Xpantastic!

Hi all I was wondering if any one can tell me if this is possible and 
if so, how would I go about it? I've got so many patchs on the matrix I 
would love to use on the xpander and as they are roughly the same 
family I thought it might be possible!?!?!?

Thanks in advance 

Sean

Nope, not possible.

Differnt synths, different ( though similar ) parameters.

WT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "swisstony123456789" <repoman123@...>
To: <xpantastic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 8:07 PM
Subject: [xpantastic] Transfering Matrix1000 patchs over to an Xpander?


Hi all I was wondering if any one can tell me if this is possible and 
if so, how would I go about it? I've got so many patchs on the matrix I 
would love to use on the xpander and as they are roughly the same 
family I thought it might be possible!?!?!?

Thanks in advance 

Sean

Not directly.

One would have to do some editing because the patch lengths, sysex
IDs, and byte offsets are different.

However, there was a Patch Cassette of Matrix 1000 patches ported to
the Xpander format released by Oberheim

Does anyone have this cassette or sysex files?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM, swisstony123456789
<repoman123@...> wrote:

> Hi all I was wondering if any one can tell me if this is possible and
> if so, how would I go about it? I've got so many patchs on the matrix I
> would love to use on the xpander and as they are roughly the same
> family I thought it might be possible!?!?!?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Sean
>
>

If someone provides me with the Matrix 100 sysex format,
I'll look into writing a little program that will *attempt* to port an
M1k patch to the XPander patch format.

The patches will probably still need some manual editing though, for
the paramters that dont port one-one.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM, swisstony123456789
<repoman123@...> wrote:

> Hi all I was wondering if any one can tell me if this is possible and
> if so, how would I go about it? I've got so many patchs on the matrix I
> would love to use on the xpander and as they are roughly the same
> family I thought it might be possible!?!?!?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Sean
>
>

You need the Matrix-1000 manual w/ the full midi implementation.
Unfortunally, mine is printed, not PDF and I have no scanner.
You get the manual here:
http://www.soundofmusic.se/vintageshop/index.htm

Yes, the patches nedd some manual tweaking, see my post ...

PeWe



Tony Cappellini schrieb:

>
> If someone provides me with the Matrix 100 sysex format,
> I'll look into writing a little program that will *attempt* to port an
> M1k patch to the XPander patch format.
>
> The patches will probably still need some manual editing though, for
> the paramters that dont port one-one.
>
>

Perhaps the patches could be "recorded" by passing the 
Atari->Xpander MIDI through a laptop running MIDI-OX. Then 
the SysEx could be logged and the patches pulled out.

But it still needs someone (i.e. PeWe) to methodically 
transfer each patch, and type up the patch names... Would 
the promise of the undying gratitude of the Xpander 
community be enough to convince him/her to take on this 
Herculean task? ;)

Cheers,

John :^P

PeWe wrote:
> 
> 
> If there ever a cassette was available, these are the patches of that 
> ATARI ST program,- Oberheim Bankloader.
> The disk is copy protected and you need to have it always in your floppy 
> drive, even if you use a harddisk.
> The format isn�t sysex, the patches are organized in banks and the banks 
> are devided in single- and multi-patch-banks.
> You can swap patches inside banks and overwrite patches, but you store 
> in banks.
> The program speaks to the Xpander via program no. 99 which has to be 
> empty because the Xpander has no edit buffer for computer communication 
> via midi. The Matrix-1000 works exactly the same w/ computer prgs.
> 
> 
> Tony Cappellini schrieb:
> 
>>
>> However, there was a Patch Cassette of Matrix 1000 patches ported to
>> the Xpander format released by Oberheim
>>
>> Does anyone have this cassette or sysex files?
-- 
John Pallister
john@...

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:45 PM, John Pallister <john@...> wrote:
> Perhaps the patches could be "recorded" by passing the
> Atari->Xpander MIDI through a laptop running MIDI-OX. Then
> the SysEx could be logged and the patches pulled out.

Once the patches are sent to the Xpander from the Atari, they can just
be dumped individually, or as a bank.
No need to use anything in between.

> But it still needs someone (i.e. PeWe) to methodically
> transfer each patch, and type up the patch names... Would
> the promise of the undying gratitude of the Xpander
> community be enough to convince him/her to take on this
> Herculean task? ;)
>
Adding Patch names to an XPander (or any other patch format) can
easily be written to each patch in an automated fashion, once the
names are in a simple text file.


I do remember that when Matrix 6/6R patches (which do have patch
names) are sent to an Matrix 1000, then read back, the patch names are
garbled.
This is odd because the two synths have the same patch format, and
there *is* room in the Matrix 1000 patch for a patch name, even though
there is no
display capable of showing the patch name. The first 200 patches in
the Matrix 1000 are in ram, the other 800 are in rom, and can be
copied to the
first 200 locations to be edited.

Hey There Tony,

What computer platform would you do this on? I would pay for this.

