Nowadays, Xcode Playgrounds seems to have deviated from its original purpose, and configuring VSCode can be overly complex for beginners. Against this backdrop, how can we easily set up an environment suitable for learning and testing Swift? Perhaps Notepad.exe, as introduced in this article, will provide a satisfying solution.

Those who have enjoyed Sculpture’s remarkable zoetrope records should immediately pre-order the second printing of this new 8″ square lathe cut from the one and only DJ Food recording as Locked Loop Group.  Not only will one be primed to dance, one will also – by means of a stroboscope app with frames set to 24 frames per second – have a wonder to behold. And of course the vinyl, designed by Openmind, is a work of art even without the strobe.

The genesis of these tracks – two club cuts each presented in mono and stereo versions – is just as fascinating.  DJ Food created a monster turntable called the Quadraphon, featuring four tonearms so that one can play four parts of a record at the same time, creating a mix from a single source.  “Acid Endless 1 & 2” reflect the wealth of the artist’s selection of locked grooves (thus the moniker).

As expected, this is a pair of acid bangers, a treat for those who lose the genre’s energized sound. “Acid Endless 1” gets right into it with deep electronic bass, joined by squelches and squiggle.  The music sounds like a spacecraft landing, with hi-hats adding to the adventure.  Every couple bars, the music morphs, a new theme emerging as late as 5:44, while the plot remains the same.  “Acid Endless 2” also starts strong out of the gate, and never loses steam.  A bit more distorted than the first track, the piece demonstrates “the grit and crunch you get after a needle had been ploughing the same groove for fifteen minutes plus.”  The most effective section arrives deep in the track as the piece seems to warp and unlock before snagging the groove again.  When played out, the piece is likely to exude a live feeling, even if the record isn’t mixed into another.  This aural illusion is a match for the physical illusion created by the zoetrope.  

It’s an honor to hear new music from this all-time sonic innovator, even more to have such music presented in a keepsake edition, worthy of display.  (Richard Allen)

Summer is near, bringing the roar of lawnmowers, drowning the dawn chorus.  From push mowers to ride-a-mowers to massive multi-blade vehicles, the sounds are inescapable.  While many wear headsets (tacitly admitting that they are contributing to noise pollution), others prefer the ambient drone.  Sage Martens (Matthew Sage & Lieven Martens) have found a way to corral this sound into music.

The amusing liner notes are a reminder that fresh-cut lawns are an unnatural thing inherited from the Brits, who were inspired by gazing at Italian paintings.  The Americans “supercharged” the activity with fertilizers and weedkillers that often polluted the water supply.  (As an aside, my neighbor, who has an abnormally bright, chemically-treated lawn, has been watering and mowing since March while my own grass has remained depressingly brown.)

So perhaps we need a new symphony.  The title track begins with preparations for lawn mowing, the rustle and clutter, soft enough to discern birdsong; and then the motor fires up.  Remarkably, Sage Martens finds harmonies, softening the intrusive nature of the rumble.  Hints of brass enter, implying an orchestra; then repeatedly, the mower sputters out.  These moments highlight the contrast between the bucolic and the disruptive; but at the same time, one begins to hear the mower as an instrument in its own right, the stops and starts only part of the performance.

Two brief pieces highlight the appeal (or lack thereof) of different mowers: the Snapper Riding Mower and the Fiskars StaySharp Reel Mower.  The first dominates the sonic field, although the volume dips in and out as the motor struggles to maintain an even keel.  The second represents an ecological alternative that requires more human power while using less punishing sorts of energy. There’s also a difference in price: $2000 or more.  In the album’s centerpiece, “The Scent of freshly mown Grass, historical lament,” Sage Martens offers a modern mechanical ode, allowing notes to be shaved and abraded like cut grass while mowers move around them.  In this piece the music is more prominent than the mowing, underlining the emotional connection.  Yankee Candle once offered a scent called Fresh Grass: nostalgia in a jar; the duo does the same in sound.

