Skip Navigation.
Section 0

ChromaTalk Archives: August 2001

Mac OS Chroma Utility

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:08:56 -0700

Hi everyone,

I've never been sure how many Chroma owners are Mac users, but I've received a number of requests for a Mac OS port of David Clarke's DOS patch conversion tools (which are available at the site). At the same time, as a Mac user myself, I've often wanted a good Chroma editor/librarian.

The patch conversion tools are now available for Mac OS X.

A friend of mine was going to work on a port of the conversion tools but hasn't been able to find the time. In terms of patch storage, I long used Opcode's products--first the standalone Chroma librarian, later Galaxy's Chroma module. But Galaxy was discontinued even before Opcode bit the dust a couple of years ago; and despite several requests I never got a good answer from Opcode on how to create a librarian module. I did receive a developer kit from Mark of the Unicorn for their Unisyn product, but I have never found Unisyn to be very stable, the user interface seems fairly inflexible, and there's no word on an OS X port. There is a Chroma module for SoundDiver, but I'm not keen on the way it represents Chroma patches, and I have grown to despise any kind of copy protection (which is especially problematic in the midst of a major platform transition like the one to Mac OS X).

In short, there is continued uncertainty with respect to editor/librarian programs or frameworks, particularly looking forward to Mac OS X. So I'm considering writing a Chroma utility for Macintosh myself.

The first release would make the patch conversion utilities (sysex to tape to text) available to Mac users. The second release (or a distinct app) would add patch storage and retrieval; and a third, patch editing.

I want to target Mac OS X only (the Cocoa APIs). Why? OS X is clearly the future of the platform. I have been using it full time at work since it was released, and it is very stable--it NEVER crashes. It's got a great user interface with some useful extra widgets like drawers. Its MIDI support is not there yet, but Doug Wyatt, formerly of Opcode and one of the architects of OMS, is now at Apple and responsible for MIDI support, so it promises to be good. As this will be something of a learning process for me, I want to focus on the future (Cocoa) rather than the past (Carbon or OS 9.x). Finally, by the time I have a first release completed, MIDI on OS X should be a reality; all the major apps (e.g. Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase, etc.) should be native, and there should be a way to send sysex to MIDI devices.

In terms of hardware my goal would be that (beyond an OS X-capable Mac and a Chroma) only a Mac OS X-supported MIDI interface, and the Syntech/Chroma Cult MIDI kit for the Chroma, would be required.

If you're a Mac user, I would welcome any questions or input. I'm just starting to think about this and would like to gauge interest and get opinions.

Murray Macdonald [21030276+] · Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:13:11 -0700

Hi Chris,

I too am a Mac/Chroma user. Just wondering if you have considered writing it as a Java application. That way it would be portable across operating systems including OSX, Unix, Win, etc. Just a thought.

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:53:26 -0700

In theory, yes. I just had a quick look and there is a javax.sound.midi package now. I'm not sure whether this is in the Mac OS X implementation of Java 2.

But Java support for MIDI promises to be primitive compared to Mac OS X. And there's no guarantee that MIDI support will ever evolve on the Java platform--how many people do you know are using or writing Java sequencers or patch librarians?--whereas sound and music is a big market for Apple.

I used to work at JavaSoft, and the Mac is simply not a priority--Apple is responsible for the implementation on their platform, and it often takes them years to get things implemented (for instance, Java 2 finally appeared with OS X, nearly two years after it was available on Windows). With Microsoft dropping support for Java (think C#), and Sun's focus on Windows, I'm not sure what Java's future looks like on personal computers (as opposed to embedded, consumer, etc.). The "write once, run anywhere" mantra never really came to pass. And performance ... don't get me going.

Also I have little interest (or ability, in terms of time and hardware) to test against other platforms such as Windows and Linux or whatever. And I admit I'm keen to learn Cocoa.

James Coplin · Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:02:39 -0400

I would avoid Mac OS 10 until it smooths out. Keep this as simple as possible. I one request is that its multitasking and can run while other midi/audio applications are running.

