?

Hi Nicole,

? I am new to this group, so I wanted to ask you - if you could elaborate on David Brown's agreement with Kurzweil regarding sharing the binaries - to which degree we as a users of a pretty outdated K1000s are free to share (and modify, wink-wink) the ROM images? Currently, I am actively reverse-engineering both Engine, Setup, and Sound ROMs with a lot of ideas on what I want to achieve as a result - e.g. ability to freely mix-and-match programs from different modules, but if sharing the results of my efforts will be frowned upon by Kurzweil folks - then I need to think twice how to go about it...
? Please let me know what you think about this, thanks!

Alexey.

On Sep 14, 2024, at 4:34?PM, Nicole Massey <nyyki@...> wrote:

?Charles et al,
There's a lot to comment on here.

There were rumors that Sweetwater sound did replacement ROM chips for these machines, but they're sasquatch -- often talked about, but as far as I know never seen.

Folks, please don't do this as a tablet or phone app.

Kurzweil released an editor/librarian for these machines, Object Mover, for DOS, an early Mac operating system, and the Atari ST, but I don't know if they can run on modern hardware or in modern OS's. The DOS one is limited to the sort of universal interface Roland made, the SUX-401 and its relatives. Dennis Spanagal (sp?) wrote Kurlewin as a librarian for these devices for use in Windows, and Kurle as a DOS level editor. He is the original owner of K1000.net, and he's said here in the past that someone who would be willing to do the about 100 coding hours it'd take to incorporate the editor into the Windows program has his blessing and he'd pass on the source code to Kurle for the project.

Now, on to other things...

The big issue here is that these machines predate MSB/LSB style controllers, so there's a limit to the mapping options -- it's going to have to be all in sysex, so that's going to take some digging. Again, talk to Dennis about this, because he found some "variances" in the sysex handling.

Any knobby editor is going to be about as effective as a specialized one, though since it has mass appeal it'd be a lot cheaper than a dedicated device, but so much changes from patch to patch it'd be sort of rough to always have the knobs someone would need to create an effective interface that would put knob control at someone's fingertips -- what we're dealing with here is a sample based semi-modular system sans filters, and a lot of stuff would still be buried in menus. Again, if it had a display then it'd be best if it had either a screen reader built into it or the same type of code Kurzweil included to send all the screen data through sysex. (a headphone jack on it might be way useful, because it'd also make it possible to send the data to a floor monitor instead of FOH)

Upgrade data is, as far as I know, all on the OS chips and setup chips. I'm thinking that's all on the setup chips, which also hold the samples, because the OS chips work on all the machines using the same OS data. What you're talking here is best done as a virtual instrument all the way. I know of no way to override the OS in the modules/keyboards. That said, the OS chip data is on the k1000.net site, so someone with the chops to analyze it and figure out if it'd be possible to upgrade the OS might help. But then you run into memory issues inside a machine, so again, a virtual version of the line is the better option. And yes, I know that means not using the nice D/A converters and output stages.

You're going to run into some issues implementing the filtering that way, because the architecture isn't set up for such things, and the bigger challenge is to make the filters resonant. The architecture isn't designed to do things like that, and if you can do it through sysex you can assign a controller number and map what you want to do to that, which would be a lot less work and would be usable by programmable controller knobs. Point of Information -- the PX/PXA/Pro1 series does have a filter inside, but it's fixed, and it's a lowpass filter to deal with some harsh aliasing and high frequency sample noise on some of the content. Again, this is far easier to do in a virtual synth as a standalone (my preference) or a VST.

Oh, and I don't call fourteen stage envelopes as minimal -- most envelopes do something with length and volume, and the 100-1200 series can do things like simulate reverb with those envelopes.
Nicole

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of charles.d.lutz@...
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 5:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [K1000-K1200] New member, old member; Upgraded my units; Questions

hi all,

Reviving an old thread here.

