As I mentioned in my previous experiment, it has been a busy and difficult semester for me for family reasons. Accordingly, I am two and a half months behind schedule delivering my 12th and final experiment for this grant cycle. Additionally, I feel like my work for the past few months on this process has been a bit underwhelming, but unfortunately this work what my current bandwidth allows for. I hope to make up for it in the next year or so.
Anyway, the experiment for this month is similar to the one done for experiment 11. However, in this experiment I am generate vector images that reference maps of Boston’s subway system (the MBTA). Due to the complexity of the MBTA system I’ve created four different algorithms, reducing the visual data at any time to one quadrant of the map, thus, the individual programs are called: MBTA NW, MBTA NE, MBTA SE, & MBTA SW.
Since all four algorithms are basically the same, I’ll use MBTA – NE as an example. For each example Knob 5 was used for the background color. There were far more attributes I wanted to control than knobs I had at my disposal, so I decided to link them together. Thus, for MBTA – NE knob 1 controls red line attributes, knob 2 controls the blue and orange line attributes, knob 3 controls the green line attributes, and knob 4 controls the silver line attributes. Each of the four programs assigns the knobs to different combinations of colored lines based upon the complexity of the MBTA map in that quadrant.
The attributes that knobs 1-4 control include: line width, scale (amount of wiggle), color, and number of superimposed lines. The line width ranges from one to ten pixels, and is inversely proportional to the number of superimposed lines which ranges from on to eight. Thus, the more lines there are, the thinner they are. The scale, or amount of wiggle is proportional to the line width, that is the thicker the lines, the more they can wiggle. Finally, color is defined using RGB numbers. In each case, only one value (the red, the green, or the blue) changes with the knob values. The amount of change is a twenty point range centered around the optimal value. We can see this implemented below in the initialization portion of the program.
RElinewidth = int (1+(etc.knob1)*10)
BOlinewidth = int (1+(etc.knob2)*10)
GRlinewidth = int (1+(etc.knob3)*10)
SIlinewidth = int (1+(etc.knob4)*10)
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
REscale=(55-(50*(etc.knob1)))
BOscale=(55-(50*(etc.knob2)))
GRscale=(55-(50*(etc.knob3)))
SIscale=(55-(50*(etc.knob4)))
thered=int (89+(10*(etc.knob1)))
redcolor=pygame.Color(thered,0,0)
theorange=int (40+(20*(etc.knob2)))
orangecolor=pygame.Color(99,theorange,0)
theblue=int (80+(20*(etc.knob2)))
bluecolor=pygame.Color(0,0,theblue)
thegreen=int (79+(20*(etc.knob3)))
greencolor=pygame.Color(0,thegreen,0)
thesilver=int (46+(20*(etc.knob4)))
silvercolor=pygame.Color(50,53,thesilver)
j=int (9-(1+(7*etc.knob1)))
The value j stands for the number of superimposed lines. This then transitions into the first of four loops, one for each of the groups of lines. Below we see the code for red line portion of program. The other three loops are fairly much the same, but are much longer due to the complexity of the MBTA map. An X and a Y coordinate are set inside this loop for every point that will be used. REscale is multiplied by a value from etc.audio_inwhich is divided by 33000 in order to change that audio level into a decimal ranging from 0 to 1 (more or less). This scales the value of REscale down to a smaller value, which is added to the numeric value. It is worth noting that because audio values can be negative, the numeric value is at the center of potential outcomes. Scaling the index number of etc.audio_in by (i*11), (i*11)+1, (i*11)+2, & (i*11)+3 lends a suitable variety of wiggles for each instance of a line.
j=int (9-(1+(7*etc.knob1)))
for i in range(j):
AX=int (320+(REscale*(etc.audio_in[(i*11)]/33000)))
AY=int (160+(REscale*(etc.audio_in[(i*11)+1]/33000)))
BX=int (860+(REscale*(etc.audio_in[(i*11)+2]/33000)))
BY=int (720+(REscale*(etc.audio_in[(i*11)+3]/33000)))
pygame.draw.line(screen, redcolor, (AX,AY), (BX, BY), RElinewidth)
I arbitrarily limited each program to 26 points (one for each letter of the alphabet). This really causes the vector graphic to be an abstraction of the MBTA map. The silver line in particular gets quite complicated, so I’m never really able to fully represent it. That being said, I think that anyone familiar with Boston’s subway system would recognize it if the similarity was pointed out to them. I also imagine any daily commuter on the MBTA would probably recognize the patterns in fairly short order. However, in watching my own video, which uses music generated by a PureData algorithm that will be used to write a track for my next album, I noticed that the green line in the MBTA – NE and MBTA – SW needs some correction.
The EYESY has been fully incorporated into my live performance routine as Darth Presley. You can see below a performance at the FriYay series at the New Bedford Art Museum. You’ll note that the projection is the Random Lines algorithm that I wrote. Likewise graduating senior Edison Roberts used the EYESY for his capstone performance as the band Geepers! You’ll see a photo of him below with a projection using the Random Concentric Circles algorithm that I wrote. I definitely have more ideas of how to use the EYESY in live performance. In fact, others have started to use ChatGPT to create EYESY algorithms.
Ultimately my work on this grant project has been fruitful. To date the algorithms I’ve written for the Organelle and EYESY have been circulated pretty well on Patchstorage.com (clearly the Organelle is the more popular format of the two) . . .
February was a very busy month for me for family reasons, and it’ll likely be that way for a few months. Accordingly, I’m a bit late on my February experiment, and will likely be equally late with my final experiment as well. I have also stuck with programming for the EYESY, as I have kind of been on a roll in terms of coming up with ideas for it.
This month I created twelve programs for the EYESY, each of which displays a different constellation from the zodiac. I’ve named the series Constellations and have uploaded them to patchstorage. Each one works in exactly the same manner, so we’ll only look at the simplest one, Aries. The more complicated programs simply have more points and lines in them with different coordinates and configurations, but are otherwise are identical.
