[sdiy] Definition of Modular (regarding FatMan)

[Peter Grenader]

The (not so) great debate:

To my belief system, the term 'modular' is a functional description rather
than a physical one.  If it requires patching to make sonic and control
connections through either cables or slide switches (Arp 2500) or pins (EMS
products), it's modular.  The fact that the Putney, Synthi, Fenix, ASM-1,
Buchla Dodeca Module, Buchla 208 (Music Easel) and Serge among others places
those functional blocks in a fixed position on a shared faceplate does not
effect their modularity in the least.

My only consideration would be a footnote with the Buchla 208, Arp 2600 and
some of the Roland patchable systems as possibly semi-modular, as certain
routings are normaled and not accessible at each system's patching
architecture.

my 2 bits.

- P

Magnus Danielson wrote:

> 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