Karl 

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...> 
wrote:

>
> If someone provides me with the Matrix 100 sysex format,
> I'll look into writing a little program that will *attempt* to port 
> an M1k patch to the XPander patch format.
> 
> The patches will probably still need some manual editing though, for
> the paramters that don't port one-one.
>

Windows, but it would be a cmd line app that could run on Linux/Mac.
(gui apps take too much time ) ;-)

First, we all need to agree *if* it can be done- that is

1. which M1k params directly map to XP/M12 params, and which don't.

For the ones that do map directly, are the values in the same range
and the same polarity?

For the ones that dont map on the xpander, what should they be set to?

A lot of questions need to be answered first.

If there are a lot of params that dont map directly, then the patches
on the Xpander wont sound the same.
Some compromises have to be made.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Karl <shire03@...> wrote:
> Hey There Tony,
>
> What computer platform would you do this on? I would pay for this.
>
> Karl
>
> --- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If someone provides me with the Matrix 100 sysex format,
>> I'll look into writing a little program that will *attempt* to port
>> an M1k patch to the XPander patch format.
>>
>> The patches will probably still need some manual editing though, for
>> the paramters that don't port one-one.
>>
>
>

Hi !

1.)
I found out, the name of the program is wrong,- it is:

Bank Dumper (TM)
Software for Atari ST Computer and
Oberheim Xpander Synthesizer
including 1000 Sounds

All rights reserved / copyright 1988 Jacques Isler AG, Zurich

"copying of the software, the manual, or any parts of the content of 
disc is striktly forbidden"
Jacques Isler AG

(the manual is in german language b.t.w.)

That means, the patches on this disk are licenced to the user who buyed 
the program.
I myself buyed it and I hope I�m not the only one.
Definitely, I didn�t found any info of this program in the web last 
nite, but I cannot imagine no one has it except me because I buyed it in 
a regular music shop in the past and it was not cheap... (DM 249.- was ~ 
USD 750.- in 1988).

It�s illegal if would spread contents of this disk out over the web.

2.)
I knowed Jacques Isler from the past �cause a friend of mine and me, we 
created the 1st prototype of  one of the 1st midified and rackmounted 
Minimoog D synthesizers, the "Midimuck" and went to the Frankfurt Music 
Fair sharing the booth of a well know studio monitor company.
Jacques was interested and wanted to distribute the machine in europe.
By some personal reasons, Karsten (my friend) started to do other things 
and the work on this project became delayed.
We finished one model to a working condition state which runs in a 
friends studio here up today, but it was never built in a series and 
never distributed.
Personally, I have no interest to ignoge the rights of someone who was 
already prepared to support us in the past.

3.)
It can be, the rights were assigned to 3rd party �cause there exists a 
liquidation of the Jacques Isler AG in november 2002

http://www.moneyhouse.ch/u/pub/jacques_isler_ag_in_liquidation_CH-400.3.018.312-6.htm

I have no interest to be liable for anything/something in that direction

If I�d do illegal things like that, it would cast a damning light on me 
if it becomes public,- I know too much guys of the software industry 
personally from the past pioneer times in Hamburg, founders of Steini 
and C-Lab/Emagic p.ex.

4.)
No Laptop

5.)
No Midi OX in use

6.)
Beside this,- it would be a very time consuming work to reload all the 
banks into an Xpander and save �em in single patch sysex format by 
reading the patchnames in the launched program on the Atari and to 
rename �em one by one on a PC.
I�m 54 now and have to make my life w/ music since decades and it�s 
difficult enough in these days,- I definitely would have no time for 
such a work.

7.)
The only solution would be in theory,- I sell the program,- but I want 
to sell it only together w/ my Xpander, including a OBX P-1 pedal, a 
Oberheim ft.switch, flight case, a Atari 1040 STE, all manuals and some 
spare parts I have.
This can be end of the year because tomorrow I have a date concerning a 
move.

If this becomes reality, I have to sell all my gear which fills a 
truck,- and to buy a more portable rig at a new location.




John Pallister schrieb:

>
> Perhaps the patches could be "recorded" by passing the
> Atari->Xpander MIDI through a laptop running MIDI-OX. Then
> the SysEx could be logged and the patches pulled out.
>
> But it still needs someone (i.e. PeWe) to methodically
> transfer each patch, and type up the patch names... Would
> the promise of the undying gratitude of the Xpander
> community be enough to convince him/her to take on this
> Herculean task? ;)
>
> Cheers,
>
> John :^P
>
>

Hi Tony,
When you say cmd line do you mean a DOS based running under say XP or 
would I have to get a linux shell running in my PC?

I like your Idea of just filtering and replacing the appropriate 
M1K code with M12 code.  I am not clear on the Expander data format 
but I have taken a look at my M1000 manual. The sysex patch file is 
pretty straight forward. Everything hinges on the data position in 
the file.

As PeWe ponts out it would certainly be easier to go from the M1K to 
the Xpander than the other way around. I have done this the hard way 
when I had a MATRIX6 keyboard. " Write em down on paper and program 
them in the M12". As far as I can tell the ranges are all the same. 
(except for the portamento and the wave shape) Oberheim did a nice 
job here, making the ranges compatable "I remember calling there Rep 
once and told him so".