Honestly, one of the most surprising challenges of this experiment way trying to figure out if there’s any consensus for a given constellation. Many of the constellations are fairly standardized, however others are fairly contested in terms of which stars are a part of the constellation. When there were variants to choose from I looked for consensus, but at times also took aesthetics into account. In particular I valued a balance between something that would look enticing and a reasonable number of points.
I printed images of each of the constellations, and traced them onto graph paper using a light box. I then wrote out the coordinates for each point, and then scaled them to fit in a 1280×720 resolution screen, offsetting the coordinates such that the image would be centered. These coordinates then formed the basis of the program.
import os
import pygame
import time
import random
import math
def setup(screen, etc):
pass
def draw(screen, etc):
linewidth = int (1+(etc.knob4)*10)
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
offset=(280*etc.knob1)-140
scale=5+(140*(etc.knob3))
r = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[0]/33000)))
g = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[1]/33000)))
b = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[2]/33000)))
if r>50:
rscale=-5
else:
rscale=5
if g>50:
gscale=-5
else:
gscale=5
if b>50:
bscale=-5
else:
bscale=5
j=int (1+(8*etc.knob2))
for i in range(j):
AX=int (offset+45+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)]/33000)))
AY=int (offset+45+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)+1]/33000)))
BX=int (offset+885+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)+2]/33000)))
BY=int (offset+325+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)+3]/33000)))
CX=int (offset+1165+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)+4]/33000)))
CY=int (offset+535+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)+5]/33000)))
DX=int (offset+1235+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)+6]/33000)))
DY=int (offset+675+(scale*(etc.audio_in[(i*8)+7]/33000)))
r = r+rscale
g = g+gscale
b = b+bscale
thecolor=pygame.Color(r,g,b)
pygame.draw.line(screen, thecolor, (AX,AY), (BX, BY), linewidth)
pygame.draw.line(screen, thecolor, (BX,BY), (CX, CY), linewidth)
pygame.draw.line(screen, thecolor, (CX,CY), (DX, DY), linewidth)
In these programs knob 1 is used to offset the image. Since only one offset is used, rotating the knob moves the image on a diagonal moving from upper left to lower right. The second knob is used to control the number of superimposed versions of the given constellation. The scale of how much the image can vary is controlled by knob 3. Knob 4 controls the line width, and the final knob controls the background color.
The new element in terms of programing is a for statement. Namely, I use for i in range (j) to create several superimposed versions of the same constellation. As previously stated, the amount of these is controlled by knob 2, using the code j=int (1+(8*etc.knob2)). This allows for anywhere from 1 to 8 superimposed images.
Inside this loop, each point is offset and scaled in relationship to audio data. We can see for any given point the value is added to the offset. Then the scale value is multiplied by data from etc.audio_in. Using different values within this array allows for each point in the constellation to react differently. Using the variable i within the array also allows for differences between the points in each of the superimposed versions. The variable scale is always set to be at least 5, allowing for some amount of wiggle given all circumstances.
Originally I had used data from etc.audio_in inside the loop to set the color of the lines. This resulted in drastically different colors for each of the superimposed constellations in a given frame. I decided to tone this down a bit, by using etc.audio_in data before the loop started allowing each version of the constellation within a given frame to be largely the same color. That being said, to create some visual interest, I use rscale, gscale, and bscale to move the color in a direction for each superimposed version. Since the maximum amount of superimposed images is 8, I used the value 5 to increment the red, green, and blue values of the color. When the original red, green, or blue value was less than 50 I used 5, which moves the value up in value. When the original red, green, or blue value was more than 50 I used -5, which moves the value down in value. The program chooses between 5 and -5 using if :else statements.
The music used in the example videos are algorithms that will be used to generate accompaniment for a third of my next major studio album. These algorithms grew directly out of my work on these experiments. I did add one little bit of code the these puredata algorithms however. Since I have 6 musical examples, but 12 EYESY patches, I added a bit of code that randomly chooses between 1 of 2 EYESY patches and sends out a program (patch) change to the EYESY on MIDI channel 16 at the beginning of each phrase.
While I may not use these algorithms for the videos for the next studio album, I will likely use them in live performances. I plan on doing a related set of EYESY programs for my final experiment next month.
I kind of hit a wall of the Organelle. I feel like in order to advance my skills I have a bit of a hurdle between where my programming skills are at, and where they would need to be to do something more advanced that the recent experiments I have completed. Accordingly for this month I decided to shift my focus to the EYESY. Last month I made significant progress in understanding Python programming for the EYESY, and that allowed me to come up with five ideas for algorithms in short order. The music for all five mini-experiments comes from PureData algorithms I will be using for my next major album. All five of these algorithms are somewhat derived from my work on my last album.
The two realizations that allowed me to make significant progress on EYESY programming is that Python is super picky about spaces, tabs, and indentations, and that while the EYESY usually gives little to no feedback when a program has an error in it, you can use an online Python compiler to help figure out where your error is (I had mentioned the latter in last month’s experiment). Individuals who have a decent amount of programming experience may scoff at the simplicity of the programs that follow, but for me it is a decent starting place, and it is also satisfying to me to see how such simple algorithms can generate such gratifying results.
Random Lines is a patch I wrote that draws 96 lines. In order to do this in an automated fashion, I have to use a loop, in this case I use for i in range(96):. The five lines that follow are all executed in this loop. Before the loop commences, we choose the color using knob 4 and the background color using knob 5. I use knob 3 to set the line width, but I scale it by multiplying the knob’s value, which will be between 0 and 1, by 10, and adding 1, as line widths cannot have a value of 0. I also have to cast the value as an integer. I set an x offset value using knob 1. Multiplying by 640 and then subtracting 320 will yield a result between -320 and 320. Likewise, a y offset value is set using knob 2, and the scaling results in a value between -180 and 180.
import os
import pygame
import time
import random
import math
def setup(screen, etc):
pass
def draw(screen, etc):
color = etc.color_picker(etc.knob4)
linewidth = int (1+ (etc.knob3)*10)
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
xoffset=(640*etc.knob1)-320
yoffset=(360*etc.knob2)-180
for i in range(96):
x1 = int (640 + (xoffset+(etc.audio_in[i])/50))
y1 = int (360 + (yoffset+(etc.audio_in[(i+1)])/90))
x2 = int (640 + (xoffset+(etc.audio_in[(i+2)])/50))
y2 = int (360 + (yoffset+(etc.audio_in[(i+3)])/90))
pygame.draw.line(screen, color, (x1,y1), (x2, y2), linewidth)
Within the loop, I set two coordinates. The EYESY keeps track of the last hundred samples using etc.audio_in[]. Since these values use sixteen bit sound, and sound has peaks (represented by positive numbers) and valleys (represented by negative numbers), these values range between -32,768 and 32,787. I scale these values by dividing by 50 for x coordinates. This will scale the values to somewhere between -655 and 655. For y coordinates I divide by 90, which yields values between -364 and 364.