“Song between the Blades” blends these experiences like mulch.  The volume is balanced, the motor sounding at first like bicycle wheels.  Electronic clusters dance around the lawn, daring the blades to cut them down.  The integration mirrors that of the mind, which after so many years may become able to tune out the sounds, in the same way as city dwellers become acclimated to horns and construction.  In this piece, the lawn mower becomes an instrument of beauty rather than an unwanted guest.  Highlighting the insidious appeal of the unnatural practice, “Song between the Blades” even makes one want to mow one’s own yard, just to hear the sound.  (Richard Allen)

Mac users of a certain age may remember Ambrosia Software, maker of iconic shareware hits like Maelstrom and Escape Velocity. For over a decade, the Ambrosia website included this quotation on its homepage:

“Virtue does not come from money, but rather from virtue comes money, and all other things good to man.” ―Socrates

In other words, don’t try to make money. Try to make great things, and the money will surely follow. It’s a strategy that’s simple to explain, but almost impossible for any company to follow.

Folks in the C-suite will try to tell you that these two goals are perfectly aligned—that making great products is part of being a profitable company. But they mean it in the same way that Frosted Flakes is part of a complete breakfast. It’s on the table, sure…along with a glass of milk, a poached egg, toast with jam, and a piece of fruit. It turns out that, as far as big corporations are concerned, one part of this spread is actually kind of optional.

From virtue comes money, and all other good things. This idea rings in my head whenever I think about Apple. It’s the most succinct explanation of what pulled Apple from the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s to its astronomical success today. Don’t try to make money. Try to make a dent in the universe. Do that, and the money will take care of itself.

Turn, Turn, Turn

Dissatisfaction with Apple among its most ardent fans has, at various times, reached a crescendo that has included public demands for a change in leadership. The precipitating events could be as serious as Apple bowing to pressure from an authoritarian regime, or as trivial as releasing an unsatisfying new version of an application or operating system.

Despite making my living by criticizing Apple, I tend not to get caught up in the controversy of the moment. When Apple ruined its laptop keyboards, I wasn’t calling for Tim Cook’s head. I just wanted them to fix the keyboards. And they did (eventually).

But success hides problems, and even the best company can lose its way. To everything, there is a season.

As far as I’m concerned, the only truly mortal sin for Apple’s leadership is losing sight of the proper relationship between product virtue and financial success—and not just momentarily, but constitutionally, intransigently, for years. Sadly, I believe this has happened.

The preponderance of the evidence is undeniable. Too many times, in too many ways, over too many years, Apple has made decisions that do not make its products better, all in service of control, leverage, protection, profits—all in service of money.

To be clear, I don’t mean things like charging exorbitant prices for RAM and SSD upgrades on Macs or taking too high a percentage of in-app purchases in the App Store. Those are venial sins. It’s the apparently unshakable core beliefs that motivate these and other poor decisions that run counter to the virtuous cycle that led Apple out of the darkness all those years ago.

Apple, as embodied by its leadership’s decisions over the past decade or more, no longer seems primarily motivated by the creation of great products. Time and time again, its policies have made its products worse for customers in exchange for more power, control, and, yes, money for Apple.

The iPhone is a better product when people can buy ebooks within the Kindle app. And yet Apple has fought this feature for the past fourteen years, to the tune of millions of dollars in legal fees, and has only relented due to a recent court order (which they continue to appeal).

In the (Apple-mandated) absence of competition in the realms of app sales, payment processing, customer service, and software business models, Apple’s exclusive offerings in these areas have stagnated for years. What should be motivating Apple to make improvements—the desire to make great products—seems absent. What should not be motivating Apple—the desire for power, control, and profits—seems omnipresent.

And I don’t mean that in a small way; I mean that in a big way. Every new thing we learn about Apple’s internal deliberations surrounding these decisions only lends more weight to the conclusion that Apple has lost its north star. Or, rather, it has replaced it with a new, dark star. And time and again, we’ve learned that these decisions go all the way to the top.

The best leaders can change their minds in response to new information. The best leaders can be persuaded. But we’ve had decades of strife, lawsuits, and regulations, and Apple has stubbornly dug in its heels even further at every turn. It seems clear that there’s only one way to get a different result.

In every healthy entity, whether it’s an organization, an institution, or an organism, the old is replaced by the new: CEOs, sovereigns, or cells. It’s time for new leadership at Apple. The road we’re on now does not lead anywhere good for Apple or its customers. It’s springtime, and I’m choosing to believe in new life. I swear it’s not too late.

Warning: Contains minor spoilers!  It’s been two weeks since I’ve seen the film, and one week since I’ve seen the film again, and I can’t get the music out of my head.  Ludwig Göransson‘s Sinners may not only be the best film score of the year, but the best film score of many years.  To play the score (and soundtrack) again is to relive the experience of the film; but to hear the music separately is to appreciate its genius even more.

