[sdiy] Nord Modular DIY

Thu Mar 3 11:34:55 CET 2016

I remember the Creamware Pulsar PCI cards had SHARCs, which were "a big
deal" at the time.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar99/articles/creamwave.htm

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Rutger Vlek <rutgervlek at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> Sorry, I thought I read in Sound on Sound the Nord contained SHARC's, but
> I believe Johannes is right when he's saying they're Motorola/Freescale.
> The SHARC's were in the John Bowen monster synth if I remember correctly.
>
> @Thomas Strathmann: I also feel differently about integrated keyboards
> than most, and agree with you on that. For me a synth needs to be one
> package. I think it has to do with the cognitive ergonomy of the thing. I
> don't want to be bother with settings controller settings, wiring, MIDI
> ports, etc when I want to be making music. When I turn on my instrument,
> I'd like it to be for music, not tech things.
>
> Looking back at the Nord G2, I don't believe they sold many when they were
> just released. It's now they're discontinued that people finally get it.
> They did a great job making modular complexity available to the masses, but
> could have taken it a bit further. To get a large user base you need to be
> able to gain access to the benefits of the complexity of such an
> instrument, even without having to understand all it. That means your
> community of users will consist of a few that understand and enjoy the
> depths of an instrument, while others simply want the great sounds that the
> "nerdy techy experts" coaxed out of the engine. Perhaps it would be
> possible to set up some sort of eco-system around such a synth
> architecture, where you allow third party programmers to earn a bit from
> their efforts of going in depth, while making new complex stuff available
> to less technical users. Something the Nord really lacked (to my opinion),
> was a way to combine a wired set of modules into a new c
>  ontainer-module that does one higher-level function. That way you keep
> patch building more transparent, and you're not always bother by the
> low-level complexity.
>
> As for the WiFi, I don't have experience in the RF field, but I believe
> those of you who say it's risky. Perhaps the smart-phone coupling Roland
> did is the solution. That way you could use the WiFi in the smart-phone to
> allow your synth to browse the web through a list of patches, performances,
> sequences, samples, container-modules, etc.
>
> While we're at it... I think a large multi-touch screen would also greatly
> enhance the fun you can have with modulars, making it more tactile and
> "muscle memory" again.
>
> Rutger
>
>
> On 3 mrt 2016, at 00:45, Tim Ressel wrote:
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > I hear you about the power. But procs like the Sharc have seriously
> expensive compilers. Its true the STM32 doesn't have bit reversing or other
> niceties, but for this application I'm not sure how much it gains you. As
> long as you have single cycle MAC and high clock rates, I think we're okay.
> >
> > As for wifi interference, its a very good point. I'd be afraid of
> interfering with other equipment as well. On the other hand I was an EMC
> engineer in a past life and know a bit about radiated and conducted issues.
> Still, a challenge.
> >
> > Um, which Sharc chips are in the Nord?
> >
> > --tr
> >
> >
> > On 3/2/2016 12:25 PM, rsdio at audiobanshee.com wrote:
> >> Hi Tim,
> >>
> >> I was going to suggest that an actual DSP chip, such as TMS320 or
> SHARC, would be a much better choice for a large modular. It's true that a
> generic processor like the STM32 can do quite a lot of signal processing,
> but DSP chips are designed to accomplish an order of magnitude more in the
> same amount of time and power. Seeing Rutger's comment that the Nord runs
> on multiple SHARC chips sort of makes my point.
> >>
> >> By the way, I'd recommend against combining WiFi (radio) and audio
> signal generation in the same product. It's doable, but seriously increases
> the challenges. Digital is already difficult to get right when it comes to
> generating analog signals. Having radio interference generated on the same
> board just seems to be asking for trouble.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 2, 2016, at 8:58 AM, Rutger Vlek <rutgervlek at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I've been thinking along the same lines. However, I've seen many
> similar projects get stranded half-way because it really really takes a lot
> of coordination, good UI design, debugging, testing, etc to get something
> that is as pleasant to work with as the Nord G2. Additionally, doing that
> in VST rather than hardware also solves many initial problems (though
> sacrificing playability IMHO).
> >>>
> >>> I'm also a big fan of the Nord! I wish Nord would make the system
> open-source such that we can further improve it, add addition modules, but
> benefit from the huge amount of work already done. I believe it runs on 4
> (or 8) Sharc DSPs by the way.
> >>>
> >>> The most important thing about your idea to me is: let's combine
> forces and make a monster of a synth! Something no one could ever pull off
> alone. Something that can grow for about 5 or 10 years (I'm thinking like
> the MidiBox platform did for quite a while). Personally, I'm more into the
> hybrid stuff, combining a modular DSP environment with analog voice-cards
> and effect chain options.
> >>>
> >>> While where at it, why don't we make a platform that also allows
> direct WiFi connection for patch sharing and rating (much like an App store
> on a mobile phone). Oh, and when we do something big and long term, it also
> pays of to put a decent keyboard in it with aftertouch, rather than the
> cheap mini-keys we get from the big corp's these days.
> >>>
> >>> On 2 mrt 2016, at 17:17, Tim Ressel wrote:
> >>>> I've always been interested in a software based synth that was
> configured through an app. I took a whack at it many years ago but never
> got very far. Then I found the Nord Modular and that seemed to fill the
> need nicely. Why re-invent the wheel?  But then they get discontinued, and
> used G2s go for $1000.
> >>>>
> >>>> So maybe its time for the DIY thing after all.  Anybody interested?
> >>>>
> >>>> I did some research. Someone out there has a clone for the app that
> configures the synth. If that code is workable then we just need the synth
> side.  On that front there are several excellent choices for a processor.
> I'm thinking a high-end STM32. We could start with a Nucleo board with a
> daughter board; nice and cheap. The code will be intense, but many hands
> makes work light.
> >>>>
> >>>> This would be an open source project for hardware and software. That
> way nobody's toes get stepped on. Or everybody's does, depending on your
> viewpoint.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Synth-diy mailing list
> >> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> >> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> >>
> >
> > --
> > --Tim Ressel
> > Circuit Abbey
> > timr at circuitabbey.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Synth-diy mailing list
> > Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> > http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20160303/e766f1ec/attachment.htm>