Given all this, it sounds very desirable once you understand what it does, how it does it and why thats powerful.
And just looks dead sexy....
http://www.hartmann-music.com/home/
The future of synthesis/sampling. This is a serious advance.
-
ontik
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Me Mum's Moot? Where u from? (Australia)
In short, this new synth/sampler apparently blew everyone away at NAMM, uses neural-net processors, Costs about GBP9000 (sorry not pound sign) and apparently doesn't transport well so at this stage, would be studio based.
Given all this, it sounds very desirable once you understand what it does, how it does it and why thats powerful.
And just looks dead sexy....
http://www.hartmann-music.com/home/
Given all this, it sounds very desirable once you understand what it does, how it does it and why thats powerful.
And just looks dead sexy....
http://www.hartmann-music.com/home/
ontiK.
"If I have to explain, you won't understand."
"If I have to explain, you won't understand."
-
ontik
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Me Mum's Moot? Where u from? (Australia)
Really??
It amazes me that people close their mind to something because its not software. This is probably because I started out all PC Based and have branched out into hardware more than anything else. And i guess this has been cos I've never really been satisfied with the sound quality of software. Only recently have I heard software that I feel is competitive with a decent bit of kit.
What I have also learned from this is that I my external hardware is always there ready to go, no loading required, no configuring a midi controller and no additional strin on my PC and the sound quality is always first rate.
Thats the beauty of CW and why I bought it. Total and seemless integration.
Aside from all this you can't make a PC do what the Hartmann does. PC chips don't and can't support the algorithms. Thats what I thought was the really groundbreaking thing about it. The concept of a sound existing digitally as a three dimensional object rather than linear package. I don't even know where to begin thinking about what that might mean in terms of manipulation. IE realtime Pitchbending a timestretched and pitch adjusted Sample without effecting duration whilst 'Morphing' (not mixing) it with another sample effected the same way that also following the pitch bend..... Just for a start. This would not be particularly heavy processing on a neural-net chip. And this is still a linear programmable concept its just easier to do on a neural.
Although embryonic in conept I can't think of an electronic milestone as significant since the advent of the synthesizer. Well, maybe FM was about as significant but it didn't open the same number of possibilities as this.
It amazes me that people close their mind to something because its not software. This is probably because I started out all PC Based and have branched out into hardware more than anything else. And i guess this has been cos I've never really been satisfied with the sound quality of software. Only recently have I heard software that I feel is competitive with a decent bit of kit.
What I have also learned from this is that I my external hardware is always there ready to go, no loading required, no configuring a midi controller and no additional strin on my PC and the sound quality is always first rate.
Thats the beauty of CW and why I bought it. Total and seemless integration.
Aside from all this you can't make a PC do what the Hartmann does. PC chips don't and can't support the algorithms. Thats what I thought was the really groundbreaking thing about it. The concept of a sound existing digitally as a three dimensional object rather than linear package. I don't even know where to begin thinking about what that might mean in terms of manipulation. IE realtime Pitchbending a timestretched and pitch adjusted Sample without effecting duration whilst 'Morphing' (not mixing) it with another sample effected the same way that also following the pitch bend..... Just for a start. This would not be particularly heavy processing on a neural-net chip. And this is still a linear programmable concept its just easier to do on a neural.
Although embryonic in conept I can't think of an electronic milestone as significant since the advent of the synthesizer. Well, maybe FM was about as significant but it didn't open the same number of possibilities as this.
ontiK.
"If I have to explain, you won't understand."
"If I have to explain, you won't understand."
hi Ontik,
as far as I understood the Hartmann (no hands on yet - they seem to keep it under the hood) it analyses a sound (by neural-network technology - dunno if hard or soft) and (simpliefied by me) resynthesizes it.
Something alike has existed in all synth generations, but of course this version is unique by the cognitive approach which should result in extended possibilities.
Imo it's a great starting point and I really appreciate such products - opposed to the Swiss 'me too' Modular Petal happened to find (in general forum).
You might be interested in an old issue of Dr. Dobbs #197 from February 1993, page 50 titled: A Neural Network Audio Synthesizer.
This thingy generated waveforms by the nnw hardware (something like the activity voltages of the artificial neurons), which makes it a real unique way of synthesis.
Just found some audio (possibly) from this project on CD called 'Neural Synthesis Nos. 6-9'
http://www.lovely.com/titles/cd1602.html
I don't dare to post the article here (it's frequently sold on the net), but I could mail a scanned version if you don't find it elsewhere.
