[sdiy] Synth-making without obsolete parts

[Joan Touzet]

OK, I want to take the Moog thread in a different direction.  One
final observation:

René Schmitz wrote:
> Certainly I want a good sounding synth. Whether that sounds like one of
> the classics, I don't really give a ****. I'm really more interested in
> the circuitry anyway. And understanding what a design does which is
> considered sounding good can only be helpful in archeiving that.

Hear, hear.  For the lurkers, and hopefully on behalf of Aaron's
students -- this is why I joined synth-diy.  If I wanted pointless
arguments about fanaticism, drooling, and what one can/can't do with
various technologies, I'd hold that argument on analogue-heaven or
some other religious forum. As designers, engineers, and aficionados,
can't we raise the S/N here a bit?

Now, if you will, read more of what René wrote:
> In the future special care about parts that become extinct will become
> increasingly important. "Makeing Music *without* the CA3080" would be a
> book to write. So for me the fun is in implying (somewhat arbitrary)
> limitations in what kind of processing elements you use. This is the
> motivation to do weird stuff like CMOS oscillators, tube synths and
> other little explored paths. Or sticking to the analog domain.

In every culture I've (informally) studied, people make musical
instruments out of the flotsam and jetsam in their habitat.  I believe
it is a function of our current habitat that we are producing musical
instruments out of vacuum tubes, neon bulbs, optocouplers, noisy
diodes and caps, ICs of every imaginable sort, etc.  As an EE I quite
enjoy the confluence!

On the one hand, you have instrumentalists who prize their unique
sound, and go to great lengths to differentiate themselves sonically
through timbre.  For these folks, the more obtuse an instrument, the
better.  These are the folks hoarding SSM/CEM chips, ua726es,
Ondes-Martenots, etc.  Speaking to these musicians, they are generally
unapologetic for their choices.  Most genuinely don't care if future
generations can perform their songs themselves; the
WAV/MP3/CD/DVD/concert they produce is the end result of their
achievement, and they move on.  I love listening to their work, and do
so often.

However, as a classically-trained musician and an instrumentalist, I
can't wholeheartedly share this viewpoint.  I want to perform works
written 10, 100, even 1000 years ago.  I'd like them to sound similar
to how they sounded then.  I hope that those in the future can
continue to do so.  (And yes, I'm aware that not everyone enjoys
period music on period instruments, if I'm to judge based on audience
reaction at a couple of Christopher Hogwood concerts, or some friends'
reactions to my record collection.)

Rarer instruments seem to garner more attention on these mailing
lists, but the Collection of Musical Instruments at Yale University
(http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=2546) has many oddities
that the curators can no longer coax to produce sound.  It's within
the foreseeable future that we could easily end up being unable to
support or maintain the machines we are building today on this list. 
What chance does a museum curator 200 years from now have of reviving
an Elektor Formant?  So, quantifying what makes a Moog a Moog (or, for
me right now, what makes a Voyetra Eight a Voyetra Eight) is critical
to preserving future generations' ability to perform the classics of
today with an authentic sound and feel.  It also insures I'll be able
to keep playing the way I do now when I'm 80 years old.

To me, the ultimate challenge of DIY synths is twofold: given the
current Mouser/Digi-Key/Small Parts/whatever catalogue and a workshop,
what can you build that produces a sound that stimulates the
imagination & spirit, and is eminently /playable/?  And, can you
analyze your instrument thoroughly enough that its characteristics can
be reproduced in the future - regardless of it being in analogue or
digital circuitry?  Both are challenging problems, but (imo) only
together is something of lasting value achieved.

Back to the obsolete parts - has anyone taken "dead" CEM/SSM chips,
split them open and taken die photos?  Aaron, you'd be uniquely
positioned to assist with this -- could you get some time on a probe
station equipped with a good camera?  This could even be a good extra
credit project ;)  I was hoping to do this through my affiliation up
here with University of Toronto, but I haven't made the right contacts
in the EE department to get me the equipment I need.  (I keep getting
deflected to Chipworks...and I can't afford that.)  Knowing the die
mask and the process on which the chip was fabbed could be a big help
in accurate reproduction of the circuit.

-Joan