In an age where a lot of old gear seems to be enjoying new leases on life through various after-market 3rd party upgrades, ranging from reverse-engineered, updated firmware (example: For the JP-6: "Europa" from Synthcom, or the upgrade from Tauntek), to dedicated programmers (DW-8P from Retroactiv for the DW-8000, say - this is just one of plenty of examples), I can't seem to find a lot of evidence of this kind of activity for the K1000 series.

These upgrades often use ways to marry new technology with old, to get more out of the old hardware somehow. I'm embarrassed to say that though I was originally trained as an EE, I have forgotten almost everything about electronics after 30y in other areas, but have some (these days getting a bit rusty) software background.

Depending on the latest MIDI implementation of these instruments, I'd imagine a newfangled programmer for them wouldn't be "too hard" - it could even be done as an IPad app or whatnot to start with, I guess, which I think is the same as an editor-librarian, effectively. Sure, a nice hardware programmer with dedicated knobs and a nice display would be great, but that depends - as originally implemented, these machines have no filtering function and fairly simple envelopes.

More "invasive" ideas might include the idea of enhancing the OS to add more features. Now, I'm going to totally make something up that I think is "plausible" but is predicated on my rusty EE knowledge. I'm guessing that with today's technology, it is likely possible to emulate the hardware interface of whatever ROM chips these were using, for the OS, the Setups, or for the sound ROMs. A modern processor with a much faster clock could probably present whatever swapped-in ROM "pages" the running OS might need to jump to, in between the clock cycles of the original machine's CPU/system (again, totally making this up as "plausible"). So that means I could imagine a new OS that would not be constrained by the physical ROM memory limits of the original hardware. It would run sort of as a virtual machine, and if a current software instruction would need to jump to one "out of range" of the original hardware, then the hypervisor/VM layer (using that term quite loosely) would swap in that chunk of the OS image - the original hardware would be none the wiser.

This could be extended to allow you to swap in as many sound ROM images as you would like, even some of your own making, I would think, and mange the "Setups" / PLists in tandem (I think these were maintained in a 3rd kind of ROM). A big extended list of managed, related "objects" in the original format would let you have as many programs as you like.

Another idea? Implement the missing filtering in software.

Now, I am under no pretense that I'm ready to bust out my soldering iron and start whipping this up - I barely have time for music as it is, so at this point I am just wondering out loud, so-to-speak.

... but I think our old K1000 sounds really great. And I'm all for anything that lets these old menu-driven machines, that consequently didn't perhaps get quite enough exercise in the sound design department, have a "second act".

I'll echo the original poster Alexey's question as to whatever the legal status of things is here. Maybe that explains the lack of 3rd party hackage-of-love here...

I did some searching in the archives here for various terms but couldn't find much.

Chuck

On Sep 15, 2024, at 8:51, David Greenwood via groups.io <fiansamusic@...> wrote:

There is also a full blown editor/libarian for mac os (I wrote it!). Only issue is it was compiled for Mac OS Mojave, but since then Apple have updated the mac midi drivers. Since I don't have a newer Mac I have not updated it, but I did release the source code (Objective C) for download for any adventurous sole who wants to update the project.

David

On Sep 14, 2024, at 4:34?PM, Nicole Massey <nyyki@...> wrote:

?Charles et al,
There's a lot to comment on here.

There were rumors that Sweetwater sound did replacement ROM chips for these machines, but they're sasquatch -- often talked about, but as far as I know never seen.

Folks, please don't do this as a tablet or phone app.

Kurzweil released an editor/librarian for these machines, Object Mover, for DOS, an early Mac operating system, and the Atari ST, but I don't know if they can run on modern hardware or in modern OS's. The DOS one is limited to the sort of universal interface Roland made, the SUX-401 and its relatives. Dennis Spanagal (sp?) wrote Kurlewin as a librarian for these devices for use in Windows, and Kurle as a DOS level editor. He is the original owner of K1000.net, and he's said here in the past that someone who would be willing to do the about 100 coding hours it'd take to incorporate the editor into the Windows program has his blessing and he'd pass on the source code to Kurle for the project.

