[sdiy] SSM2040

[Jason Proctor]

>That's not correct. There are options for a 2040 "clone" that is 
>available to both module builders and for synth repairs. The basic 
>designs are published on the internet and there is nothing stopping 
>anyone from building one to repair their polysynth.

it's not a simple question of correct or not correct. unless you view 
the world in black & white, like i suspect you might. i've given up 
thinking you're Vince, maybe you're Dave?

if you have a synth that used to have a 2040 in it, you're going to 
want the real deal as a replacement. as you've said, a clone is a 
clone and not the real deal, and your synth isn't going to sound the 
way it did before unless the real deal is installed. also, you may 
not be DIY inclined, and you may not be inclined to pay your tech, if 
you have one, to convert an MOTM-440 schematic to an electrically and 
physically compatible daughterboard to go in your polysynth.

if however you have a modular, you've already given up emulating a 
particular synth because the oscillators, amplifiers, and other 
particulars of the signal path are going to be different. and most 
likely you're DIY handy too. why not go for the clone in that case?

>Most who make the argument don't distinguish between whether there 
>is a "clone" or not.

well guess what? i *am* making that distinction. if Paul had made a 
module based on a discrete clone of the CEM 3320, i would have bought 
one of those instead of a Tellun PCB and a real 3320. that way the 
3320s, which fail often as you say, could be saved for the synths 
that need them to sound right. and btw, i don't think that the 
MOTM-480 sounds anything like the filter in the Yamaha CS-5, which is 
the IG156 module i have in the works.

and maybe Paul should chime in here. the original idea behind, and 
indeed the origin of the name for, MOTM was that Paul would design a 
new module based around a CEM chip, of which he had just bought a 
stash. hence the month thing, because it takes Paul about an hour to 
design a circuit around a CEM chip. but Paul decided not to do that 
because he thought that CEMs belonged in synths that needed them.

>I also have some 80017As that have been pulled and tested that I'd 
>swap one for one for 2040s in similar condition. Now, you can get 
>the clones, but is that what you want? Or, do you want the REAL 
>THING to make your Juno sing!

a real Juno deserves the real thing. for a module, i'd be fine with a 
clone (and boy, do i want one). this isn't quite the same thing 
either, as the clones are physically compatible with a real Juno 
without daughterboarding (ooh topical) etc.

AFAIK, nobody has produced a pin compatible 2040 or 3320 clone.