Looking at the M1K sysex file :The MOD sources/destinations all Have 
a number assigned to them, I suspect it's the same on the Xpander/M12.

But wait, there are all those hardwired mods on the M1K. 
I count - 18 Rats, that only leaves 2 out of 10 custom mode routings.
This creates a problem with the Xpanders 20 routing max.
I guess you could ditch some of the less used hard wired routings
in the M1K like portomento by velocity. Yes, you are right many 
compromises. But kinda possible. 

BTW: If you find the posted M1K sysex file lacking I have the manual 
and my wife has a scanner that will create a PDF file from the scan.
 
Karl


--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...> 
wrote:

>
> Windows, but it would be a cmd line app that could run on Linux/Mac.
> (gui apps take too much time ) ;-)
> 
> First, we all need to agree *if* it can be done- that is
 
> 1. which M1k params directly map to XP/M12 params, and which don't.
> 
> For the ones that do map directly, are the values in the same range
> and the same polarity?
> For the ones that dont map on the xpander, what should they be set 
> to?
> 
> A lot of questions need to be answered first.
> 
> If there are a lot of params that dont map directly, then the 
> patches on the Xpander wont sound the same.
> Some compromises have to be made.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Karl <shire03@...> wrote:
> > Hey There Tony,
> >
> > What computer platform would you do this on? I would pay for this.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> > --- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If someone provides me with the Matrix 100 sysex format,
> >> I'll look into writing a little program that will *attempt* to 
> >> port
> >> an M1k patch to the XPander patch format.
> >>
> >> The patches will probably still need some manual editing though, 
> >> for the paramters that don't port one-one.
> >>
> >
> >
>

Hi Tony !

The Matrix 1K has fewer modulation sources,- less lfo�s, less envelopes, 
less tracking generators and less ramp generators.
So this might not be a prob because the Xpander/Matrix12 has more and in 
theory, all what�s more in these machines would be unused for Matrix 1K 
patches,- but ...
I only refer to the modulators available in the modulation matriss of a 
M1K !
So, the 1st thing what�s different is the mod-matiss.

In addition, some modulators in the M1K are adressed to fixed 
destinations, some lfo p.ex.

The most important difference is, M1K deals different w/  waveforms and  
the waveshaping parameter decides which kind of waveform the oscillator 
creates in the end,- this is what a Xpander and Matrix 12 cannot do.

The single patch data format of a Matrix1000 is 10 pages of small 
printed "Byte / Parameter / # Bits / Description" and it�s impossible to 
explain it here in the group.
I have both manuals of the Xpander an M1K here in front of me,- if I 
only think about comparing all the differences of the voice 
architecture, I get dizzy.

As mentioned before in another post, - I did this programming,- 
Xpander>Matrix and vice versa manually for some patches and IMO, this 
was one of my most time consuming and boring programming experiences fo 
all the time because of all the comparison.

I doubt this can be done by a simple command line proggi, - it must be a 
more "inelligent" program which exactly knows the differences in the 
voices and so on, not forget to mention, the enduser has to "tell" the 
program what he wants then.

To 1.)
Even if parameters map directly, they don�t scale the same,- speeds of 
LFOs, envelopes, ramps are different p.ex.

All your questions are right

In the end the result is a different sounding patch you have to edit 
again anyway and by using your ears and taste.

Is it worth all the input and investment to code a more a less 
functional software just for convertig 1000 patches which are, please 
forgive me, not more than a good startpoint to create your own once ?

2.)
Most factory patches, in the Xpander and/or the M1K, don�t have the 
simplest controllers implemented which you need all day, - this is p.ex. 
sustain pedal (both) and pitchbend-ranges on your demand (Xpander),- 
you�d have to program a lot of usefull stuff anyway yourself.
Sometimes, the controller setups only demonstrate what the machine is 
able to do and sometimes it makes no musical sense in daily work.

There are rarely factory patches which are really usefull for a player.

Just my thoughts ...

PeWe


Tony Cappellini schrieb:

>
> Windows, but it would be a cmd line app that could run on Linux/Mac.
> (gui apps take too much time ) ;-)
>
> First, we all need to agree *if* it can be done- that is
>
> 1. which M1k params directly map to XP/M12 params, and which don't.
>
> For the ones that do map directly, are the values in the same range
> and the same polarity?
>
> For the ones that dont map on the xpander, what should they be set to?
>
> A lot of questions need to be answered first.
>
> If there are a lot of params that dont map directly, then the patches
> on the Xpander wont sound the same.
> Some compromises have to be made.
>
>
>
>

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

> Finally, I think it´s a better idea to buy a used Matrix1000 in 
> addition and if a Xpander exsits already...
> 200 bucks,- how much time someone can invest for 200 bucks coding a 
> program or transfering files and rename ´em ?
> 
> All is possible in the end, but what a complex work and what for ?
> 

Hi PeWe,

Your right. I mostly worry about how to clone the dinosaur, not if we 
should or not.

