Analog monosynths have become quite popular in recent years. These small synthesizers come from long established manufacturers such as Moog and Dave Smith, as well as newer companies with modern designs. One of the more prolific of this new breed of analog manufacturers is the German company Doepfer. Though mostly known for their rack modules, Doepfer have joined the monosynth fray with their Dark Energy synthesizer. At $625, the Dark Energy is a modern monosynth that packs a surprising amount of punch and flexibility for it’s small size.

Features and Design

The core architecture of the Dark Energy is typical to most monophonic synthesizers and includes a VCO, VCF, and VCA. The oscillator of the Dark Energy is based on a single saw/square wave oscillator with pulse width modulation. The filter is a steep, resonant lowpass. Finally, the amplifier is simple yet effective. A single ADSR and dual LFO’s can modulate the above, with multiple hard-wired internal routings.

The Dark Energy expands the flexibility of it’s modulation network through patch cables and patch-points. This system, also known as semi-modular, allows for incoming MIDI key number, velocity, pitch, and one selectable MIDI CC, to be routed via the cables to VCO pitch, pulse width, filter cutoff, VCA level, and gate. In addition, one of the internal LFOs, the Envelope, and external audio can also be patched as modulation sources as well. The Dark Energy is the only synthesizer at this price that offers semi-modular capabilities.

With it’s combined internal hard-wired and external patch system, the Dark Energy makes up for it’s single oscillator design with complex modulation possibilities. Central to this are the dual LFO’s, which by the way seem to be aimed towards frequency modulation (FM) of the oscillator pitch and the filter cutoff. Each LFO also includes a 3-way speed setting, ranging from audible to several seconds. These little switches are effective and add a lot to the flexibility. The ADSR envelope features a speed switch as well. Small details like these add to the flow of the overall design, leaving an impression that the Dark Energy is a well thought out synthesizer.

In Use

One thing immediately noticeable when using the Dark Energy is how drastic the sound changes while turning the knobs. The hardware interface and internal sound structure match up well with each other. As a result, working with the sound becomes logical and intuitive relatively quickly. Prior knowledge of analog synthesis theory is always helpful, but if you are new to it, the Dark Energy could be a great way to learn. Better yet, just when you may feel you have mastered the Dark Energy, you will come across a new detail that opens up a whole new facet of sound to explore. Some examples of Dark Energy sounds are below.

The Dark Energy is capable of producing a surprisingly wide range of sounds. It seems to excel at modern sounding saw/pulse-width based lead sounds and more clangorous FM noisy sounds. It’s also relatively easy to combine the two strengths into more noise-based FM lead sounds. These mixture type of sounds also react heavily to the knobs, at times seemingly infinitely transformable. But, like most monosynths in this price range, the Dark Energy can’t do everything. It is possible to product a solid bass sound, but the range of bass timbres is limited. The bass sound it does make is not the stereotypical synth bass sound either. Because of this, the Dark Energy is probably best considered as a second synthesizer.

Conclusion

All in all, the Dark Energy is a fun and responsive synthesizer. When you use it, you feel that it is a machine built to produce sound. Soon after getting familiar with it, it reacts to your whims and desires. It produces a rich and detailed sound that cuts through the speakers with a sophisticated presence. It can’t do everything, but what it can do, it does with a style and feature set that’s hard to beat for the price.

Links:
Doepfer Dark Energy – Official
Dark Energy @ Nova Music

—————

* The original Doepfer Dark Energy which this review is for has now been replaced by the Dark Energy 2. The main difference between the two is that the 2 has a multimode filter and a saw core oscillator while the Dark Energy 1 has a steep lowpass filter with a triangle core oscillator.

With analog synthesizers getting most of the attention these days, it’s easy to forget about the digital side of the equation. Developments in digital technology have been the main driving force in synthesizer evolution over the past few decades. Digital’s success results from a versatility and flexibility far exceeding the limits of analog technology. Some digital methods, like sample playback and virtual analog, have become so popular that they now part of the status quo.

Even with this success, the conquest of the digital synthesizer may just be getting started. The complexity of modern software-based interfaces open up new potential for navigating older digital synthesis methods. Though these methods were powerful in the past, their hardware interface limited access. The more recent success stories of Massive and Razor, both from Native Instruments, show’s the potential for software to re-envision earlier digital synthesis methods. These two soft synths brought additive and wavetable synthesis back from the history books and straight into the mainstream. This trend will most likely continue into the future, perhaps even leading to new forms of synthesis. But before formulating any logical conclusions about the future, it helps to take a look at the past.

Digital synthesizers started to appear on the scene in the 1970′s. Though somewhat obscure, the RMI Harmonic Synthesizer appeared in 1974 and is widely acknowledged as the first commercially available digital synthesizer. A few years later in 1979, the Synclavier from New England Digital arrived. Perhaps as a glimpse of the future to come, this high-end synthesizer utilized Frequency Modulation (FM) synthesis (expanding later with additive and sample playback). The next digital synthesizer, the Wave from PPG, arrived a few years later in 1981. The PPG Wave, like the Synclavier, was not cheap. As a result, digital synthesizer technology in the early 80′s was primarily the domain of the rich and famous. The great equalizer however arrived in 1983 with the release of the Yamaha DX7. This FM synth became so successful that it singlehandedly eschewed in the digital era. Once these floodgates were open, a pack of digital synthesizers, mostly from Japan, stormed the shores in the late 80′s. Roland, with it’s successful D-50, gave a glimpse of the future to come with it’s sample playback engine. Korg as well, would lay the groundwork for the workstation of today with their release of the M1.

