Eml synthesizers

I don't know if you folks have seen this photo, but here are an ElectroComp
101 keyboard synth and a 400 sequencer that Pink Floyd used years ago:

http://www.roadie.net/electrocomp101.jpg

From roadie.net. To see the whole page, visit
http://www.roadie.net/photo8.htm

Bob Lee
Applications Engineer, Technical Services Group 
QSC Audio Products, Inc.
Tel. +1 714.327.4667
      1 800 QSC AUDIO (USA only)
Fax. +1 714.754.6173
E-mail: bob_lee@...
www.qscaudio.com  (product info and support)
www.qscstore.com  (accessory and replacement part sales)
* Chairman, Audio Engineering Society--Los Angeles Section
http://www.aes.org/sections/la/ 
-------------------------
To order QSC accessories and upgrade options online, visit us at
www.qscstore.com. Thank you! 

This electronic message transmission contains information from QSC Audio
Products, Inc., which may be confidential or privileged. This information is
intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us
immediately via telephone.

--- In emlsynth@yahoogroups.com, Bob Lee <bob_lee@q...> wrote:
> I don't know if you folks have seen this photo, but here are an ElectroComp
> 101 keyboard synth and a 400 sequencer that Pink Floyd used years ago:
> 
> http://www.roadie.net/electrocomp101.jpg
> 
> From roadie.net. To see the whole page, visit
> http://www.roadie.net/photo8.htm
> 
> Bob Lee


The web page caption under the picture calls it a keyboard/sampling rig.  I 
don't question that PF used the EML gear but I'm doubtful about that being an 
accurate description of it's function.  The gear certainly doesn't work with 
samples as we know them now.  " actually the original samples of all the 
sound effects (the money sounds, the people talking)"  Sound effects, yes, but 
"people talking" would be a very tricky patch for these primitive but very cool 
pieces!  Maybe they used the sequencer to trigger  samples stored 
elsewhere?   Any PF fans know more about this?

>The web page caption under the picture calls it a keyboard/sampling rig.  I

don't question that PF used the EML gear but I'm doubtful about that being
an 
accurate description of it's function.  The gear certainly doesn't work with

samples as we know them now.  " actually the original samples of all the 
sound effects (the money sounds, the people talking)"  Sound effects, yes,
but 
"people talking" would be a very tricky patch for these primitive but very
cool 
pieces!  Maybe they used the sequencer to trigger  samples stored 
elsewhere?   Any PF fans know more about this?<

Actually, I hadn't paid much attention to the caption! I agree with your
assessment. I think whoever wrote it may have confused sequencing and
sampling. I can see the EML 400 ideally being used for, say, "On the Run."

Bob Lee
Applications Engineer, Technical Services Group 
QSC Audio Products, Inc.
Tel. +1 714.327.4667
      1 800 QSC AUDIO (USA only)
Fax. +1 714.754.6173
E-mail: bob_lee@...
www.qscaudio.com  (product info and support)
www.qscstore.com  (accessory and replacement part sales)
* Chairman, Audio Engineering Society--Los Angeles Section
http://www.aes.org/sections/la/ 
-------------------------
To order QSC accessories and upgrade options online, visit us at
www.qscstore.com. Thank you! 

This electronic message transmission contains information from QSC Audio
Products, Inc., which may be confidential or privileged. This information is
intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us
immediately via telephone.

--- In emlsynth@yahoogroups.com, Bob Lee <bob_lee@q...> 
wrote:
> >The web page caption under the picture calls it a keyboard/
sampling rig.  I
> 

I'm curious, now if they actually owned those, after all it's never a 
given that stuff used in live shows belongs to the band rather 
than being rented, loaned, belonging to the support team), what 
strikes me is that as far as I know EML wasn't well known at all 
in the UK or Europe.  They could have bought those in the U.S., 
but why? 

Anyone care to comment on EMLs availability and use in 
England  (or Europe, Japan etc.) before collectors in the 90s 
started to pick them up. After all I know the Keyfax book (UK  
1996) has only a short paragraph for the whole company when 
usually every model has a listing. I also remember Forrest's 
Analogue Synthesizers A-Z first edition had similar scant info 
though the current revised edition covers them acceptably.

--- In emlsynth@yahoogroups.com, Bob Lee <bob_lee@q...> 
wrote:
> >The web page caption under the picture calls it a keyboard/
sampling rig.  I
> 
> don't question that PF used the EML gear but I'm doubtful 
about that being
> an 
> accurate description of it's function.  The gear certainly doesn't 
work with
> 
> samples as we know them now.  " actually the original 
samples of all the 
> sound effects (the money sounds, the people talking)"  Sound 
effects, yes,
> but 
> "people talking" would be a very tricky patch for these primitive 
but very
> cool 
> pieces!  Maybe they used the sequencer to trigger  samples 
stored 
> elsewhere?   Any PF fans know more about this?<
> 

While it's possible to drive samples somehow, it's incredibly 
improbable someone would use a Control Voltage based 
sequencer to conntrol samples. Let alone risk doing so reliably 
in a live context. 

Also wouldn't you think EML would have used the fact PF used 
their gear for their marketing somewhere sometime if it was 
used on any kind of regular basis?

