Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Great babble! ;-) Very good reading. - Robert "Dennis W. Leas" wrote: > > I'm in the hard work of learning how things work in Orville and other > > multipourpose DSP machines to get one of them. > > For Kyma, I recommend an AES preprint "A Framework for the Design, >Development, > and Delivery of Real-time Software-based Sound Synthesis and Processing > Algorithms" by Hebel and Scaletti presented at the 97th AES convention >1994. > It's short (text is about six pages) and concise. You can also order a >Kyma > manual for $35. That's what I did before buying. > > > I heard Orville kicks Kyma (in flexibility and DSP power). is this >true, > > having in mind that Symbolic Sound's Kyma is expandable up to 28 DSPs? > > I'm a Kyma owner so I'm quite familiar with it. After reading the >Orville > manuals (all three including the programming manual), it's clear to me >that Kyma > is quite a bit more powerful and flexible. > > This is not surprising given that a top end Kyma system (not including a >host > computer) prices out at $11,435 USD. What is surprising is that you can >start > with a basic unit for $3,300 and expand it without discarding any parts. > > In a nutshell, the major differences between the Kyma and the Orville are > because the Kyma requires a host computer at all times. You only need >to use a > computer with Orville when you're doing heavy-duty programming. > > The fact that Kyma requires a computer is both an advantage and >dis-advantage. > If you can't deal with a computer onstage, Orville is for you. It is >well > designed to function as a conventional rack-mount effects box. The >Orville is > more self-contained. For example, you can plug non-MIDI footswitches >and pedals > directly into it. With Kyma, you must use a MIDI footswitch and CC >pedal (and > you'd probably need a MIDI hub). > > On the other hand, the computer gives Kyma some capabilities that >Orville simply > doesn't have. For example, with a MIDI keyboard, you can use Kyma as a >sampler > keyboard, triggering samples of any length from the hard drive. You can >also > use Kyma as a digital mixer/recorder, recording directly to/from the >computer's > hard drive. Since Kyma programs are stored on the computer's hard >drive, you > have quick access to virtually an unlimited number of programs. > > You primarily control the Orville via it's front panel LCD and buttons. > Eventide has done a great job with this, but it is limiting. Kyma uses >the > computer screen to display control widgets on a "virtual control >surface." > These widgets include the usual assortment of buttons, toggles, >linear/rotary > faders, etc and is completely customizable. Both Orville and Kyma >permit the > use of external MIDI controllers such as the Peavey PC1600. However, >Kyma > provides special support for the MotorMix, a box similar to the PC1600x >but with > motorized faders and LCD labels for the faders. The MotorMix mirrors the > virtual control surface. > > In terms of programming, both units are similar in concept. You can >create a > signal flow diagram with boxes representing "functional units" (unit > generators). You specify the connections between the boxes. The boxes >perform > functions such as EQ, delay, level changes, etc and the connections >specify the > signal/control flow. Both units provide about 1000 of these >"functional units" > for your use. However, Orville appears less general, distinguishing >between > control signals and audio signals (i.e., there are different boxes for >control > and audio signals). Kyma is completely general, permitting you to freely > mix/interchange control and audio signals. Also, Orville limits you to >the > modules supplied by Eventide (unless I missed a developer's kit?). You >can > create your own in Kyma (a caffeine-laden process of writing DSP assembly > language, not for the faint-hearted). I'm writing a set of real-time >looper > specific modules, for example. > > Kyma does quite a bit of work to distribute the workload among the DSPs. > You > don't have to rewrite your programs, for example, to take advantage of >new > additional DSP cards. With both Orville and Kyma, there is not a >one-to-one > correspondence between "functional units" (the boxes in your signal flow > diagram) and DSPs. > > Among the software, the Orville features Eventide's famous Ultrashifter >and > reverb programs. Reverb design being the magical, black-art that it is, >I > believe that the Orville's reverb is gorgeous sounding while Kyma's >probably > comes in second. I haven't A-B'ed them so I'm bending to conventional >thought > here. I never used the Ultrashifter but it is certainly well-known in >the > industry. So if you need fabulous reverb and Ultrashifting capability, >perhaps > Orville is for you. On the other hand, I like the Kyma's reverb >programs and > I'm not primarily a pitch-shifter kind of guy. > > The Kyma provides very powerful sound analysis tools that I haven't >found in > Orville. These include several varieties of spectral analysis and >re-synthesis. > Kyma is used by several researchers to investigate such subjects as > psycho-acoustics, modeling physical instruments, and sonification of >complex > data. > > The latest release of Kyma provides a timeline interface that is >completely > absent from Orville. This interface is well suited for time-based >compositions. > You drag and drop Sounds (signal flow diagrams provided by Symbolic >Sound or > created by you) onto a time lime. You can have any number of tracks. >You can > adjust the starting time/duration of each sound. You can also adjust >such > parameters as panning, levels, etc. on a track-by-track basis. It's >quite > powerful. > > I'm getting far afield from looping so it's probably time I quit >rambling for > now. This posting is too long already anyway! > > Dennis Leas > ----------------------------- > dennis@mdbs.com