SV: Re: [sdiy] Much progress on Buchla waveshaper analysis

[Grant Richter]

>
> I plan to explore other waveshapers at some point; right now, my  
> prime goal was to understand and model that specific Buchla  
> circuit, with the idea of making a software model of the Easel.
>

Please extend the research to make something new and better. That is  
the only justification for duplicating the prior art.

Look at Bob Moog, he was so against reissuing the 900 series, he went  
to court to block it.
Dr. Moog, more than anyone, new that the early instruments were only  
a "first cut" and can easily be improved on with todays hindsight and  
technology.

Otto Luening told me that the original 1 volt peak to peak signal  
levels used in the Buchla 100/200 and Moog 900 were specified
by himself and Vladamir Ussachevsky (who were the only ones buying at  
the time). The original idea was to be able to patch any module
between tape recorder channels for music concrete work. It only took  
them 6 months to figure out that was a mistake, because with  
subtractive synthesis,
you are constantly reducing signal power (by subtraction, duh). So  
they revised their specifications for the 10 volt peak to peak levels  
which
we are more familiar with, so that after subtraction you still have a  
good signal to noise ratio.

He also quoted Vladamir Ussachevshy as saying "If I had know the ADSR  
would become an industry standard, I would have thought about it for  
more than 5 minutes."
The story goes, Bob Moog called and asked if there were going to be  
more than two sections to an envelope, what would they be?
Ussachevshy when into his office, grabbed an acoustics book and read  
to Bob the four acoustics parameters which had been in use since the  
age of Helmholz.
And that's were the ADSR envelope came from (supposedly).

This is not to take anything away from those brave pioneers. "We are  
but pygmys standing on the shoulders of giants".