspiration.

I think were talking about two different things. I'm not talking about musical instruments, I'm talking about computers and computer interfaces. The guitar has a much more expressive interface than a computer keyboard. I don't think, for example, a Hendrix solo could be easily transcribed in a MIDI file.

To use MIDI in an amp it would be necessary to make sure it didn't get in the way of the interactivity of the amp.

[rsalinger]

Sometimes flexibility can stifle your creativity with too many choices.

+1! Agreed, whole-heartedly.

However, the inverse situation (read as, "lack of flexibility") may also, at times, manifest itself as a monotonous, one dimensional rendering of what could have been a genial, divinely-inspired idea, at its inception.

Cheers,
Rob

[Max]

I'm not talking about musical instruments, I'm talking about computers and computer interfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhQEuyitCUc

I'm not sure, if you don't confuse the fact that you personally may not like to use computers and computer interfaces to create music with the fact that computers and computer interfaces generally aren't musical instruments.

And IMO Jimi first of all stands for an open mind.

http://www.patmetheny.com/orchestrioninfo/

Cheers,

Max