Lumatone

The Lounge Other Gear
#1

The Lumatone looks like it’s about to drop, so I’m mostly re-posting from another thread. I’m comparing it (in my mind) with my LinnStrument for microtonality and general usability. The Lumatone’s great advantage is that, software-wise, it’s set up for microtonality out-of-the-box. LinnStrument could apparently do it using Universal Tuning Editor, but I’m not 100% clear on the workability of that combo. The Lumatone’s extra 75 keys is certainly an advantage for microtonality, but it’s a behemoth…and that price . At $3000, the first batch is twice the LinnStrument, which is bad enough, but not entirely crazy considering what it is, the construction, etc. The regular price of $4000 will make you want to hang yourself if you don’t play the thing 24/7.

Mainly, though, I’m very skeptical about the Lumatone’s playability. They promote the long-travel keys, but I certainly don’t see that as an advantage unless there’s cool modulation throughout that travel, like the much-anticipated Osmose, and it looks like its just polyphonic after touch, but who can complain about that. The keys are larger than the LinnStrument’s, and I don’t see any advantage there, either, just making it that much more challenging to cover territory. I fit 72 LinnStrument keys under my comparatively small hand span; from the videos, the Lumatone looks like less than 40 even though one of the promoters says “a hundred.” Lumatone seems to cater to piano players who like to bash the piano percussively. I like to bash the piano percussively, but realistically speaking, my limited time so far on the LinnStrument has convinced me that it’s just a matter of practice to be able to play the thing with piano-like polyphonic control, though you have to acquire the discipline of reining in the energetic playing–a substantial challenge when using my LinnStrument as a percussion controller.

Aside from percussive playing, piano technique gives us muscle memory of much more hand and arm movement, but if you can go through the cognitive pain of unlearning that and reining it in, the LinnStrument might offer the identical playing experience (with the assistance of third party supporting software for microtunings and lighting), though with 200 instead of 275 keys. The trick is to control yourself on the LinnStrument so that you can get a full range of expressivity over a narrower range of kinetic energy. Plus, it looks like the 3D modulation you get on this 5 lb. (2.37 kg) baby is not something you can get with the 22 lb. (10kg) Lumatone. It will take months to put in enough woodshedding on the LinnStrument to really see what it can practically do if you put in the time adapting to it, but I wish I could A/B with a Lumatone.

2 Likes
The Tonnetz Diagram ( Music Theory )
#2

Nice! That might indeed be a gamechanger.

#3

From a studio/recording point of view, I’m not usually Interested in these types of things. Not because of price per se, but because at that end of the day there are always other ways to accomplish the same results, albeit in a less direct or Interesting way.

But this looks really inspirational and I’m at that point where I’d really enjoy a new approach to live performance aspects of making music.

#4

compared to other microtonal keys, I think this is very nice :slight_smile:

(too rich for my needs, but for a limited market etc, it doesn’t seem that bad really - considering likely r&d costs etc)

as for it compared to Linnstrument,
yeah… I thought similar about both Lumatone and Theoryboard (which is different, but tries to allow for more experimenting with scales) , and how I could adapt the same concepts to an Eigenharp Alpha.

But decided against developing both ideas… the reason being, both the Lumatone and Theoryboards main selling point, is they ‘just work’ without the faffing, this is what makes you use it.
The Eigenharp already has microtonal support, but its not quick n’ easy, so I never really played with it much. also… with more tones in the scale, those extras keys are going to be handy.
… and I do like the idea of the hex layout, compared to the rectangular (as on Linnstrument, Eigenharp, Soundplane etc) when using fixed scale layouts.

the other side of this (and the reason for the rectangular layout) , that I use on the Soundplane, that you can use on the Linnstrument (I believe?) , is not to use fixed scales at all - play it unquantised, then you can play freely.
(not that this is new, musicians have been buying the continuum for years for this purpose)

I see the lumatone not so much about catering to ‘piano player types’ - rather being quite focused on the scales/microtonal side.

but for sure, why not try with the linnstrument if you have it already… perhaps it will allow you to ‘scratch that itch’ enough…

anyway, really just glad we are getting to many ‘control surface’ alternatives, allow us to explore different aspects of music.

1 Like
#5

Good point about the Lumatone’s out-of-the-boxness. Futzing with the LS isn’t a horror–though only once you’ve studied up–but there are a few elements to coordinate when you want to do stuff it doesn’t already have presets for. This friction itself might stop you from making a move you might like to make in a given situation.