In both cases, I add these values to the corresponding offset value, and add the value that would normally, without the offsets, place the point in the middle of the screen, namely 640 (X) and 360 (Y). A negative value for the xoffset or the scaled etc.audio_in value would move that point to the left, while a positive value would move it to the right. Likewise, a negative value for the yoffset or the scale etc.audio_in value would move the point up, while a positive value would move it down.
Since subsequent index numbers are used for each coordinate (that is i, i+1, i+2, and i+3), this results in a bunch of interconnected lines. For instance when i=0, the end point of the drawn line (X2, Y2) would become the starting point when i=2. Thus, the lines are not fully random, as they are all interconnected, yielding a tangled mass of lines.
Random Concentric Circles uses a similar methodology. Again, knob five is use to control the background color, while knobs 1 and 2 are again scaled to provide an X and Y offset. The line width is shifted to knob 4. For this algorithm the loop happens 94 times. The X and Y value for the center of the circles is determined the same way as was done in Random Lines. However, we now need a radius and we need a color for each circle.
import os
import pygame
import time
import random
import math
def setup(screen, etc):
pass
def draw(screen, etc):
linewidth = int (1+(etc.knob4)*9)
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
xoffset=(640*etc.knob1)-320
yoffset=(360*etc.knob2)-180
for i in range(94):
x = int (640 + xoffset+(etc.audio_in[i])/50)
y = int (360 + yoffset+(etc.audio_in[(i+1)])/90)
radius = int (11+(abs (etc.knob3 * (etc.audio_in[(i+2)])/90)))
r = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+3)]/33000)))
g = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+4)]/33000)))
b = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+5)]/33000)))
thecolor=pygame.Color(r,g,b)
pygame.draw.circle(screen, thecolor, (x,y), radius, linewidth)
We have knob 3 available to help control the radius of the circle. Here I multiply knob 3 by a scaled version of etc.audio_in[(i+2)]. I scale it by dividing by 90 so that the largest possible circle will mostly fit on the screen if it is centered in the screen. Notice that when we multiply knob 3 by etc.audio_in, there’s a 50% chance that the result will be a negative number. Negative values for radii don’t make any sense, so I take the absolute value of this outcome using abs. I also add this value to 11, as a radius of 0 makes no sense, and a radius of less than 10, as having a line width that is larger than the radius will cause an error.
For this algorithm I take a set forward by giving each circle its own color. In order to do this I have to set the value for red, green, and blue separately, and then combine them together using pygame.Color(). For each of the three values (red, green, and blue) I divide a value of etc. audio_in by 33000, which will yield a value between 0 and 1 (more or less), and then multiply this by 100. I could have done the same thing by simply dividing etc.audio_in by 330, however, at the time this process made the most sense to me. Again, this process could result in a negative number and / or a fractional value, so I cast the result as an integer after getting its absolute value.
Colored Rectangles has a different structure than the previous two examples. Rather than have all the objects cluster around a center point I wanted to create an algorithm that spaces all of the objects out evenly throughout the screen in a grid like pattern. I do this using an eight by eight grid of 64 rectangles. I accomplish the spacing using modulus mathematics as well as integer division. The X value is obtained by multiplying 160 times i%8. In a similar vein, the Y values is set to 90 times i//8. Integer division in Python is accomplished through the use of two slashes. Using this operator will return the integer value of a division problem, omitting the fractional portion. Both the X and the Y values have an additional offset value. The X is offset by (i//8)*(80*etc.knob1), so this offset increases as knob 1 is turned up, with a maximum offset of 80 pixels per row. The value i//8 essentially multiplies that offset by the row number. That is the rows shift further towards the right.
import os
import pygame
import time
import random
import math
def setup(screen, etc):
pass
def draw(screen, etc):
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
for i in range(64):
x=(i%8)*160+(i//8)*(80*etc.knob1)
y=(i//8)*90+(i%8)*(45*etc.knob2)
thewidth=int (abs (160 * (etc.knob3) * (etc.audio_in[(i)]/33000)))
theheight=int (abs (90 * (etc.knob4) * (etc.audio_in[(i+1)]/33000)))
therectangle=pygame.Rect(x,y,thewidth,theheight)
r = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+2)]/33000)))
g = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+3)]/33000)))
b = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+4)]/33000)))
thecolor=pygame.Color(r,g,b)
pygame.draw.rect(screen, thecolor, therectangle, 0)
Likewise, the Y offset is determined by (i%8)*(45*etc.knob2). As the value of knob 2 increases, the offset moves towards a maximum value of 45. However, as the columns shift to the right, those offsets compound due to the fact that they are multiplied by (i%8).
A rectangle can be defined in pygame by passing an X value, a Y value, width, and height to pygame.Rect. Thus, the next step is to set the width and height of the rectangle. In both cases, I set the maximum value to 160 (for width) and 90 (for height). However, I scaled them both by multiplying by a knob value (knob 3 for width and knob 4 for height). These values are also scaled by an audio value divided by 33,000. Since negative values are possible from audio values, and negative widths and heights don’t make much sense, I took the absolute value of each. If I were to rewrite this algorithm (perhaps I will), I would set a minimum value for width and height such that widths and heights of 0 were not possible.
I set the color of each rectangle using the same method as I did in Random Concentric Circles. In order to draw the rectangle you pass the screen, the color, the rectangle (as defined by pygame.Rect), as well as the line width to pygame.draw.rect. Using a line width of 0 means that the rectangle will be filled in with color.
