I would love to have one of those, and i think poly aftertouch is pretty uncommon (I have an Maudio Axiom (channel aftertouch) and Yamaha SY35 with some kind of AT). People have told me Korg and Kurzweil had the best aftertouch of the vintage synths
Many keyboards support varying pressure on a key to vary the sound, this is a common input. The rest of the article is just as bad and nonsensical, as is obvious to anyone who understands the technology of synthesis or knows musical performance.
This article is typical of Wired-- Junk technology writing. They haven't really been competent since the 1990s.
Wired articles really don't belong on Hacker News. It's "technology" reporting for people who don't understand technology.
Do they support that dynamically, though? I know a lot of high-end keyboards are able to detect how much force is applied to the key and adjust the sound (usually volume) accordingly (i.e. "velocity sensitive"), but these are usually like pianos, where the force is only checked during key press, not throughout the sustain; the CS-80 is instead fully pressure-sensitive (volume will adjust as you ease off pressure or reapply it without having to restrike keys), which is what the article's referring to, and which I've yet to encounter in the wild (though if you do know of a good example of such a keyboard - particularly one that can apply "aftertouch" per-voice like what the CS-80 does - I'd be interested; I've been looking for a good keyboard to add to my shopping list).
It's a little scary; I thought that was a super common feature and didn't think to check that the one I was ordering didn't support it. I'm glad it does, though.
The Nord Stage 2 (the red one you see in basically every music video/live performace ever :) ) supports aftertouch. If you're looking for something much cheaper than $5k, the Novation Impulse 49 does for $250 (and comes in other sizes, too).
Monophonic(global) aftertouch is pretty common on controller keyboards these days - it's the polyphonic form that is sought after. And there's a chicken-egg problem w/r to its appearance in synthesis programming, since supporting more MIDI events often comes with a little more complexity, and it's only the most configurable synth designs that make it possible to use everything.
In the end, I'm a little sour on any "more is better" approach to control. Breath control is really cool, but it's hardly ever used. Organs have had massive polyphonic range for quite some time, but relatively few people are going to learn to play them. Roland has been marketing the "D-beam" for at least a decade now and it's about as much of a gimmick as ever. There were pitch ribbons on synthesizers back in the CS-80's era, and they occasionally reappear, but the standard is a pitch bend wheel, and that probably isn't just because MIDI dictated a pitch bend. Most music gear is fairly pedestrian stuff, marketed to existing audiences with a coat of paint and a dose of hype, but that doesn't mean it can be revolutionized - the design constraints are mostly ergonomic these days. We want play to be easy and immediately gratifying and to simultaneously control every aspect of the sound, and somewhere in there, a compromise has to occur.
For example, the idea of performing everything by sample playback as the article implies misses how music is mostly driven by performance and how most instruments are basically optimal to play on their own, even if their skill ceiling is high. A commercial multi-sampled violin will have better tone than an amateur player, but you still have to perform with it like a violinist, using appropriate techniques, if it's meant to channel "violin." Otherwise, it'll be another synth timbre. That latter issue surrounding skill and performance is a much broader one with no "obvious" technological endpoint, even when considering AI performance algorithms. Humans will want to play along too.
I did not read the article but in my opinion the LinnStrument is truly interesting. Something different about it is that the keys can receive feedback in three dimensions: not just pressure (velocity/volume), but also pitch in one axis, and timbre in the other. Certainly not the only controller to do something like this but different to a standard, velocity sensitive, piano-like midi keyboard. Also, given Linn's track record I'd expect the thing to be really well built. The layout in multiple rows might be beneficial when compared with a standard piano layout too.
The product page [1] explains pretty well how the instrument works and why you would like to play it instead of a standard keyboard. The demo videos at the bottom are pretty cool.
By the way, this is "just" a MIDI controller, so Linn is not claiming to have improved synthesis in any way with this product... he does recommend a 3rd party synthesis package though.
MIDI is just a protocol, it specifies how to encode the inputs from a controller, but doesn't say anything about how to model/synthesize/sample sounds.
I'm not aware of any alternatives to MIDI, so if you want to make live synth music with any controller, you'll probably have to deal with it :-). MIDI is so pervasive that working with it is pretty much transparent, in the same vein you don't have to do anything special to use your computer keyboard or mouse.
Pressure sensitivity on a musical keyboard is known as "aftertouch" and is generally implemented in a "monophonic" way, the effect of pressure on any key is applied to all the currently depressed keys. The CS-80 implements aftertouch on a per-key basis, rather than common to all the keys. This allows it to be more naturally expressive. There have been a few MIDI keyboards that implemented CS-80 style aftertouch, but it's extremely rare and many of the implementations have been less than brilliant (but Ensoniq deserves recognition for even trying to do it on some very reasonably priced equipment).
Many keyboards support varying pressure on a key to vary the sound, this is a common input.
This is true only of velocity and monophonic aftertouch. Polyphonic aftertouch is actually pretty rare. The only controllers I know which provide it today are the Native Instruments Maschine series. The only synth engines I know which support it are Serum and Animoog.
But it died out not just because of "buzzkill accountants" or whatever the article said, but also because very few people wanted it. And the idea that it's the secret sauce in Vangelis's Blade Runner soundtrack is just dipshit ridiculous.
This article is typical of Wired-- Junk technology writing. They haven't really been competent since the 1990s.