Can you say more about any advantages you see in the hex key pattern vs. a grid of squares? Since they’re both not piano patterns, you pretty much are relearning physical techniques and fingering on both. When you discount the size difference and the LS’s guitar-esque layout (if you choose that setting), it seems like a wash to me between the two geometries.

#6

Differences between hexagonal and rectangular, goes to the isomorphic purposes of your chosen layout(s). There is also a pattern related to rectangular, where you shift row or column by a half creating a brick like pattern, which blends aspects of both.

With rectangular you have rows and columns — and there are also two diagonals. With hexagonal there are three primary directions and three “diagonals”.

By choosing various arrangements, and placements of the note pitch to the grid you can get neighboring buttons that relate in a music theory sense. Isomorphic layouts allows you to both have set pattern geometry for different chord types, and set relationships between the relative locations of these chords in a key. You just move this relationship physical on the buttons to change key.

So in specific there is a hexagonal layout where a three button clump that points right is a major triad, and one that points left is a minor triad, with the same root note. Plus these clumps get collected major and minor just as they do in a musical key.

Another idea that is useful to consider with alternate keyboards, is the difference between a “continuous surface chromatic instrument” and a “polychromatic instrument”.

The Haken Continuum is a continuous surface where you can get any pitch by hitting the precise (Y direction) physical location.

The Lumatone while used for microtonal applications, is polychromatic. (Another good example is the H-Pi Tonal Plexus .) You split the octave into more (equal temperament) divisions than the standard 12, and assign a button to each.

The Linnstrument is in basis in the continuous surface category, but it would be possible with changes to function in a polychromatic mode. (Have people done this?)

This video by Dolores Catherino is a good exploration of the differences between these two types of microtonal keyboards.

1 Like
#7

Wait, that’s not right, is it? The squares on the LS each have their own discrete note, and there’s a small gap between each square where you get no response at all.

Given that a grid of little squares and rows and columns (or whatever) of hexagons are both isomorphic, I’m just saying it seems a wash between them. I don’t see pros or cons either way because you don’t apply your piano layout muscle memory in either case. The LS can exploit string experience if you space the rows with the fourths or fifths settings, but there are two other settings before you go to a custom map via third party software.

1 Like
#8

I’ve never played a Linnstrument, is there a mode that turns off snapping to a note ? The Continuum allows both options.

If not the Linnstrument would still be classified as a continuous Instrument with its smooth positional pitch bend.

ADDED FIVE DAYS LATER: The Linnstrument is indeed in classification a continuous controller as gets explained further down the thread.

If you want to see the difference of geometry between rectangular and hexagonal as inconsequential, you are allowed. A lot of people don’t. It does make a difference in how they are played.

#9

I’m asking if anyone can comment on the differences they experience between a layout of these large numbers of hexagons vs. squares. I’m not saying I want one or the other, I’m saying I’m unable to see any substantial difference.

The LinnStrument is one MIDI note per square. It’s strictly a conventional MIDI controller that additionally provides modulation of MIDI CC’s in three dimensions per note. Its pitch bend is just MIDI pitchbend.

#10

Explaining the difference in geometry from another angle. With a rectangular grid set to a row offset of fourths, a vertical physical move, moves pitch by a perfect fourth. A horizontal physical move, moves pitch a half step. One diagonal is a tritone, the other a major third.

In hexagonal there are six directions each with different musical intervals.

CORRECTION: Change minor third to major third.

#11

I understand the technical, quantifiable differences. I’m asking about the impact on the playability that one experiences between the two different layouts. For example, if the Lumatone’s keys were square, and the Lumatone’s had, say, 40 rows and 70 columns of square keys, would it still be pretty much the same experience if you’re coming to it with only piano experience?

ADDED:
I’d also be curious to know what Dolores thinks of the differences in playability among the various polychromatic controlllers you can see in her video. Not the Continuum or the Seaboard because, as she points out, they’re linear, but the Starr Labs one and those other two. I mean, as I understand it, the LinnStrument is also polychromatic. So aside from key action and size, I’m wondering if the geometrical layout of the keys makes a difference to the approach to and feel of microtonal playing.

1 Like
#12

I only have novice experience with both.

Let me make an analogy. There are many many different ways people choose to tune their guitars. You can play any song with any tuning, it comes down to how well and how easily you can play a particular song with a particular tuning. Often people change tunings because it changes the way they make music. Some people get very comfortable changing between different tunings and do it fluidly. The differences can be subtle, or radical, depending on the person, and the changes made.