Göransson is Ryan Coogler‘s go-to composer (Black Panther, Creed), and has also scored for Christopher Nolan, most notably Oppenheimer.  In television, his most famous score is The Mandalorian.  But Sinners is a different beast, as the film is about music, with some vampires thrown in; the vampires are attracted to the music, which “pierces the veil between life and death.”  If Sammie (newcomer Miles Caton) were not so good at playing guitar, it’s possible no one would have died.

The film’s main genre is the blues, but Göransson uses this as a starting point, expanding outward like spikes on a wheel.  The key scene, represented by “I Lied to You” on the soundtrack and “Magic What We Do (Surreal Montage)” on the score, revisits the movie’s opening line, which is repeated by the narrator: “There are legends of people with a gift of making music so true, it can conjure spirits from the past and the future.”  The scene contains African dancing, Asian instrumentation, Jimi Hendrix guitar, a DJ, an MC, a breakdancer and a twerker.  But this isn’t the only place in the film where genres mix; right from the start, Göransson shifts from blues to modern composition to electronics, sometimes only for a few notes.  In the film (and soundtrack), the vampires adapt an old blues song, turning it into a sinister Appalachian fiddle number.  In perhaps the second-most audacious musical scene, Black and white dance an Irish jig to “Rocky Road to Dublin.”

Many of the tracks are injected with multiple moods; “Why You Here” is mournful and sad, but also celebratory.  Sammie (played later in the film by Buddy Guy) first strums, then attacks the guitar, then begins to sing without words; meanwhile, the strings convey a sense of foreboding that is heightened in the second viewing, as one knows what is coming.  “Not What He Seems/Sé Abú” sneaks in “Rocky Road to Dublin” so subtly that one hardly notices the first time; then the cello enters, conveying a deep sense of menace.  At the end of the track, the massive final theme is previewed, the drama pushed to the nth degree; and all this just before “Music What We Do.”

In one of the film’s greatest scenes, Delta Slim (Delroy Lindo), relates the tale of an old friend who almost escaped the Deep South, only to be lynched, castrated and murdered.  Words give way to a deep, heartrending, repeated cry, and then he starts to stomp and sing: the genesis of the blues, all in one scene.  “Mount Bayou” continues this tragic sub-theme, which extends throughout the film; sadly, vampires are not the worst enemy.  Their offer of true equality is more insidious because it is tempting: not the false promise of a Klansman who is now himself a vampire.  (As an aside, one wonders if the director was tempted to call the film Klanpires, but we’re glad he didn’t.)

The score is 71 minutes long, the soundtrack 72.  Music permeates the film to the extent that one might consider it to be the main character.  As Göransson mixes genres, Coogler mixes emotions: one of the most horrifying scenes in the film is offset by corresponding music on the stage: Jayme Lawson leading the entire party, stomping on wood, belting out the chorus of “Pale Pale Moon,” hearkening back to Delta Slim’s signature scene.

Toward the end, themes that were once intimate grow increasingly dramatic, especially the five-note motif.  Choirs and drums up the ante, making “Thy Kingdom Come” one of the scariest pieces; even here, Göransson momentarily relents, injecting a sorrowful interlude.  In “Grand Closin’ (feat. Gales, Eric),” descending string scales are met by raucous guitar, connecting back to “Magic What We Do,” and one realizes that it may be hard for Sammie to “bury that guitar.”  And then (spoiler alert for sure!), in the first post-credit scene, a surprise guest, deep in the future, admits to Buddy Guy that he prefers “the real,” leading to yet another revelatory number.  But the final post-credit scene takes place before the film’s first scene, toying once again with the “spirits from the past and the future.”  The soundtrack”s only misstep is to embed this music in the opening track instead of saving it for the bitter yet transcendent end.  In contrast, the score ends perfectly, with Caton on “Free For A Day,” all things drawn to completion.

Sony may have been caught off guard by the popularity of the music, as these records won’t drop until September 26.  Download them now, buy them then, spin them forever.  (Richard Allen)

Daft Punk have used a wide variety of vocal effects in their songs. A May 2001 interview in Remix magazine provided a rare insight from Daft Punk themselves on the topic.

