[sdiy] Radio Shack catalogs

[Scott Nordlund]

>> (along with synthesizers -- flames actively invited...)

Funny, I tend to have the opposite opinion.  Recently a Kurzweil K2VX,
Yamaha TG77 and Pure Data have me wondering whether analog is worth 
bothering with at all.  And that still puts me 10-20 years behind the
times (what can I say, I'm cheap...).

Of course I'm no purist of any sort, and I'll gladly make use of 
whatever is available.  But my tastes tend toward the exotic, and to 
get the same level of insanity in the analog domain I'd have to have a
quite impressive arsenal of stuff.  Analog frequency shifters are
great, but for all their expense and complexity, it takes me 5 seconds
to get one in PD.  If I want, I can have 1000 of them.

I do value hands-on physicality, but to me it makes more sense to just
use what's most efficient and available.  For hands on stuff I can stick
to molesting reel to reel tape loops and electroacoustic feedback
nonsense.

> I wonder why that is. In the 1980s we've seen numerous approaches 
> towards generating more lively and interesting sounds. In the 1990s all 
> these approaches pretty much condensed into "more samples!" and virtual 
> analog.

I try to think about this a lot- the philosophy of design and the way 
things progress and become codified into standardized and increasingly
consumer oriented forms, the interaction between tools and users and 
how that can be directed by technical limitation rather than brilliant
insight.

Things start out "by the elite, for the elite" because of the technical
challenges and the necessary high price involved.  There tends to be a 
very high standard of quality that overcomes the primitive nature of it.
Example: Synclavier, EMT 250. Once it becomes easy, there's not nearly
the incentive to put that amount of thought into it.  Example: Alesis.
 If the technology is now accessible to the average consumer, there's no
reason to target the elite anymore with highly refined and expensive
products.  Arranger keyboards are far more profitable.

And the early products get some sort of halo around them to the point
where even their flaws and limitations are exalted.  In the minds of 
consumers and less pioneering engineers and designers, this is how it's 
supposed to be done, and so that's how it gets done, ad infinitum.
People want the sounds from the classic hit records, long after the 
designers have moved on to "better" things.


> And if I look into today's instrument catalogues, there's hardly a 
> machine which really attracts me, yet even makes me drool like certain 
> machines in the 1980s.
> 
> Maybe it's the mass of users who just set the standards by actively 
> denying anything beyond "subtractive ROMpler"?

I'd say so.  I wouldn't blame the manufacturers too much.  They've all
had their brilliantly designed, boundary pushing failures.  It's not a
big market at all and most people are very conservative in their tastes
(this applies just as much to fans of analog).  And it's hard to set 
your sights high when you're competing with your own used products.  
Who wants to pay $3000 for something these days?

Digital synthesis still has a lot of innovation happening, it's just 
not trickling down into commercial products the way it used to.   It's
become more esoteric, which is sad because a lot of things that were 
totally impractical are getting a lot more feasible...
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4