2 Likes
#13

I think @Jukka expressed it very well…

no one is saying anything is better/worst, rather they have different experiences.
so the hex layout, may for some scale layouts have interesting ‘patterns’,
of course (with enough keys) you could pick the same tones out on a rectangle or with a piano for that matter - so its down to association not ‘ability’ to play,

how well that association works on microtonal Im not sure… I guess it depends on number of tones in a scale, and also how the rows are offset (this is what give the relationship between adjacent notes)

of course polychromatic is also about association too…
I think with microtonal scales the issue is there becomes a lot of tones, so finding your way around them is more difficult (than remembering 12) , hence the use of colour - but spacial placement could help too.

also from the few hex controllers Ive seen , they seem to allow for more keys in a small space - again something important for microtonal scales
( I guess because we hit the centre of the key, the ‘corners’ are not really used on rectangles/squares - yes I recognise this is not true on an expressive controller where you do slide into them - but lumatone is not doing this :wink: )

theoretically, the linnstrument is continuous - but correct, its not strictly continuous (like the soundplane and continuum) … iirc for pitch slides, its firmware interpolates, to ‘jump the gap’ (which is very small) … so whilst you can play continuously (not sure at what resolution) , Im not sure if you could place your finger between notes and accurately get the position… BUT I don’t have a linnstrument, so can’t test to see how well it can compensate. (it does do a very good job in this area)

3 Likes
#14

To clarify: the LinnStrument isn’t continuous. The keys will only output MIDI notes 0-127. The only way to achieve something in between is to play a note, then pitchbend into the in-between by sliding in the X direction when you’ve assigned X to pitchbend in the settings. On a conventional keyboard, you’d do the same by playing a note and operating the pitchbend controller on its left side. Without this setting, the LinnStrument will play a piano-style glissando when you glide in the X direction. There is no intermediate position between LinnStrument keys; when you press down anywhere on the LinnStrument, you get one of MIDI notes 0-127 or no response at all.

So apparently key shape and layout (hex, square) on an isomorphic layout makes no appreciable difference–you get used to anything (within reason). I wonder how forgiving the Lumatone is the farther away you get from a hexagon’s center. Color is important for keeping yourself oriented because even after you’ve internalized the shapes of intervals and chords, when you change registers or any other relatively big change in hand position, it’s too easy to miss a little bit on these isomorphic controllers that have so many keys. Even a fretless bass presents a challenge for a jump of more than a fourth when you don’t have face or side dots.

#15

you are confusing midi protocol implementation with the hardware…

but even using midi does not make it non-continuous (well, not at the 7bit level you pointing out)

the way MPE works (and also if you want to play microtonal over midi) is to send notes on different midi channels. - this means that the pitchbend can be applied before the note on message, which in turn means you can play immediately off-scale.

set the pitchbend to +/- 1 semitone , and you can now specify a tone to around 0.01 cents ! ( 1/8192) , so sure thats not continuous , but close enough :wink:

in practice this is not used for MPE, since the pitchbend also allows us to slide continuously, this is why the MPE standard defaults to +/-48 semis - to give a 2 octave range slide.
(MPE+ extends this further and has been used by continuums for a long time, but is not widely supported)

of course, things change in midi 2.0, but for now MPE works well for this kind of use - Ive used it for ages (Eigenharp/Soundplane) and implemented it in a few things too, both on the controller side, and sound engine.

#16

I’m asking after how a person can play a LinnStrument, what a musician can do with the instrument musically: you cannot play a LinnStrument in a continuous manner. I’m takling about actual possible user experience, which is the same question I have for hex keys vs. square: what is the difference in actual musical use? MIDI controllers only matter in this context as musical instrument. To call a LinnStrument continuous implies it’s even remotely like a Continuum to a player, but a LinnStrument is no more like a Continuum that an Arturia Keystep, whether you use its MPE setting or not. The Lumatone doesn’t mention MPE capability anywhere I’ve seen.

#17

Doesn’t turning off quantization do exactly this?

2 Likes
#18

Dylan Horvath worked for years to get an isomorphic keyboard controller, particularly for microtonal music composition and performance. He sort of took the handoff from Siemen Terpstra, who designed a similar controller under the Terpstra named but failed to get it to market.

Having attempted to play microtonal music on a standard keyboard, I have a decent understanding of the appeal of an isomorphic keyboard. For example, I loaded up a patch on my Emu XL-7 with a 19-tone equal temperament tuning, which maps MIDI note numbers to 19 pitches per octave instead of 12. I quickly found that remembering which note is what on a standard keyboard is a challenge, because the C key on the keyboard that is up an octave from middle C, no longer triggers the octave up note, but some note lower than the octave. And it just gets worse as one travels further away on the keyboard from middle C. This lack of consistency of how keys are mapped to notes, from microtonal scale to scale, is why microtonal composers don’t like working with the standard keyboard.