“People always ask us what vocoder we use, but every one of our vocal tracks uses a different vocoder effect. We have the old Roland one [an SVC-350], Auto-Tune, and a DigiTech Vocalist.”

The quote delivers some vital clues, but it’s incomplete, covering only their first two albums. There’s no mention of using a talk box, despite Around The World almost certainly using one. The quote makes it sound like the DigiTech Vocalist is a vocoder, but it’s not. And for that matter, which DigiTech Vocalist model? There’s around 30 pieces of hardware in DigiTech’s Vocalist series, and quite a few of them were around before Discovery’s release in 2001.

I’ve read comments suggesting the DigiTech Vocalist models with the “EX” suffix are special, but nobody seems to know why, and nobody has published a direct comparison to prove or disprove the theory. I decided to take on the challenge, and run the tests myself. Here’s a fraction of the Vocalist units I ended up buying.

Why are there duplicates of the same model? Why is there a Korg ih in that photo? Before this article gets sidetracked with tests and some honestly quite interesting corporate partnerships, mergers, and lawsuits, here is a list of every Daft Punk album song containing robot-like vocal effects, and my guess on which piece of kit was used for the vocals.

Homework notes (20 January 1997)

There aren’t many robot vocal effects on Homework, but there is a lot of pitch shifting, likely provided by Daft Punk’s Ensoniq DP/4+, a digital multi-effects units that can do a variety of things. I don’t believe Daft Punk used the vocoder on the Ensoniq DP/4+ for Homework or any of their other albums. The Remix magazine quote says Ensoniq DP/4, but a gear list in another interview says DP/4+. It doesn’t matter which model was used, as the pitch shifting and vocoder sound the same on both units.

Discovery notes (12 March 2001)

One More Time sounds like Auto-Tune in combination with a Mu-Tron Phasor or Moogerfooger. Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger uses a DigiTech Talker vocoder. Given the DigiTech Talker was used extensively for Human After All, maybe it was one of the last songs recorded for Discovery? The DigiTech Talker wasn’t mentioned in the May 2001 interview, despite its use on Discovery.

Human After All notes (14 March 2005)

DigiTech Talker and DigiTech Synth Wah are all over the entire album. But, did they use a DigiTech Synth Wah, or DigiTech Bass Synth Wah? They’re very similar pedals. The tremolo effect on The Brainwasher could have been done many ways. Maybe it was just an LFO modulating the amplitude on their Roland S-760 sampler? Maybe it was a guitar pedal? It’s an easy effect that can be achieved many different ways.

Random Access Memories notes (17 May 2013)

In Lose Yourself To Dance, the “everybody’s dancing on the floor” vocals sound very crunchy and DigiTech Talker-like. The vocodeded vocals in Touch sound like a Sennheiser VSM201 switched to unvoiced, or using white noise as the vocoder’s carrier. Instant Crush could be Auto-Tune or some other kind of harmoniser. It sounds like Instant Crush constains some Sennheiser VSM201 chord layers in places.

Talk boxes

Daft Punk’s vocal effects can be broadly split into three categories: Talk boxes, vocoders, and harmonisers. They all sound vaguely similar and robot-like, and you could be forgiven for confusing them, but they’re extremely different techniques and technologies.

Talk boxes are relatively simple devices — they’re a speaker in a sealed box with a small opening. One end of a hose is fitted to the opening, and the other end is placed into the performer’s mouth, blasting noise towards their throat. The performer can pretend to speak, shaping and filtering the sound coming out of the tube with their vocal tract. A microphone is then needed to record the resulting sound. A keyboard or guitar is typically connected to the talk box unit as the sound source for the speaker. This lets the keyboard or guitar sound like it’s singing. If you’ve heard Chromeo, 2Pac’s California Love, or Bon Jovi’s Livin’ On A Prayer before, you’ve heard a talk box.

I can confirm firing loud sounds into your mouth while holding a tube with your teeth is a bit uncomfortable. In terms of vocal effects used by Daft Punk, I think talk box might be the least used and least interesting, in terms of hunting down the exact hardware used. Talk boxes are simple devices and typically all sound similar. The sound source and performance play a bigger role in the result than the hardware itself.

Also, there aren’t many talk boxes on the market. Daft Punk may have used a Heil Talk Box, a Rocktron Banshee, a home made talk box, or something else. The MXR M222 Talk Box is probably the best option if you’re looking to buy a talk box today, because it has a built in amplifier. The MXR wasn’t around when Around The World was created though, so that’s not the unit they used.

