DIY Digital Synth

[jbv]

>
>
>     I have the article on the 4C (and I think the 4B article is in the same book),
> but did not know about the 4X.  I will have to see if I can get over to the local
> University to see if they have that CMJ.  There was another article in the same
> book (I mentioned this book in an earlier post, but dang, it must be too early in
> the moringing, I can't remember the name of the book or the editors), which is a
> collection of articles from the CMJ, and now I can't remember the author or name
> of that article either (BRING ME MY COFFEE!), but anyway, my block diagram is just
> an extension of the one in that article.

Could it be that book by Curtis Roads ?
Anyway, as soon as I have some time, I will post the rough schemo
of the internal 4C board.
As for the 4X, the 1st prototype can still be seen in Paris at Cité de la
Musique, in the musical instruments museum... Looks actually like a
fridge or a washing machine...
I was trainee at IRCAM 20 years ago when only a couple of prototypes
were available, and I remember that there was a long waiting list of
composers eager to use them. And for each composer using the thing,
there was a team of at least 3 engineers and technicians to help for
micro-programation of patches and to prevent crashes...
The most attractive side of the 4X was the realtime features, as most
composers were tired to use MUSIC V and other software, and to have
to wait all night for the mainframe to compute their sounds...

>
>
>     I agree.  I even considered using a DSP at one time, the Analog Devices SHARC
> looked interesting, but doing the gate array trip looks like a lot more fun.

Could you tell us more about programing a gate array ? Actually, I've been
reading several data sheets, but never had the opportunity to program any
chip (mostly because I'm a Mac user, and the adequate software runs only
on Windows or Unix...)

>
>
>     Sounds like you have lots of interesting ideas.  It is hard to say in either
> your case or mine, if the machines we are thinking of would ever be comercially
> viable (which may explain why "there isn't any such system on the market).  Back
> when the DX-7 came out several people I know got one, I myself went for the TX-816
> (same thing, more of the same).  Of everybody I knew that had one, I am the only
> one that still has one.  The big complaint was "It is imposible to create your own
> patches!".  I tried to show a few people how to program the thing, but unless you
> know what it is that FM really does, it is somewhat difficult.  But, I guess that
> is another topic.
>
>

Mmmmh... not really, it's just part of the problem.I guess the "machines" I have in
mind could be described as a cross-over
between classic analog stuff, more recent items like the Nord Modular,
and the Kyma system for the "weird digital" side...

Again, I think that the best approach would be through modules : 1 module =
1 function. But the trick is to give users the most ergonomics displays &
controls to figure out what the module function really is, and to start playing
with it without having to read a 100 pages manual...
But we all know that as soon as a function becomes complex (features more
than a couple of controls for a couple of parameters), the learning curve
becomes steeper and the fun might disapear...

As for programing patches, it's getting easier these days to develop graphic
interfaces. So driving the thing from a computer screen could be an option.
For instance, for about 10 years I've been using IRCAM MAX on a NeXT
cube with an ISPW board, and it's really fun (but it requires programing
skills - or at least some "discipline" - as soon as embedded patches become
somewhat complex... But it's a same with a complex patch on an analog
synth, or even a complex spreadsheet on Excel)...

jbv