posted 07 March 2003 08:12            

i'm quite used to the looping and sample features in Reaktor.. and find it quite useful to be able to see a waveform display of your sample.. and have loop start/end markers to move around that visually correspond to the sample.. so you can see (approximately) what part of the sample you are looping..

does kyma have this sort of capability?

thanks
taylor

posted 07 March 2003 16:03            

with the existing asio driver (and forth coming coreaudio) you can use max/msp or reaktor to feed such a sample manipulator into the kyma for further processing. however, currently, this requires the sample manipulation to happen at the input of a sound rather than be part of processing of a sound (live re-sample and manipulation.)

posted 07 March 2003 16:35            

quote:

---

Originally posted by keph:

not in the way you are hoping for. you can view the orginal loop via the oscilloscope and then the chopped results.

with the existing asio driver (and forth coming coreaudio) you can use max/msp or reaktor to feed such a sample manipulator into the kyma for further processing. however, currently, this requires the sample manipulation to happen at the input of a sound rather than be part of processing of a sound (live re-sample and manipulation.)

personality, i can't wait for the coreaudio drivers. i haven't used kyma since last fall because i moved the rest of my studio to osx. lately i have been desperate for kyma and pining to be able to run channels directly out of logic into kyma for processing.

---

posted 08 March 2003 19:42            

I fully aggree. That's IMO the reason Kyma is not widespread accepted in the music industry. Sometimes I thought about triggering a discussion here but decided against it because I think for a lot of Kyma users/owners Kyma is something what the MAC is for some MAC fanatics. Maybe there is a fear that this invaluable tool in too many hands is decreasing the value of Kyma operators as an elitist bunch?

posted 08 March 2003 21:38            

however, i feel popularity does not directly affect quality... what makes kyma so amazing, besides the sound, is the support and creators. i have never found such friendly, personal, and helpful support as kurt and carla give... so perhaps if kyma got really popular (also, i think the price is what prevents it from selling as much as a $400 copy of Reaktor)... and symbolic sound turned into a big company with many employees and a "tech support line"... then we would lose something...

but i think it's too general to say that if kyma's UI got improved that it would become "too popular".... as i'd love to see it become m ore visually friendly..

I fully aggree. That's IMO the reason Kyma is not widespread accepted in the music industry. Sometimes I thought about triggering a discussion here but decided against it because I think for a lot of Kyma users/owners Kyma is something what the MAC is for some MAC fanatics. Maybe there is a fear that this invaluable tool in too many hands is decreasing the value of Kyma operators as an elitist bunch?

Nirto Karsten Fischer[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 09 March 2003 15:53            

1) the possibilities of manipulation in real time by external devices;
2) the appearance on the screen.
(other aspects would be the usability without a computer attached, the amount of pre-defined elements ...)

Concerning 1), I feel that the VCS is a smart, quick and straightforward solution. Within a few clicks, You are able to assign randomly chosen MIDI events to every hot parameter in Your sound program, You can layer it, manipulate Your MIDI events, coupling them a.s.o ... therefore You have full control by using e.g. a Peavey PC1600x or a Doepfer Drehbank or a Controlfreak or ... (or ideally a CM Motormix, if You have enough money). And the process of assigning is easy. What is missing in the VCS tool, compared to Reaktor? (where You also can't do more than assigning MIDI events to control sound by an external device; controlling by a mouse on the screen is never suitable for playing an instrument)?

Concerning 2): I agree, that the Kyma appearance on the screen is somehow strange, and in opposite to the VCS not straightforward. But I'm not convinced, that realistic imitations of a big modular system are really the better solution, which helps in leading to new musical ideas. Sure, at a first glance, it is much more easier for orientation to see everything as in those hardware devices placed in Your studio racks: You see the precise signal flow, the precise control flow, Your sound channels, maybe a graphical representation of Your loops, all elements of a module ... but You don't detect more than You would do in the patterns of those hardware modules ... I wish a representation, which follows my musical ideas ... Therefore I demand an UI, which follows my musical ideas in the brain (I don't expect the next computer system, which makes automatically pop music for me without the need of thinking about it).

As far as I have understood the principles behind, Kyma is a musical language to formulate DSP programs, with which You are able to generate or manipulate sound events in a free and innovative manner; it is not a construction box of ready modules. The appearance is an abstract programming environment. To me, the biggest problem with Kyma is its documentation, because the possibilities of all language elements are not decribed in an extensive way. The impact of he language elements on the sound construction isn't often clear at a first glance (because the "output" of a prototype is not necessarily an audio or control flow in the traditional sense). I often would like to know (or see) more about what is happening inside.

Besides: You must hear Your sound manipulations, not see them. For me, it is sufficient to hear the changes caused by manipulating the loop points, I don't need to see a graphical representation of it. Maybe it's a matter of Your main emphasis.

