#9

The majority of the modern expressive controllers, i.e.: Linnstrument, Continuum, etc. have fully adopted MPE. Top software companies also support it, i.e.: cycling 74, u-he, electronics (in a limited, but useful way). The momentum is there, even if the MIDI industry as a whole don’t get it yet.

1 Like
#10

True if hardware based. But several of the software plugins (mentioned above) make it quite simple. I seldom make many/any mods to default patches.

Re: getting a cello or guitar. Great idea. But if you don’t have several years to devote to learning good control over those instruments, something like the Linnstrument combined with a great software tool - there’s even a collection of sampled acoustic instruments recommended on the Linnstrument website - can bring you satisfying results quicker.

1 Like
#11

This resonates for me and is a big part of the appeal. It’s what makes me sure I’ll invest in a controller like this at some point down the road. The question is whether this is a year for playing instruments or building them. Not that I have to choose of course, but I do want to favor the former as the last few years have been largely about the latter (and I have plenty of building blocks to more fully explore besides!)

1 Like
#12

This is interesting to me as I tend to be a tweaker. I try to create a few patches/presets that are more or less mine that I return to but this often opens the door to bike-shedding and endless refinement. Dedicated study of defaults would do me good I think. :thumbsup:

Great points! With guitar I have a leg up as I’ve played for a long time. That said, I’m most comfortably an electric guitarist so there’s lots to explore if approached unplugged. Alternatively, processing is something I’ve done a bit of in the past and an instrument based on processed guitar (using something exciting and fresh like virta for example) has a draw too but then we’re back to building vs. playing and the pandora’s box of tweaking.

As for cello, what can I say besides having a life-long obsession with the sound and physicality of that instrument.

Regarding satisfying results, this is also a great point and exposes something I need to clarify — what is the goal here? A timely meditation as we turn the leaf of a new year. Cheers!

I’m grateful to you all for the thoughtful conversation.

1 Like
#13

The argument for acoustic instruments is kind of weird. The Linnstrument obviously only makes sense if someone plans to continue to explore electronic instruments, which by its very nature usually involves just as much sound design as it does playing (isn’t that the whole point of synthesizers?) The whole reason I got a Linnstrument in the first place is to have a way to add more expressive playing to electronic instruments, which is something I think it is very good at. Of course it’s not going to compete with acoustic instruments like cellos, that serves an entirely different purpose. Also a cello is not exactly something that lends itself well to playing in an office.

4 Likes
#14

I’m having a hard time imagining making music in the office in any way, but that’s probably just a failure of imagination on my part. Pretty amused by the thought of doing it with a cello. It would certainly improve my office if somebody were to do that.

1 Like
Making music in the office
#15

I think I actually agree and created a bit of a false dichotomy with my original post. And probably another one in suggesting a split between playing and making instruments. Thanks for the push back!

There’s a lot here. For me this is probably true.

:thumbsup:

This is exactly what draws me to it (or a soundplane or continuum or … ?)

I appreciate this point. Where this is a competition (and if I’m honest the only one that really matters) is in the contest for time and attention and this ties back to the question of goals. No question that a cello is an odd way to explore electronics but as an instrument that inspires play and deliberate practice? Of course, that’s really personal. And really in the end, this is all really personal. Like a lot of threads around here this is turning into a nice bit of group therapy. :slight_smile:

Well yeah. It’s fun though to imagine an office with more cellos. A few years ago I setup a little modular on my desk (I work in tech) and did some work to try and effect the culture of my office to be more embracing of creative pursuits in the workplace. It was mostly a success and re-engaging with this effort is on my list for 2017 — but this is a derail and topic for another thread. (On a little more reflection I think mentioning a cello which on the surface is so impractical was my subconscious trying to provoke exactly this conversation. Thanks for playing along!)

2 Likes
#16

Of course, this is the key thing. However, at the outset of the thread you mentioned that you’re looking for something that you could study while at the office. In that sense I don’t see how something like a cello could be competing for the time, as it’s not really practical. I guess if you used the time to finish your work faster and then left to go play the Cello this argument could be made :slight_smile:

1 Like
#17

Ok. That seals it. Fresh thread:

#18

Great points.