Random Rectangles is a combination of Colored Rectangles and Random Lines. Rather than use pygame’s Rect object to draw rectangles on the screen, I use individual lines to draw the rectangles (technically speaking they are quadrilaterals). Knob 4 is used here to set the foreground color, knob 5 is used here to set the background color, knob 3 is used to set the linewidth.
import os
import pygame
import time
import random
import math
def setup(screen, etc):
pass
def draw(screen, etc):
color = etc.color_picker(etc.knob4)
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
linewidth = int (1+ (etc.knob3)*10)
for i in range(64):
x=(i%8)*160+(i//8)*(80*etc.knob1)+(40*(etc.audio_in[(i)]/33000))
y=(i//8)*90+(i%8)*(45*etc.knob2)+(20*(etc.audio_in[(i+1)]/33000))
x1=x+160+(40*(etc.audio_in[(i+2)]/33000))
y1=y+(20*(etc.audio_in[(i+3)]/33000))
x2=x1+(40*(etc.audio_in[(i+4)]/33000))
y2=y1+90+(20*(etc.audio_in[(i+5)]/33000))
x3=x+(40*(etc.audio_in[(i+6)]/33000))
y3=y+90+(20*(etc.audio_in[(i+7)]/33000))
pygame.draw.line(screen, color, (x,y), (x1, y1), linewidth)
pygame.draw.line(screen, color, (x1,y1), (x2, y2), linewidth)
pygame.draw.line(screen, color, (x2,y2), (x3, y3), linewidth)
pygame.draw.line(screen, color, (x3,y3), (x, y), linewidth)
Within the loop, I use a similar method of setting the initial X and Y coordinates. That being said, I separate out the use of knobs and the use of audio input. In the case of the X coordinated, I use (i//8)*(80*etc.knob1) to control the amount of x offset for each row, with a maximum offset of 80. The audio input then offsets this value further using (40*etc.audio_in[(i+2)]/33000). This moves the x value by a value of plus or minus 40 (remember that audio values can be negative. Likewise, knob 2 offsets the Y value for every row by a maximum of 45, and the audio input further offsets this value by plus or minus 20.
Since it takes four points to define a quadrilateral, we need three more points, which we will call (x1, y1), (x2, y2), and (x3, y3). These are all interrelated. The value of X is used to define X1 and X3, while X2 is based off of X1. Likewise, the value of Y helps define Y1 and Y3, with Y2 being based off of Y1. In the case X1 and X2 (which is based on X1) we add 160 to X, giving a default width, but these values are again scaled by etc.audio_in. Similarly, we add 90 to Y1 and Y3 to determine a default height of the quadrilaterals, but again, all points are further offset by etc.audio_in, resulting in quadrilaterals, rather than rectangles with parallel sides. If I were to revise this algorithm I would likely make each quadrilateral a different color.
Frankly, I was not as pleased with the results of Colored Rectangles and Random Rectangles, so I decided to go back create an algorithm that was an amalgam of Random Lines and Random Concentric Circles, namely Random Radii. This program creates 95 lines, all of which have the same starting point, but different end points. Knob 5 sets the background color, while knob 4 sets the line width.
import os
import pygame
import time
import random
import math
def setup(screen, etc):
pass
def draw(screen, etc):
linewidth = int (1+ (etc.knob4)*10)
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
xoffset=(640*etc.knob1)-320
yoffset=(360*etc.knob2)-180
X=int (640+xoffset)
Y=int (360+yoffset)
for i in range(95):
r = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+2)]/33000)))
g = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+3)]/33000)))
b = int (abs (100 * (etc.audio_in[(i+4)]/33000)))
thecolor=pygame.Color(r,g,b)
x2 = int (640 + (xoffset+etc.knob3*(etc.audio_in[(i)])/50))
y2 = int (360 + (yoffset+etc.knob3*(etc.audio_in[(i+1)])/90))
pygame.draw.line(screen, thecolor, (X,Y), (x2, y2), linewidth)
Knob 1 & 2 are used for X and Y offsets (respectively) of the center point. Using (640*etc.knob1)-320 means that the X value will move plus or minus 320. Similarly, (360*etc.knob2)-180 permits the Y value to move up or down by 180. As is the case with Random Concentric Circles, the color of each line is defined by etc.audio_in. Knob 3 is used to scale the end point of each line. In the case of both the X and Y values, we start from the center of the screen (640, 360) add the offset defined by knobs 1 or 2, and then use knob 3 to scale a value derived from etc.audio_in. Since audio values can be positive or negative, these radii shoot outward from the offset center point in all directions.
As suggested earlier, I am very gratified with these results. Despite the simplicity of the Python code, the results are mostly dynamic and compelling (although I am somewhat less than thrilled with Colored Rectangles and Random Rectangles). The user community for the EYESY is much smaller than that of the Organelle. The EYESY user’s forum has only 13% the activity of that of the Organelle. I seem to have inherited being the administrator of the ETC / EYESY Video Synthesizer from Critter&Guitari group on Facebook. Likewise, I am the author of the seven most recent patches for the EYESY on patchstorage. Thus, this month’s experiment sees me shooting to the top to become the EYESY’s most active developer. The start of the semester has been very busy for me. I am somewhat doubting that I will be coming up with an Organelle patch next month, but I equally suspect that I will continue to develop more algorithms of the EYESY.
This month’s experiment is a considerable step forward on three fronts: Organelle programming, EYESY programming, and computer assisted composition. In terms of Organelle programming, rather than taking a pre-existing algorithm and altering it (or hacking it) to do something different, I decided to create a patch from scratch. I first created it in PureData, and then reprogrammed it to work specifically with the Organelle. Creating it in PureData first meant that I used horizontal sliders to represent the knobs, and that I sent the output to the DAC (digital to analog converter). When coding for the Organelle, you use a throw~ object to output the audio.