Though the 80′s were a time of some of the greatest successes in synthesizer history, it was also a time of experimentation. With digital technology finally at a price low enough to be profitable and no standards yet in place, the future was wide open. Synths like the Ensoniq ESQ-1 and the Kawai K3 brought the wavetable synthesis established by the PPG Wave a few years earlier to the masses. Waldorf also capitalized on the Wave. In 1989 they released a slimmed down rack version called the Microwave. Sequential Circuits also entered the fray, introducing the world to vector synthesis with their highly regarded Prophet VS. Finally, development of the mysterious, yet powerful Kyma system also began in the 80′s. This system would go on to become perhaps the ultimate digital synth providing unparalleled flexibility in the digital domain. Though these synthesizers may not have had the success of the DX7, M1, or D-50, many of their developments would play a serious role in the decades to follow, including vector synthesis in the 90′s that followed, and even wavetable and hybrid synthesis that are only just recently beginning to enter the mainstream more than 25 years later. This spirit of exploration however also begin to fade as the 90′s rolled in.

If the 80′s were defined by the DX7 and it’s FM synthesis, it’s sample playback that would be the synthesis method to dominate the 90′s. With computation power getting cheaper and more powerful, digital synthesizers that combined successes of the 80′s began to appear in the early 90′s. The Yamaha SY77 with it’s sample playback and FM, and the Korg Wavestation with it’s vector synthesis, are both good examples of this mentality. But it was Roland that went had the greatest success by focusing on sample playback alone with it’s JD, JV and XP line of synthesizers. These synthesizers established sample playback domination that has continued to this day in the form of the relentlessly popular workstation synthesizer. But as sample playback wasn’t the only big developments of the 90′s. Later in the decade, the analog sounds of the past would go on to collide head-on with digital technology resulting in explosion of synthesizers and even new musical genres. This collision is known as virtual analog and the synthesizer would forever change trajectory of the synthesizer.

Digital synthesizer have certain advantages and disadvantages. Much of this has to do with the interface. Digital technology offers far more options that analog technology. With these options however comes more complex, and oftentimes unintuitive interfaces. From the very start, through the 80′s and into the mid 90′s, most people with very powerful digital synthesizers would be limited to using only the presets do to these complicated interfaces. These interfaces often revolved around an LCD with constantly updating text along with an array of buttons. Interestingly, this style was like an institution on digital synths with very few diverging. The most notable being the JD-800 which amazingly had a slider or knob for virtually every function. On the otherhand, the analog synthesizers of the 70′s and early 80′s often were the complete opposite, coming standard with knobs or sliders for every parameter. Perhaps eventually the sheer misery of programming unique sounds on most digital synths caught up, something needed to change. Virtual analog took the analog style interface and paired it up to a digital recreation of an analog synthesizer sound generator. Pairing this concept with modern features like multitimbrality, polyphony, presets, and internal effects, and the result was a recipe for success.

The virtual analog conversation starts with the Yamaha VL-1. This synthesizers, released in 1994, utilized physical modeling technology to create sounds based on mathematical models of real life instruments. In a way, physical modeling is a sort of complicated version of virtual analog which is the mathematical recreation of the relatively simple models used in analog subtractive synthesis. The first purely virtual analog synthesizer was the Nord Lead by the Swedish company Clavia. The Nord Lead had an interface resembling the knob-per-function designs of the old analog but with a fully digital sound engine. This offered instant gratification that ended up being very popular. Within a few years, the market was flooded with VA’s from nearly every company. Some of the more popular of these included the Roland JP-8000, Access Virus, Novation Supernova, and Yamaha An1x. Other synthesizers released at the same time explored the Physical modeling approach including the Korg Prophecy and Yamaha FS-1R. Though they had sound architecture that was fundamentally more powerful and flexible than typical Virtual Analog synths, these physical modeling synthesizers suffered the typical digital problems of having parameters that were difficult to map to the control section in an intuitive way. The ease of use of the VA synths overshadowed physical modeling technology and went on to establish themselves as a staple technology that is mainstream today.

One serious and new development in digital synthesizers in the last decade however was the move from hardware to software interface for synthesizers. Though software based synthesizers like Rebirth and early version of Reaktor got their start in the late 90′s, computers at the time were not quite powerful enough to equal the current hardware products. With the ever ongoing increase in computing power, the home computer hit a price to power point in the early 2000′s that brought the software synthesizer into direct competition with it’s hardware adversary. This shift brought a lot of power to the musician at a very low price. As a result, innovation and progress on hardware from many major manufacturers slowed as they sticked with what was proven and refining only refining these designs incrementally. companies like the Access with their Virus released various models that offered more processor power computer integration while sticking to the overall design that struck gold in the late 90′s. Clavia did similar with their Nord which is still available today in virtually the same configuration since the 90′s. Smaller VA companies, like Quasimidi, just vanished. Novation quietly shifted into building products more relevant for the times focused on hardware control for software applications. Though many of these VA synthesizers are still available today, the virtual analog has moved primarily into the software synth domain. What was once cutting-edge a decade earlier can now be found included free with a software application.

Though software hit virtual analog hardware pretty hard, there was a hardware implementation that actually expanded in the 2000′s, the workstation. For many electronic musicians, it’s important to have a bunch of sliders and knobs to change the sound intuitively. But there are also many more traditional musicians in bands or just not as interested in the technical side that just want something that makes great sounds. A workstation is based around this idea, and takes it further by adding recordings, mixing and sequencing capabilities for a complete all-in-one package. It takes serious resources however to develop and release a complex machine like a workstation as well as knowledgeable research and development department. Three companies of Roland, Korg, and Yamaha fit this description and seized the opportunity. The workstation can even be seen to have gotten it’s start many years earlier with the D-50, M1, and SY77 respectively. It was not until the early and mid 2000′s however that the workstation came into it’s own. Unlike the VA that was consumed by the home computer, the standalone workstation is still selling well and though maybe not the most glamorous, is a digital synthesizer implementation not to go unnoticed.