Karl

> When you say cmd line do you mean a DOS based running under say XP or
> would I have to get a linux shell running in my PC?

The program would run in any Microsoft OS in the CMD shell (what you
called DOS-based), and also Linux & the Mac OS.

I've know of a program written this way to translate patches from a
first generation synth to a second gnereation synth, of which the
two synths have NOTHING in common other than the manufacturer. The
patche formats are 100% completely different..

> I like your Idea of just filtering and replacing the appropriate
> M1K code with M12 code. I am not clear on the Expander data format
Greg has alreayd uploaded the XPander patch format, as a PDF,and it's
beautifully formatted compaired to the original.


> but I have taken a look at my M1000 manual. The sysex patch file is
> pretty straight forward. Everything hinges on the data position in
> the file.

Position, range, ( 0-63, -127) and sign to be more precise.

> As PeWe ponts out it would certainly be easier to go from the M1K to
> the Xpander than the other way around.

I agree


> Looking at the M1K sysex file :The MOD sources/destinations all Have
> a number assigned to them, I suspect it's the same on the Xpander/M12.
Yes, download the news sysex spec that was uploaded by Greg.

> But wait, there are all those hardwired mods on the M1K.
And on the XP/M12 too

These may not be the same on both machines

> This creates a problem with the Xpanders 20 routing max.

One of the many questions that must be answered before a program could
be written to assist.

>
> BTW: If you find the posted M1K sysex file lacking I have the manual
> and my wife has a scanner that will create a PDF file from the scan.

I've found a PDF of the M1k manula. No need to scan it.
Thanks

> So this might not be a prob because the Xpander/Matrix12 has more and in
> theory, all what´s more in these machines would be unused for Matrix 1K
> patches,- but ...
> I only refer to the modulators available in the modulation matriss of a M1K
> !
> So, the 1st thing what´s different is the mod-matiss.

It is a problem somewhat, because the extra parameters inthe XP
patches have to bse set to something.
Zero is *probably* a safe bet, unless a 0 causes the sound to change.

> The most important difference is, M1K deals different w/  waveforms and  the
> waveshaping parameter decides which kind of waveform the oscillator creates
> in the end,- this is what a Xpander and Matrix 12 cannot do.

Why?

Boith synths have the same basic wavehsapes, the XP/M12 have noise in
VCO2 as well.
These can be selected in the patch.
Now- the DCOs on the M1k wont sound the same as the VCOs in the
XP/M12, even for the same wavsehape & frequency settings, but there's
nothing
we can do about that (not easily, anyway)

> As mentioned before in another post, - I did this programming,-
> Xpander>Matrix and vice versa manually for some patches and IMO, this was
> one of my most time consuming and boring programming experiences fo all the
> time because of all the comparison.

Why ? XPander single patches will go directly into an M12 via sysex.

> I doubt this can be done by a simple command line proggi, - it must be a
> more "inelligent" program which exactly knows the differences in the voices
> and so on, not forget to mention, the enduser has to "tell" the program what
> he wants then.

a configuration file could be read to make the decisions that a gui
otherwise would provide.

> To 1.)
> Even if parameters map directly, they don´t scale the same,- speeds of LFOs,
> envelopes, ramps are different p.ex.

> All your questions are right
>
> In the end the result is a different sounding patch you have to edit again
> anyway and by using your ears and taste.

This will have to be done no matter what method is used.
The synths are just too different for the patches to be ported and
expect to sound the same.
Myabe some basic boring patches might, but both synths have matrix
modulation. The more complex patches are likely to sound too
different.

> 2.)
> Most factory patches, in the Xpander and/or the M1K, don´t have the simplest
> controllers implemented which you need all day, - this is p.ex. sustain
> pedal (both) and pitchbend-ranges on your demand (Xpander),- you´d have to
> program a lot of usefull stuff anyway yourself.
> Sometimes, the controller setups only demonstrate what the machine is able
> to do and sometimes it makes no musical sense in daily work.

I dont even have a sustain pedal ;-)

> Finally, I think it´s a better idea to buy a used Matrix1000 in addition and
> if a Xpander exsits already...
> 200 bucks,- how much time someone can invest for 200 bucks coding a program
> or transfering files and rename ´em ?

I havent seen an M1000 go for sless than $350
Even if 1 person has both sysnt together ( I used to have all 3 at one
point:M6Rm M1k, Matrix 1000) even doing 10 patches by habd is time
consuming..
Once that person figures out which params map directly and which
params dont it can be automated.
> All is possible in the end, but what a complex work and what for ?

It will take a long time, probably more than anyone is willing to wait.
I have little time to work on projects like this- and I am already
working on one for the XPander/M12.

> That means, the patches on this disk are licenced to the user who buyed the
> program.
> I myself buyed it and I hope I´m not the only one.
> Definitely, I didn´t found any info of this program in the web last nite,
> but I cannot imagine no one has it except me because I buyed it in a regular
> music shop in the past and it was not cheap... (DM 249.- was ~ USD 750.- in
> 1988).