Daft Punk’s early albums extensively used a Roland Juno-106, so it’s likely that was the sound source for the talk box used on Around The World. It sounds like a sawtooth wave with the filters open.

Even though they’ve been around in a commercial form since the mid 70s, talk boxes aren’t the first device to use human vocal tracts to create robotic sounds — the Sonovox from 1939 takes that prize.

Vocoders

Vocoders are a bit like an electronic version of a talk box. Vocoders take two audio inputs — often a voice and a synth — and combine them by filtering the synth with the voice’s frequency response. The filtering is usually done by splitting the signal into frequency bands. The volume of each voice band sets the volume of the repective synth band. More bands usually means a higher quality and more intelligible result. I’ve been calling the inputs “voice” and “synth”, but they’re often referred to as the modulator and carrier. The modulator filters the carrier.

Vocoders can be analogue or digital. Good analogue vocoders are physically big and very expensive, due to their complexity, especially if they have lots of frequency bands. They’re also a specialty effect, and therefore usually not mass produced.

The peak for high-end analogue vocoders was the 1970s — the EMS Vocoder 5000 was released in 1976, the Bode/Moog Vocoder in 1977, and the Sennheiser VSM201 in 1977. It’s hard to know exactly how many Sennheiser VSM201s were built, but the highest serial number I’ve seen is 40. The photo below is of the unit with serial number 21. Why should we care about that serial number? It’s the exact unit Daft Punk used on Random Access Memories, rented from Audio Rents in Los Angeles for the sessions. Serial number 21 was sold, but Audio Rents have another VSM201, if you’re keen on renting one.

The best modern analogue vocoder I’ve heard, by far, is the Dromedary Modular Ultimate VoIS. It shares a lot of similarities with the Sennheiser VSM201, including accurate voiced/unvoiced detection, silence bridging, and other features. It’s a fraction of the price of a vintage vocoder, and still in production. If you’re looking for a high-end vocoder, it is the one to get.

What about vocoders used by Daft Punk prior to Random Access Memories? It’s incredibly likely Daft Punk used a DigiTech Talker on Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger and many of the songs on Human After All. The DigiTech Talker is a digital vocoder, sold as a guitar pedal.

I said “incredibly likely”, because there’s another vocoder that sounds eerily similar. That’s no coincidence — even though the Talker has DigiTech’s name on the front of the pedal, it was designed and manufactured by IVL Technologies in Canada. IVL also teamed up with Electrix to build the Warp Factory vocoder, which sounds very similar, but not identical. It’s pretty clear they’re running the same algorithm.

IVL specialises in vocal effects and voice processing. They’re still around, but known under a different name — in 2000, TC Helicon was formed as a joint venture between TC Electronic and IVL Technologies. TC Group, the parent company of TC Electronic, took full ownership of TC Helicon in 2005. And finally, Music Tribe (Behringer) purchased TC Group in 2015.

TC Helicon still make a vocoder guitar pedal called the Talkbox Synth. Sadly, it sounds nothing like the DigiTech Talker. It’s pretty good, but it doesn’t have the crunchy Daft Punk sound. Also, it has a terrible name. It’s not a talk box at all. It’s a vocoder. The DigiTech Talker has a similar naming issue — one of the settings is called “talk box”, and it’s also a vocoder. The recurring theme when researching this article was finding out about IVL/TC Helicon’s incorrectly named products and features.

Here’s a list of some vocoders, including the models being discussed. Many of these vocoders were used on well known songs. A MAM VF-11 was used on Intergalactic by Beastie Boys. Roland VP-330s were used on In The Air Tonight by Phil Collins, Radio Ga Ga by Queen, and I Just Called to Say I Love You by Stevie Wonder. A Korg DVP-1 was used by Air for lots of their songs, including Kelly Watch The Stars. As well as being used by Daft Punk, Sennheiser VSM201s have been used by Herbie Hancock, Giorgio Moroder, and Aphex Twin.

Having more filter bands typically increases the quality of the results, but I wouldn’t consider the Metavox or V256 to be anywhere near the best in terms of intelligibility. The EMS Vocoder 5000 and Sennheiser VSM201 are often considered to be the best vocoders ever made.