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-11-13 22:18 ]</font>
as far as I understood the Hartmann (no hands on yet - they seem to keep it under the hood) it analyses a sound (by neural-network technology - dunno if hard or soft) and (simpliefied by me) resynthesizes it.
Something alike has existed in all synth generations, but of course this version is unique by the cognitive approach which should result in extended possibilities.
Imo it's a great starting point and I really appreciate such products - opposed to the Swiss 'me too' Modular Petal happened to find (in general forum).
You might be interested in an old issue of Dr. Dobbs #197 from February 1993, page 50 titled: A Neural Network Audio Synthesizer.
This thingy generated waveforms by the nnw hardware (something like the activity voltages of the artificial neurons), which makes it a real unique way of synthesis.
Just found some audio (possibly) from this project on CD called 'Neural Synthesis Nos. 6-9'
http://www.lovely.com/titles/cd1602.html
I don't dare to post the article here (it's frequently sold on the net), but I could mail a scanned version if you don't find it elsewhere.
cheers, Tom
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-11-13 22:18 ]</font>
After an in depth visit of the Hartmann site I understand it much better than from the paper reviews.
Besides it's cool look and usability (something A. Hartmann is known for as a designer) it is certainly the most innovative and powerful piece of hardware of the last years. You're right on this, Ontik.
The cognitive approach to the analysis of the input isn't simply used to mimick that signal, but to extract the operational characteristics and parameters of sound generation, applyable to whatever one likes. That's indeed one step beyond.
I want one, too - where's the cash ?
My mentioning of the DDJ article above (though interesting from the techie viewpoint) doesn't have much to do with this one.
Two completely different applications of the same base technology.
cheers, Tom
Besides it's cool look and usability (something A. Hartmann is known for as a designer) it is certainly the most innovative and powerful piece of hardware of the last years. You're right on this, Ontik.
The cognitive approach to the analysis of the input isn't simply used to mimick that signal, but to extract the operational characteristics and parameters of sound generation, applyable to whatever one likes. That's indeed one step beyond.
I want one, too - where's the cash ?
My mentioning of the DDJ article above (though interesting from the techie viewpoint) doesn't have much to do with this one.
Two completely different applications of the same base technology.
cheers, Tom
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Cool, I want one.
It seems like they've got a neural sim running.. and gets the processes to learn the sound? Something like that.. phew.. gadgets are getting so sophisticated that it's becoming pointless to wonder about its inner workings.. just like how we don't mind the physical acoustics of a clarinet or whatever.. Which is cool. Ya know, just kind of USE it, and we're done.
It seems like they've got a neural sim running.. and gets the processes to learn the sound? Something like that.. phew.. gadgets are getting so sophisticated that it's becoming pointless to wonder about its inner workings.. just like how we don't mind the physical acoustics of a clarinet or whatever.. Which is cool. Ya know, just kind of USE it, and we're done.
-
ontik
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Me Mum's Moot? Where u from? (Australia)
Well I'm glad someone bothered to read it.
J9K that Kyma cretainly looks like a very nice piece of work too. Expensive as always but very nice. I'm not too sure that there are too many comparisons to be drawn there though.
Ken, Thinking about this i reckon your quite right. I mean if Personal computers (software, VST's etc) were every going to 'kill off' hardware in terms of sound generation, it would be far more apparent by now. They are a general purpose piece of equipment and never 'tuned' for music like a piece of even a piece of digital hardware is. I think the reality of the situation will the hybridization of the two and this is just one example of it. So too is the Kyma and infact even the humble Sharc to a lesser degree.
Lets wait and see.
J9K that Kyma cretainly looks like a very nice piece of work too. Expensive as always but very nice. I'm not too sure that there are too many comparisons to be drawn there though.
Ken, Thinking about this i reckon your quite right. I mean if Personal computers (software, VST's etc) were every going to 'kill off' hardware in terms of sound generation, it would be far more apparent by now. They are a general purpose piece of equipment and never 'tuned' for music like a piece of even a piece of digital hardware is. I think the reality of the situation will the hybridization of the two and this is just one example of it. So too is the Kyma and infact even the humble Sharc to a lesser degree.
Lets wait and see.
ontiK.
"If I have to explain, you won't understand."
"If I have to explain, you won't understand."