Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!ECN.PURDUE.EDU!davisonj
From: davisonj@ECN.PURDUE.EDU (John M Davison)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Improvements to the Boie Radio Drum
Message-ID: <9011280540.AA02464@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 28 Nov 90 05:40:29 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 74


	After finally having seen the Boie Radio Drum in person (Max
Mathews even got down on the floor to show it to me -- what a nice
man!), I must say that it is a very exciting (and long overdue)
performance interface.  However, like all new non-commercial devices,
it will undoubtedly go through some refinements before hitting the
commercial market.

	I'd like to start a thread discussing the current limitations
of the Boie Radio Drum, how these limitations may be pushed back
and/or eliminated, possible extensions to the current setup of the
Boie Radio Drum, and what modifications could be made (conceptually,
stylistically, and technically) to improve its chances of becoming a
success in the serious music community as well as in the marketplace.

	As I understand it, the Radio Drum can distingush three
degrees of freedom per transmitter, i.e. the three spatial
dimensions.  One useful modification I can think of right off the
bat would be to extend the control to six degrees of freedom per
transmitter, i.e. the three spatial dimensions plus three orientation
values.  This could conceivably be implemented by having a number of
transmitters in the drumsticks instead of one.  However, according to
Mathews, when two transmitters get too close to each other, they tend
to cancel each other out, which would make the usage of two or more
transmitters impractical (unless a round-robin activation scheme were
used for the array of transmitters within each drumstick, which would
introduce intraframe movement errors).  Does anyone have any ideas as
to how these three extra degrees of freedom could be implemented?

	How about ideas for alternate transmitters?  The only
transmitters of which I am aware are the drumsticks and the rings (to
be worn on the performer's fingers).  Any ideas for other designs?  At
the conference, Mathews said that the Radio Drum could easily handle
twenty distinct transmitters, meaning that a DataGlove-type glove
could be used so that the Radio Drum could be played like a bongo,
with all of its different styles of striking.  (I forget which
speaker made this suggestion.)  I would discourage pie-in-the-sky
suggestions, though; the bongo idea would take a lot of work in order
to ensure that the cancellation effects from each transmitter would
not significantly degrade the positional accuracy.

	The Radio Drum I saw had roughly the same dimensions as the
Roland PAD-80 (Octapad II).  Upon asking Mathews why this particular
size was chosen, he said that it was mainly so that it could fit into
a suitcase (easy transportation), but that Radio Drums can be built to
practically any size.  Mathews mentioned a few examples of different
configurations (I don't know if they were implemented or not).
Here's an example I made up: The Boie Radio Drum could be implemented
as a coffin-sized (or larger) box that could monitor the movements of
body parts.

	Also, should there be a standardized set of modes of operation
so that Joe Amateur could take his Radio Drum out of the box, plug it
into a MIDI device, and use one of a number of standardized playing
techniques to coax controller information out of the Radio Drum?  This
threatens to pigeonhole the Radio Drum as a function of these modes of
operation, but on the other hand, so does complete generality (which
will turn off all but a handful of devoted musicians).  Should a
commercially available Radio Drum come with a set of templates, or
even a LCD-style display (which could potentially cover the entire top
surface) that would be programmed along with the details of its modes
of operation?  What engineering challenges would have to be surmounted
in order to make such an idea a reality?

	To me, the Boie Radio Drum represents a very useful
generalization of the Theremin.  (Max Mathews also pointed out that
it is more accurate than a Theremin.)  I certainly don't want to see
it go the way of the Theremin, though!

	Let's get some discussions going.

John Davison
snotty CEE student
-davisonj@ecn.purdue.edu