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:20:10 -0700

I've been using Mac OS X full time at work almost since its first release in March. It has its rough edges but is much more stable than the "classic" Mac OS. And unlike 9.x it is a true multi-tasking operating system. Version 10.1, due in September, not only fixes some performance issues but adds MIDI support. Doug Wyatt, who worked on OMS at Opcode, is now developing MIDI system services for OS X.

I really don't want to target a platform (OS 9.x, OMS) that will quickly become obsolete.

James Coplin [16330036+] · Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:26:49 -0400

Chris I think you have a hard time finding a majority of mac users using OS10. Anyone ? Heck i still have a old Se-30 running wave wrangler to my Prophet VS : ) hehehehehehe. And 8.6 on my 6.3.

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:07:53 -0700

Sure, I understand that (do you mean your G3?). At the same time, you will find that less and less software will be written for old machines and OS versions. I have an old PowerBook 540 that I still use to run Galaxy. I expect to use software like Pro Tools or Logic Audio on my G4 under Mac OS X for serious work, though. The Chroma utility would be just one more reason, for a small handful of people, to consider upgrading to OS X. Technology moves on. Even if I targeted the Carbon APIs, it wouldn't work on your SE/30 (and I'm not even sure about 8.6).

Maybe it's partly that I don't want support for our "obsolete" Chroma to run only on an obsolete platform. Given the amount of spare time I have, the time frame for the Chroma utility would probably align nicely with the adoption curve for MIDI and audio apps on OS X. The transition will happen. Think five years from now: no one will be using OS 8.x or 9.x, and I don't want to have to rewrite for OS XII or whatever.

I remember similar arguments about System 7 versus 6. No one talks about that any longer, do they?

I saw Macintosh future, and its name is OS X.

John Camelot · Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:37:06 EDT

I am also a MAC / CHROMA USER, AND AM VERY INTERESTED . I am using 9.1 but found that OMS wil not work with Quicktime 5. Works fine with 4 and I still use too many apps. that use OMS. I hope new MIDI drivers will be as good.

Let us know, thanks ,
John

Murray Macdonald [21030276+] · Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:55:41 -0700

<rant>
I'm an addicted OPCODE user. I run Opcode Studio Vision Pro on a G3, Studio4, MOTU2408, ASIO plug-ins and it all works great. I have no intentions of upgrading or changing my studio's Mac because of Apple's move to OSX, a move which I highly support as I am a unix programmer by day. With decades in software I have been reminded all-too-often, "don't fix what ain't broken"...kinda like a Chroma! :) Studio Vision runs great with OMS, Galaxy and all the great Opcode product. Its all pretty cool. I view my sequencer/audio workstation is a smooth running piece of STUDIO GEAR, not a computer. When I am in the studio I want to make music fluently, not mess around with software. That's why I stick with the OPCODE. Its great software. Sure I've done sessions using all that other software, but SVP allows me to produce demanding sessions fluently. It plain works. It does everything I've ever needed to do, fluently. For what I do, I can't imagine a better audio workstation.
</rant>

Why the rant? Just to emphasize a realistic situation that exists in the field and stress the value in making backwards compatible software. Lots of studios are under-funded and will be running on their existing functional Mac platform for years. (I even have a second MIDI studio (with another Chroma and a Polaris) at home that runs on an old Mac IIfx/audiomedia3). Sure I wish I could run the software you are considering developing (both at home and in my studio) but I and other people will/can not upgrade. What does it take to support the OS9 and OSX? How consistent are Apple's OSX GUI libraries with OS9's APIs?

James Coplin [16330036+] · Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:12:00 -0400

I think as soon as you guys mentioned OSX, Unix, and all that you lost us all. Look at the responses. To be honest I dont know too many Chroma users, that even know what Unix is : ). Just try to make this editor backwards compatible if you can for us dinosaurs. : )

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:55:32 -0700

It doesn't really matter that OS X is based on UNIX. You don't have to look at the shell tool if you don't want to. My dad bought a new iMac yesterday and I'm going to set him up with OS X. It's far more stable, is easier to use, and is the future of the platform.

