[sdiy] Definition of Modular (regarding FatMan)

[Magnus Danielson]

From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1 at airmail.net>
Subject: Re: [sdiy] Definition of Modular (regarding FatMan)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 12:22:22 -0500
Message-ID: <007701c5a674$e434a640$0301a8c0 at bilbo>

> The Great Debate!
> 
> IMHO, this consists of *TWO* criteria:
> 
> a) patchable
> b) individual modules that can be *physically* rearranged/added removed
> 
> Serge and ARP 2600: patchable, but not modular

Actually, I think a Serge is more of a clean modular than the ARP 2600. I agree
that the ARP 2600 is not "fully open" while the Serge is that. A Serge panel
is no more or less modular than a Moog Modular 3C cabinette, except for one
particular point, you can shift modules around and insert different modules.
However, I think that is a different distinction which has to do with users
longterm view of the instrument as diffrentiated from the users ability to use
what is in the particular instrument. For Serge panels you can add and remove
the panels themself at you need, so you have some of that modularity too.

So, I think your b-condition is drawing the line too narrow for the generic
term of modular, but I think we need a term for that special case too.
The a-condition is however what I consider OK for the normal term. When you are
not fully patchable, you have restricted modularity (ARP 2600, MS-20) where as
full modularity with full over-ride of normalization (Formant) is a modular.
Thus, just having conveniences such as normalization does not rule out being
a modular, but when that normalization is used to cut down on freedom of
patchability you leave the realm of pure modular into a very flexible fixed
architecture synth. So, when both the a and b conditions is fullfilled, I think
we should speak of architectural modular or even fully modular, thus using a
qualifier to indicate the elevated level.

Cheers,
Magnus