If you already have this, then why not just use it to send the program
to the XPander, then save the XPander Bank as sysex and send it to us?

>
> It´s illegal if would spread contents of this disk out over the web.
Atari hasn't been in business for a long time and is not making any
money from any software sales.
I"m sure the author is no longer selling the program nor supporting it.
Since you know him you can talk to him.

Much software from the computers of the 80's is now freely available
to run in software emulators.


> I have no interest to be liable for anything/something in that direction
Nobody is going to pursue any legla actions for such old property.

> Beside this,- it would be a very time consuming work to reload all the banks
> into an Xpander and save ´em in single patch sysex format by reading the
> patchnames in the launched program on the Atari and to rename ´em one by one
> on a PC.

As I've already said- adding the patche names to a bank of Xpnder
patches is a piece of cake.
Someone just needs to come up with the 1000 patch names- unless they
are already supplied in the manual for that Atari software.

If you think this is a lot of work, it's not. This would be the
EASIEST part of it.We just need the patch names in a text file.
They can be added to banks of patches with a simple program.

> The most important difference is, M1K deals different w/ waveforms and the
> waveshaping parameter decides which kind of waveform the oscillator creates
> in the end,- this is what a Xpander and Matrix 12 cannot do.

Why?

> As mentioned before in another post, - I did this programming,-
> Xpander>Matrix and vice versa manually for some patches and IMO, this was
> one of my most time consuming and boring programming experiences fo all the
> time because of all the comparison.

Why ? XPander single patches will go directly into an M12 via sysex.

I dont even have a sustain pedal ;-)

If you already have this, then why not just use it to send the program
to the XPander, then save the XPander Bank as sysex and send it to us?

>
> It�s illegal if would spread contents of this disk out over the web.
Atari hasn't been in business for a long time and is not making any
money from any software sales.
I"m sure the author is no longer selling the program nor supporting it.
Since you know him you can talk to him.

Much software from the computers of the 80's is now freely available
to run in software emulators.



As I've already said- adding the patche names to a bank of Xpnder
patches is a piece of cake.
Someone just needs to come up with the 1000 patch names- unless they
are already supplied in the manual for that Atari software.

If you think this is a lot of work, it's not. This would be the
EASIEST part of it.We just need the patch names in a text file.
They can be added to banks of patches with a simple program.

Hi,

just my 2 cents before someone dives deeply into Xpander's SysEx
implementation and pull out his hairs...I'm currently doing it for the
single patch part (and only for that).
I did a check of a the spec for each parameters, and it has some
tricky bugs. I've written a command line software that dumps the
contain of a single patch sysex to show what'is in it. It's working
fine,but some tests have yet to be done (comparing what's on my PC and
what my XP shows is really a boring task...) I'll upload it in the
next days with the C/C++ source code and the updated MIDI Spec.

/Greg.





--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>
>  >>>
> 
> Tony Cappellini schrieb:
> >
> >
> >
> > If you already have this, then why not just use it to send the program
> > to the XPander, then save the XPander Bank as sysex and send it to us?
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no time !
> 
> >
> > >
> > > It´s illegal if would spread contents of this disk out over the
web.
> > Atari hasn't been in business for a long time and is not making any
> > money from any software sales.
> > I"m sure the author is no longer selling the program nor
supporting it.
> > Since you know him you can talk to him.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atari isn´t the author and I don´t know the author, he´s not
mentioned 
> in the manual.
> The person I mentioned was the distributor.
> 
> Some is free available some not. P.ex. Steinis and C-Labs software
isn´t 
> freely available unless it´s cracks.
> 
> The manual of the program is 4 shitty pages in german and doesn´t
cover 
> the functions of the program properly and there´s no list of the
patches 
> at all.
> Typing 1000 patchnames by reading ´em from a small Atari SM124
monitor, 

> for me, is much work,- too much.
> 
> I wanted to help by pointing on that exsisting program in the hope 
> someone wants to have it and do a search at ebay or wherever possible.
> 
> >
> > Much software from the computers of the 80's is now freely available
> > to run in software emulators.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I've already said- adding the patche names to a bank of Xpnder
> > patches is a piece of cake.
> > Someone just needs to come up with the 1000 patch names- unless they
> > are already supplied in the manual for that Atari software.
> >
> > If you think this is a lot of work, it's not. This would be the
> > EASIEST part of it.We just need the patch names in a text file.
> > They can be added to banks of patches with a simple program.
> >
> >
>

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>
> 
> There´s so much to think about for a good cloning of the 
> characteristics of a synth.


Hello there PeWe,
Yes, I kept wondering who Karl Schrieb was Ha Ha, And why he was 
putting his name on my emails. 
 
