Why DIY? (was Re: [sdiy] Another new hard to find part....)

[john mahoney]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jbv" <jbv.silences at club-internet.fr>
>
> > By the way, Richard, I'm still honestly curious as to why you are on
this
> > list. I ask because you keep implying that synth DIY is a worthless
pursuit.
>
> Guys, this thread is amazing...
> Obviously the good old tired politically correct concept that s-diy
> should only deal with that phaser schemo published in EN circa
> 1977 is still floating around...

You know what's annoying, JB? To have a remark taken out of context and used
in a way that contradicts your larger message -- and that's what you did to
me, there. Did you read the last paragraph of my post, or did your attention
give out before you got there? (That's where I mentioned that people are
doing new work.)

You don't get into synth DIY by inventing and building, say, a new type of
frequency shifter as your first project. You need to build the equivalent of
a "Hello, World!" program; then you build some more existing circuits;
finally, you may try to develop something new and different. Besides, most
synths have a set of standard modules. Are you suggesting that we should all
build everything from scratch? I think that I'm missing your point.

Back to my original point: Richard keeps talking about Reaktor, which is not
SDIY. His other remarks seem anti-DIY.


> FYI s-diy can also deal with home-made soft synths : today's gear
> allows that, and there's plenty of free code source on the web.
> Something that none of us could even dream of in the mid 70's...

I agree completely, which is why I'm glad that Michael Baxter posted some
great info on open source (OSS) softsynths.


> The other flaw of this mailing list (which nevertheless gathers some
> of the greatest folks I've ever met) is that there are strongly separated
> skills : trannies farmers on one side, and coders on the other side...
> which doesn't really help when trying to discuss new concepts...
> My own modest attempts (as well as those from a few other members)
> to discuss mixed / hybrid technologies and concepts during the past
> few years never went very far...
> Sad to say, but response has always been richer and more enthusiast
> on the music-dsp list... At least ideas were discussed, and not just
> compared with the good old analog days...

Bah! I've rarely seen new or different ideas dismissed by this group -- even
"spiral waveforms" got kicked around quite a bit. (A sign that we are open
to new ideas, no?)  Maybe, just maybe, this list hasn't had the expertise to
comment on your hybrid work. In my experience, people here are always
willing to help when they have the right knowledge (or not, sometimes ;-).
--
john