Though the 00′s in the future may be looked back upon as the dawning of the soft-synth era and in general a further stabilization of proven technologies of the 90′s, there were some hardware manufacturers on the fringe pushing synthesis forward. Most radical of these was the Hartman Nueron, a “Nueral Network Sampling” synthesizer. Though it met with little success probably due to it’s high price tag, it’s ambitious goals involving neural net synthesis and sampling are one of a kind. A bit more down to earth and successful however has been the trend in digital synthesizer design by the most cutting-edge designers and companies towards hybrid synthesis. Hybrid synthesis combines multiple digital synthesis methods like FM, additive, sampling and physical modeling and unifies it under one interface. A benefit of this is that it allows the different methods to interact with one another and giving the synth a wide range of possibilities. Examples include the Kyma System, Elektron Monomachine and Machine Drum, and software synthesizers like Absynth. Another perhaps crucial development in the past decade has been the ability to work with pitch and time independently in new breeds of samplers such as Roland VP-9000 and their technology called Variphrase. This concept has been quietly making it’s way to both software and occasionally hardware like the Elektron Octatrack. Most notably however has been the Roland V-Synth which combines Variphrase sampling along with Virtual Analog and an emphasis on effects processing. Though it might be too early to tell exactly what will catch on and go global, concepts like pitch/time independence and hybrid synthesis made their entrance this past decade and if history repeats itself, will go on to play a crucial role in future developments.

Now that history has given us a little better perspective on how we ended up in the present, let’s take a look at five modern day digital synthesizers. Though each is unique unto itself, together they provide a pretty clear picture of the current state of the digital synthesizer. But at this point, it’s safe to say that the word digital really doesn’t have to be used. Going back to the 80′s, pretty much all progress in synthesizers has taken place digitally. So these synthesizers don’t just represent the current state of digital synthesizers, but the synthesizer overall.

As is obvious from the looks alone, each of the synthesizers below takes a very different approach to creating sound. Most utilize a unique combination of digital synthesis methods in a hybrid format. The advantage of flexibility really comes to the surface when these 5 synthesizers for example are compared to a selection of modern analogy synthesizers (see analog synth shootout here). You may notice quite a big of difference between each when compared to say five modern analog mono synths or a few modern day workstations. This is just another result of the flexibility and vast potential that digital technology offers. Also, though perhaps not as obviously mainstream as cutting edge digital technology was in the 80′s and 90′s, these modern day synthesizers make apparent that it’s digital that’s still pushing things forward and setting trends, just like they’ve always done.

Roland was at the forefront of the digital revolution of the 80′s with it’s D-50 synthesizer and still is at the top today with it’s V-synth GT. This fully digital monster synth is focused on Roland’s proprietary Variphrase technology. Variphrase is a high-quality method of altering pitch, time, and formant of samples in real-time. This advanced sampling engine is paired with virtual analog technology Roland perfected with their JP-8000 series along with an emphasis on effects processing as an integral component of the sound design engine. There are few hardware synthesizers out today that can compete with the Roland V-Synth GT and though it’s been out for a little while already, it’s still a cutting edge digital synthesizer.

Symbolic Sounds’ Kyma is another digital synthesizer that sits at the top of the pack. It’s a hybrid hardware/software device that gives direct access to virtually every digital synthesis method through a deep, multi-level software programming environment. This, along with high-end sound quality make a Kyma system arguably the most cutting-edge and powerful synthesizer available. Though it can do almost everything, it’s strengths include granular synthesis and time/pitch domain processing. A Kyma system however is not cheap and comes with a serious learning curve, but that’s the price of admission to perhaps the ultimate in digital power and flexibility.

Another complex and powerful digital synthesizer comes in the form of Spectralis 2 released by Radikal Technologies. The Spectralis uses a hybrid architecture that blends high quality virtual analog with sampling, a fixed formant filter bank, and an analog filter. Though it’s known to have a slight learning curve, this synthesizer is beloved by many and sounds great. No doubt inspired by some of the classic Virtual Analog gear of the 90′s, this synthesizer is probably a pretty accurate realization of what everyone wished they had back then. Best of all, it is the singular vision of one designer, Jörg Schaaf, who in doing so proves that you don’t need to be a big company to release a cutting-edge digital synthesizer.

Elektron is a mid-sized manufacturer based in Sweden that has been setting trends in synthesizer design since they started with their Sidstation at the end of the 90′s. Though the Sidstation was definitely cool, most of the credit should probably go to Robert Yannes who designed the SID chip in 1981. Take one look at the Monomachine however and it’s striking to see how far Elektron has come since. The Monomachine is a hybrid digital synthesizer that blends FM, VA, and physical modeling with advanced control capabilities. The mono machine, similar to the SID station in this respect, is a good example of a device that takes technology of the past and updates it to new power and flexibility required to compete in today’s synthesizer market.

Last and not least (but definitely the smallest), is the Shruthi-1. This synthesizer comes in kit form (assembly required) from the one-man operation Mutable Instruments. Unlike the rather expensive synthesizers mentioned above, the Shruthi-1 delivers traditional wavetable synthesis to all with a very low price tag. According to the designer Olivier, the Shruthi was influenced by the digital synths like Casio CZ-101, Ensoniq ESQ-1. Different from most of these however is the included analog filter to warm up the sound too. The Shruthi proves that modern digital synths don’t have to be expensive or even necessarily cutting-edge, to be effective.