There just has to be more of a mistake than just the sampling 
one. Like that gear belong to an openning act, or someone 
thought that pic was cool, kept it and then years later guessed 
where it came from.

At 06:45 PM 2/25/2004, you wrote:
>--- In emlsynth@yahoogroups.com, Bob Lee <bob_lee@q...>
>wrote:
> > >The web page caption under the picture calls it a keyboard/
>sampling rig.  I
>
> > pieces!  Maybe they used the sequencer to trigger  samples
>stored
> > elsewhere?   Any PF fans know more about this?<
> >
>
>While it's possible to drive samples somehow, it's incredibly
>improbable someone would use a Control Voltage based
>sequencer to conntrol samples. Let alone risk doing so reliably
>in a live context.
>
>Also wouldn't you think EML would have used the fact PF used
>their gear for their marketing somewhere sometime if it was
>used on any kind of regular basis?
>
>There just has to be more of a mistake than just the sampling
>one. Like that gear belong to an openning act, or someone
>thought that pic was cool, kept it and then years later guessed
>where it came from.
>


I was just trying to conjure up some idea of a way the sequencer could 
conceivably be used in conjunction with samples. But it's really of another 
era, there would be better ways. Have to doubt that caption.

I'm skeptical that PF ever used that gear, but I wouldn't be surprized to 
learn that they did , Even if they just tried it out. I seem to recall 
reading that Frank Zappa played around with a 101 too but the company never 
capitalized on that either. (Altho my recollection is that Zappa wasn't 
very complimentary of it....)

> >
> >While it's possible to drive samples somehow, it's incredibly
> >improbable someone would use a Control Voltage based
> >sequencer to conntrol samples. Let alone risk doing so 
reliably
> >in a live context.
> >
> >Also wouldn't you think EML would have used the fact PF 
used
> >their gear for their marketing somewhere sometime if it was
> >used on any kind of regular basis?
> >
> >There just has to be more of a mistake than just the sampling
> >one. Like that gear belongs to an openning act, or someone
> >thought that pic was cool, kept it and then years later guessed
> >it came from a PF gig.
> >
> 
> 
> I was just trying to conjure up some idea of a way the 
sequencer could 
> conceivably be used in conjunction with samples. But it's really 
of another 
> era, there would be better ways. Have to doubt that caption.

Yes, it's something an experimenter might think about, it's not 
beyond possibility but really no one does that sort of thing on a 
commercial tour.

> 
> I'm skeptical that PF ever used that gear, but I wouldn't be 
surprized to 
> learn that they did , Even if they just tried it out. I seem to recall 
> reading that Frank Zappa played around with a 101 too but the 
company never 
> capitalized on that either. (Altho my recollection is that Zappa 
wasn't 
> very complimentary of it....)

Well thats sort off why. Also now that I think about it if someone 
on the artist's side thinks it looks like an endorsement they might  
demand something in return. On the other hand if someone 
uses visible gear live word does get out. 

Which of course brings up that for example Zappa was a well 
known Emu user . EMS use is well documented in the 70s. (Pink 
Floyd, Eno, Schulze, Jarre, etc.). 

What other pre-1990s users of EML were there who are well 
documented ? The only ones I ever hear are Pere Ubu and Devo. 
Why, if it's true that it wasn't known PF were using them before 
that site.

For me, the role that the EMS500 played in the Devo Sound was enough 
for me.  

EMS synths are a whole different experience. They are wonderfully 
made and you can see where the money is.  But, there is a reason why 
you don't hear many lead lines on PF albums until the late 
seventies.  Keeping a EMS in tune AND intonated is the hardest of 
any analog synth I have ever used.  Moogs, Arps and OB FVS are all 
much easier to use.

They are great for sound effects and as a filter processor, but they 
are a real challenge as a lead instrument.  My hats off to Eno, 
Rundgren and others, but only with a Kenton Midi to CV controller 
have I been able to use my VCS3 MKI melodically.


--- In emlsynth@yahoogroups.com, "nicholas_kent" 
<nicholas_kent@y...> wrote:
> 
> > >
> > >While it's possible to drive samples somehow, it's incredibly
> > >improbable someone would use a Control Voltage based
> > >sequencer to conntrol samples. Let alone risk doing so 
> reliably
> > >in a live context.
> > >
> > >Also wouldn't you think EML would have used the fact PF 
> used
> > >their gear for their marketing somewhere sometime if it was
> > >used on any kind of regular basis?
> > >
> > >There just has to be more of a mistake than just the sampling
> > >one. Like that gear belongs to an openning act, or someone
> > >thought that pic was cool, kept it and then years later guessed
> > >it came from a PF gig.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > I was just trying to conjure up some idea of a way the 
> sequencer could 
> > conceivably be used in conjunction with samples. But it's really 
> of another 
> > era, there would be better ways. Have to doubt that caption.
> 
> Yes, it's something an experimenter might think about, it's not 
> beyond possibility but really no one does that sort of thing on a 
> commercial tour.
> 
> > 
> > I'm skeptical that PF ever used that gear, but I wouldn't be 
> surprized to 
> > learn that they did , Even if they just tried it out. I seem to 
recall 
> > reading that Frank Zappa played around with a 101 too but the 
> company never 
> > capitalized on that either. (Altho my recollection is that Zappa 
> wasn't 
> > very complimentary of it....)
> 
> Well thats sort off why. Also now that I think about it if someone 
> on the artist's side thinks it looks like an endorsement they 
might  