The patch I wrote, Wavetable Sampler, reimagines a digital sampler, and in doing so, basically reinvents wavetable synthesis. The conventional approach to sampling is to travel through the sound in a linear fashion from beginning to end. The speed at which we travel through the sound determines both its length and its pitch, that is faster translates to shorter and higher pitched, while slower means longer and lower pitched.
I wanted to try using an LFO (low frequency oscillator) to control where we are in a given sample. Using this technique the sound would go back and forth between two points in the sample continuously. In my programming I quickly learned that two parameters are strongly linked, namely the frequency of this oscillator and the amplitude of the oscillator, which becomes the distance travelled in the sample. If you want the sample to be played at a normal speed, that is we recognize the original sample, those two values need to be proportional. To describe this simply, a low frequency would require the sample to travel farther while a higher frequency would need a small amount of space. Thus, we see the object expr (44100 / ($f1)), with the number 44,100 being the sample rate of the Organelle. Dividing the sample rate by the frequency of the oscillator yields the number of samples that make up a cycle of sound at that frequency.
Obviously, a user might want to specifically move at a different rate than what would be normal. However, making that a separate control prevents the user from having to mentally calculate what would be an appropriate sample increment to have the sample play back at normal speed. I also specified that a user will want to control where we are in a much longer sample. For instance, the sample I am using with this instrument is quite long. It is an electronic cello improvisation I did recently that lasts over four minutes.
The sound I got out of this instrument was largely what I expected. However, there was one aspect that stood out more than I thought it would. I am using a sine wave oscillator in the patch. This means that the sound travels quickly during the rise and fall portion of the waveform, but as it approaches the peak and trough of the waveform it slows down quite dramatically. At low frequencies this results in extreme pitch changes. I could easily have solved this issue by switching to a triangle waveform, as speed would be constant using such a waveform. However, I decided that the oddness of these pitch changes were the feature of the patch, and not the bug.
While I intended the instrument to be used at low frequencies, I found that it was actually far more practical and conventionally useful at audio frequencies. Human hearing starts around 20Hz, which means if you were able to clap your hands 20 times in a second you would begin to hear it as a very low pitch rather than a series of individual claps. One peculiarity of sound synthesis is that if you repeat a series of samples, no mater how random they may be, at a frequency that lies within human hearing, you will hear it as a pitch that has that frequency. The timbre between two different sets of samples at the same frequency may vary greatly, but we will hear them as being, more or less, the same pitch.
Thus, as we move the frequency of the oscillator up into the audio range, it turns into somewhat of a wavetable synthesizer. While wavetable synthesis was created in 1958, it didn’t really exist in its full form until 1979. At this point in the history of synthesis it was an alternative to FM synthesis, which could offer robust sound possibilities but was very difficult to program, and digital sampling, which could recreate any sound that could be recorded but was extremely expensive due to the cost of memory. In this sense wavetable synthesis is a data saving tool. If you imagine a ten second recording of a piano key being struck and held, the timbre of that sound changes dramatically over those ten seconds, but ten seconds of sampling time in 1980 was very expensive. Imagine if instead we can digitize individual waveforms at five different locations in the ten second sample, we can then gradually interpolate between those five waveforms to create a believable (in 1980) approximation of the original sample. That being said, wavetable synthesis also created a rich, interesting approach to synthesizing new sounds such that the technique is still somewhat commonly used today.
When we move the oscillator for Wavetable Sampler into the audio range, we are essentially creating a wavetable. The parameter that effects how far the oscillator travels through the sample creates a very interesting phenomenon at audio rates. When that value is very low, the sample values vary very little. This results in waveforms that approach a sine wave in their simplicity and spectrum. As this value increases more values are included, which may differ greatly from each other. This translates into adding harmonics into the spectrum. Which harmonics are added are dependent up the wavetable, or snippet of a sample, in question. However, as we turn up the value, it tends to add harmonics from lower ones to higher ones. At extreme values, in this case ten times a normal sample increment, the pitch of the fundamental frequency starts to be over taken by the predominant frequencies in that wavetable’s spectrum. One final element of interest with the construction of the instrument in relation to wavetable synthesis is related to the use of a sine wave for the oscillator. Since the rate of change speeds up during the rise and fall portion of the waveform and slows down near the peak and the valley of the wave, that means there are portions of the waveform that rich in change while other portions where the rate of change is slow.
Since the value that the oscillator travels seems to be analogous to increasing the harmonic spectrum, I decided to put that on knob four, as that is the knob I have been controlling via breath pressure with the WARBL. On the Organelle I set knob one to set the index of where we are in the four minute plus sample. The frequency of the oscillator is set by the key that is played, but I use the second knob as a multiplier of this value. This knob is scaled from .001, which will yield a true low frequency oscillator, to 1, which will be at the pitch played (.5 will be down an octave, .25 will be down two octaves, etc.). As stated earlier, the fourth knob is used to modify the amplitude of the oscillator, affecting the range of samples that will be cycled through. This left the third knob unused, so I decided to use that as a decay setting.
The PureData patch that was used to generate the accompaniment for this experiment was based upon the patch created for last month’s experiment. As a reminder, this algorithm randomly chooses between one of four musical meters, 4/4, 3/4, 7/8, and 5/8, at every new phrase. I altered this algorithm to fit a plan I have for six of the tracks on my next studio album, which will likely take three or four years to complete. Rather than randomly selecting them, I define an array of numbers that represent the meters that should be used in the order that they appear. At every phrase change I then move to the next value in the array, allowing the meters to change in a predetermined fashion.
I put the piece of magic that allows this to happen in pd phrasechange. The inlet to this subroutine goes to a sel statement that contains the numbers of new phrase numbers expressed in sixteenth notes. When those values are reached a counter is incremented, a value from the table meter is read, which is sent to the variable currentmeter and the phrase is reset. This subroutine has four outlets. The first starts a blinking light that indicates that the piece is 1/3 finished, the second outlet starts a blinking light that starts when the piece is 2/3 of the way finished. The third outlet starts a blinking light that indicates the piece is on its final phrase. The fourth outlet stops the algorithm, bringing a piece to a close. Those blinking lights are on the right hand side of the screen, located near the buttons that indicate the current meter and the current beat. A performer can then, with some practice watch the computer screen to see what the current meter is, what the current beat is, and to have an idea of where you are in form of the piece.