Now, on to other things...

The big issue here is that these machines predate MSB/LSB style controllers, so there's a limit to the mapping options -- it's going to have to be all in sysex, so that's going to take some digging. Again, talk to Dennis about this, because he found some "variances" in the sysex handling.

Any knobby editor is going to be about as effective as a specialized one, though since it has mass appeal it'd be a lot cheaper than a dedicated device, but so much changes from patch to patch it'd be sort of rough to always have the knobs someone would need to create an effective interface that would put knob control at someone's fingertips -- what we're dealing with here is a sample based semi-modular system sans filters, and a lot of stuff would still be buried in menus. Again, if it had a display then it'd be best if it had either a screen reader built into it or the same type of code Kurzweil included to send all the screen data through sysex. (a headphone jack on it might be way useful, because it'd also make it possible to send the data to a floor monitor instead of FOH)

Upgrade data is, as far as I know, all on the OS chips and setup chips. I'm thinking that's all on the setup chips, which also hold the samples, because the OS chips work on all the machines using the same OS data. What you're talking here is best done as a virtual instrument all the way. I know of no way to override the OS in the modules/keyboards. That said, the OS chip data is on the k1000.net site, so someone with the chops to analyze it and figure out if it'd be possible to upgrade the OS might help. But then you run into memory issues inside a machine, so again, a virtual version of the line is the better option. And yes, I know that means not using the nice D/A converters and output stages.

You're going to run into some issues implementing the filtering that way, because the architecture isn't set up for such things, and the bigger challenge is to make the filters resonant. The architecture isn't designed to do things like that, and if you can do it through sysex you can assign a controller number and map what you want to do to that, which would be a lot less work and would be usable by programmable controller knobs. Point of Information -- the PX/PXA/Pro1 series does have a filter inside, but it's fixed, and it's a lowpass filter to deal with some harsh aliasing and high frequency sample noise on some of the content. Again, this is far easier to do in a virtual synth as a standalone (my preference) or a VST.

Oh, and I don't call fourteen stage envelopes as minimal -- most envelopes do something with length and volume, and the 100-1200 series can do things like simulate reverb with those envelopes.
Nicole

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of charles.d.lutz@...
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 5:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [K1000-K1200] New member, old member; Upgraded my units; Questions

hi all,

Reviving an old thread here.

In an age where a lot of old gear seems to be enjoying new leases on life through various after-market 3rd party upgrades, ranging from reverse-engineered, updated firmware (example: For the JP-6: "Europa" from Synthcom, or the upgrade from Tauntek), to dedicated programmers (DW-8P from Retroactiv for the DW-8000, say - this is just one of plenty of examples), I can't seem to find a lot of evidence of this kind of activity for the K1000 series.

These upgrades often use ways to marry new technology with old, to get more out of the old hardware somehow. I'm embarrassed to say that though I was originally trained as an EE, I have forgotten almost everything about electronics after 30y in other areas, but have some (these days getting a bit rusty) software background.

Depending on the latest MIDI implementation of these instruments, I'd imagine a newfangled programmer for them wouldn't be "too hard" - it could even be done as an IPad app or whatnot to start with, I guess, which I think is the same as an editor-librarian, effectively. Sure, a nice hardware programmer with dedicated knobs and a nice display would be great, but that depends - as originally implemented, these machines have no filtering function and fairly simple envelopes.

More "invasive" ideas might include the idea of enhancing the OS to add more features. Now, I'm going to totally make something up that I think is "plausible" but is predicated on my rusty EE knowledge. I'm guessing that with today's technology, it is likely possible to emulate the hardware interface of whatever ROM chips these were using, for the OS, the Setups, or for the sound ROMs. A modern processor with a much faster clock could probably present whatever swapped-in ROM "pages" the running OS might need to jump to, in between the clock cycles of the original machine's CPU/system (again, totally making this up as "plausible"). So that means I could imagine a new OS that would not be constrained by the physical ROM memory limits of the original hardware. It would run sort of as a virtual machine, and if a current software instruction would need to jump to one "out of range" of the original hardware, then the hypervisor/VM layer (using that term quite loosely) would swap in that chunk of the OS image - the original hardware would be none the wiser.