Each synthesizer above is unique and powerful in it’s own way. One look at the timeline above and it’s apparent that this uniqueness has been a part of digital synthesizers since the beginning. But as analog synthesis has more or less been stagnant since the 80′s, digital has expanded with methods like physical modeling, VA, and granular synthesis. This primarily comes down to the advantage digital has over analog as being much more powerful and flexible (though arguably at the cost of overall sound characteristics).

And this power may only be beginning to be unleashed. Commercial synthesizer products move towards integration with software like the discontinued Nord Modular and current Access Virus TI. On the other hand, software synthesizers will hopefully start taking hardware considerations of interface and control. Software synths like the Additive synths Razor, Physical Modeling Spark, and advanced wavetable Skanner by NI designer Stephan Schmitt of Reaktor fame, are starting to develop core of digital synthesis methods to extreme new levels. Some of these may even lead to new synthesis methods themselves. This combined with hybrid approaches integrating old and new like granular and physical modeling will be the starting point for the future to come.

The Advantages of a Website

A website offers several advantages over other options like social media services. Most of the strengths of a website revolve around the it’s potential for complete customization. With this customization, a designer can turn a website into a unique presentation which can in turn more deeply express the message of the content it presents. A website also frees you from the unexpected and frustrating design changes that social media companies are known to implement. Finally, unlike trendy social media, a website can adapt to the times and, if properly maintained, will never go obsolete. With your own website, you are a property owner on the digital frontier. With a little bit of effort, the value of your virtual property has nowhere to go but up.

The Modern Music Album

Now that some advantages of a website have been shown, it’s time to take a look at a real project, alivemachine.com. This project, at it’s most basic level, is a website built to release online a cohesive set of music, images, videos, and sound. At a deeper level, it seeks to re-envision the traditional album in the modern day format of an interactive, online experience. Primary to this goal was to build meaningful relationships amongst the audio, visual, and text-based content. These relationships are what provide meaning in both the old album and possible models of the future. Thus, the driving force or thesis, of alivemachine is to both explore new types of relationships amongst media, and to implement these with the aim of providing new dimensions of experience for the visitor.

The considerable ground lost by the album to the single over the past decade does not however diminish the importance it has as a medium of expression. With it’s carefully selected songs, artwork, lyrics, and credits, an album can express meaning that a single song can’t. A main contributing factor to the album’s loss of importance is the mainstream acceptance of relatively new, digital-based distribution models for music. Most of these models make the single far more accessible than the previous compact disc format. Making matters even worse for the album is that it’s modern digital version is no more than a low resolution (lower quality sound and images) copy of it’s earlier versions. Whether a result of short-term greed or just plain thoughtlessness, the result has been a downward spiral for the album and the rise of the single.

Though the future for the album may look bleak, it’s not one set in stone, particularly since the current revolution is one based in software rather than hardware. Unlike hardware, software is extremely flexible and can be developed at a low cost. Thus, if approached differently, the same technology that is currently killing the album has the power to bring the album back to prominence, albeit in a new and potentially more powerful digital format.

If the album is to make a comeback, it will not be an easy one. Much of the technology and skills needed (UI and UX) are relatively new and constantly changing. This is further complicated by the sheer number of technological options, platforms, standards, and formats. These technological roadblocks are however easy compared to those of perspective and it’s almost complete lack of precedants. To be fair, a handful of music apps have been attempted, one of the more prominent being Bjorks “Biophillia”. Even with big budgets, it’s obvious that there’s a way to go before something meaningful or revolutionary arrives. But big budgets aren’t necessary to get a handle on some of the fundamentals for exploring the future of music distribution. Building even a relatively simple website can provide the basic tools and the perspective necessary to take a serious look at the future of the music album and music distribution in general.

Organizing the Content and Planning the Site:

When building a music website prominently featuring audio and visual information, a good place to start is by organizing the content. Spending time working hands-on with the content gives a good sense of the possibilities for the project to focus on. It’s from these possibilities that the structure and core concepts arise.

In the case of Alivemachine, the content consisted of a professionally mastered album, singles, individual sound samples, album artwork, additional artwork, and a video. It was during the process of organizing that the conceptual link between the sound samples and the music was discovered. As the project progressed, this relationship between sound and music would go on to form a major part of the structure and flow of the website.

The bridges from media content to idea, and from idea to reality, are not necessarily easy ones to cross. A pencil and paper can help out with this. Sketching layout concepts by hand or building photoshop prototype collages are effective tools during this stage. Studying other websites provide insight into webdesign, not to mention a good source of ideas for your own site. Take a look at the diagram below to see the flow from photoshop to actual website for early designs of Alivemachine.

It’s important to remember that the process of taking an idea and turning it into physical reality is no small feat. Because of this, serious obstacles can arise at the point where an idea for a site is transformed into an actual website. Just remember that it’s a process involving a lot of trial-and-error. Though these experiences may seem difficult and unproductive at the time, they are necessary for understanding what to do by clearly seeing first-hand what not to do.

Alivemachine was no exception and presented a serious obstacle early on: how to organize the different types of media content onto a single page format that made sense. Even though each image, video, and sound related to the album, each played a different role in the overall picture. Early photoshop prototypes revealed that simply separating each visually through interface graphics would be too unfocused and chaotic. This content needed to be separated in a more meaningful way. After some research, it was determined that the blog format with it’s “articles” on the front page would be the solution. In a blog, each article is separated from the next by various markers including release date, comments, and links. By using multiple articles on a single page, with each article containing a separate piece of the content, everything could now be displayed logically and effectively on a single page. From this point it was a matter of finding what technology would be the best choice and adapting the ideas and content to the format of that technology.