Moreover: it is important, to have different approaches. If You could do with Kyma the same as with Reaktor, one system would be superfluous. What we need, is a system, which "thinks" about music in an other way than a big modular system, beginning also with an other graphical represantation on the screen. In this sense Kyma could be improved by a more extensive documentation plus a more extensive optical representation of what is happening inside the sentences of its language.

posted 10 March 2003 10:11            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EckardVossas:
In this sense Kyma could be improved by a more extensive documentation plus a more extensive optical representation of what is happening inside the sentences of its language.

Eckard Vossas

---

i agree.
i usually have a hard time "debugging" my sounds, because i donīt hear what i expect to hear. therefore i see max-msp-jitter as the optimal programming environment (it lacks other things).
i would very much appreciate a bastard of this 2 worlds, although i see that there are fundamental differences.

i also like the idea behind the vcs. itīs only when you have arround 100 widgets the display becomes so slow that it is practically impossible to work with it live. (maybe this problem doesnīt exist on pcīs....)
and when i started to use multiple vcs for different layouts the preset-structure became confused.....

posted 10 March 2003 11:51            

quote:

---

Originally posted by keph:
after a weekend beating my head with max/msp/jit, i greatly prefer kyma's interface :)

---

blasted. didn't mean to post quite yet. cursor focus in the wrong area.

as for wider exceptance, it is not the UI that is the barriar to entry. it is price (though personally i think it is price quite well for what you get, though i would never turn down cheaper expansion cards:)

working with high school students taught me a lot about UI and music. only a few of the students i worked with had previous experience with synth, modulars, or computer music. without that context, reference points that many softsynths are based on are useless and even a barriar to understanding how the sound actually works. max/msp/jit and synC was a complete mess, while kyma proved a pretty easy to learn environment. kyma shines when you break for traditional models of synthesis.

that said, the timeline doesn't (and shouldn't) compare to apps like emagic logic audio. it is hard to deal with small steps, chopping and editing, etc. however, am more than happy to use apps like that or Live as a front end. i've never found one app that does everything well. i'd rather have kurt and carla focus on what they are good at and have other developers do the same.

posted 12 March 2003 08:12            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EckardVossas:
To me, the biggest problem with Kyma is its documentation, because the possibilities of all language elements are not decribed in an extensive way. The impact of he language elements on the sound construction isn't often clear at a first glance (because the "output" of a prototype is not necessarily an audio or control flow in the traditional sense). I often would like to know (or see) more about what is happening inside.

---

I also think a complete revision of the manual (aka very Big Book) would be better, maybe with Project X.

-Armand

posted 12 March 2003 10:16            

if SSC produced a BIG H U G E new manual that really went in depth... i would certainly try to be the first on line to buy it! i'm greatly looking forward to this cd-rom...

quote:

---

Originally posted by armand:
I also think a complete revision of the manual (aka very Big Book) would be better, maybe with Project X.

-Armand

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by armand:
I also think a complete revision of the manual (aka very Big Book) would be better, maybe with Project X.

-Armand

---

posted 27 March 2003 16:01            

i personally prefer the stripped down basic widget style interface better than any other...reaktor for instance is ungodly hard to work with and made it impossible for me to get much done because 90% of my time was making the interface useable.....on kyma for most sounds i have created its fairly easy to use often without even changing the VCS at all. plus interfaces like reaktor that have so much 'junk' on them(as in trying to look realistically like knobs and such) really slows down my computer when im building complex structures. one thing ive noticed about many so-called studio computers is that they dont differ much from your average home computer and are often cluttered with fancy icons and OMG sometimes even sound effects and stuff along with pictures as the background....i guess a number of people havent noticed that all that sort of thing(just like with a software user interface) tends to slow down the computer. my mac has no icons, no background(grey), everything greyscale except for kyma(and the little apple symbol that i have yet to figure out how to make black w/o setting vid card to greyscale)...much of that is preference tho, im kinda oldskool about computers(loved my toshiba t4400se w/monochrome screen).

posted 29 March 2003 19:44            

quote:

---

Originally posted by brokentoys:
i have never really understood why anyone would want a fancy interface for kyma...

---

It's not about a 'fancy' interface. Kyma has a graphical user interface which is often not ergonomical IMO. Sometimes my intuitive side tries to connect modules like I'm used from other applications: just draw a line between them. On the PC side I miss a context menue for example. All these small things slow me down using Kyma and are counterintuitive.
I don't want childish icons, menues and meaningless graphics ... I just think Kyma's GUI can be improved significantly.

posted 30 March 2003 10:46            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sm:

i also like the idea behind the vcs. itīs only when you have arround 100 widgets the display becomes so slow that it is practically impossible to work with it live.