The DigiTech Talker and Eletrix Warp Factory use linear predictive coding (LPC), rather than bandpass filters. The value shown in the bands column for those models is the LPC order.

Vocoder comparison

If you’d like to hear many of these vocoders in action, I’ve created a vocoder comparison video. The comparison includes a Sennheiser VSM201, DigiTech Talker, the XILS 201 plugin, a Dromedary Modular Ultimate VoIS, and many other vododers. It compares the actual models used by Daft Punk as well as software clones, and the best modern analogue vocoder.

Harmonisers

Harmonisers are very different to talk boxes and vocoders. There’s no filtering involved, and they don’t require two audio sources — they work directly with one audio signal, often a vocal, altering its pitch. Harmonisers are a digital effect.

There’s two main parts to the digital algorithm used by harmonisers — pitch detection, and pitch shifting. Pitch detection figures out the fundamental frequency of the signal. Once the pitch is known, lots of possibilities open up.

If the pitch is rapidly shifted to a nearby note in the song’s key, the result sounds like One More Time or Instant Crush. Using Auto-Tune with extreme settings is one way to achieve this effect, but it can be done with most harmonisers and is often called “hard tune”.

Some harmonisers can have keyboards connected to them, and use the notes played on the keyboard to determine which note to shift the vocal to. Holding multiple keys can create harmonies. Hide and Seek by Imogen Heap is a great example of this effect in action. In Hide and Seek, the original main vocal can also be heard, blended in with the harmonies.

Digital Love and Something About Us were created using the same technique, where a MIDI keyboard or sequencer was used to control the pitch of the vocal. Daft Punk have said they used a DigiTech Vocalist, which is a strong indication that’s what was used for those two tracks. Both songs were released on 12 March 2001, as part of the Discovery album. Given the time required for mixing, mastering, and physical media production, I’d guess they must have used a model from before late 2000. There’s 7 DigiTech Vocalist models with MIDI pitch control that were released before then.

The earlier models incorrectly call the MIDI control feature “vocoder”, and later models call it “MIDI notes mode” or “notes harmony mode”. The list below shows all the DigiTech Vocalist models with MIDI notes mode. There’s another 20 or so models that can’t be controlled via a keyboard.

Interestingly, Imogen Heap also used a DigiTech Vocalist to record Hide and Seek, and has used a TC Helicon VoiceLive 2 when performing the song live. Which DigiTech Vocalist? I emailed Imogen’s team and to my surprise, they responded, confirming a DigiTech Vocalist Workstation EX was used for recording Hide and Seek.

Remember IVL Technologies from earlier in the article? Their logo is on all those Vocalist models, except the Vocalist Live Pro. Yes, IVL also designed and built almost all the DigiTech Vocalist units. The Vocalist Live Pro has a different logo on the back — 3db Research. And, the Vocalist VL3D has IVL and 3db Research’s logos on it. I don’t fully understand what went down, but 3db Research was created by ex-IVL staff, and Harman International accused TC Helicon of infringing patents relating to harmonisers. TC Helicon counter sued, and won.

Hold up. Why is Harman involved? While IVL were busy merging with TC Group, forming TC Helicon, and being sold to Behringer, DigiTech were experiencing their own dramas — DigiTech sold to Harman International in 1990, then Samsung bought Harman in 2017. After a restructure, DigiTech ceased to exist in mid 2018. In 2022, DigiTech was purchased and revived by Cor-Tek, who seem to be doing a great job. That’s why it’s possible to buy DigiTech pedals today. Unfortunately, they don’t currently sell any DigiTech Vocalists or Talkers, so you’ll have to hit the second hand market if you’re after either. This JHS Pedals video has a full recap of the DOD and DigiTech history.

IVL partnered with other companies, including Korg. The Korg ih Interactive Vocal Harmony appears to run the same algorithm as the DigiTech Vocalist series, so I purchased one of those to add to the tests. I also purchased a TC Helicon Perform VE and TC Helicon VoiceWorks. As noted above, TC Helicon is the modern incarnation of IVL, so maybe their harmonisers sound the same as the older DigiTech ones?

IVL also worked with DigiTech to create the Whammy WH-1, Whammy II, and Bass Whammy pedals, which makes sense, given the Whammy is a harmoniser. Those models likely shared code and algorithms with the Vocalist line. Later versions of the DigiTech Whammy weren’t built in collaboration with IVL. The earlier IVL Whammy models are held in high regard and their prices on the used market reflect that. However, the latest model, the Whammy V, does have a “classic” mode that is supposed to replicate the earler models.