Enter the Blog:

When it comes to blog platforms, there are currently three main choices: WordPress, Blogger, and Tumblr. A comparison of each is beyond the scope of this article and it may be time well spent researching each. The industry standard for serious blogs is WordPress. It’s not the easiest to learn of the bunch, but for sheer power and flexibility, it’s the clear winner.

The specifics of installing and setting up a WordPress site is also beyond the scope of this article, but it’s easy to find information online regarding this. A few good places to check out are the Official WordPress Install page and this article on Setting Up WordPress. One tip not often mentioned is that there two different WordPress entities: WordPress.org and WordPress.com. Both of these are owned by the same company called Automattic. The difference between the two is that WordPress.org is self-hosted while a WordPress.com blog is hosted by Automattic. Going with WordPress.org is the best choice for the long-term since it offers the most freedom, at the cost of learning about domains and hosting.

Once the domain name is setup with the hosting company and WordPress is installed, the content of the site needs to be formatted into a the framework of WordPress. Those earlier sketches and photoshop prototypes can be helpful at this stage to be used as a guide or visual reference. The diagram below illustrates this basic WordPress layout. Each of the boxes are representations of the underlying framework which defines the look of the site.

This is the default layout, or a “theme” in WordPress speak, and comes included in the WordPress install. Additional themes can be easily installed, quickly changing the layout and look of a site. These third-party themes are created by other WordPress users and come in both free and paid versions. However, if the goal is to create something unique, it’s a good idea to stick with the defualt theme and learn how to modify it. This route requires learning the basics of web design including HTML and CSS. These skills will come into play down the line and can be the deciding factor on whether the interactive and visual potential of the site is unleashed.

Go with the Flow:

The visual presentation is important, but it’s only half of the story. Behind the graphics are the intentions and goals of the site for it’s visitors. People in marketing refer to these objectives as “call-to-action”. On a music site, call-to-action examples include buying the album, downloading free content, providing an email address, etc. The purpose in this regard of alivemachine.com is to have the visitor click on the “Buy Album” button found on the music page. Since a website is non-linear (more than one way to travel through it), there are many pathways available to take towards this end goal. It’s the job of the designer to think like a visitor might think and figure out a logical and efficient way to lay out these pathways. But before going any further, it’s important to first understand the difference between static and dynamic pages.

The concept of static and dynamic pages is one of the primary differences between a blog and non-blog website. The difference between the two types of pages is relatively simple. A static page is a page on a site whose content does not change. This is the type of page found on most older websites that resemble brochures. Static pages offer complete freedom when it comes to layout and design since they don’t have to accommodate any changes to the content. Dynamic pages on the otherhand are pages with content that constantly changes. The front page of a blog is a good example of this. New content is constantly added in the form of “posts”, with the most recent appearing at the top of the page. Most modern websites combine static and dynamic pages. They use the strengths of each to create pathways through the site which move the visitor towards the call-to-action.

This combination of dynamic and static pages is used to full effect on alivemachine.com. The front “New Release” page of the site is dynamic, while all of the other pages including “sound”, “music”, “about”, and “contact” are static. Both the front page and others are connected through links with the aim to bring the visitor eventually to the “music” page.

More specifically, the front page is used to organize the releases of individual content (music singles, video, sound samples, etc.) by date in a sort of timeline fashion. These releases or posts each contain catchy audio or visual material, brief text summaries, and a “more info” link. This link connects the more curious visitors to the other static pages of the site. An example of a single post on the front page can be seen here:

The goal of a post on the front page is to catch the eye of the visitor with sound and images. If the visitor sees something they like, they then have the option of clicking on the “more info” button which takes them to one of the interior static “music” or “sound” pages. These are each specially designed to present the content the best way possible. An example of one of these pages can be seen below.

Finally, just as the front page articles link to the static pages, static pages can also link to one another. For example, each sample pack on the sound page links to the music album page. Again, this has to do with the aim of of guiding the visitor to the music page where the call-to-action button to buy the album is located. The gaol of a site should be to have all links throughout the site work in a logical and user friendly way.

Customized Music Players:

One important decision to make while building a music site is what technology to use for the sound player. In most situations, the choice will involve either Soundcloud or a custom built player. Soundcloud is a versatile, cloud-based solution offering useful social and tracking features. Soundcloud also have great compatibility across devices, particularily iOS devices like the iPhone and iPad, since they are built in HTML5.

For Alivemachine, it was decided that Soundcloud players were to be used for all audio on the front page. The primary reason for this was compatibility. For the more specific “sound” and “music” pages of the site however, the design and layout was more important than compatibility. These pages each use custom built players in Flash to give them a seamless look that would be impossible to achieve using Soundcloud. Compare the screenshot below with the ones above to see the difference custom sound players can make on a page.

Again though, this freedom of design comes for a price. Flash is not supported by iOS and thus shows up as a blank space on an iPad and iPhone. These devices are already wildly popular and iOS will still has some room to grow. Because of this Flash is not recommended. To get the best of both design and compatibility, a custom HTML 5 audio player is the smart choice.

Integrating Social Media:

Social media is an important element of online experience and there are different ways to integrate it into a website. The Alivemachine project uses two different methods. The first of these the addition of a second bar underneath the menu that appears at the top of every page. This additional bar was built by adding custom CSS/HTML code to the layout. As you can see in the example below, it contains links to Facebook, Twitter, and the RSS feed (a subscription feature of blogs) on the right, and a Facebook like button on the left. With this sort of design element, a visitor has quick and obvious access to these links from anywhere on the site.

