WHY? (was Re: [sdiy] ... Simulating a Moog)

[Scott Stites]

Ditto, actually!  The wavolver and double pulse generator have been on my slate for quite a while.  The text on Ian's site does make a great case for the harmonic structure of the double pulse wave.

Using Ken Stone's Wave Multiplier and Lockhart waveshaper has definitely opened doors for me.  It wasn't me that thought of this, but I think the wave shapes available on most analog synths are more a product of where 'modern' EM started originally (lab test gear) than usefullness as audio sources.  Either that or the reason could be the relative ease of production for equipment that generates these waveforms, though the inclusion of sine waves may argue against that point.

One element (among many) that sets the Buchla Music Easel apart from many synths of the era is the use and emphasis of nonlinear waveform generation and frequency/amplitude modulation as methods of producing a wide range of timbre.  Anyone who's read the manual on that must surely have noticed that the two low pass filters on it are mentioned almost in passing, and are considered merely as an optional element in the signal path......

Cheers,
Scott



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gravenhorst <music.maker at gte.net>
Sent: May 7, 2004 2:11 PM
To: synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: WHY? (was Re: [sdiy] ... Simulating a Moog)

Agreed.  Good points.  And as soon as I am gainfully re-employed (pots are
expensive...), I plan to investigate waveshaping, VC-waveshaping and other
things, I'll start with some of your very own designs.  

Ian Fritz <ijfritz at earthlink.net> wrote:
>At 02:19 AM 5/7/2004, Paul Maddox wrote:
>
>>... all I see in the SynthDIY world is Moog ladder
>>clones, SVF clones, VCOs (still making sawtooths/square/pwm/sine)...
>
>I really don't think this is quite fair.  There's a lot of innovative work 
>on SDIY, it's just that most people don't care about using it.  I suppose 
>one reason is this: It makes sense for a beginner's DIY modular to start 
>with standard modules and then progress to the more exotic, but people 
>don't ever get beyond the "standard" stage --  too much work, time money, 
>whatever.
>
>As one minor example, I will point out that I have been arguing for nearly 
>30 years the advantages and utility of non-standard waveforms, and I have 
>published many waveshaper designs both in EN and on the  web.  From the 
>feedback that I have gotten, I am quite sure that no more than about a 
>dozen units have been built based on these circuits.  And in fact there was 
>recently a post on this list to the effect that the standard waveforms are 
>what they are for a reason and that no others are needed.
>
>"Pearls before swine" is the answer to your question, I'm afraid.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>   Ian
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------
- Where merit is not rewarded, excellence fades.
- Hydrogen is pointless without solar.
- What good are laws that only lawyers understand?
- The media's credibility should always be questioned.
- The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
- Governments do nothing well, save collect taxes.

-- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
-- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/FatMan/
-- NonFatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/electronics/
-- Autodidactic Master of Arcane and Hidden Knowledge.



PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com