[sdiy] Wakeman

[Neil Johnson]

Richard,

(many interesting points)

> >Getting two reviewers to review the same product gives the editor a
> >choice, rather than being stuck with whatever a single reviewer decides to
> >write.
>
> Yes, but it's just not done like that in the professional world.

Well, my experience is different, but perhaps thats more on the actual
design side of things.  Several times been in the situation of a client
paying the company I was working for to put together a complete prototype
product, and only at the end after delivery did we find out that it had
been a competition amongst several design firms.

While it stings, it is understandable from the client's perpsective.  It
also puts the impetus on always doing the best you can, just in case
you're up against your competitors!

> ... As it was I didn't hear about it till I called to check on progress
> (after weeks of silence from the editor) to be told they'd printed
> someone else's review.

Agreed that's bad show.

> I don't think anyone on this list would be hugely pleased if someone
> asked them to do some design, and then they decided to go with a
> different design without even mentioning that some other designer was
> going to be involved.

Sometimes thats *exactly* how design consultancy firms are (ab)used.

> >satisfy that requirement: gear reviews and adverts, that's all.

Sorry, should have added:

	"[the magazines are] gear reviews and adverts"

> I took my responsibility to see gear from a reader's point of view very
> seriously, and for the most part I like to believe I succeeded at that.

Richard, if you wrote _all_ the reviews the world would be a better
place!!

> Actually very little of interest has been appearing modern synths.

Sadly true...just more of the same, nothing really interesting save, as
you say, the Neuron.  Its nice to flick through the past years of SOS and
read the reviews of the synths we now consider key points on the synth
timeline.

Now I wonder which synths in the last couple of years will we go "wow" at
in 5/10 years time??

> Analogue is in a rut, and has more or less reached the limits of what's
> possible.

I don't know about that.  What I do think is the situation now is that the
demand for really innovative stuff just isn't there, so what company is
going to invest lots of money developing a product that would sell in
small numbers of units?  I think the closest we've come to that was the
Alesis analogue ASICs for the Andromeda.  Just having the mask made would
have cost them about $400,000 or upwards depending on what technology they
used.  (Scott B....comments?)

> The *only* - and I mean that literally - interesting recent synth is the
> Neuron. Everything else is just a retread of the same old ideas, most of
> which are now decades old.

Agreed... *sigh* ... At least round here you find the more interesting
devices, from all-valve synths to chaotic generators, from
laboratory-grade modulars to reborn PPGs with a twist.

Going into a music gear shop these days is like going into a car
showroom---its all plastic, feels plasticy, and they all pretty much do
the same thing, just with a different name on the badge.  Case in point:
recent range of K-6 E-Mu keyboards---same hardware, slightly different
colour scheme, different set of samples.  *yawn*

> You can't buy sex appeal either. Believe me, I should know. :-)

I won't ask...

Cheers,
Neil

--
Neil Johnson :: Computer Laboratory :: University of Cambridge ::
http://www.njohnson.co.uk          http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~nej22
----  IEE Cambridge Branch: http://www.iee-cambridge.org.uk  ----