[sdiy] Definition of Modular (regarding FatMan)

[Magnus Danielson]

From: Scott Gravenhorst <music.maker at gte.net>
Subject: [sdiy] Definition of Modular (regarding FatMan)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:09:38 -0700
Message-ID: <200508211709.j7LH9cK06798 at linux6.lan>

> Perhaps my usage of the word 'modular' is incorrect, so I will ask:
> 
> What does 'modular' mean?
> 
> I ask because at least one person said that the FatMan is not modular.
> 
> I always thought that modular means "composed of modules".  The FatMan is
> most certainly composed of modules.
> 
> IMHO, a FatMan is modular (and analogue, too), it's just not patchable out
> of the box.

Traditionally, modular really meant that you had a bunch of modules which
shared chassi(s) and power (Moog Modulars). For some you also had various forms
of normalized patches (ARP 2600) and routingpaths (ARP 2500), but you could
still do quite alot of free patching, if not fully free. Pre-patches synths
(such as MiniMoog) has a much reduced freedom, but is not modular. The MiniMoog
originally (Model A) was really just normal Moog Modular modules stacked
together, but then fixed patches replaced the free patches and you ended up
with a more static design, for the benefit of cost and while still providing
what many people thought they needed most.

There is nothing wrong with post-patched synths, they are just not modular.

The Oberheim Xpander is a real border-case, but it is still not a true modular,
just a very flexible synth.

I don't consider FatMan a modular, it doesn't have that extreme end flexibility
as I have gathered it. You could certainly mod up one to become effectively a
modular, but that is a separate case.

Cheers,
Magnus