[sdiy] presets & patching > combining 2 replies

[Morbius]

--- Richard Wentk <richard at skydancer.com> wrote:

> At 02:43 12/11/2004 -0800, Don Tillman wrote:
> >(Should I get involved in this conversation?  With
> my crazy opinions,
> >technical background, and zen attitude?  What the
> hell...)
> >
> >Harumph... this is going nowhere.  I'll claim that
> preset schemes,
> >such as the ones described so far in this thread,
> are fundamentally
> >doomed for three reasons:
> >
> >The first is that they're way too complex.  Whether
> you measure that
> >by the parts count, by the cost, by the panel
> space, or by the time
> >spent building it, the value of the patching
> circuitry comes in at
> >several times the circuitry being patched.  Or
> more.  At that point it
> >makes much more sense to just spend the resources
> on more modules and
> >dedicate some modules to some patches.
> 
> No it doesn't. As I said, professional musicians
> *want* patching. They've 
> always wanted. On big modulars they put up with not
> having it, but if it 
> were available they'd use it, and they'd pay to buy
> it.
> 
> >The second is that the preset schemes suffer from a
> bad user
> >interface.  Remember, you're building a Musical
> Instrument (capital M,
> >capital I), and for that a bad user interface is
> unacceptable.
> 
> I don't think a cord-free interface is any worse
> than one that relies on 
> patch cords. Cords get tangled up, broken, lost, and
> if you build a monster 
> UberPatch of Doom half the time you can't see what
> the panel settings are 
> anyway. Hell, half the time you can't make sense of
> a complex patch without 
> tracing it through either.
> 
> The only reason people use patch cords is tradition.
> But patch cords are 
> 1920s technology. It should be possible to create
> something better now.
> 
> >And third, the patching schemes are all based on
> the awful patching
> >model found on any modern computer-in-a-plastic-box
> keyboard, where
> >arbitrary sounds are selected by a binary number. 
> No real Musical
> >Instruments use that preset model.
> 
> I don't get your point here. It's an index card
> model, with one number per 
> sound, and it makes perfect intutive sense. If you
> want to you can name the 
> patch, and display it a huge LED matrix display.
> With a little extra work 
> you can group patches by type and subtype, build a
> patch data base, add 
> randomisation features, make it selectable by text
> message from a 
> cellphone, and generally whatever.
> 
> Binary is non-issue. As soon as you *can* patch, you
> can extend the 
> interface however you want to.
> 
> >Instead of forcing a bad preset model on an analog
> modular synth, I
> >think it would be better to develop a new preset
> model that's more
> >appropriate to the instrument.
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> Richard


[#1]

Hey Richard (and all)...

I've just joined this forum this week. Funny thing...
We've been having the same threads on the
synthesizerscomgroup for the last 2-3 weeks. A preset
module(s)... primarily for live gigs, and more
recently, some discussion of various patching methods.
It would seem that you and I have very similar
viewpoints on both topics.

The subject was brought up by a guy who was thinking
of buying an ARP-2600... and the thread kinda morphed
over to the ARP-2500, and the matrix patching. I used
to have a 2500... and yeah, dirt contamination could
be a problem... as it was for all sorts of audio gear
back then. But the concept of the matrix, to me, is
very interesting, and a step up from patchcords...
although you can use patchcords.

Anyway... between the "preset module", and the
patching thread, I thought you (and others) might be
interested in comparing notes from the synth-dot-com
group. All are welcome... and no flaming is permitted
: ) .... here's where:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/synthesizerscomgroup/

~Morbius~
(synthesizerscomgroup moderator)

------------------------------------------------------


--- TIm Daugard <daugard at sprintmail.com> wrote:

> Jumping into the fray late . . .
> 
> > > What do the performers want?  What do the
> performers need?  What are
> > the
> > > limitations of the existing synth systems that
> we need to contend
> > with?
> >
> > As you can see, there's little consensus on that.
> 
> I use a 4 by 4 matrix. 4 basic sounds with four
> processing paths. This gives me
> 16 sounds through by modular. I play bass so I can
> get another 4(+) sounds from
> the bass. This gives me more than enough sounds for
> an hour or more of music.
> During breaks you can always change patches.


[#2]

Hey Tim... and all...

So far, for a preset system for my modular dotcom, I
use a simple 5x5 matrix switcher (simple 1/4" jacks &
toggle switches) as a router. I also have/use two
Q-143 "Presets" modules combined with several Q-128
"Switches". It makes a pretty effective 'on-the-fly'
patching/routing system that I like a whole lot. The
Q-143 "Presets" module not only has two A/OFF/B preset
variable (+/-) voltage sources, but also two A/B
switches that are all tied together in that module.
This combo of the Q-143 & Q-128 can be quite
effective.

In live performance using a modular, I like to be able
to (as a very basic function) be able to switch
between waveforms. Here is one preset I use often:

The first switch setting (A) gives me 2 sawtooths
(slightly detuned), a sawtooth tuned to a fifth, and a
sine one octave below. LP filter settings (with EG)
set for very percussive response. This patch gives a
real 'ballsey Moog' sound.

Changing the "presets" module switch to the center
(off) position shuts off all of the above, and give me
2 sine waves, one of which is tuned 2 octaves below
the other; no filter; and a variable delayed vibrato.

Changing the "presets" to the (B) setting shuts off
the above, and gives me 2 square waves, slightly
detuned, with two different portamento rates, and a LP
filter setting that is 100% open, with about 30-40%
regeneration.

Ok... three, very basic sounds... but osc.s, filters,
and various other parameters are being switched. And
that is all done with one Q143 and two Q128's.

Add to that, the routing of the matrix switcher, I end
up with a very handy preset modular for use in live
gigs. At the flip of a switch, I can easily do things
like:
apply S/H to osc.s
apply S/H to filters
apply Q-119 sequencer(s) to osc.s and/or filters)
apply external MIDI sequencer(s) to osc.s and/or
filters)
apply LFO modulation to osc.s/filters
apply EG (+/-) voltage to osc.s/filters.

Now... that's a good deal of stuff you can do without
changing one single patchcord during a performance.

On the downside:
It takes a while to set up, and you have to know what
you're doing... and memorize it; ummm... there is no
memory, other than what you have in however many
braincells you have left.

So... I'm always looking for ways to improve on that
set-up.

~Morbius~




		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com