It takes a fairly large system before this kind of experimentation makes any sense, because constraints of the technology must impose certain natural qualities on the performance. These “natural” qualities don’t really exist unless the technology is fairly complex. For example, one could take a computer viewing this website and probe a single pin of the CPU. There is a “natural” output of the computer on that pin: a long stream of high and low voltages or 0s and 1s. A computer is so complex that is it nearly impossible to precisely control the the voltage on a random pin on the CPU (alright, it’s possible, but not on a machine viewing this site!). So there’s a really complex system, but not a great one for art, because we want to have some ability to express our feelings (or something like that) with the systems we build. So the challenge is making a system that naturally produces something meaningful.

A very simple example of this is paint on canvas. A painter does not work with oil paint in the same way as water colors because oil paint does things naturally that change how the painter thinks about what is being expressed. We don’t often think about modifying the chemical makeup of oil paint to make it change color or texture based on one’s mood, but that’s what people like to do with technology and performance. So it all gets very interesting!

A more complex example is how accelerometer data can be used to trigger audio and control its spatialization, but the type of analysis of the accelerometer data and the capability of the spatialization system greatly change how a sound designer might create  with such a system. Once there laws of physics and math involved, it’s possible to take advantage of naturally occurring phenomena to do some pretty interesting things!

So that’s how I view sound design and computationally “generated” works. The first question is always: could we replace this with a random number generator without people realizing? If the answer is yes, then it’s cool but not something I’m really interested in. I like to manipulate systems that exist to produce something with clear intention.

Uh, all of that is a bit abstract, but it’s what I like to think about. I don’t consider myself an artist. I’m more of a tinkerer! But, there is a point that we often reach where it’s possible to wield very complex technology as simply as a paint brush. That’s the really, really fun part because you think and execute like an artist while working in a medium that’s completely unique.

I think, if all goes well, there may be the opportunity for some thought about what an ideal studio would look like for MIT Music and Theater.  I am also working on another project at the moment that will hopefully help give a lot of insight to the idea of a multipurpose room which is used by many people. While all of this happens, it seems like new studios and new studio-oriented products are popping up all over the place. The photo is of a new control room in a facility at NYU (run by Robert Rowe) where it was decided that there should be tie-lines to all offices and even bathrooms!

So what makes a good studio? For me, this is the same as asking: What does the studio need to do? How fast does it need to do that? And who will be doing the doing?

Once those questions are answered, it’s a matter of finding the right balance of complexity and flexibility. In my experience so far, the two seem to be positively correlated. Putting in the right amount of digital and analog patching capability while maintaining simplicity for the average use case is really important. And then there’s concrete things like money, construction, room treatment and non-concrete things like mic, speaker and preamp choice.

Anyway, those are some thoughts for the moment…

Simone and I helped with an MIT fundraising event. Tod wanted to give a talk using iPads as a display for photos and slides because there was no projector. We had three days to make something workable!

It was a long three days, but we came up with a system that used a VNC server and clients on all the iPads. We had to soup up a NETGEAR router to get enough bandwidth because we didn’t have time to roll a custom multi-cast VNC server and client. So each iPad had its own 1024×768 link to the machine displaying the slides (my laptop).

A TouchOSC app running on Tod’s iPhone allowed him to send commands to switch the slides.  All in all it was a fairly simple setup. We also brought a small B&W system (one of my favorite speakers, the 805s) and small MIDI system for triggering FS1R and Kontakt along with the live piano.

Here’s some photos!

Death and the Powers was a project commissioned for Prince Albert of Monaco. We designed and built a fully integrated sound, video and robotics system for the performance.

There’s a huge amount of information on this project at bot23.com, operaofthefuture.wordpress.com, and powers.media.mit.edu.

In 2010 we went to England as artists-in-residence! As part of the project we did a 20-channel ambisonics system and a TEDx event.

I wrote a whole bunch on my experience working on this project in my post on FST at bot23.com. Check that out for technical details and photos.

Skellig the Opera was our first foray into live ambisonic systems. We developed a production workflow and show-control systems for using Ambisonics in theater.

All about the sound, light and video systems I built before arriving at MIT. Live cameras, rolling projectors, digital mixing systems, all the goodies from the past…

For MIT’s 150th Anniversary, we put together a concert celebrating 50 years of music and technology at the Institute.

Ambisonic systems built and installed all over the world in “venues” ranging from personal apartments to planetariums.