This month I created my first program for the EYESY, Basic Circles. The EYESY manual includes a very simple example of a program. However, it is too simple it just displays a circle. The circle doesn’t move, none of the knobs change anything, and the circle isn’t even centered. With very little work I was able to center the circle, and change it so that the size of the circle was controlled by the volume of the audio. Likewise, I was able to get knob four to control the color of the circle, and the fifth knob to control the background color.
However, I wanted to create a program that used all five knobs on the EYESY. I quickly came up with the idea of using knob two to control the horizontal positioning, and the third knob to control the vertical positioning. I still had one knob left, and only a simple circle in the middle of the screen to show for it. I decided to add a second circle, that was half the size of the first one. I used knob five to set the color for this second circle, although oddly it does not result in the same color as the background. Yet, this still was not quite visually satisfying, so I set knob one to set an offset from the larger circle. Accordingly, when knob one is in the center, the small circle is centered within the larger one. As you turn the knob to the left the small circle moves to the upper left quadrant of the screen. As you turn the knob to the right the smaller circle moves towards the lower right quadrant. This is simple, but offers just enough visual interest to be tolerable.
import os
import pygame
import time
import random
import math
def setup(screen, etc):
pass
def draw(screen, etc):
size = (int (abs (etc.audio_in[0])/100))
size2 = (int (size/2))
position = (640, 360)
color = etc.color_picker(etc.knob4)
color2 = etc.color_picker(etc.knob5)
X=(int (320+(640*etc.knob2)))
X2=(int (X+160-(310*etc.knob1)))
Y=(int (180+(360*etc.knob3)))
Y2=(int (Y+90-(180*etc.knob1)))
etc.color_picker_bg(etc.knob5)
pygame.draw.circle(screen, color, (X,Y), size, 0)
pygame.draw.circle(screen, color2, (X2,Y2), size2, 0)
While the program, listed above, is very simple, it was my first time programming in Python. Furthermore, targeting the EYESY is not the simplest thing to do. You have plug a wireless USB adapter into the EYESY, connect to the EYESY via a web browser, upload your program as a zip file, unzip the file, and then delete the zip file. You then have to restart the video on the EYESY to see if the patch works. If there is an error in your code, the program won’t load, which means you cannot trouble shoot it, you just have to look through your code line by line and figure it out. Although, I learned to use an online Python compiler to check for basic errors. If you have a minor error in your code the EYESY will sometimes load the program and display a simple error message onscreen, which will allow you to at least figure where the error is.
I’m very pleased with the backing track, and given that it is my first program for the EYESY, with the visuals. I’m not super pleased with the audio from the Organelle. Some of this is due to my playing. For this experiment I used a very limited set of pitches in my improvisation, which made the fingering easier than it has been in other experiments. Also, I printed out a fingering chart and kept it in view as I played. Part of it is due to my lack of rhythmic accuracy. I am still getting used to watching the screen in PureData to see what meter I am in and what the current beat is. I’m sure I’ll get the hang of it with some practice.
One fair question to ask is do I continue to use the WARBL to control the Organelle if I consistently find it so challenging? The simple answer is that consider a wind controller to be the true test of the expressiveness of a digital musical instrument. I should be able to make minute changes to the sound by slight changes in breath pressure. After working with the Organelle for nine months, I can say that it fails this test. The knobs on the Organelle seem to quantize at a low resolution. As you turn a knob you are changing the resistance in a circuit. The resulting current is then quantized, that is its absolute value is rounded to the nearest digital value. I have a feeling that the knobs on the Organelle quantize to seven bits in order to directly correspond to MIDI, which is largely a seven bit protocol. Seven bits of data only allow for 128 possible values. Thus, we hear discrete changes rather than continual ones as we rotate a knob. For some reason I find this short coming is amplified rather than softened when you control the Organelle with a wind controller. At some point I should do a comparison where I control a PureData patch on my laptop using the WARBL without using the Organelle.
I recorded this experiment using multichannel recording, and I discovered something else that is disappointing about the Organelle. I found that there was enough background noise coming from the Organelle that I had to use a noise gate to clean up the audio a bit. In fact, I had to set the threshold at around -35 dB to get rid of the noise. This is actually pretty loud. The Volca Keys also requires a noise gate, but a lower threshold of -50 or -45 dB usually does the trick with it.
Perhaps this noise is due to a slight ground loop, a small short in the cable, RF interference, or some other problem that does not originate in the Organelle, but it doesn’t bode well. Next month I may try another FM or additive instrument. I do certainly have a good head start on the EYESY patch for next month.
It’s finished. I completed the final mixes of 737, 727, and 747. I uploaded them to Bandcamp. Sales from that initial album release put me into a higher category of Bandcamp artists, where now I can include up to 300 MB of bonus material with every album. This will allow me to create nice pdf liner notes for the albums I have already created. I also submitted the album to DistroKid, which distributes the album to Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, as well as others. The album went live on Spotify and Apple Music within 24 hours while Amazon Music took an additional day.
The work for the album is not entirely finished, as I have some promotion to do. I also plan on making a nice set of pdf liner notes. Finally, I have to setup a couple of events for Spring 2024 to share my work during the sabbatical, and to promote the album. However, I have accomplished everything I set off to do in my sabbatical proposal. Accordingly, this will serve as the final entry in my sabbatical reports. For the sake of convenience, I will also be linking all of my sabbatical updates below so that they can all be accessed from a single page. Thank you for coming on this journey with me, and I hope you enjoy the album.
I got a respectable amount of work done this week. I completed the final mixes for five movements: A300, DC-8, 707, DC-10, and DC-9. I also revised the final mix I created for TriStar based upon feedback from Ben (Slash Gordon). While this may not numerically seem like much work in comparison to previous weeks, the mix process has been taking quite a while. Thirty-two tracks are a lot to balance! Ultimately I am well on schedule to complete the project by the end of week 16.
