Fairlight-CMI

Peter,
The appeal to me in a system like say a CMI-IV, are
not the qualities of an experimental platform like a
Kyma system (as someone suggested).
The appeal to me is much more basic. I rather want a
simple, the audio sampler version of a really really
good sushi chefs knife. Not a swizz army knife. The
best Sushi knife there is if possible. Not totally
unlike the original CMI III software/ hardware design,
but with a few well chosen modern upgrades.

- My main interest in the CMI system is as a sampler
and music instrument.
It's a digital instrument with a strong analog feel.
It is the sound u get when you pitch something down 2
octaves that rings well with me. The very organic
quality of the sound. 
One major thing that both the Synclavier and the CMI
III lack, are filters. This would be a very nice new
feature for the next gen CMI. 

- It would absolutely be great to get a few disk
recording tracks. But I don't think competing with
current recording systems like Pro Tools, is the idea
here. Rather go for quality and simplicity. 8 tracks.
16 tracks or perhaps even 24. But no need for dub
stage size sessions here. Again, simplicity and
superior sound quality. Features like vari speed,
EQ/filters and dynamics would be very nice.

- User interface should be all about functionality. No
color unless color is needed and has a function etc.
Keep commands to actual buttons and stay away from too
much mouse movement. Speed and tactile interaction is
the key.

- If a custom chassi is better for ease, sound.,
consistency, sex appeal, then great! Custom chassi it
is! Don't hold back on a Rolls Royce. As long as it
doesn't become 'bling". No blue LEDs for no reason
etc. 

- Dedicated RAM based system, to ensure rock solid
stability. And why not loads of it. I could easily see
myself with a 30 gig RAM system, if possible.

Now, what is sound quality really? Why do I use Pro
Tools for certain things and Synclav for other? I
would perhaps describe it as organic personality. 
I use my synclav in very un orthodox ways (by general
digital audio standards). Ex I normalize a sound, then
continue to over gain it to get distortion from the
cards. Sounds amazing! Layer bunches of samples on
top, all with different playback speeds. Sounds huge!
Sample something in at super low level, then normalize
the file. Best noise ever! Basically I bend, kick and
torture those synclav soundcards backwards and
forwards, just because they give interesting results.
Unlike if you try to do the same in say Pro Tools (try
to clip a file in PT and see how good that sounds).

This is why I wonder about the basic hardware design
of a CMI-IV. I'm sure it is possible to port the
software, and perhaps mimic some aspects of the
original hardware. But, it is important to remember
that  this is more than just nostalgia.  If I want
nostalgia, then I would buy the original no matter
what. What I am interested in is to improve upon an
already successful design. Make something better. Not
just more convenient, but sonically better. 
If you look at the market right now, there simply
aren't any high end pro samplers out there. Sure you
have scores of sampler software, but nothing still
beats a well calibrated Synclavier or CMI III, even to
this day. Let's change that!

How would you mimic the hardware architecture of the
voice cards? All running in tandem, but at different
clock speeds depending on what note you press on the
keyboard? Just the virtue of having multiple cards,
has the same effect as stacking up multiple analog
mono synths, a very pleasant and rich sound.

The sound you get when slowing down a sound to less
than a quarter of its original speed. A very pleasant
sound on a tape machine or a Synclavier, but usually
not interesting nor good sounding on a software
sampler.
Do you think it's possible to solve this in software?
If you think it is, and if you think more DSP would
solve it, then don't hold back. This is the weakest
link of any software sampler for sure. I would
sacrifice a lot of extra features (read DSP) just to
get to the very best vari speed sound possible. If it
could even match that aspect of the original CMI III
or the Synclav, I would be absolutely thrilled! 

I don't know how it worked on the CMI III, but on the
Synclav you have analog VCA's that also brings a
certain analog quality. It also effectively made the
output of the sound always 16 bit "analog floating
point?", as the sound always retained full resolution
regardless of level. 
Now VCA's are much easier to simulate in software. 
Although easier to generate, they should not be
overlooked as they bring a very important part of the
sound. Perhaps analog modeling?