> demand something in return. On the other hand if someone 
> uses visible gear live word does get out. 
> 
> Which of course brings up that for example Zappa was a well 
> known Emu user . EMS use is well documented in the 70s. (Pink 
> Floyd, Eno, Schulze, Jarre, etc.). 
> 
> What other pre-1990s users of EML were there who are well 
> documented ? The only ones I ever hear are Pere Ubu and Devo. 
> Why, if it's true that it wasn't known PF were using them before 
> that site.

--- In emlsynth@yahoogroups.com, "widoworx" <
rihilleman@a...> wrote:
> For me, the role that the EMS500 played in the Devo Sound 
was enough 
> for me.  

To clarify, Devo did use an EML (EML500 at least) and as far as I 
know not  EMS synths


> 
> EMS synths are a whole different experience. They are 
wonderfully 
> made and you can see where the money is.

Well to Europeans they were quite reasonably priced. There is 
that story of Tangerine Dream driving and taking the ferry to 
England to get one after realizing they could actually afford a 
proper synth.  

  But, there is a reason why 
> you don't hear many lead lines on PF albums until the late 
> seventies.  Keeping a EMS in tune AND intonated is the 
hardest of 
> any analog synth I have ever used.  Moogs, Arps and OB FVS 
are all 
> much easier to use.

I guess EML kept much  better in tune when it came to drifting 
but the 'feature' of the 101 (and I presume the 100) for doing 
other than 12 notes to the octave tuning doesn't make standard 
innotation easy - It would have been better if they had a switch to 
either use that notes per octave knob or not. With EML's gear I 
guess pre-500 or 400, playing standard equal tempered 
material was possible but not exactly the quickest or easiest 
thing to do either IMHO - Which brings up the 400 - was it easy to 
play standard tuning on that combo and conversely, was it also 
easy not to?

> 
> They are great for sound effects and as a filter processor, but 
they 
> are a real challenge as a lead instrument.  My hats off to Eno, 
> Rundgren and others, but only with a Kenton Midi to CV 
controller 
> have I been able to use my VCS3 MKI melodically.

Yes, I think that's the concensus, though the MkII  is much 
improved

As for Woodstock, clearly EMS had a srtong foothold there 
because the late Everett Hafner of EMSA (the US EMS 
dealership) was based in the region -

> > EMS synths are a whole different experience. They are 
> 
> wonderfully 
> 
> > made and you can see where the money is.

The Dark Side of the moon album is entirely done with 2 EMS Synthi-AKS


>  But, there is a reason why 
> 
> > you don't hear many lead lines on PF albums until the late 
> 
> > seventies.  Keeping a EMS in tune AND intonated is the 
> 
> hardest of 
> 
> > any analog synth I have ever used.  Moogs, Arps and OB FVS 
> 
> are all 
> 
> > much easier to use.

I disagree here, I own two EMS AKS synths along with lots of other 
modular and analog gear, The EMS are difficualt to tune initially since 
you can tune them to other than 12 notes per scale, but they keep in 
tune when you set them. Using a patch with 3 oscillators will be more 
difficualt since Oscillator 3 track at different V/Oct than 1 and 2.


> 
> > They are great for sound effects and as a filter processor, 
> but 
> 
> they 
> 
> > are a real challenge as a lead instrument.  My hats off to 
> Eno, 
> 
> > Rundgren and others, but only with a Kenton Midi to CV 
> 
> controller 
> 
> > have I been able to use my VCS3 MKI melodically.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think that's the concensus, though the MkII  is much 
> 
> improved

And Synthi AKS Also, may be the problems with drift are for MKI 
versions only, I have no problems with lead lines, using the KS or 
using MIDI converters...
Anyway, Midi converters have nothing to do with drift. Drift is a 
property of the oscillator itself.

>With EML's gear I
>guess pre-500 or 400, playing standard equal tempered
>material was possible but not exactly the quickest or easiest
>thing to do either IMHO - Which brings up the 400 - was it easy to
>play standard tuning on that combo and conversely, was it also
>easy not to?
The synth side of the 400 sequencer is clearly  related to the 500. The 
synth control layouts are nearly identical. The 500 adds a few features but 
it's close enough that I think it's safe to assume that  the basic synth 
architecture was probably the same. I would guess that they just took a 
400  synth design and adapted it to work with a keyboard to create the 500. 
In any case, they both have a
quantize/scale slider and it works the same way.

What I know about DEVO is that the Devo bass sound is a result of a heavily 
modified MiniMoog (actually about three of them).  The EML 500 is famous for 
its appearance in the "Whip it" video.  According to the Devo group, the 500 was 
used for the whip sound on that cut.

I think the 500 is a great sound effect box.  My best motorcycle comes out of 
a 500.

Richh