I haven’t given an update on my progress on my next album project since week 12. I have completed the first draft of the algorithms that will generate the accompaniment (synths and drum machine) for a third of the album. I am currently working on a prototype of the algorithm that will generate accompaniment for another third of the album. I am guessing I have about one more week of work on this algorithm.
Since I’ve shared the final mix of 707, I figured I’d re-share the string quartet arrangement for those who want to follow along. The B section uses notes from the D harmonic minor scale, while the final section uses only the dominant (A). I’m pleased with the unique rhythmic solution to the end. I wanted each instrument to slowly arpeggiate through every octave of the note A that they can reasonably play. Given where each instrument starts, you come up with a different number of notes. Rather than have every instrument move at the same time, I spread them out, moving most of them from note to note at staggered times. This spreads out the motion a bit.
It has been a notable week in the production project. I recorded 13 phrases for Taishogoto, and these recordings marked the end of the recording process for the album. I’m now moving into the final mixdown process. You may notice that I’ve only recorded 14 Taishogoto phrases as opposed to the normal 27 phrases (three phrases for each of the nine movements). I’ve really intended the Taishogoto phrases to balance out the movements. Not every movement includes piano, and not every movement features three xylophone or three timpani phrases. The Taishogoto phrases sort of balance things out a bit, and let a bit of variety in terms of instrumentation. I recorded two phrases each for 737 & DC-9, and three phrases each for DC-8, 707, and 747.
I feel like I should give a bit more of a note about playing the Taishogoto. In case it wasn’t clear from last week’s entry, the Taishogoto is a monophonic instrument (you can only play one note at a time. The typewriter style keys on the instrument press down the strings to produce a higher pitch. One outcome of this is that the lower notes of the instrument are physically spread out quite a bit, while the high pitches can be pretty close together. That means the large leaps in the low range are trickier, and sometimes impossible to perform smoothly. The other thing that is happens due to the way the instrument works is that if you press two keys at the same time, the higher note will override the lower note. Thus, as you practice the instrument you learn that if you want smooth motion between notes, it works well to preset your left hand pinky on the lowest note in a figure, to use the other fingers of the left hand to play the higher pitches in the figure.
I was able to get a head start on mixdown process, creating what I expect to be a final mixdown of TriStar. I had naively thought that I’d be able to do the mixdown in an hour or so. I’m guessing the my mixdown process was more like three or four hours. I’ve been doing rough mixes all along, so I guess it could have been a much longer processes. I find creating final mixdowns a somewhat frustrating experience. There’s a lot of comparisons with very subtle differences. It’s kind of like when you go to the optometrist, and there’s a lot of “which is better, A or B? B or C? B or D?”
For each of the three sections (beginning, middle, and end), I first made sure that the panning was what I wanted it to be. Then I’d listen to that section over and over, and made notes about what I thought was too loud, and what was too quiet. I’d then bring down the volume on the material that was too loud, and kept repeating that process until I didn’t feel there was anything that was too loud. This often left me with quite a bit more headroom than I had before. I then went through each phrase, and turned up material that I felt was still too quiet, and made sure that the most important material was really out in front and prominent. Then I’d listen to the whole section again. Once I did this with all three sections, then I’d listen to the movement as a whole. I imagine the final mixdown process may take a couple of weeks.
Since I shared the audio for DC-9, I figured I’d share the score for the string quartet part for the movement. This movement features some exotic scales. While movement is nominally in G, the B section uses the scale G, Ab (G#), Bb (A#), B, D, and F#. This scale has few possibilities in terms of traditional major and minor triads, including only G minor, G major, and B minor. The scale for the A section is even more limiting, featuring G, G#, A, B, and F#. In all honesty, using this scale feels more like it is in B, (B, F#, G, G#, and A), as you get a fifth between B and F#. From this scale you get no triads at all, but you do get a G major seventh chord missing the fifth, and a B minor seventh chord that misses the third. I feel that this yields some really cool harmonies when you start to use four notes at a time.
I am pretty much where I hoped I’d be at this point for the past couple of weeks. I recorded seven phrases this week. While this may not sound like much, it is pretty good given that it has been a three day work week due to Thanksgiving. These six of the phrases were on the electric cello for middle sections of TriStar, 737, A300, 727, DC-10, and DC-9. This allowed me to complete my electric cello recordings. The one additional phrase was a middle section phrase for DC-10 on an alto Taishogoto.
The Taishogoto, also called the Nagoya Harp, was invented by musician Goro Morita in 1912. The instrument uses a typewriter like mechanism to change the pitch of a series of identically tuned strings, which are typically strummed with a plectrum. Some instruments also feature one or more drone strings, often tuned an octave lower. The instrument I have, manufactured by Suzuki, is an Alto Taishogoto with no drone. This instrument does have four strings, one of which is pitched an octave lower than the rest. Modern Taishogotos, such as the one I have, are usually setup as an electric instrument, featuring a volume and tone knob, as well as a standard 1/4″ audio out. Having the instrument electrified makes it an excellent option for pairing with guitar effects pedals. I however, recorded the instrument dry so I may choose my pick of effects in LogicPro during the mix process.
I do not plan on recording Taishogoto on every movement. After recording some phrases for a variety of movements next week, I plan on moving over to putting together the final mixes starting during the end of next week. Since I shared the new mix of A300, I will reshare the score for the string quartet for those who want to follow along. This movement is in B minor / dorian, with the notes B, C#, D, F# and G# used during the middle section and B, C#, F#, and A# used in the beginning and end sections. I particularly like the end of this excerpt, with the first violin moving down to the dominant (F#), while the second violin settles on the tonic (B), ending on an open fifth.
For this month’s experiment I created a sample player that triggers bass harmonica samples. I based the patch off of Lo-Fi Sitar by a user called woiperdinger. This patch was, in turn, based off of Lo-Fi Piano by Henr!k. According to this user, this was based upon a patch called Piano48 by Critter and Guitari.