Well as I mentioned I don't take the M12 out anymore. I just don't 
want anything to happen to it. So my original intent was. I would 
take my favorite patches and sample them in and play them out of my 
EMU Ultra. 
Heres a problom I never expected:
When you sample a sound, usually you sample a high note. Then the 
sampler divides this note down to give you your lower ranges. Well 
there is significant high frequency noise in a M12 sound. The 
switching power supply/ high voltage display multiplexing are two 
sources I identified. Well these are usually inaudible but when the 
sounds are divided down so is this noise and now it's part of the 
audible signal. I know I could multisample this but a lot of my 
patches were ambiant shifting kinds of things and use too much 
memory. You probobly know this is also a problem with LFO rates also.
By the time you switch everything off. You are just sampling a pure 
wavform. 
So I scratched this Idea. What is cool to do is sample in some M12 
base tones and you get some incredible low freq stuff. And there is a 
neat transfer algorithim which can create some new sounds.

Karl

Hi,

I wonder if somebody would like to contact Jacques Isler and as his permission. In any 
case, I think that all patent rights etc. get old in 20 years, but this had to me verified.

Tiitu

--- In xpantastic@...m, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

>
> Hi !
> 
> 1.)
> I found out, the name of the program is wrong,- it is:
> 
> Bank Dumper (TM)
> Software for Atari ST Computer and
> Oberheim Xpander Synthesizer
> including 1000 Sounds
> 
> All rights reserved / copyright 1988 Jacques Isler AG, Zurich
> 
> "copying of the software, the manual, or any parts of the content of 
> disc is striktly forbidden"
> Jacques Isler AG
>

Good for you PeWe,

These days It seems we are all software(media)programers in one way 
or another. I have lost friends over this, but I won't pirate.

Karl
 


--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Congrats ! That´s exactly the right way, but don´t ask me where he 
is.
> 
> There are some guys in the Notator.org group which do a online 
tutorial 
> for Notator, they went this way and got a go AFAIR
> 
> 
> envia94 schrieb:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wonder if somebody would like to contact Jacques Isler and as 
his 
> > permission. In any
> > case, I think that all patent rights etc. get old in 20 years, 
but 

> > this had to me verified.
> >
> > Tiitu.
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi PeWe, 
Thanks for the excellent tips and sampling advice. I am saving this 
post for future reference. I do not have a lot of musical type 
PC software yet.  I am thinking about a MAC because it's the only new
computer that I an get an M12 librarian on.  We'll see.

Karl

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Karl !
> 
> Yes, if you sample your gear,- see the instrument you sample 
as "the 
> oscillator- the sound source" and the sampler as the instrument you 
use 
> later.
> A high quality sampler like Kontakt 3 p.ex., has a lot of 
modulators 
> like envelopes, lfos, filters, step sequencer, VCA as also FX 
including 
> amp models and so on.
> So, best is to sample all the patches you use the same way since 
decades 
> ( there are for sure some leads and pads as also basses) as the are 
and 
> w/ multisampling techniques. Decide for a compromize of count, 
lenght of 
> samples and memory usage.
> With a hi end sampler ( I have Halion and Kontakt ) which is 
running on 
> a computer, you don´t have to care on memory at all.
> Listen in which zone/range of a keyboard the selected patch you 
want to 
> sample sounds best and how you used it yourself on the original 
> instrument. Sample that range only but w/ as much velocity steps as 
> possible and possibly all the keys of that range separately.
> This is what Samplerobot automatically does and it´s doing more !!!
> Now you have your patch sampled as it is p.ex. ...
> 
> Next,- edit exactly this patch. Remove all the filter modulations 
and 
> eventually almost everything comparable what your sampler can do w/ 
the 
> resulting samples later,- but keep everything whats related to the 
> oscillators like fixed frequency and/or PWM modulation amounts, 
detune 
> of osc 1+2, FM/lag settings p.ex. or ring modulations if it is 
important 
> for the basic sound. Now sample the resulting sound at full 
velocity, 
> full open filter but no resonance (eventually several times w/ 
different 
> filter modes) at max level., now you get samples the way you can 
use the 
> modifiers of your sampler to a full potential later.
> 
> If your sampler does portamento, don´t sample it. If it does PWM to 
raw 
> wave samples, don´t sample PWM.
> Instead multisample the oscillator section w/ open filter but w/ 
only 1 
> Osc. switched on,- do this the 2nd time with the other Osc. 
switched on 
> and the 1st off, both w/ separate Pulse Widths settings but no 
> modulation. Do this w/ the OSCs not detuned against each other. 
Better 
> do a layer of both of these multisamples in your sampler later and 
> detune th layers against each other in the sampler.
> 
> Controllers and Midi settings of the synth to sample you can 
ignore,- 
> Samplerobot allows you to tell the program what the sampler shall 
do 
> later to your samples w/ midi controllers, vibrato included.
> 
> It´s a bit of a learning process and time consuming, but you can 
get 
> very intersting results which sound not like the original for sure 
but 
> sometimes also better and you can use many sounds of your beloved 
> vintage gear in modern DAWs without having the dinos connected all 
the 
> time, audio and midi wise, and without dealing w/ probs of midi and 
> external gear on your DAW.
> 
> Also it saves the live of your old machines because they aren´t 
always 
> running.
> 
> The biggest advantage of modern DAW usage isn´t virtual 
instruments, - 
> it´s advanced sampling, automation and total recall. Recording 
audio to 
> disk is nothing else than sampling.
> 
> Karl schrieb:
> >
> > --- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com 
> > <mailto:xpantastic%40yahoogroups.com>, PeWe <ha-pewe@> wrote:
> >
> > I know I could multisample this but a lot of my
> > patches were ambiant shifting kinds of things and use too much
> > memory. You probobly know this is also a problem with LFO rates 
also.
> > By the time you switch everything off. You are just sampling a 
pure

> > wavform.
> > So I scratched this Idea.
> >
>

Hi,

Vaguely on topic...