This could be extended to allow you to swap in as many sound ROM images as you would like, even some of your own making, I would think, and mange the "Setups" / PLists in tandem (I think these were maintained in a 3rd kind of ROM). A big extended list of managed, related "objects" in the original format would let you have as many programs as you like.

Another idea? Implement the missing filtering in software.

Now, I am under no pretense that I'm ready to bust out my soldering iron and start whipping this up - I barely have time for music as it is, so at this point I am just wondering out loud, so-to-speak.

... but I think our old K1000 sounds really great. And I'm all for anything that lets these old menu-driven machines, that consequently didn't perhaps get quite enough exercise in the sound design department, have a "second act".

I'll echo the original poster Alexey's question as to whatever the legal status of things is here. Maybe that explains the lack of 3rd party hackage-of-love here...

I did some searching in the archives here for various terms but couldn't find much.

Chuck

On Sep 15, 2024, at 12:46?AM, Daniel Forró via groups.io <danforcz@...> wrote:

?Hi, David, where I can get it or buy? I’m still on Mojave…

Daniel Forro

On Sep 15, 2024, at 8:51, David Greenwood via groups.io <fiansamusic@...> wrote:

There is also a full blown editor/libarian for mac os (I wrote it!). Only issue is it was compiled for Mac OS Mojave, but since then Apple have updated the mac midi drivers. Since I don't have a newer Mac I have not updated it, but I did release the source code (Objective C) for download for any adventurous sole who wants to update the project.

David

On Sep 14, 2024, at 4:34?PM, Nicole Massey <nyyki@...> wrote:

?Charles et al,
There's a lot to comment on here.

There were rumors that Sweetwater sound did replacement ROM chips for these machines, but they're sasquatch -- often talked about, but as far as I know never seen.

Folks, please don't do this as a tablet or phone app.

Kurzweil released an editor/librarian for these machines, Object Mover, for DOS, an early Mac operating system, and the Atari ST, but I don't know if they can run on modern hardware or in modern OS's. The DOS one is limited to the sort of universal interface Roland made, the SUX-401 and its relatives. Dennis Spanagal (sp?) wrote Kurlewin as a librarian for these devices for use in Windows, and Kurle as a DOS level editor. He is the original owner of K1000.net, and he's said here in the past that someone who would be willing to do the about 100 coding hours it'd take to incorporate the editor into the Windows program has his blessing and he'd pass on the source code to Kurle for the project.

Now, on to other things...

The big issue here is that these machines predate MSB/LSB style controllers, so there's a limit to the mapping options -- it's going to have to be all in sysex, so that's going to take some digging. Again, talk to Dennis about this, because he found some "variances" in the sysex handling.

Any knobby editor is going to be about as effective as a specialized one, though since it has mass appeal it'd be a lot cheaper than a dedicated device, but so much changes from patch to patch it'd be sort of rough to always have the knobs someone would need to create an effective interface that would put knob control at someone's fingertips -- what we're dealing with here is a sample based semi-modular system sans filters, and a lot of stuff would still be buried in menus. Again, if it had a display then it'd be best if it had either a screen reader built into it or the same type of code Kurzweil included to send all the screen data through sysex. (a headphone jack on it might be way useful, because it'd also make it possible to send the data to a floor monitor instead of FOH)

Upgrade data is, as far as I know, all on the OS chips and setup chips. I'm thinking that's all on the setup chips, which also hold the samples, because the OS chips work on all the machines using the same OS data. What you're talking here is best done as a virtual instrument all the way. I know of no way to override the OS in the modules/keyboards. That said, the OS chip data is on the k1000.net site, so someone with the chops to analyze it and figure out if it'd be possible to upgrade the OS might help. But then you run into memory issues inside a machine, so again, a virtual version of the line is the better option. And yes, I know that means not using the nice D/A converters and output stages.