The number 48 in the title refers to the number of keys / samples in the patch. Accordingly, my patch has the potential for 48 different notes, although only 24 notes are actually implemented. This is due to the fact that the bass harmonica I used to create the sample set only features 24 pitches. I recorded the samples using a pencil condenser microphone. I pitch corrected each note (my bass harmonica is fairly out of tune at this point), and I EQed each note to balance the volumes a bit. Initially I had problems as I had recorded the samples at a higher sample rate (48kHz) than the Organelle operates at (44.1kHz). This resulted in the pitch being higher than planned, but it was easily fixed by adjusting the sample rate on each sample. I had planned on recording the remaining notes using my Hohner Chromonica 64, but I ran out of steam. Perhaps I will expand the sample set in a future release.
The way this patch works is that every single note has its own sample. Furthermore, each note is treated as its own voice, such that my 24 note bass harmonica patch allows all 24 notes to be played simultaneously. The advantage of having each note have its own sample is that each note will sound different, allowing the instrument to sound more naturalistic. For instance the low D# in my sample set is really buzzy sounding, because that note buzzes on my instrument. Occasionally hitting a note with a different tone color makes it sound more realistic. Furthermore, none of the samples have to be rescaled to create other pitches. Rescaling a sample either stretches the time out (for a lower pitch) or squashes the time (for a higher pitch), again creating a lack of realism.
The image above looks like 48 individual subroutines, but it is actually 48 instantiations of a single abstraction. The abstraction is called sampler-voice, and each instance of this abstraction is passed the file name of the sample along with the key number that triggers the sample. The key numbers are MIDI key numbers, where 60 is middle C, and each number up or down is one chromatic note away (so 61 would be C#).
Inside sampler-voice we see basically two algorithms, one that executes when the abstraction loads (using loadbang), and one that runs while the algorithm is operating. If we look at the loadbang portion of the abstraction, we see that it uses the object soundfiler to load the given sample into an array. This sample is then displayed in the canvas to the left. Soundfiler sends the number of samples to its left outlet. This number is then divided by 44.1 to yield the time in milliseconds.
As previously stated, the balance of the algorithm operates while the program is running. The top part of the algorithm, r notes, r notes_seq, r zero_notes, listens for notes. The object stripnoteis being used to isolated the MIDI note number of the given event. This is then passed through a mod (%) 48 object as the instrument itself only has 48 notes. I could have changed this value to 24 if I wanted every sample to recur once every two octaves. The object sel $2 is then use to filter out all notes except the one that should trigger the given sample ($2 means the second value passed to the abstraction). The portion of the algorithm that reads the sample from the array is tabread4~ $1-array.
Knob 1 of the Organelle is used to control the pitch of the instrument (in case you want to transpose the sample). The second knob is used to control both the output level of the reverb as well as the mix between the dry (unprocessed) sound and the wet (reverberated) sound. In Lo-Fi Sitar, these two parameters each had their own knob. I combined them to allow for one additional control. Knob 3 is a decay control that can be used if you don’t want the whole sample to play. The final knob is used to control volume, which is useful when using a wind controller, such as the Warbl, as that can be used to allow the breath control to control the volume of the sample.
The PureData patch that controls the accompaniment is basically the finished version of the patch I’ve been expanding through this grant project. In addition to the previously used meters 4/4, 3/4, and 7/8, I’ve added 5/8. I’d share information about the algorithm itself, but it is just more of the same. Likewise, I haven’t done anything new with the EYESY. I’m hoping next month I’ll have the time to tweak an existing program for EYESY, but I just didn’t have the time to do that this month.
I should have probably kept the algorithm at a slower tempo, as I think the music works better at a slower tempo. The bass harmonica samples sound fairly natural, except for when the Organelle seems to accidentally trigger multiple samples at once. I have a theory that the Warbl uses a MIDI On message with a velocity of 0 to stop notes, which is an acceptable use of a MIDI On message, but that PureData uses it to trigger a note. If this is the case, I should be able to fix it in the next release of the patch.
It certainly sounds like I need to practice my EVI fingering more, but I found the limited pitch range (two octaves) of the sample player made the fingering easier to keep track of. Since you cannot use your embouchure with an EVI, you use range fingerings in order to change range. With the Warbl, your right hand (lower hand) is doing traditional valve fingerings, while your left hand (upper hand) is doing fingerings based upon traditional valve fingerings to control what range you are playing on. Keeping track of how the left hand affects the notes being triggered by the right hand has been my stumbling block in terms of learning EVI fingering. However, a two octave range means you really only need to keep track of four ranges. I found the breath control of the bass harmonica samples to be adequate. I think I’d really have to spend some time calibrating the Warbl and the Organelle to come up with settings that will optimize the use of breath control. Next month I hope to create a more fanciful sample based instrument, and maybe move forward on programming for the EYESY.
It has been a productive week, with 13 phrases recorded on electric cello. I recorded phrases for the beginning and end sections for TriStar, A300, 727, DC-10, and DC-9. I also recorded phrases for the center sections of DC-8, 707, and 747. This leaves only six electric cello phrases to record next week, although it is a short work week due to Thanksgiving. Last week I mentioned that I was thinning out the orchestra samples in some of the movements. This week I continued that process, thinning out A300, DC-8, 727, 707, and DC-10. In fact, I only have two more movements to thin out.
On the next album front, I now have three working algorithms from the first batch of six movements from the album. Between ME7ROPOL17AN 7RANSPOR7A71ON AU74OR17Y and Rotate, I’ve been having a lot of fun creating and releasing albums. Given that the next major album will not be ready for three or four years, my plan is to sneak in some lower stakes albums in the meanwhile. One of them may be an album of live performances of Rotate. On Tuesday I will be performing with the New London Drone Orchestra. Since I’ve been playing electric cello for the last couple of weeks, I figure I’ll play that instrument while I’m good and warmed up. I’ll be running the instrument through a bunch of effects, and I hope to record the audio of my contribution to the performance. Assuming all goes well, I may continue to perform with the group a couple of times every year. I may be able to take my recordings from those performances to put together an ambient album.
Since I’m sharing the audio for 727 this week, I figured I’d include the score to the string quartet part for those who want to follow along. At rehearsal H, only the notes A, C, D, and E are used. These notes work out really well for bowed strings, as they’re all open strings on one or more of the instruments. This allows me to use harmonics, a favorite musical sound of mine, for the last four measures.