Another way that social media integrates into Alivemachine is through links to various sites found at the bottom of each post on the front page. These allow the featured content to be shared via facebook, twitter, and email both from the front page as well as to each individual page addresses of the posts. These icons at the bottom of posts are an almost universal standard of the blog format. They are created by using plugins, which are miniature programs installed into wordpress to increase functionality. When it comes to the layout of these icons, there are numerous plugins to choose from to give the site a custom look.

The Whole is Greater than the Sum of it’s Parts

Most of this article so far has focused on the various components of a website. Though understanding these parts is crucial to building a site, the real power of a site comes from the sum of these parts. The aim is for the visitor not see the Soundcloud player, the like button, or different pages… but instead to take part is an experience. Done right, the result is a unique experience tied to the music. One of the key factors in this is to design thoughtful, creative relationships amongst the content on the site through the interactive audio-visual capabilities a website offers.

A large part of Alivemachine focuses on the link between the music on the album and the individual sounds used to create this music. The sounds themselves are available as downloadable sound sample packs on the site. For those who are curious about production, the samples provide a more detailed look into the music’s creation. More importantly though, since the downloaded sounds are free to use in new music, a basic form of interactive music appears. All in all, the availability of these samples opens up a new dimension of the music for the listener. Though it remains to be seen just how interactivity will tie into music in the future, this example show that you don’t need advanced technical skills to work with meaningful ideas in interactive music. Though many current apps are questionable on how they approach things, it’s likely that interactive music will play some sort of role in the future of music.

The Future

The Alivemachine project set out to release a music album in the most cutting-edge way that skills would allow. Though the potential a website had for music was obvious early on, it wasn’t until the project’s completion that the full implications came to light. Following the project, it’s now easy to see that the physical album actually shares a lot in common with a website. Both are built from parts and create an interactive experience out of sight, sound, and information. And both bring the listener further into the vision of the music than the music alone can achieve. But as time goes on, so does the evolution of the power of technology. The differences between a vinyl record from a few decades back to a website of today are massive. Just imagine what the possibilites will be five or ten years from now. But even with these technological advancements, the goal remains the same: to expand the experience of music for the listener.

The things you will learn while building a website for your music go far beyond the site itself. Many of the concepts needed are the same that are used in all sorts of interactive media projects, including apps. An app however is far more technical and to build one requires a serious background in software design. Because of this, it’s useful to view a music website as a prototype or better yet, as the foundation of knowledge necessary for the future exploration of interactive music. So though your next project might need a larger team, it will still be you who is the one making the primary decisions on how your fans interact with your music. With this in mind, there’s really no better way to start conceptualizing the music apps of the future than to build a site for your music today.

—————

If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more in the future, consider checking out the music featured in it here.

Though there are far less choices in this range, the choices available are very competitive with differences between them being very subtle. The good news is that whatever choice you do make, you will be getting a high quality product that will be hard to fault. Following are comparisons between the two top pci cards and the two top portable USB audio interfaces.

PCI/PCIe Interfaces:

The two main choices in the PCI/PCIe category are the RME AIO and the Lynx L22. Though their base prices differ, the AIO and L22 end up costing about the same after equivalent upgrades are factored into the price. One big difference between the two however is that the RME utilizes the modern PCI-e connection whereas the Lynx uses the much older PCI format. With PCI becoming less and less common on new motherboards, the AIO is a lot more future-proof than the L22. Regardless, both cards perform with extremely low latencies while delivering top quality audio.

RME AIO vs. Lynx L22:

Other than the PCI vs. PCI-e issue, the main difference between the AIO and L22 is the matter of ADAT. The RME AIO comes standard with an 8-ch ADAT connection while the Lynx L22 requires an optional card. This option does however include two sets of ADAT for 16-channels (twice that of the RME). The RME also has the advantage with MIDI and a second pair of analog outputs through the headphone jacks. The L22 includes no MIDI and has only one pair of analog I/O. The L22 does make up some ground by having the more desirable balanced audio connections as standard. Unfortunately the RME comes stock with unbalanced audio, requiring a relatively expensive ($85) breakout cable for balanced operation. Differences aside, both cards are very highly regarded and considered to be extremely reliable. Either way you go, you most likely won’t be disappointed.

USB Interfaces:

If you are looking to do on-location recordings or live shows, the two audio cards above aren’t going to cut it. In this case, you will need to go with a USB interface. The two most respected in this category are the RME Babyface and the Apogee Duet. Both have a 2input/4output analog audio configuration. The difference in price between the two is mainly a matter of features, not audio quality. Both interfaces deliver comparably high-end sound and both have many happy customers.

Babyface vs. Duet:

Overall, you will pay more for the RME Babyface but will get more features for the price. Some of these features, like the carrying case and MIDI, are relatively minor. Others features like the ADAT connection or digital connection in general could be major. In contrast to the Babyface, the Apogee not only has no ADAT but no digital audio connection at all. The Apogee does however make up a little for the shortcoming by offering a nice OLED display and combo jacks (1/4″ plus XLR) on the inputs. At the end of the day though, the decision will most likely come down to whether $150 is worth it for the digital and ADAT connections that the RME offers. If digital is a necessity for you, then the Babyface will be too.

The Next Level:

Compared to mainstream low-cost audio interfaces, there’s not much choice when it comes to higher performance audio. This limited choice both makes researching easier and deciding on which one more difficult. Pretty much any product made by Lynx, Apogee, and RME is a smart choice that will perform great. That’s why they have such good reputations. Better yet, once you do decide on one, the new interface will take your sound to the next level.