I used to have  Matrix 1000 before I sold it to a friend. What annoyed
me was I couldn't detune all 6 voices and have a decent Unison. This is 
partly why I bought the Xpander after selling the M1000. The Xpander 
lets you edit 6 voices, detune them all, and then build them into a Multi.

Does the Matrix 1000 have a multi patch facility to allow detuned unison?

Thanks for any info,

Jeremy.

Nope

WT
----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Jeremy Smith" <jeremy@...>
To: <xpantastic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:07 PM
Subject: [xpantastic] Matrix 1000 and detuning of 6 voices


> Hi,
>
> Vaguely on topic...
>
> I used to have  Matrix 1000 before I sold it to a friend. What annoyed
> me was I couldn't detune all 6 voices and have a decent Unison. This is
> partly why I bought the Xpander after selling the M1000. The Xpander
> lets you edit 6 voices, detune them all, and then build them into a Multi.
>
> Does the Matrix 1000 have a multi patch facility to allow detuned unison?
>
> Thanks for any info,
>
> Jeremy.
>
>
>

>
> Does the Matrix 1000 have a multi patch facility to allow detuned unison?
>
> Thanks for any info,

No, but the Matrix 1000 has a mode that lets you chain 6 M1ks together
to get a 36 note synth.
The patches in each of those synths could be detuned, but that's an
extravagant work-around

The Matrix 6 doesnt have this feature.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:08 PM, PeWe <ha-pewe@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Yep,- "Units">group mode.
>
> But also the extravagant workaround wouldn´t work unfortunately.
> In group mode and even w/ all synths set to unison (which is a keyboard mode
> only), the 1st note being hit plays the very 1st M1K which is the group

PeWe you seem to know the M1k very well.
Were you ever able to make the NRPN's work?
I followed the manual but never could get them to work.
I don't know if ti was my stupidity, a manual error, or buggy firmware.

I know other people have reported similar problems with the NRPN's

The Matrix-6 does have split mode and you can overlap the splits so you could do it with two patches.  Not sure if the Matrix-1000 supports this but I d think

Check this out: http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2008/06/knob-tweaking-oberheim-matrix6r.html I know someone that had the Access Programmer that worked fine as

I should clarify that I only tried with an Encore Knobby and the software editors out there on mine, not the Access Programmer. ... -- cheers, matrix 

If you have a midi processor machine like a Miditemp PMM88E, it´s much 
better:
> In this case, setting the different synths to unison, same midi 
> channel, detune ´em global and set ´em to (different if desired) 
> patches manually is obsolete.
>
> Just leave the machines on different midi channels, route the master 
> keyboard ( midi in of the processor) to the midi outs w/ the M1Ks 
> connected and send ´em controller offset values ( same controller- one 
> negative/ one positive) on the different midi channels. The controller 
> of your choice ( mod wheel CC# or CC#4 p.ex.) must be set up in the 
> mod matriss to control DCO2 detune by any amount you like.
> Each M1K can be set to unison via midi too and this as also the 
> controller offsets and the midi prg-ch. no. can be stored into a patch 
> of the midi processor.
> This example is for 2 M1Ks and can be extended by using more M2Ks on 
> more midi channels and w/ slightly different controller offsets on 
> each of the midi channels.
>
> With one push of a button, you configurate some M1Ks to a detuned 
> unison setup w/ the right patch(es) selected.
> If you move the controller which controls the DCO2 detune during 
> performance, the amount of detune changes in realtime.
> If you recall the patch-no. on the midi processor again, you come back 
> to the detune amount set by the offset values.
>
> Imagine, all this works also w/ any other synth combinations, is done 
> in a few minutes and you never have to change your global keymode and 
> tuning settings of your synths.
> In addition, you can use it live (w/ the processor) and it can be 
> re-created in a sequencer (which is the processor then) and played 
> back and edited by using the sequencers automation or recording a 
> midi-controller track.
Excellent!

Also, you could detune those voices with the pitchbend control, and have 
different pitchbends each channel?

Anyway, either solution sounds good.

Thanks,

Jeremy.

PeWe wrote:
>
> keyboard modes in M1K:
>
> 0= reassign
> 1= rotate
> 2= unison
> 3= reassign w/ rob
>
> units select (multiple device select mode)
>
> it seems this mode replaced the split and layer functions of Matrix-6, 
> maybe just marketing because of the low price of the M1K,- buy 2 !
>
> I never tried to split or layer the M1K,- just looked into the manual 
> and cannot find anything about this.
> Hope I didn´t overread anything.
>
> But if this should be possible,- you´re right !
>
> matrix schrieb:
Hi,,

This sounds good.

