DOH!
Thank you for publishing the Algorithmic Arts SoftStep Pro review (December 2001). However, as much as I appreciate the reviewer's attention to detail, I was dismayed to see the review was for SoftStep Pro 2.06a, which was superceded by version 2.1 in July 2001.
The review was fair and accurate for version 2.06a, and I am pleased that it received such a positive review overall. However, all but one of the “minor points” the reviewer found fault with were fixed in version 2.1.
Although SoftStep Pro doesn't have a “user-customized palette of modules” (nor will it; module execution order is conveyed by the module menu order), it is no longer true that there are “no group move, copy, or delete functions” or that there is “no help index.” Those features have been implemented in SoftStep Pro 2.1.
John Dunn
Algorithmic Arts
via e-mail
MONEY — IT'S A HIT
I just read “Working Musician: Follow the Money” (November 2001) and noticed a few things off the bat. Although the article is generally informative and helpful, some issues must be addressed. I preface this by stating that I run an independent label and a publishing company.
First, the cost of manufacturing CDs is much lower for replication of tens of thousands of units, especially if you own the plant. The major labels' parent companies (Time Warner, BMG, UMG, Sony, and EMI) own replication plants. It's not costing them as much as stated in Fig. 1. Even an independent label doesn't pay that much for replication. In fact, the majors do replication for some independent labels; one would surmise that internal work is charged a lower rate. For independents, the rule that my associates and I hold fast to is less than $1 per unit for manufacture. We do that by finding plants that will deal directly with us and do unit amounts that are reasonable for our sales. We also use reputable printers that can duplicate what we need at a reasonable cost.
Second, rarely will a label want to pay full rate for mechanical royalties if the artist wrote his or her songs (¾ rate is $0.56 per ten songs). But if the label also controls the publishing (which is often the case), the parent company makes that money, as well. As for distribution, the article indicates that the label pays $5 per unit. However, the label pays itself because it owns the warehouses, the trucks, and the distribution network. The label actually makes $11 to $12 per unit if the CD sells at $15. It would take the label about 44,000 units to break even. Contemporary jazz albums on major labels sell about that many copies.
Also, in the not-so-distant past (at least I hope it's not still going on), there was cross-collateralization, in which a label could recoup an advance from one album or contract from, say, the mechanical royalties of another album or contract. That's a messy situation in which a label would again end up paying itself.
Raymond Jones
via e-mail
X-RATED
Nice job on “Desktop Musician: Mac OS X for Musicians” (October 2001). It was a perfect account of the state of the new OS and how developers have reacted to it. The author's prognostications about future systemwide features, however, arrived on our doorsteps just short of when Apple realized them. Almost all the suggestions made in the article are now features in 10.1.
Apple does have a renewed dedication to the professional musician. The addition of a systemwide MIDI organization system and plug-in format marks the beginning of a new era in making music on the Mac. I hope EM continues to keep readers informed about what to expect as Mac OS X develops.
Kevin Schlei
Milwaukee
In “Desktop Musician: Mac OS X for Musicians,” Jim Rippie stated that companies such as Emagic and Mark of the Unicorn will be releasing support for Mac OS X. I use Emagic Logic Audio for my PC running Windows 98, and Windows XP will be released soon. Will companies such as Emagic, Steinberg, and MOTU provide support for XP? If so, what would be some pros and cons related to XP and music production?
Gerry Gonzales
via e-mail
Gerry — I spoke to several companies you mentioned, and they plan to support Windows XP. In some cases, your current software will work with XP right out of the box; that's likely to be the case if it was already Windows 2000 — compliant. On the other hand, if the software you are using isn't Windows 2000 — ready and doesn't work with NT (the predecessor of 2000 and XP), you'll probably need an updated version.
How much better your musical experiences will be using XP is not strictly a function of your software; your sound card and the state of its drivers have as much to do with that. If you happen to be using Cakewalk's Sonar and your hardware offers WDM drivers, you can expect excellent performance using XP, though not particularly better than what you could get with Windows 2000. I would also expect you to do well with Emagic's upcoming versions of Logic Audio, which will be Windows XP — compliant.
Remember that XP and Windows 98 have major differences in the interface and elsewhere. Microsoft is pushing its software and solutions onto the user more aggressively in Windows XP than in previous versions of Windows. I don't take kindly to that. It's too early to know how well XP is going to work in various musical situations.
— Dennis Miller
GIMME SOME TRUTH
I enjoyed Michael Cooper's “Truth or Consequences” in the November 2001 issue. I've been interested in studio acoustics for years and regularly share information through the acoustics mailing list (acoustics@yahoogroups.com) and the Studiotips Web site (www.studiotips.com), both administered by Dan Nelson. I've developed a FileMaker Pro solution to calculate and graph room modes, identifying potential problem frequencies. That and other resources are available at the Studiotips site.
I have three questions regarding less expensive room-analysis alternatives:
One inexpensive method for room analysis involves using a test CD to generate tones and pink noise and an audio-level meter. The pink noise is used to establish a base level; then, each tone's level is measured and graphed. Besides the limited range of frequencies available on a CD, is there some reason this method is undesirable for those on a tight budget?
I have two single-channel parametric equalizers that I'd like to use for room EQ (dbx 242s). In general, mono parametrics seem to be cheap and more plentiful than stereo models. Does that approach have disadvantages?
When using Metric Halo's SpectraFoo for room analysis, which Spectrograph display should be used (Peak, Instantaneous, or Average Hold Trace)? Are other SpectraFoo settings critical to accurate room measurement?
Stephen Marinick
via e-mail
Author Michael Cooper replies: Stephen — Analyzing a room's response using a test CD and audio-level meter is problematic for two reasons, one of which you noted: the limited number of frequencies available on the CD make finding and correcting the exact room-mode frequencies a hit-or-miss proposition. Also, the frequency response of the audio-level meter's built-in microphone is likely to be skewed in the low-bass region, compromising the accuracy of your measurements. Unless your data-capture signal chain (mic, mic preamp, and A/D converter) is truly flat, you won't know whether your noted aberrations in response are from room response, equipment response, or both.
Two mono parametric equalizers should work as well as a dual-channel unit for room-equalization purposes as long as they are identical models and high-quality units. I'm not familiar with the dbx 242. Remember that your recording and mixing decisions will be made based on what your room equalizers tell you, so use the best equalizers you can afford.
When using SpectraFoo to analyze a room's frequency response, I like to use the Average Hold Trace. The human ear tends to ignore short-lived peaks in evaluating spectral balance, and often peaks in response don't accurately represent what's going on. I set the average rate for a settling time of a few seconds; any shorter makes the display respond to peaks too much, and any longer makes me wait too long after making an EQ adjustment to gauge the results. Also, because you're using pink noise to do your testing, set SpectraFoo's Accumulation mode to Pink Noise Is Flat. I also use Log Averaging mode to weight the display to approximate the way the human ear hears. Finally, set SpectraFoo's resolution to 1/24 octave or “continuous” so you can see enough fine detail to avoid affecting neighboring frequencies when you correct the room response with your equalizer(s).
WE WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK.
Address correspondence and e-mail to “Letters,” Electronic Musician, 6400 Hollis Street, Suite 12, Emeryville, CA 94608 or emeditorial@primediabusiness.com. Published letters may be edited for space and clarity.