Connectors and Cables:

The three most common connectors you will come across are XLR (usually found on a microphone cable) and 1/4″ (usually used for instruments). XLR is balanced and the connectors will be either male or female with 3 pins. 1/4″ on the otherhand comes in two styles: balanced TRS (tip, ring, sleeve) and unbalanced TS (tip, sleeve). Balanced just means that there’s two wires to carry sound versus unbalanced which has just one wire. Balanced cables also provide a stronger signal with less noise. Check out Redco Audio to learn more about connectors. They are a good place to get all of the parts for your own cables too. As far as connector brands go, Neutrik is well respected.

The type of cable to get will depend on the type of connectors that will be used with it. Cables, like connectors, are either balanced or unbalanced. XLR and TRS connectors use balanced “mic” cable which itself comes in two versions, standaard and quad. Quad Mic cable is only necessary for very long cables used in a live setting. For the studio, standard mic cable will work fine. TS connectors are simpler since they are unbalanced. These types of connectors use “standard instrument” cable. You can tell standard instrument cable since it only has one copper wire going through the middle. When it comes to buying cables, it’s sold by the foot. Canare and Mogami are both are highly regarded manufacturers.

Tools and Assembly:

Building a cable basically comes down to first matching the cable type to the connector type and then soldering the parts together. For a balanced cable, three wires are soldered to three points on each connector. Use the diagram up to match the cables (then hope it works). If you’re using quad mic cable, the four copper wires will need to be doubled up into two sets of two, then soldered in the same fashion as non-quad cable. Unbalanced cables are easier since they only have two wires to connect. The single copper wire in the center is connected to the “tip” of the 1/4″ TS connector while the braided shield wire is soldered to the “sleeve” of the TS connector. That’s it for the theory of building cables.

The actual building part isn’t too hard. If you already know how to solder, the work is relatively simple: cut the cable, strip the wire, solder each wire to the appropriate connector and finally, re-assemble the casings. If you don’t know how to solder then you must learn how. It’s not hard and you will probably find it a useful skill to have for other things. The photo below gives a basic idea of the tools you will need. All of the tools should be less than $30 at RadioShack. Next, teach yourself soldering from videos online. It’s not hard to learn. Be careful not to burn yourself though, or let the soldering iron burn through it’s own power cable.

Tips:

It helps to “tin” the ends of the individual wires before soldering them to the connectors. “Tinning” means to put solder on the tip of the wire that is about to be soldered. The points that you will be soldering these wires to can be tight (particularly on 1/4″ TRS connectors). You can use the bits of pre-applied solder on the wire tips to attach the wire to the connector. Once the wire is roughly attached in this manner, the apply additional solder in the usual method for a strong connection. It’s easier done than written so experiment and you will see.

The ground wire on both balanced and unbalanced cables start off as a braided mesh surrounding the inside copper wire(s). This braid needs to be undone and twisted into a wire before it can work as the ground wire though. One efficient way to do this is to use a small “electronics” screwdriver as seen below. First puncture the braid at the base where the exposed cable meets the outer sheath. Then slowly work your way wedging the screwdriver towards the end of the cable. When done properly, this will make a rough split through the braid. This technique may take a few practice runs to perfect.

No More Monster Cables:

As you can see, making your own audio cables is not hard to do. It takes a little bit of time to learn, but once you do, it’s a skill you will have forever. No longer will you be at the mercy of Monster Cable. You will now be able to freely choose connector types, cable lengths, and brands. After your first set of cables are finished, you will never have to think twice about cables again.

Below is a list of features that each synth must have to compete in the shootout. In general, the synth must be analog, sell for under $1000, and be designed and built in the USA.

These features are a sweetspot in today’s synthesizer market and Moog, Oberheim, and Dave Smith Instruments each have a model that fits:

Each of these synthesizers brings with it a unique, time-proven approach for creating and interacting with sound. At the heart of this approach are the features that each designer decided on for the design. The chart below compares some of the most important ones.

But you can’t have everything for under 1k. Compromises are found in all but the most expensive of synths and these three are no exception. Because of this, each synthesizer has certain strengths and weaknesses which are illustrated in the chart below.

So which will it be? The Slim Phatty with it’s powerful and flexible sound? The SEM with it’s cool balance of sound power and control? Or the Mopho with it’s multitude of features? In a perfect world the answer of which one to buy is easy: all three. But this is a shootout… and in a shootout only one can win.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

There’s certainly no shortage of USB audio interfaces on the market today. Though most will get the job done, some will do it better than others. The Roland Quad-Capture is one such interface. At $270, it’s a bit more expensive than it’s competitors, but for the cost you will get higher-end preamps and a feature set that outshines the rest. For the home studio musician, the Roland Quad may very well be the top choice, particularly if DAW performance and recording quality are high priorities.

Hardware and Software:

The hardware of the Roland Quad is minimal, with just a few knobs and buttons on the front panel. As far as the knobs go, two of them control preamp gain while the other two control the direct monitor mix level and main volume. The buttons enable stereo monitoring and Auto-Sense. Stereo monitoring allows a mono input signal (like a guitar) to play through left and right speakers simultaneously instead of through just one side. Auto-Sense automatically sets the gain of the preamp based on the peak levels of the incoming signal. Other than the Auto-Sense feature and the DI capability on the first input channel, the hardware configuration of the Quad-Capture is pretty comparable to most other modern-day interfaces.

Working alongside the hardware is a powerful software application with a very nice look to it. The software provides access to all of the settings (buffer size, sample rate, etc.) and to the two digital channel strips. Each channel strip includes a compressor/gate, phase switch, and hi-pass filter. Better yet, all settings can be saved and recalled as a preset from within the software.

Overall, both the hardware and software of the Roland Quad-Capture are well thought out. The two combine to offer a number of useful features, while keeping things simple and logical to use.