So I'll have to do some thinking about backwards compatibility issues. Thanks for all your feedback.

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:11:03 -0700

[I have tried several times over the last couple of weeks sending this message, but it hasn't been going through because the mailing list software has thought it an admin request. Recent upgrades to Synthcom have made this obvious, so I've edited the message in hopes that it'll finally go through.]

<rant>
I'm an addicted OPCODE user. [...]
</rant>

Vision has been showing its age for me (it's become more and more unstable, and the competition has done some interesting-looking stuff in the years since), and I can no longer install Galaxy on my floppyless G4. I guess I'm in a slightly different situation in that I can't really afford to keep a separate system as "studio gear."

Why the rant? Just to emphasize a realistic situation that exists in the field and stress the value in making backwards compatible software. Lots of studios are under-funded and will be running on their existing functional Mac platform for years. (I even have a second MIDI studio (with another Chroma and a Polaris) at home that runs on an old Mac IIfx/audiomedia3). Sure I wish I could run the software you are considering developing (both at home and in my studio) but I and other people will/can not upgrade. What does it take to support the OS9 and OSX? How consistent are Apple's OSX GUI libraries with OS9's APIs?

There are two main sets of APIs for OS X. Cocoa is the latest rev of the NeXTSTEP APIs, and Carbon is a subset of the old Mac OS APIs. Cocoa apps only run on OS X. Carbon apps will run on 9.x (with the Carbon library) and OS X. I suppose the problem would be that, while the user interface could be written to the Carbon APIs, the MIDI communication is another matter. I would assume OMS for 9.x. With the disappearance of Opcode, I'm really not sure how much documentation exists for OMS developers. And, unless Doug Wyatt does some clever backwards-compatibility tricks with the OS X MIDI stuff, I would think it will be quite different on the new operating system, requiring separate code. (Though I have not tried it, I have heard that OMS apps won't run in "Classic" mode on OS X.)

In the years since this thread, there have been a lot of changes in the Mac music world. Mac OS X is now firmly entrenched--as I knew it would be--with solid MIDI and audio support through CoreAudio. And, arguably, most serious studio work has moved on from OS 9. Apple has bought Emagic and Logic Pro is an oustanding digital recording package. Pro Tools is also OS X native, as are Performer, Cubase, and most plug-ins. See Mac OS X Audio for more information. So, after the major revision of the site that's in progress, I'm going to get back to this project. [June 2004]

Go to reply in Ocrober 2001

Patches Available in Sysex Format

I finally found the time to convert all the Chroma patches to sysex format.

Syntech/Chroma Cult MIDI interface (and software to send sysex files) required. Or use the patch conversion tools to convert to cassette audio format or parameter listings.

Electronics & Music Maker Review

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:51:37 -0700

I've posted a Chroma review from Electronics & Music Maker, a British magazine from the 1980s.

It's an in-depth review with a few pictures of the interior of the keyboard, including a shot of the "tapper." I have another article from this magazine on the Apple II sequencer that I'll post soon.

Paul Hackett-Evans [21010094] · Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:22:37 +0100

Thanks, Chris.

I have a copy of an article I wrote in 1984 for E&MM (or "Music Technology" as it later became) about our Music School, with the Chroma getting a few mentions & pics. I don't know if it's suitable for the site, but I'll dig it out of the attic and send you a scan soon.

EPROM help

Doug Terrebonne [21030114] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:36:16 -0700 (PDT)

Hi, I'm new to this list... My Chroma needs a little help... All the EPROMs have coroded and oozed out some white gunk! In all my years of electronics repair I have never seen this happen with EPROMs... Has anyone else had this problem?

I'm hoping I can replace the EPROMs with some new 2716s and clean up the chip sockets and it will be OK... Would some kind soul be able to program some new 2716s for me?

Thanx!
Doug

BigFoot Recording Studios
40-Track Facility
Fremont, CA
www.bigfootstudio.com

Re: Chroma buttons

Dave Bradley [16330135] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 08:29:55 -0500

Go to first message in thread (July 2001)

Did we ever get any pics of this red Chroma panel?

