[sdiy] Definition of Modular (regarding FatMan)

[megaohm]

  Lot's of interesting points. I'm beginning to swing both ways (don't
get any ideas!). If I want to take a vco and ONLY the filter of the
Putney and move them PHYSICALLY into the next room, I couldn't do it.
But if I want to run the output of my vco to the Putney's filter the
resulting sound would be arrived at from a modular means. As in, the
Putney's filter could be swapped with any other filter module
(physically modular or otherwise) freely. Considering that a synth is
generally used to produce sound, music, whatever, maybe Patchability
is a beter indicator of Modularity than just its physical package.
  Anyway... I think I'm starting to make up words so, I better stop
writing and go patch my 2x5U, 2Ux19",12"x24" modules up for some
playing time.

peng

On 8/21/05, Peter Grenader <peter at buzzclick-music.com> wrote:
> I think Peng's point defines 'large' or 'small' modular, amore than it's
> it's 'top layer' description.
> 
> If not, then please somebody tell me what a Putney is - what category.  It
> needs to be patched in order for it to do anything, yet you cannot move the
> functional blocks around.  Does this make it just a patchable system?  Or a
> non-modular patchable system?  The fact the it is broken into separate
> functional blocks, or modules, that must be routed together externally
> doesn't qualify it as a modular system?  I think so.
> 
> The 'official' definition of the word 'modular' via the Oxford Dictionary,
> which in academic circles is considered the sole reference of the English
> language lists two definitions - one pertaining to something being based on
> a module or modulus, and one pertaining to a design with standardized units
> or dimensions for flexible arrangement.
> 
> Argument for my point is it is included in the definition of the word
> modular.  Remember, something does not have to apply to all the definitions
> of a given word to be legit, that's why the alternate definitions are
> numbered.  A second point in my argument being that taken to the letter of
> the (Oxford Dictionary) law, a 'design with standardized units' implies that
> modules are identical dimensions and can be swapped around for one another
> in all cases.  Given that modules within most synthesizers share only the
> height as a common reference and come in a set group of widths,  then they
> cannot be swapped for one another in al lcases and this second definition
> does not wholly apply.
> 
> ...and obviously I have too much time on my hands, which is a lot of c at p,
> so....back to VCOs!
> 
> - P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> megaohm wrote:
> 
> > From reading definitions on the term 'modular', it would seem Paul hit
> > the nail on the head. A module is self contained and can be added or
> > subtracted to and from a larger or smaller collection of modules, and
> > placed in any desired physical space. If I wanted to put a small
> > modular system together to bring to the studio tonight I simply take
> > the modules I want out of my large cabinet and put them into my
> > portable one. If I wanted to bring ONE vco and the ADSR from the
> > Fatman, I couldn't do it. Though, the Fatman can be a module if you
> > think of it as a synth module or one voice module as opposed to a
> > filter module or a VCO module. Therefore, I could have a modular
> > Fatman if I had a few of them together. The voices would be modular,
> > but not the subcircuits that make up the voice. In the same way that
> > my 440 lopass is a filter module with a mixer subcircuit. The mixer
> > couldn't be considered a seperate module because the output can't be
> > tapped and it can't be seperated from the VCF itself.
> > There's nothing wrong with a synth just because it's not fully
> > modular. Fully patchable is way more important and useful.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/21/05, Scott Gravenhorst <music.maker at gte.net> wrote:
> >> Heh, interesting.  Then it's really a matter of form factor.  If I were to
> >> cut a
> >> FatMan's PCB into pieces and rewire them into a set of movable panels, it
> >> would
> >> then be a modular?
> >>
> >> Using the Paul S. definition, accordingly, ASM-1 isn't a modular unless you
> >> build it from the schematics as individual PCBs with individual front panels.
> >> Neither is the TomCat and other similar synths a modular synth, even though
> >> they
> >> function as such from the patchability standpoint.
> >>
> >> So to make a FatMan truly modular, I must not only make it patchable, but I
> >> must
> >> cut the board up so that each circuit is on it's own piece, and create
> >> movable
> >> and separately mountable front panels.  I'm not going to do that because it
> >> would serve no purpose, I'm just interested in the etymology at this point.
> >>
> >> Magnus Danielson <cfmd at bredband.net> wrote:
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> - Where merit is not rewarded, excellence fades.
> >> - Hydrogen is pointless without solar.
> >> - What good are laws that only lawyers understand?
> >> - The media's credibility should always be questioned.
> >> - The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
> >> - Governments do nothing well, save collect taxes.
> >>
> >> -- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
> >> -- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
> >> -- FatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/fatman/
> >> -- NonFatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/electronics/
> >> -- Autodidactic Master of Arcane and Hidden Knowledge.
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>