[sdiy] Re: WHY all the 'old' stuff?

[Paul Schreiber]

Here are some observations from my perspective (in order of relavance).

#1: past history/'lore'

The Moog synthesizer is *THE* reason I am a EE (switched from
Chemistry/Physics). Electronotes is *THE* way I *passed* EE :) Wanting to
understand and build my own synths was the driving factor all through
undergraduate school. It took me 5 years, I was broke, no car, no bike, lived in
a TERRIBLE little duplex with no air conditioning (in Texas, in the summer, this
is not easy!). My freshman EE class was 518 people. My graduating class was 61.
In high school, I never made below an 80 on ANY test (even history/English/etc).
In college, on one ME test (I had 21 hours of mechanical engineering, gack!) I
made a *5*.

My point is: I *personally* have "old" analog synths in my DNA. My story is not
unique. The 'core' group of MOTM customers (about 50 people, so about the number
of folks Peavey sells to every *minute*)  have the same types of stories.

I guess what I'm saying: it doesn't really *matter* about 'the other stuff'. We
HAVE lots of 'the other stuff'. But we are magically attracted to wheezy analog
stuff. Go figure (shrug).

#2: perception of lower cost

And here, I place GREAT emphasis on 'perception' :) Because we all know that
it's one thing to download a schematic off the web, another to turn that into a
functional module with front panel, case, etc. You look at XYZ thing and think
"I can build that for $15!" and then you wind up spending $75 and 50 hours of
free time.

#3: ability to understand

I had this neighbor that every Saturday, he COMPLETELY dismanteled his car
engine, and after about 10 hours of 'work', but it back in the car. I was
fascinated (I *hate* working on cars). He was very meticulous, but I had no idea
WHY. Until it dawned on me: that car was the most complicated thing he could
understand. Like a computer geek! I think the vast majority of 'computer geeks'
are attracted to them for the same reason: it's the most complicated thing they
can understand. How many people TRUELY understand Chowning FM (I'm not tlaking
about repeating a string of buzzwords like "Oh, there are sine wave 'operators'
that have 'algorithms' and changing the parameters alter the sound."). I'm
talking like "The phase indexing creates Bessel funtions relationships which
modulate the spectra. Blah blah blah". So as a result, the 100,000 DX-7 users
bought all the Bo Tomlyn/CrystalVoice patches :) (not that Bo knows what a
Bessel function is).

People feel that, to some degree, the basic building blocks of analog synths are
'understandable' to a much higher degree than say FM. The hardware of a
VA/complicated synth is 'detached' from a PERSONAL experience (unless YOU are
the IC designer).

#4: Lesson of Buchla

Disclaimer: I'm NOT picking on Don *personally*. This is a 'case study' of the
BUSINESS SIDE.

The lesson learned from looking at Buchla: the 'stranger' your product, the
smaller the customer base. Sure, a simple ADSR is 'boring', but it generates
*revenue*. If *all* you have are SuperWhizGonkulators, you will not appeal to a
broad customer base. As long as you know this going in, and you can support
that, fine.

#5: Time versus 'useful output'

It's pretty quick to patch up a 'famaliar' sound on a modular. "Whee, I'm Chris
Franke!" But sit in from of say a Kyma, or Absynth or CSound and frustration can
set it. Because the VCO/VCF/VCA patch is easy to 'translate' into desired
end-sounds. Back to the DX-7 (or the D-50 or Wavestation or....). There is no
easy direct "settings versus output" model that the vast majority of people can
understand. Or if there can be, it's a *SECRET* (Yamaha FS1r).

Look at Harley motorcycles: big, NOISY, inefficient drag coefficients (legs
spread wide, hands at ear-level). But that's what is *EXPECTED* by the people
that buy them. There is no 'rational' reason to own a Harley, from an
'engineering perspective' they make NO SENSE. Go figure (shrug).

Paul S.