I'll tell my friend who has the M1000 - I bought an Xpander after I sold 
the M1000 to him.

All the best,

Jeremy.

Thx !

Yes w/ the Matrix-1000 in Channel Mode G1 ( manual page 21 top to bottom).
Each voice responds to incoming midi on a different channel then, voice 
1-6 to channel 1-6 for notes and continuous controllers PB, CC#7 and 
pressure/AT independently.
Voice 1 is on the basic channel which can be all 16 available midi 
channels. The next channels go n+1 then if the basic channel isn�t 
channel 1.

It�s perfect to use w/ a midi-guitar controller b.t.w.

With the PMM, there is no limitation to a type of  controller.

Because a PMM can remap controllers not only to midi channels, your 
pitchbend controller could be adressed/remapped to any other midi CC too 
or any other controller could do PB.

For keyboards which aren�t able to send midi data on 6 channels 
simultaneusly, you�d need a midi processor functionality anyway to do 
independent pitch bends or pitch bend offsets for each voice on separate 
channels.

The PMM  is a unbelievable monster and I can�t understand why it�s a 
discontinued product meanwhile

Jeremy Smith schrieb:

>
>
> Excellent!
>
> Also, you could detune those voices with the pitchbend control, and have
> different pitchbends each channel?
>
> Anyway, either solution sounds good.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeremy.
>
>

Hi all,

I have never seen one, but there was a rack synth from England called 
the Cheeta MS6. This was close to the M1K, but was also multitam. 
Does anyone know if this synth can detune its voices?      

As far as I can tell: 
If you absolutly have to have voice detuning on the M1K. You could
hardware mod this with a microcontroller. The micro could be wired in 
between the CEM voice chips and the master 6809 cpu in the M1K.
The firmware of the Mod micro would insert a slight delay into each
frequency to detune the voices. Controlling it would be a different 
story. 
All I can think of, is to add a potentiometer on the back (or front)
that is wired into the mod. This knob would detune all the voices at
once. I don't see any way to make this programmable either.  

It is posible, but a lot of work for only one non-programmable 
function.

Karl

Hi envia,

I worked in an organ/keyboard repair shop in 98/99. The acordian guys 
had the most sophisticated midi setups. They Could do almost anything 
with their rigs. So I have always maintained these folks to be true 
visionaries.  

Karl

btw I am having problems making these links work. Any ideas what I am 
doing wrong?
 
--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "envia94" <akva@...> wrote:
>
> Karl,
>  
> Here comes my Cheetah Info Pack, be welcome to download it:
> 
> http://www.envia.fi/click_this_first.htm
> 
> [
>  Warning: The following very large download is not at all related 
to vintage synths, but here 
> just because I happened to have it awailable right this moment. If 
you hate accordion music, 
> don't bother to download this. But, otherwise I guarantee that you 
will be fully satisfied:

> 
> http://www.envia.fi/click_this.htm 
> ]
> 
> Cheesetah,
> Tiitu.
>

Karl,

Here comes my Cheetah Info Pack, be welcome to download it:

http://www.envia.fi/click_this_first.htm

[

Warning: The following very large download is not at all related to vintage
synths, but here
just because I happened to have it awailable right this moment. If you hate
accordion music,
don't bother to download this. But, otherwise I guarantee that you will be fully
satisfied:

http://www.envia.fi/click_this.htm

]

Cheesetah,
Tiitu.

Please, use Internet Explorer for downloading. For example, Safari 
does not work correctly here!

Rgds,
Tiitu


--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "envia94" <akva@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Karl,
> 
> Here comes my Cheetah Info Pack, be welcome to download it:
> 
> http://www.envia.fi/click_this_first.htm
> 
> [
> 
> Warning: The following very large download is not at all related to 
vintage
> synths, but here
> just because I happened to have it awailable right this moment. If 
you hate
> accordion music,
> don't bother to download this. But, otherwise I guarantee that you 
will be fully

> satisfied:
> 
> http://www.envia.fi/click_this.htm
> 
> ]
> 
> Cheesetah,
> Tiitu.
>

Thanks envia,

Ahh that works, After a quick browsing, this synth sounds pretty good.
I am still not sure about weather it can make a hover sound, but  
will dig a little deeper later.

Karl







--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "envia94" <akva@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Karl,
> 
> Here comes my Cheetah Info Pack, be welcome to download it:
> 
> http://www.envia.fi/click_this_first.htm
> 
> [
> 
> Warning: The following very large download is not at all related to 
vintage
> synths, but here
> just because I happened to have it awailable right this moment. If 
you hate
> accordion music,
> don't bother to download this. But, otherwise I guarantee that you 
will be fully

> satisfied:
> 
> http://www.envia.fi/click_this.htm
> 
> ]
> 
> Cheesetah,
> Tiitu.
>