You're going to run into some issues implementing the filtering that way, because the architecture isn't set up for such things, and the bigger challenge is to make the filters resonant. The architecture isn't designed to do things like that, and if you can do it through sysex you can assign a controller number and map what you want to do to that, which would be a lot less work and would be usable by programmable controller knobs. Point of Information -- the PX/PXA/Pro1 series does have a filter inside, but it's fixed, and it's a lowpass filter to deal with some harsh aliasing and high frequency sample noise on some of the content. Again, this is far easier to do in a virtual synth as a standalone (my preference) or a VST.

Oh, and I don't call fourteen stage envelopes as minimal -- most envelopes do something with length and volume, and the 100-1200 series can do things like simulate reverb with those envelopes.
Nicole

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of charles.d.lutz@...
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2024 5:10 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [K1000-K1200] New member, old member; Upgraded my units; Questions

hi all,

Reviving an old thread here.

In an age where a lot of old gear seems to be enjoying new leases on life through various after-market 3rd party upgrades, ranging from reverse-engineered, updated firmware (example: For the JP-6: "Europa" from Synthcom, or the upgrade from Tauntek), to dedicated programmers (DW-8P from Retroactiv for the DW-8000, say - this is just one of plenty of examples), I can't seem to find a lot of evidence of this kind of activity for the K1000 series.

These upgrades often use ways to marry new technology with old, to get more out of the old hardware somehow. I'm embarrassed to say that though I was originally trained as an EE, I have forgotten almost everything about electronics after 30y in other areas, but have some (these days getting a bit rusty) software background.

Depending on the latest MIDI implementation of these instruments, I'd imagine a newfangled programmer for them wouldn't be "too hard" - it could even be done as an IPad app or whatnot to start with, I guess, which I think is the same as an editor-librarian, effectively. Sure, a nice hardware programmer with dedicated knobs and a nice display would be great, but that depends - as originally implemented, these machines have no filtering function and fairly simple envelopes.

More "invasive" ideas might include the idea of enhancing the OS to add more features. Now, I'm going to totally make something up that I think is "plausible" but is predicated on my rusty EE knowledge. I'm guessing that with today's technology, it is likely possible to emulate the hardware interface of whatever ROM chips these were using, for the OS, the Setups, or for the sound ROMs. A modern processor with a much faster clock could probably present whatever swapped-in ROM "pages" the running OS might need to jump to, in between the clock cycles of the original machine's CPU/system (again, totally making this up as "plausible"). So that means I could imagine a new OS that would not be constrained by the physical ROM memory limits of the original hardware. It would run sort of as a virtual machine, and if a current software instruction would need to jump to one "out of range" of the original hardware, then the hypervisor/VM layer (using that term quite loosely) would swap in that chunk of the OS image - the original hardware would be none the wiser.

This could be extended to allow you to swap in as many sound ROM images as you would like, even some of your own making, I would think, and mange the "Setups" / PLists in tandem (I think these were maintained in a 3rd kind of ROM). A big extended list of managed, related "objects" in the original format would let you have as many programs as you like.

Another idea? Implement the missing filtering in software.

Now, I am under no pretense that I'm ready to bust out my soldering iron and start whipping this up - I barely have time for music as it is, so at this point I am just wondering out loud, so-to-speak.

... but I think our old K1000 sounds really great. And I'm all for anything that lets these old menu-driven machines, that consequently didn't perhaps get quite enough exercise in the sound design department, have a "second act".

I'll echo the original poster Alexey's question as to whatever the legal status of things is here. Maybe that explains the lack of 3rd party hackage-of-love here...

I did some searching in the archives here for various terms but couldn't find much.

Chuck