[sdiy] presets on a modular

[Don Tillman]

   > Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:27:47 +0000
   > From: Richard Wentk <richard at skydancer.com>
   > 
   > At 02:43 12/11/2004 -0800, Don Tillman wrote:
   > >
   > >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.

Sure, musicians want patching... but they want patching that doesn't
suck.

If the patching costs more than the modules being patched, if the
patching limits connection options, or if the patching has nasty side
effects, it's not a good thing.

   > >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.

If you have normalized connections, the number of patchcords used is,
in practice, very small.  Some of the craziest, most complex patches
on an ARP2600 use only a handful of patch cords.

   > The only reason people use patch cords is tradition. But patch
   > cords are 1920s technology. It should be possible to create
   > something better now.

Not true; there are lots of reasons people use patch cords.  They're
easy to follow, easy to manipulate, very flexible, have a good feel,
they're inexpensive, and they provide an instant interface to the
outside world allowing connections to other synth units or to outboard
processors.

The date the technology was developed is irrelevant.  The Fender
Stratocaster has been the most popular musical instrument model for
decades, and it was introduced in 1954 and hasn't changed significantly
since.  And Hammond Organs are 1930's consumer technology.  Neither
has really been improved upon.

   > >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.

Dialing up numbers is a fine interface... if you're a robot.
Musicians deserve something better.

My previous post about the patching found on other musical instruments
should supply a number of ideas for better interfaces.  

Here are more:

Why should the operation to call up a sweet, soft flute sound be so
easily confused with the operation to call up incredibly loud
explosions?  Wouldn't it be better to have a path from one patch to
another instead of having all patches lined up at the same level?  How
about patch variations on top of main patches?  Or patches plus easy
improvised live performance changes?  Why can't we have a patching
system that takes advantage of the workings of a modular synth instead
of being in conflict with it?  Can the transistion from one patch to
another be itself a musical event?

   > >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...?

(What, do I have to do everything?  :-) )

Okay, here's a proposal: 

Start with a typical modular synthesizer, add normalized connections,
then implement a system to set the routing of the normalized
connections.  That way you can have preset signal routing, you retain
full use of patchcords, and you are able to perform patch changes on
the fly.  This can be applied to any modular (once you've got
normalized jacks).

This only addresses the module interconnection aspect of a patch, it
doesn't deal with knob values.  But it might be a good thing to
separate the two.

  -- Don

-- 
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don at till.com
http://www.till.com