[sdiy] SSM2040

[bayne d'artagnan]

On 11/1/07, Jason Proctor <jason at redfish.net> wrote:
> >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?

I was talking about 2040 vs clone. This isn't about thinking in any
particular way, it's that your statement simply wasn't true. If you
want to talk about synth chips, I'm game, if you want to make ad
hominem attacks, then I'm really not interested in having the
discussion. Try to see that my perspective is just different than
yours.

> 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,

Exactly. The rest of your statement is moot. Just because one has a
modular does not mean one does not want the sound of some particular
device. If you think that a clone does not sound the same, which you
stated, then you are making the obvious statement that clones are NOT
the same. Thus there can be no argument that having the clone holds
the same value as having the real thing.

> >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,

To be clear, I did not say that. I said that, in my experience, 3310s,
3340s  and 3394s fail often. I've never had a 3320 fail. That doesn't
mean that they don't however, my experience is fairly limited. But in
the end you made the same choice that I'm advocating and using the
criteria that suit your point of view to justify it to yourself.

You chose to use a 3320 in a module when you are claiming that they
should be saved for polysynth repair.  Whether a clone is available is
not relevant. You are still choosing to have a sound in your modular
that denies a polysynth owner a chip. You are claiming that the sound
is unique enough to your ears that some other filter won't do. I'm
claiming that the 2040 is unique enough that a clone won't do. Since
you've already admitted that you don't think clones sound exactly the
same, then you must agree.

Whether we talk about 3320s or 2040s every choice to use one makes one
less chip available for repair. I think that's ok, obviously by your
actions, so do you.

> 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.

And Paul is certainly entitled to his opinion as well. But, if you
read the archives, he's stated POINT BLANK that he as plenty of CEMS
and that people shouldn't worry about using them. I suspect that the
reason he didn't has more to do with that it makes bad business sense
to build a module around something that is hard to get. With that I'd
agree completely. But that's not the same thing as individuals using a
few chips in the junk box to build modules. The underlying motivation
for not using CEMS in a business is because you might not be able to
turn a profit at some point, not because you think that you have some
philanthropic duty to polysynth owners. In fact, if you think about
it, it makes GREAT business sense to just hold on to the CEMS and
design modules around commonly available parts. The latter become
cheaper because of competition, and the former increase in value
because of a lack of competition.

Paul stands to have a more viable business by selling CEMS and modules
not designed around CEMS than by selling modules designed around CEMS.

> >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.

If the clones sound the same, then what's the difference? But, a real
Juno is worth what $300? And how many are there in existence 100000?,
500000? Are we all supposed to cherish every cigarette stained juno
littering basement walls since the 80s?

> for a module, i'd be fine with a
> clone (and boy, do i want one).

I can understand that. The Juno filter sounds GREAT! In a module it
sounds even better because you have direct control over input levels
and you can modulate the resonance. The reason I have extra 80017s is
that I decided to think a little differently about both polysynths and
modules. Rather than replace the dead voice in my MKS-30 I pulled the
other five good voices out and I'm replacing them with a new set of
filters. In the end I get 80017s in the wild where they sound a LOT
better and an MKS-30 that is, by definition, unique.

>this isn't quite the same thing
> either, as the clones are physically compatible with a real Juno
> without daughterboarding (ooh topical) etc.

My point wasn't that it's the same, but that people still prefer the
original to the clone, you've claimed that also. So whether it's in a
polysynth, a module, or some other project, it ought not be surprising
that people might prefer the original.

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

I believe that's correct, but there's nothing stopping anyone from
doing so if they felt it was worth the effort.