[sdiy] ... Simulating a Moog

[Richard Wentk]

At 16:02 03/05/2004 -0700, Julian Bunn wrote:
>Hi Richard,
>
>Thanks for the interesting reply. Some comments below:
>
> > [snip]
> > Controllability really isn't any kind of an issue. There are
> > plenty of
> > knob-laden external interfaces now. In fact you can get more
> > control from
> > them than from a modular because everything is one place
> > instead of spread
> > out over square feet of panel space, and you never lose knobs
> > or indicators
> > behind patch cables.
>
>I confess to having a deep routed desire for any device that
>features a high knob count. It doesn't really matter what it
>is, it just appeals. Must have been some trauma in my childhood:
>maybe a synthesizer fell on me or something.

I think it's a guy thing. :-)

I used to have this, but it's been waning of late. That's partly just the 
(im)practicality factor. I may be playing at a small festival in the US 
later in the year, and it would just be 
IIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEE 
to try to ship even a small modular across the Atlantic and back again.

>In my day job I am building sceintific analysis systems that use
>the Grid. We have the same need: lots of screen real estate. We
>put together a four 1600x1200 screen device (with a Matrox 4-head card) and
>PC for less than $5000. That's about 5000x1200 pixels. You can buy
>an IBM T221 for $3000 that has 3840x2400 pixels. Four of those
>in a square would do it for you :-)
>
>There's a picture of our four screen setup here:
>http://pcbunn.cacr.caltech.edu/GAE/four-screen.jpg

Okay, but you still have the weight and portability issue. It's interesting 
to wonder about some kind of virtual knob interface that uses optical back 
scattering from a projector to guess where your hand is in relation to a 
virtual knob or patch panel.

There's a laser based system that works for PDAs that's due Real Soon Now 
that works like this.

The T221 sounds great, but where can you get them for $3k? Cheapest price I 
found online was more than twice that.

>LOL. This is another of those statements that initially sounds absurd,
>but then the more you think about it, the more you wonder if it really
>is so daft :-)

No, it's absurd. Trust me on this. :-)

A lot of hifi is absurd. E.g. you could improve the quality of CD 
DAC/Transport separates out of all recognition just by adding a reference 
clock to eliminate jitter. But instead manufacturers spend a lot of money 
on stupid 'vibration eliminating feet' and other gimmicks that have a 
marginal (at best) effect on the sound. Or put supposedly audiophile 
components into designs that are barely decent to start with.

Richard