Cheers!
Tobias



--- Peter Vogel <peter.vogel@vogelfamily.net> wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by "individual clock
> speed per voice card?"
> 
> When you say "high end system", do you mean high
> performance (as in
> excellent sound quality) or large capacity (number
> of tracks) or something
> else?
> 
> What in particular would appeal to you about a
> CMI-V?
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> 
> Peter
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Tobias Enhus
> 	Sent: Friday, 7 November 2008 7:06 PM
> 	To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> 	Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI] Re: Fairlight CMI
> series IV?
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	I would like to chime in with Fabian on this. 
> 	Im using a combo of Kyma and Synclavier as my main
> 	Synthesis tools. 
> 	There simply is no high end system like a CMI-IV
> 	available today.
> 	
> 	I would be more than happy to pay $5k for a
> dedicated
> 	high end system like CMI IV. 
> 	
> 	Now, how would you solve something like individual
> 	clock speed per voice card? 
> 	
> 	Cheers!
> 	Tobias
> 	
> 	--- d_40q <retinalburn@ngi.de
> <mailto:retinalburn%40ngi.de> > wrote:
> 	
> 	> 
> 	> Hello Peter,
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> although I am not a Fairlight but a Synclavier
> user,
> 	> I follow this forum due to my 
> 	> appreceation of the original CMI's sound, concept
> 	> and design.
> 	> 
> 	> In my humble opinion your exiting proposal to
> create
> 	> a CMI-IV unsing today's technology 
> 	> could hit a market-gap, if it was executed with
> the
> 	> same strong conceptual foundation as 
> 	> the original CMIs.
> 	> 
> 	> At the moment there is no High-End Computer
> Musical
> 	> Instrument available, that would 
> 	> enable the creative musician to work intuively by
> 	> integrating deep performance, recording 
> 	> and sound design capabilities in one coherent
> 	> instrument.
> 	> Wich is what the Fairlight CMI and the NED
> 	> Synclavier achieved in their day.
> 	> 
> 	> Looking at what is available today:
> 	> 
> 	> 1. A system freely combining a standard PC/MAC,
> any
> 	> software, a controller keyboard and 
> 	> external AD/DA:
> 	> A standard System like this does not give you the
> 	> best possible sound quality, it is 
> 	> unstable, and due to its lack of integration it
> is
> 	> not verry intuitive.
> 	> The user interface arguably hinders the creative
> 	> process.
> 	> 
> 	> 2. A workstation keyboard like the Korg Oasis:
> 	> A pretty well integrated Instrument, but
> technically
> 	> and software-wise it does not 
> 	> represent the state of the art. In terms of sound
> 	> qualitiy it can't even compete with a 20 
> 	> years old CMI-3 or a Synclavier.
> 	> 
> 	> 3. DSP based Workstations like Kyma:
> 	> Great sound design tool, but not necessarily an
> 	> intuitive musical instrument.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Now if you compare the pricetags of the
> 	> aforementioned, I am pretty sure, customers 
> 	> (including myself) would be willing to pay more
> than
> 	> the proposed $US5,000.00 if the 
> 	> CMI-4 came with its own specialized keyboard
> 	> controller/user interface, that would match 
> 	> the CC-1's audio processing capabilities in terms
> of
> 	> Quality and Design.
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> Best regards,
> 	> Fabian
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> 
> 	> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Fairlight-CMI%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> 	> <peter.vogel@...> wrote:
> 	> >
> 	> > 
> 	> > There have been discussions from time to time
> 	> about replicating the CMI
> 	> > using a software emulation. These efforts will
> 	> have limited success because
> 	> > the "Fairlight sound" relies on the
> peculiarities
> 	> of the hardware used in
> 	> > the original design.
> 	> > 
> 	> > In the days when I was the designing CMI
> hardware,
> 	> my greatest challenge was
> 	> > to minimise the distortions and artifacts that
> 	> were inherent aspects of the
> 	> > hardware available at that time. In effect, we
> 	> struggled to make the
> 	> > Fairlight sound less "Fairlight". So the
> intimate
> 	> details of what makes a
> 	> > Fairlight sound like a Fairlight are indelibly
> 	> etched in my brain.
> 	> > 
> 	> > When Fairlight brought out the Crystal Core
> Engine
> 	> last year, my imagination
> 	> > ran wild. Here was a tiny board with enormous
> 	> capabilities that could be
> 	> > configured to faithfully reproduce the CMI
> 	> hardware in its FPGA (Field
> 	> > Programmable Gate Array). Every bit of the
> 1980's
> 	> CMI hardware, the essence
> 	> > of its sound, could be reconstructed faithfully
> in
> 	> digital hardware form. 
> 	> > 
> 	> > To fully appreciate the astounding potential of
> 	> the CC-1, download the
> 	> > brochure here:
> 	> >
> 	>
> 	
>
http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochur
>
<http://www.fairlightau.com/downloads/public/Fairlight%20NEW%20CC-1%20Brochu
> r> 
> 	> > e%20for%20WEB%20VIEW.pdf
> 	> > 
> 	> > I also recently discovered that ALL the IP
> 	> relating to the original
> 	> > Fairlight CMI including all of the hardware and
> 	> filter designs, sample
> 	> > libraries etc are still retained by
> Fairlight.au
> 	> in Sydney.
> 	> > 
> 	> > So I have been wondering if it would be
> worthwhile
> 	> to develop a faithful
> 	> > reproduction of the CMI on the "Virtual
> Hardware"
> 	> of the CC-1?
> 	> > 
> 	> > This would perform identically to the original
> CMI
> 	> series II or III, but run
> 	> > on a PC fitted with the Crystal Core card. The
> 	> MIDI input would come
> 	> > directly into the CC-1 so there would be no
> 	> problem of latency introduced by
> 	> > the PC.
> 	> > 
> 	> > At this stage I'd like to "feel out" the market
> to
> 
=== message truncated ===