My evil modular plans

[gstopp at fibermux.com]

     This is an interesting topic. I'm not sure what the optimum solution 
     would be - bear with me as I kick around some ideas and realize that 
     I'm not too sure myself where I'm headed....
     
     Okay if you make a modular synthesizer out of modules that are digital 
     inside, do you bring out all the patchpoints to panel jacks so that 
     you can use patchcords to connect them to other modules, analog or 
     digital? If you do, then this means A/D and D/A and the subsequent 
     potentially cumulative conversion errors.
     
     In contrast, if you decide to keep all signals in the digital domain 
     until the final audio output, and the inter-module signal pathways are 
     to be virtual connections (what, a 1G ATM bus?), then why the heck use 
     physical modules in the first place? You might as well do everything 
     behind a CRT.
     
     So, maybe the first idea is the better one, at least for the 
     traditional type of modular synthesis. Keep the phone jacks (or 
     whatever), use high-res A/D-D/A, and emulate analog modules. Why do 
     this, anyway? Well I think it's time to try, since it's getting to the 
     point where DSP can actually be both afforded and programmed by the 
     DIY enthusiast. My recent experiments with 18-bit PCM audio DACs have 
     shown me that intentional aliasing free of clock noise (x128 
     oversampled conversion) has opened up a whole new type of sound 
     processing, for example. I think that the vectorboard delay line is 
     going to end up in one of my modulars rather than in one of my effects 
     racks!
     
     And now this statement from a die-hard analog-head: digital is 
     theoretically capable of perfect analog emulation. There, I said it. 
     In the practical world it's just a matter of granularity plus knowing 
     what to program. The reason that we keep analog around is that it's 
     the most cost-effective way to get vast quantities of interacting 
     electronic processes with all of the nuances of temperature 
     sensitivity and component tolerances and connector resistance and a 
     bunch of other things that add up to sounds that are mostly controlled 
     but a little slippery. "Fuzzy" I guess would be an in-vogue term... 
     Anyway as digital prices drop and digital tools expand we can consider 
     analog-like process emulation and get the extremely important features 
     of total control and total re-configuration.
     
     One thing that bugs me is - if you take your DSP VCO and download a 
     DADSLSR-whatever envelope generator into it, won't you need different 
     knobs in different places with different markings on them? What to do 
     here - maybe make the panel one big LCD with generically laid-out 
     knobs and jacks? Change the module, change the markings on the LCD? 
     Ooops better drop back to earth here, this is DIY land... I suppose 
     dedicated panels would be okay. Maybe we could differentiate between 
     signal sources (VCO, noise, envelope, etc.) and signal modifiers (VCF, 
     VCA, phasor, flanger, etc.).
     
     Just thinking out loud here....
     
     - Gene
     gstopp at fibermux.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: My evil modular plans
Author:  ms20 at mx.serv.net (Romeo Fahl) at ccrelayout
Date:    4/22/97 7:06 PM
     
Digital is getting better and better all of the time.  My main aversion to 
it is: lack of knobs, lack of patchpoints.  Why build a modular you can't 
touch (like the Nord Modular)?  It's a very tactile experience.  I don't 
want to have to open up my paint can that's buried in a box every time I 
want to make a brushstroke.
     
I do welcome a DSP modular.  One thought I had is, if you don't like what a 
module does, change the software!  Couldn't a VCO panel become a VCF?
     
Just a few thoughts.
     
R>