---

This is quite an issue for me too - I was really enthusiastic about building a live sequencer/sample mangler but the interface let me down - it was just too slow (slow to open and slow in responding to my live changes in the VCS - especially with the motor mix).

***

What is very interesting to observe over the last year or so - is that Kyma and it's users seem to be reaching a level which is on par with leading mainstream audio applications - in that users are expecting certain GUI features which are common place in mainstream apps. As a look and feel - the way in which a programme funtions (IMO) is almost as important as to what the software can actually achieve.

Currently, the VCS is a major hindrance for me. Setting up a VCS can be very time consuming, and quite often the arrangment of widgets gets totally messed up, even after saving. Adding another sound, into the structure also often messes up the widget arrangement - instead of perhaps just adding the new widgets (from the new sound) onto one side of the VCS for example.

Also, I value and appreciate the coolness of an interface - in that 'form follows function' - the sophisticated function of kyma therefore demands a sophisticated interface.

Andrew

posted 30 March 2003 10:56            

Basically I'd like to have a second preset list next to the original preset list, and have it contain a copy of whatever's in the original preset list. Why would I want this? Because between the two pulldown lists, I'd like a slider that would allow me to crossfade between the presets, smoothly interpolating the between the stored values of two presets.

Now I can currently set up all my hot parameters with smoothing values that are hot, and conceivably could save different presets of a complex patch with different smoothing levels so I'd get various selectable "slews" from preset to preset, but this isn't the same as being able fade back and forth between values.

So when I want to "jump" from one patch to another, I'd just change the pulldown list that was active (i.e. the slider was positioned 100% to it's side), when I want to "morph", I'd change the inactive list and then use the slider.

Looking forward to X!

Best-

posted 30 March 2003 11:07            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark:
I had a thought about one small addition to the VCS, and I'm curious if anyone else would enjoy this-

Mark

---

I really like this idea!!

Just need then to automate the morph with an Analog Sequencer

Andrew

posted 30 March 2003 13:56            

versus in Kyma
1. drag and drop module

Just because "other programs do it that way" does not make it the right way or the most efficient way. Sometimes we have to lead the way and have others learn from us (and other times, we can learn from them).

Having said that, let me reiterate that we *are* cognizant of some of the GUI mode-switching that slows down the work flow and we are trying to streamline some of these in the upcoming version.

In other words, we all share the common goal of making the interface more efficient and ergonomic!

posted 30 March 2003 15:15            

i do have one, very minor and shallow request, however.. and it comes from the graphic designer in me... how about losing the "comic book" font for the VCS labels and replacing it with a much cleaner and more timeless sans serif like Geneva and Arial.. which look fantastic on computer screens at 9 point...

ok. minor point. maybe not shared by others.. and maybe i'll catch sh*t for voicing such a cosmetic opinion!

anyway, glad to see that this topic is getting a lot of activity.. it's been an interesting read.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SSC:
There will be some changes to the graphics in the upcoming version, and they are in keeping with what has always been Kyma's philosophy: the function of the graphic interface is to represent the underlying structure and the modes in which you can modify or control that structure in the clearest way. (If you're interested in such things, I can email you a pdf of the article I wrote for Computer Music Journal which gives a history of how some of the graphic interfaces evolved in pursuit of this ideal).

The goal for the new graphic interface is to present *more* information (and to do so in a way that is elegant, consistent, and not too unpleasant to look at ) The goal is *not* to imitate physical wires, knobs, faders. Why is that? Because making an abstract data structure look too much like a familiar physical object is actually misleading and limiting. It causes you to think of the data structure as a physical object with the same physical limitations. In Kyma, the goal is to provide you with abstract, recursive representations that invite you to do structure-building and data-organizing. The hope is that Kyma invites you to construct new structures and control interactions--that it invites you into the symbolic realm of the computer and frees you from the limitations of the physical realm.
Too idealistic? Maybe, but it *is* a worthy goal. And even if you don't care about the philosophy behind the language, I hope that this short description of the ideas behind it makes it more clear why we have made some of the choices we have in the graphic interface.

---

posted 31 March 2003 23:40            

I don't really care about what is "actually" going on in my computer/synthesizer/DSP program - I only care about what I have to do to use them.

As for the VCS, I sometimes spend as much time working on it as I do putting together the Sound. It can be rather frustrating because it *does* change everytime I add or replace a prototype, and god-forbid I should add something new to the *end* of the string of prototypes. (VCS info is apparently stored in the last Sound.)

posted 01 April 2003 05:23            

for that reason i *always* put in an "annotation" sound as the last sound from the beginning on.
but i also would be happy if i wouldnīt need to do that.