Still curious...

Dave

Andi Beit [21030620] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:05:49 +0200

I sent it to You about 2 weeks ago! Could resend it, if You didn't got it!

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:06:45 -0700

There's a 60K limit for messages sent to the list [bumped up to about 330K as of 2004]. Try sending one picture, or one per message.

Andi Beit [21030620] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:37:08 +0200

Andi Beit [21030620] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:38:53 +0200

Andi Beit [21030620] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:38:10 +0200

Paul Hackett-Evans [21010094] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:14:15 +0100

Red Chroma

Wow! That's fascinating! Thanks for showing us. By the way, I got pictures 1, 3,4. What happened to 2??

I wonder if anyone has a Polaris with the Chroma colours on its panels which the brochure showed, as opposed to the blue which seems to have been the main production colours....???

Dave Bradley [16330135] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:26:52 -0500

Wow, that's different looking - I like it! If I may ask, what's the serial number of this machine?

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:58:07 -0700

Re: Red Chroma

Wow! That's fascinating! Thanks for showing us. By the way, I got pictures 1, 3,4. What happened to 2??

It was over 60K. Should come through compressed as a JPG:

Dave Bradley [16330135] · Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:08:39 -0500

Re: Red Chroma

Chris, sounds like a good mystery that maybe we should ask Phil Dodds about...

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:25:36 -0700

Re: Red Chroma

I wonder if anyone has a Polaris with the Chroma colours on its panels which the brochure showed, as opposed to the blue which seems to have been the main production colours....????

Tony Williams, one of the designers of the Chroma, Expander, and Polaris, and developer of the Apple II and IBM PC sequencer software, wrote when I asked him about this last year, "the orange/yellow ones with natural wood sides were the first production prototypes. ... I think I remember that these never really made it into production. So, if someone has one, it is extremely rare and was actually a pre-production prototype."

See Panel Colour Themes: The Polaris Prototype.

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:27:55 -0700

Re: Red Chroma

Chris, sounds like a good mystery that maybe we should ask Phil Dodds about...

You read my mind; I just e-mailed him one of the pictures. A good excuse, also, to prod him about those interview questions. Sigh ...

Andi Beit [21030620] · Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:16:46 +0200

The SerNr. is 21030620

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:27:18 -0700

Re: Red Chroma

I asked Philip Dodds about the alternate panel colour scheme, and progress on those questions. He replied:

"I don't remember too much about these units except a vague memory of them being called 'Halloween' units. It's been too many years...

"I'll try to get to the questions again... I keep meaning to, but things keep cropping up (day job)... That and travel... I need a hobby."

Don Tillman · Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:51:12 -0700 (PDT)

Re: Red Chroma

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the Halloween Chroma's colors had to come from a separate color layout.

By that I mean, it would probably have been trivial to substitute inks during the screening operation ("Hey man, let's try this color for the 'blue', and this color for the 'green'..."). But this doesn't appear to be a simple color substitution.

Chris Ryan [21030691] · Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:07:10 -0700

Re: Red Chroma

Yes, the numbers and descriptions are reversed. For instance, Envelope 1's Decay button has the 16 ABOVE the "Decay" label, in the coloured area, on the Halloween Chroma. Normally "Decay" is shown in the coloured area and the number is white on black below. I actually prefer the Halloween design; it's much easier to read the parameter names.

What I find even more interesting is that all the buttons are evenly spaced. On the "normal" panel, they are in groups of five. This would mean either that they're not perfectly aligned with the membrane switches underneath, or these special editions Chromas have the membrane switches physically in different places. In other words, the Halloween Chroma is distinct in more than just the membrane overlay.

Andi Beit [21030620] · Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:03:56 +0200

Re: Red Chroma

looked on the switches and saw that they are perfectly aligned with the membrane switches underneath.

See also More Halloween Chromas (October 2001) and Fwd: "Red Chroma's" (November 2003).