[sdiy] presets & patching > combining 2 replies

[Scott Stites]

Well, welcome Morby-dude!  Nice to see you here, too.

Cheerio,
Scott


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Morbius" <morbius001a at yahoo.com>
To: <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: [sdiy] presets & patching > combining 2 replies


> 
> --- 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 
>  
>