I’m actually motivated to push on this a little. Why not play cello at the office? Situational for sure but I can’t help but wonder what a culture that encouraged and accommodated work-place creativity would look like.

:smile:

For me this is the impractical part. The current reality is that I spend a good chunk of my life at the office. There’s also the argument for creative breaks. But again, there’s the other thread for this meditation.

#19

Coming back to this:

@doctorsunset: I noticed some of your posts on the Roger Linn forum and I’m curious if the more recent firmware updates got velocity more playable for you or whether you’ve just made peace.

@kisielk: do you use velocity or pressure for amplitude modulation (or both)?

For anyone: I’m interested in specifically slow expressions/modulations (e.g., glacial pitch bends and very gradual modulation of parameters like filter cut-off or FM index) and the demos I’ve heard of X and Y bends have been pretty quick. Is there enough XY range for that to be feasible/fun? If you rock your finger very slowly does it feel smooth? On the one hand, I’m wondering if this is at odds with how the firmware is tuned, how the sensor is designed or maybe this is as much a function of how your given instrument handles the relatively coarse MIDI expression data?

Roger Linn writes tantalizingly here:

For Z/pressure, it current uses 7-bit Poly Pressure or Channel Pressure messages, which seems to work fine. If someone wants more, it’s easy to send an additional 7 bits of resolution in a CC.

Does he mean easy in firmware or as a user? Anyone found a need in practice?

Sorry for the newbie questions. Analog guy here! :blush:

Thanks in advance!

1 Like
#20

I don’t use velocity, just pressure, and also generally don’t use envelopes either except occasionally to add a release stage for some ringing. Thus far I haven’t missed having more than 7 bits of pressure resolution. Having more than 7 bits would require using two CCs or NRPN and would make it less usable without some custom software.

1 Like
#21

He means in firmware.

1 Like
#22

Thanks, as always, for the replies!

:thumbsup: Awesome. I’ve heard other people say they don’t need envelopes and that’s a great endorsement. Thanks!

Good to hear!

OK. Cool. Thanks for the confirmation.

@jasonw22: any experience playing a Linnstrument? In the absence of one to demo, I’m collecting as many anecdotes as I can.

#23

Unfortunately, no. I’m very very tempted to buy one. The only thing preventing me from pulling the trigger is this:

I can wait on the Linnstrument, they’ll make more. But it’s very rare to find a Continuum at that price…

EDIT: But I think I’ve got to let the Continuum go. I bought a guitar about a month ago and will be taking a classical guitar class at the local community college. That’s enough practice and expense for a while.

2 Likes
#24

Oh man. Yeah, I saw that. You taking the plunge?

#25

No. Just edited the post. Gonna stick with my new guitar and give the bank account some rest.

2 Likes
#26

I believe this boils down to technique. You can achieve very slow and control pitch bends and parameter mods on the Linnstrument. Aftertouch gives almost as much control as some of the very good keyboards controllers. But, to achieve the precision you seem to be after will take practice and control - but is doable.

You might also want to look into the Continuum.

2 Likes
#27

Doable with some study is exactly what I was hoping to hear.

Thanks and happy new year!

1 Like
#28

The last couple of firmware updates have been pretty stellar. The velocity response has improved dramatically since I received by device at the end of the summer. It’s still not like playing a piano, and I suspect it never will be, and probably shouldn’t be, but it’s a lot more playable nowadays.

The most recent update also allows you to greatly increase the dynamic range of the sensor; before the update I was able to reach the maximum pressure output very easily (too easily in my opinion), but the update allows you to set the device so that a much greater force is needed to max out the output. While this may be slightly less ergonomic, I feel it greatly increases the expressive range of the instrument.

In this regard, I think the pressure response of the linnstrument is very well suited for slow modulations (especially since the last update), and you could definitely accomplish this with the x axis response. The y axis is a little bit tricky, in my opinion. I find this modality to be the most difficult to play with meaningfully, but I expect this will improve with practice.

The pressure can be easily set on the linnstrument to output 7 or 14 bit CCs, which is what Roger is referring to in the quote posted earlier. I have found 7 bits to be adequate, but it’s definitely nice to have the 14 bit option.

1 Like