Fairlight-CMI

Hi Hallvard,

There could be a score of reasons why the Fairlight Arr sounds different to the other examples, the most obvious reason being source of sample, i.e. vocalist / choir. Maybe there was some filtering going on with the original voice and then re-synthesised, I'm not 100% sure, but I too would like confirmation if anyone knows any better. As daft as it might have sounded to my colleagues outside, I've just tried saying "ahhh" in a variety of ways and they all sounded VERY different. Maybe Sarah Cohen had a breathy voice, just like Kirsty McColl (RIP) had.

Yes, Peter Vogel is about... :-)

With regards the 3D graphic window, check out this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOP1IKdc4UI)

With modern samplers there is miles more functionality, but what was special about the Fairlight at the time was not just the sound quality (due to it's military components and build spec) but it was revolutionary. It was an innovation and nothing else compared to it. Even Page R was revolutionary and sculpted the way forward. Some artists bought the Fairlight solely based on the sequencer alone. What we know today (sampling and sequencing) is thanks to Fairlight.

Anyone else, please feel free to add / amend or comment :D

Peter

On 12/18/06, Hallvard Tangeraas <my_list_address@yahoo.no> wrote:

On 8/12/06 11:57, Peter Connelly wrote:

(Fairlight "ARR1" choir/voice sample)
> 1) This is how I believe it to be. Maybe Peter Vogel can elaborate on
> this one?

Is he here as well? Wow!
Yes, that would be great.

> It is a breathy sample, probably a characteristic of her
> voice. Some voices are breathy by nature are and maybe only a portion of
> the recording was used, missing out the attack possibly? It was 8 bit
> and I believe this sample was on the original Fairlight CMI Series I
> Factory Discs which had a very small sampling bandwidth. I doubt this
> was recorded in studio / lab conditions and if she sung into it again,
> wouldn't quite be the same. Maybe a fluke which got captured and
> remembered forever.

You've got some very good points there, Peter. But I'm still not
convinced that this is a real, unedited human voice.
Or is it just that the early Fairlight CMI transforms the sound so much
that it no longer is (more or less) an identical copy of the source input?

Here's that voice again (ARR1) which I had on a Fairlight CMI IIx audio
sample-CD I bought a few years ago:
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/fairlight_examples/Fairlight_ARR1.mp3

Now, for comparison, here's a choir sample from an Emulator II (I
believe I found it at the Hollow Sun website a while back -can't find it
there now):
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/fairlight_examples/Emulator_choir_D4.mp3
That definitely sounds like a human choir!

Another Emulator II choir sample:
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/fairlight_examples/emulator_choir_G2.mp3

And finally another Fairlight voice sample from that same audio-CD:
http://home.c2i.net/w-460389/fairlight_examples/Fairlight_real_female_voice.mp3

The last sample also sounds a bit strange, but at least here it sounds
like a human voice, albeit a low-quality recording.

I've read a lot about the Fairlight on the web, using Google. But not
many sites go into detail. They usually just explain what the Fairlight
is, but not having one myself I'm curious (especially in relation to the
ARR1 sample) about the filters, editing abilities etc. to try and find
out if any of this has contributed to that special sound quality.

For example, using the light-pen and the graphic editing capabilities,
could a normal human voice be transformed? No website I've come across
actually explains what that 3D graphic window is, neither what you can
actually do with a Fairlight, but I'm guessing that part of what can be
done is raise/lower the various frequencies of a sound. Perhaps the
higher frequencies (the "airy" part) of the voice has been raised or
something like that....
Please excuse my ignorance.

> Just about anyone can
> get setup in this day and age, with very little outlay. In those days,
> it was different, so people that got into it, yearned to do it and had
> the drive, talent and creativity to make it work. It also took a lot
> longer to produce a record in those days.

If you compare the capabilities of the Fairlight back in those days with
today, what kind of currently available hardware/software would that be
to emulate those functions/capabilities?

Obviously you can do CD-quality audio sampling with just about any
computer today, and of course the dedicated hardware samplers out there,
but I've heard that the Fairlight can do so much more. Can someone
explain to me what those things are?

> I'm not sure if you're aware, but there are a few other variants of
> Fairlight. Series I, II, IIx and III. The III being the most technically
> advanced and way ahead of any technology at that time.

yes, I've read about them all, though I've never had a chance to see/try
out any of them.
Seeing the specs of the series III, isn't this more or less what many
modern samplers are capable of, meaning that it's still not an outdated
sampler, but fully usable as any modern sampler?
I suppose the difference is cost, whereas today you can get many of the
same specs for a fraction of the cost back then.

regards,
Hallvard