I can't totally agree. They've definitely gone downhill, but this was probably the stupidest thing I've ever read from Wired, so I can't call it typical.
Most keyboards support aftertouch, but only as channel pressure, where the same aftertouch value is applied to all notes. Only a handful of MIDI controllers have ever supported polyphonic aftertouch, where the aftertouch value is applied per-note. On conventional keyboard mechanisms, this is extremely expensive, because each key requires a separate pressure sensor rather than simply measuring pressure across the whole keybed.
The LinnStrument also supports polyphonic pitch bend, which is even rarer than poly AT. Due to the limitations of the MIDI protocol, polyphonic pitch bend requires note-per-channel support, which is available on less than a dozen software instruments.
The only mass-market controller that is remotely comparable in expressiveness is the Keith McMillen QuNexus, but this is a much less musically useful product with only a two-octave range. The Eigenharp Alpha is truly comparable in features to the LinnStrument, but this is an exotic built-to-order product that costs $6000, has a six month wait list and requires proprietary host software.
Where can I find an hackable input component that does XY and aftertouch? The Synaptics ForcePad seems ideal but it looks like it's only available integrated into laptops.
15 comments
[ 1242 ms ] story [ 258 ms ] threadBut: poly aftertouch for... $100: http://www.amazon.com/Xkey-25-Key-Portable-Musical-Keyboard/...
This article is typical of Wired-- Junk technology writing. They haven't really been competent since the 1990s.
Wired articles really don't belong on Hacker News. It's "technology" reporting for people who don't understand technology.
On the features list: "Polyphonic aftertouch".
It's a little scary; I thought that was a super common feature and didn't think to check that the one I was ordering didn't support it. I'm glad it does, though.
In the end, I'm a little sour on any "more is better" approach to control. Breath control is really cool, but it's hardly ever used. Organs have had massive polyphonic range for quite some time, but relatively few people are going to learn to play them. Roland has been marketing the "D-beam" for at least a decade now and it's about as much of a gimmick as ever. There were pitch ribbons on synthesizers back in the CS-80's era, and they occasionally reappear, but the standard is a pitch bend wheel, and that probably isn't just because MIDI dictated a pitch bend. Most music gear is fairly pedestrian stuff, marketed to existing audiences with a coat of paint and a dose of hype, but that doesn't mean it can be revolutionized - the design constraints are mostly ergonomic these days. We want play to be easy and immediately gratifying and to simultaneously control every aspect of the sound, and somewhere in there, a compromise has to occur.
For example, the idea of performing everything by sample playback as the article implies misses how music is mostly driven by performance and how most instruments are basically optimal to play on their own, even if their skill ceiling is high. A commercial multi-sampled violin will have better tone than an amateur player, but you still have to perform with it like a violinist, using appropriate techniques, if it's meant to channel "violin." Otherwise, it'll be another synth timbre. That latter issue surrounding skill and performance is a much broader one with no "obvious" technological endpoint, even when considering AI performance algorithms. Humans will want to play along too.
The product page [1] explains pretty well how the instrument works and why you would like to play it instead of a standard keyboard. The demo videos at the bottom are pretty cool.
By the way, this is "just" a MIDI controller, so Linn is not claiming to have improved synthesis in any way with this product... he does recommend a 3rd party synthesis package though.
1: http://www.rogerlinndesign.com/linnstrument.html
Are there disadvantages to MIDI? I'm just starting to learn about digital audio, so I'm curious how well regarded it is.
controller --[midi messages]--> synth --[real audio signals]--> speakers
I'm not aware of any alternatives to MIDI, so if you want to make live synth music with any controller, you'll probably have to deal with it :-). MIDI is so pervasive that working with it is pretty much transparent, in the same vein you don't have to do anything special to use your computer keyboard or mouse.
This is true only of velocity and monophonic aftertouch. Polyphonic aftertouch is actually pretty rare. The only controllers I know which provide it today are the Native Instruments Maschine series. The only synth engines I know which support it are Serum and Animoog.
But it died out not just because of "buzzkill accountants" or whatever the article said, but also because very few people wanted it. And the idea that it's the secret sauce in Vangelis's Blade Runner soundtrack is just dipshit ridiculous.
This article is typical of Wired-- Junk technology writing. They haven't really been competent since the 1990s.
I can't totally agree. They've definitely gone downhill, but this was probably the stupidest thing I've ever read from Wired, so I can't call it typical.
Most keyboards support aftertouch, but only as channel pressure, where the same aftertouch value is applied to all notes. Only a handful of MIDI controllers have ever supported polyphonic aftertouch, where the aftertouch value is applied per-note. On conventional keyboard mechanisms, this is extremely expensive, because each key requires a separate pressure sensor rather than simply measuring pressure across the whole keybed.
The LinnStrument also supports polyphonic pitch bend, which is even rarer than poly AT. Due to the limitations of the MIDI protocol, polyphonic pitch bend requires note-per-channel support, which is available on less than a dozen software instruments.
The only mass-market controller that is remotely comparable in expressiveness is the Keith McMillen QuNexus, but this is a much less musically useful product with only a two-octave range. The Eigenharp Alpha is truly comparable in features to the LinnStrument, but this is an exotic built-to-order product that costs $6000, has a six month wait list and requires proprietary host software.