Sound Quality:

Every interface aimed towards the home studio market is going to color the sound to some degree. The Roland Quad-Capture is no exception. The character of the Quad is similar to a Roland synthesizer: slightly low-passed and a bit synthetic. The highs of the Quad have a crispiness to them, and individual transients seem slowed down. These two factors result in a slightly blurred and artificial sound that’s actually very pleasant to listen to. If you’ve owned a Roland synthesizer in the past and liked the sound of it, you will probably like the sound of the Quad.

Diving a little deeper, it’s worth noting that individual sounds produced by the Quad were not as defined as they would be from a higher-end interface from a company like RME, Lynx, or Apogee. This lack of definition might be related to the slowed down transients mentioned above, or perhaps the cost of the components inside. Regardless of the reason, if your focus is on mixing or mastering, the Quad might not be the best choice. The audio this interface plays back gives a more general picture of the music rather than the tiny details. As a result, the Quad encourages making music-making over getting lost in the minute details of mixing. This makes sense since Roland has historically been a leader in synthesizer design, another device that encourages making music over mixing.

A final aspect of the Quad that deserves some attention are it’s preamps. The pre’s deliver an accurate sound that’s perhaps a notch above the competition. You can take a listen to a Dark Energy synthesizer recorded through the pre’s here to judge for yourself. All and all, the Quad “captured” the essence and character of the Dark Energy nicely. One minor downside to the pre’s however is that there’s no way to bypass them when recording a line-level signal. In this situation, the preamp simply needs to be turned down as much as possible. Though this “always-on” factor didn’t make much of a difference in the quality of the Dark Energy recordings, it could if you already own a standalone preamp. In this case there will be no way around having two preamps in the recording chain.

Roland Quad-Capture vs. NI Komplete Audio 6:

The Roland Quad-Capture finds itself in the fiercely competitive $200-300 USB interface category. Though almost every manufacturer has an interface here, one of the more highly regarded is Komplete Audio 6 by Native Instruments. At $229, Komplete Audio 6 undercuts the cost of the Quad while delivering an extra set of analog I/O along the way. The Quad does however have the advantage when it comes to it’s higher quality preamps, digital channel strips, and more advanced software.

Performance-wise, the two interfaces both provide low latencies suitable for modern day production. On a Core2Duo Win7 PC, Komplete Audio 6 gave a glitch-free performance with a buffer setting of 96 samples. At this setting there was a 6ms recording delay and 5ms playback delay. The Roland achieved similar latency at a 96 samples buffer setting, but with a few clicks and pops here and there. Bumping the buffer up to 128 samples gave glitch-free playback with a still workable latency of less than 10ms each way.

One important feature of an audio interface is how many input and output channels it has. When it comes to this, Komplete Audio 6 has a clear advantage over the Roland Quad: a second set of analog I/O. The additional set of analog outputs gives far more options for adding an external send/return loop from within a DAW. With only a single pair of analog outputs like the Quad has, it’s nearly impossible to integrate external gear without a digital connection. The inclusion of second pair of analog outs, even if these mirrored the digital ones, would make the Quad a far more versatile machine.

Features and performance aside, there was a clear difference in sound between the two. As mentioned earlier, the Roland had a pleasant, colored tone better for creating music than mixing. The NI was very different. It’s sound seemed better suited for mixing, with a more open sound field, wider stereo image and better separation between individual instruments. The details and depth that Komplete Audio 6 provided actually seemed to be a little too good to be true at this price point though. On more critical listening, an unnaturally sharp, percussive attack could be heard on most sounds. High frequencies also had a certain harshness to them. These qualities gave the NI interface a more fatiguing sound than the Roland.

It’s no surprise at this price point that both units have a less than perfect sound quality. The cost to manufacture these devices is simply too low to include high-end converter chips and expensive analog components. Because of this, a major deciding factor between the two will be how their specific features fit in with your goals and how you personally like the sound quality of each.

Conclusion:

For the price, the Roland Quad-Capture is a solid performer. It’s preamps give accurate recordings and it’s feature set is one if the most comprehensive in it’s class. Though the Quad falls a little short on providing the level of detail that a more expensive interface will, it still delivers a viable sound that can be worked with comfortably. The Quad Capture can however be improved upon with some minor changes. For one, a second set of analog outputs would make this interface far more flexible for those with hardware in their setup. The ability to switch the preamps completely off for line level signals would also be a welcome addition. That said, the reasonably priced Roland Quad-Capture can get the job done and then some for the modern home studio.

Doepfer A-100 System 2
Pre-configured modular analog Rack
$2599 @ analogue haven

This Doepfer A-100 system is an analog modular in a recommended configuration. Check out the Doepfer Official Website for more details.

Future-Retro XS
2-Osc Semi-Modular Analog Synthesizer
$1299 @ Future-Retro.com

The Future Retro XS is a 2-osc semi-modular synthesizer. Here’s the Future-Retro Official Website with some more info on it.

Analogue Solutions Telemetry
2-Osc Semi-Modular Analog Synthesizer
$1727 @ analoguesolutions.org.uk

Analogue Solutions Telemtry is a 2-osc semi-modular synthesizer. For more info, take a trip to Analogue Solutions Official Website.

MFB Synth II / Kraftzwerg
3-Osc Stand-alone Analog Synthesizer or Semi-Modular
$680/799 @ analogue haven

MFB creates two versions of their 3-oscillator analog synthesizer. The first is a standalone module with MIDI and the second adds semi-modular functionality in place of the MIDI. Both are based on the classic Mini-moog design. For the details, check out the MFB Official Website.

Spectral Audio Syntrack
Wavetable Synthesizer with Analog Cascade Filter
$549 @ analogue haven

The Syntrack is a wavetable synthesizer with a analog filter based on the Moog design. More info can be found at the Spectral Audio Official Website.