Microtonal composers rely primarily on sequencers when working electronic music gear, due to the note layout inconsistency problem with standard keyboards.

The FAQ attempts to explain the isomorphic keyboard:

So the main reasons somebody interested in microtonal music would want to invest in a Lumatone:

  1. They can afford it.
  2. They want to explore harmony built on a microtonal scale - simply bending a guitar string, using a slide, using a pitch bender, etc. is not as optimal as having all the harmony notes you want to use all laid out on an instrument.
  3. Lumatone can be programmed for the microtonal scale, with color-coding to assist in locating where the octaves are (if it’s a repeating octave scale) and other desired landmark notes.
3 Likes
#19

Oh, right, I’m a doofus, it will indeed do exactly that. It’s kind of useless, though, for playing microtonality, as you pointed out, because of the difficulty of playing accurately, but yes, it’s a row-by-row Continuum if you want. To send arbitrary single note number/pitchbend combos per pad to assure staying within a microtuning, you need a third party converter like Universal Tuning Editor, which is also set up for Lumatone. So far, I haven’t been able to get it to work for LinnStrument, the MIDI monitor indicating the software has no effect even though it allows me to select the proper MIDI in and out. But the LS works fine with 19 equal divisions of the octave (EDO) out of the box, so I haven’t worked on solving that.

I would say you require the Lumatone to go above 19 EDO. LinnStrument lays out microtuning fine with, for example Omnisphere, which maps MIDI notes to the selected microtuning without needing pitchbend information. I use LS/Omnisphere for 19 EDO and modify the LS’s lighting so that I can see octave jumps, making octave groups of 19 chromatic notes occur in ergonomic 5x4 blocks when you select the LS’s +5 setting for row offset.

I guess Omnisphere is limited to 128 MIDI notes, so that would be 6+ octaves of 19 EDO, which would be fine, but you’re down to three when you use row overlapping for playability on the LS. For 31 EDO, you’re down to a bit less than four octaves, and then like two with ergonomic row overlapping----not good. I started considering the Lumatone more closely when I saw Dolores’s performance on 55 EDO, which I think sounds really good. You’re going to need a lot of keys that each send their own note+pitchbend combo (not straight MIDI note mapped like Omnisphere’s microtuning option) to get a few octaves of 55 EDO with a patterned/overlapped layout that offers you a musically logical, ergonomically playable arrangement of keys. Her video shows that these larger number EDO’s are worth playing around with.

#20

I merely provided 19-TET - which may or may not be identical to 19-EDO - some people really get uptight about TET vs EDO - as an example from my experience with the limitations of working with microtonal scales on a standard keyboard.

I’m more interested in that you’re already using your Linnstrument with microtonal scales. I suppose you could use it more like an isomorphic keyboard by orienting the Linnstrument in a diagonal fashion.

I see there are more than 19 pads in one row of the full size Linnstrument. I’m assuming yours is the full size one. So you’re working with 19-EDO with all 19 pitches in one row I take it?

I only played with 19-EDO for a little bit. I then tried 31-TET because I heard it was closer to “just intonation” (I barely understood what it really was at the time) and would give me “sweeter 3rds” or something… and that was even more confusing to deal with on standard keyboard.

Lumatone’s explanation of the isomorphic layout for microtonality is incomplete. One advantage is you map all the notes will use most often out of, say 55-EDO, to the bottom row of keys. The in-between notes you would use 2nd most would be the next row above - each of those “group 2” notes mapped to the key that is “between” two keys that represent notes that are above and below that note. The 3rd most used would be the next row above that, and so on. Maybe this gives an idea of why the Linnstrument hasn’t been a popular tool of choice for microtonal composers. Every note in every row is stacked directly above a note in the next row below - no “in between”.

I thought I saw a good image or other graphical representation of an isomorphic keyboard used for microtonal applications. When I Google this stuff, there’s too much talking and not enough showing.

You could make your Linnstrument more Lumatone-ish by tilting it so you get a similarly pyramid-like arrangement. You’d then be playing diamond-shaped “keys” instead of hex-shaped ones.

Another strategy for (conventional) keyboard note mapping that I’d started to look into but abandoned due to lack of time was working with 12-note subsets of the desired tuning. So for example, a 12-note subset of 55-EDO. If two keyboards are available, you can then have two 12-note subsets of 55-EDO, which may or may not be overlapping subsets, depending on your needs.

2 Likes