EX models

Now we have the full history of DigiTech and IVL covered, we can talk about how the “EX” models fit into the timeline. In 1998, the Studio Vocalist EX was released, becoming the new flagship Vocalist model. The main upgrades were more patch storage, more presets, and an updated algorithm with better pitch recognition.

For the effect used on Digital Love and Something About Us, the improved pitch recognition would make an audible difference. But, in my tests, the difference between the non-EX and EX models is fairly subtle. Audible and better, but subtle. If I had to guess which unit Daft Punk used, my money would be on the Studio Vocalist EX, but a Vocalist Workstation or one of the other earlier models could have also been used.

To confuse things even further, the Vocalist Workstation can run the EX firmware, and I was able to upgrade one of my own units from firmware 1.02 to 2.02 (2.02 is the EX version, with additional presets and patch storage). A Vocalist Workstation running firmware 2.02 sounds identical to a Vocalist Workstation EX to me. The internals to the Vocalist Workstation EX are a bit different to the Vocalist Workstation, but I don’t think any of the differences relate to the audio path. The EX is also heavier, at 840 grams vs the non-EX’s 700 grams. The weight difference is due to a useless strip of metal in the EX. No, I’m not kidding.

Without more evidence, it seems impossible to know which model Daft Punk used. They may have used a Vocalist VHM5, Studio Vocalist, Vocalist II, MIDI Vocalist, Vocalist Workstation, Vocalist Access, Studio Vocalist EX, or Vocalist VR. I’m not sure it matters, given how similar they all sound.

If you are looking for a device to replicate the effect, a Studio Vocalist EX, Vocalist Workstation EX, or Vocalist Workstation with the EX firmware are good choices. Some of the newer TC Helicon devices, like the VoiceLive 3 Extreme, Perform VE, and Perform VG are great, too. Just be aware that only specific TC Helicon vocal effect models have MIDI notes mode. Also, the Perform VE and Perform VG have been discontinued.

I would recommend against the Vocalist Live Pro or Vocalist VL3D. They don’t run IVL’s algorithm and they sound terrible. I would also recommend against getting a Korg ih — it does use IVL’s algorithm and sounds like a Vocalist Workstation, but there is a permanent chorus effect that can not be disabled.

Pitch shifting

The pitch shifting effect used on Teachers, Oh Yeah, and Technologic is similar to the harmoniser effect we’ve been discussing, but there’s no pitch detection involved — the audio is just shifted without trying to make it match any specific note. It’s highly likely Daft Punk used their Ensoniq DP/4+ to achieve the pitch shifting on Homework and Discovery.

Harmoniser comparison

If you’d like to hear many of these harmonisers in action, I’ve created a harmoniser comparison video, which also covers some of the modern TC Helicon models. Another interesting fact is that all the harmonisers tested use last note priority when more than one note is played at a time via MIDI.

Synth Wah vs Bass Synth Wah

Human After All sounds like Human After All because of yet another DigiTech product — a digital envelope filter guitar pedal called the Synth Wah. Or, the Bass Synth Wah. It’s unclear which pedal was used, because they’re incredibly similar. Strangely, the Bass Synth Wah weights a lot more (340 vs 635 grams). I didn’t open the pedals up to find out why, but that’s a huge difference, given how alike they are. It might just be an internal metal weight, like the Vocalist Workstation EX has.

There’s 7 effect types on each pedal, selected via the rightmost knob. Daft Punk favoured “filter 1” and “filter 2”. Here’s a list of the songs on Human After All, and the effect they probably used.

If Television Rules The Nation does in fact use “env down”, then that’s a vital clue — the Synth Wah has “env down”, but the Bass Synth Wah does not. The pedals share effect types 3, 4, 5, and 6, but 1, 2, and 7 are different. It was the Synth Wah after all.

Credits

These amazing people helped make this article and the related videos a reality: Vocals performed by Solohead. Sennheiser VSM201 vocoder recording by Talha Vocoding. Ensoniq DP/4+ vocoder recording by @_floeter. DigiTech Studio Vocalist recording by Spencer D. Carson. Technical guidance, repairs, and EPROM programming by Cam Sanderson.

Keep living the gold and the silver dream.