[sdiy] History of SDIY?
David G Dixon
dixon at mail.ubc.ca
Wed May 30 20:35:57 CEST 2018
Here are my thoughts (as if anybody cared):
1) Defining stuff isn't the problem. Taking offense, or putting too much
importance on those definitions, is the problem. So chill the F out
2) Let the guy write whatever history he wants to write, and define SDIY any
way he wants. That's his right as the author. If you think he left
important stuff out, then write your own damn book.
3) My definition of SDIY: Does it go "bleep"? Then it's a synth. Did you
do it yourself? I.e., did it not exist, and then you did it and now it
exists? Then you "did it yourself" and it qualifies. Easy peasy, lemon
From: Synth-diy [mailto:synth-diy-bounces at synth-diy.org] On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 4:45 AM
To: synth-diy at synth-diy.org
Subject: Re: [sdiy] History of SDIY?
> and THIS is precisely why I feel defining something is BAD.
I'd like to see you solder something with a banana. Yes of course the
4-wheeled, 5-doored banana. By wheels I mean chocolate chips. You know,
those with 45% lead.
"Defining something" is not the problem, or not a bigger one than mostly
anything else. It's not perfect or always obvious, like it tends to be with
everything humans do. E.g. "taxonomists" don't have it easy, and some doodoo
heads claim it's all arbitrary, although my dog, that son of a bitch, never
wanted to meow.
In this particular instance:
To claim "making software synths yourself" was somehow not "doing synths
yourself", eventhough there is an agreement that a "software synth" *is* "a
synth", is a contradictory statement, or just plain wrong.
At least if one is going with actual meanings of words.
Now there are people who think in the first split second when some label for
something appeared, the limited context of that time is somehow frozen for
eternity, even though the higher concept of the things being referenced
clearly permits inclusion of more things still covered by the abstract
I'd say those people are wrong, but I have nothing precisely to say about
that atm ^^
Von: paula at synth.net
An: "Stephan Vladimir Bugaj" <stephan at bugaj.com>
Cc: "synth-diy mailing list" <synth-diy at synth-diy.org>
Betreff: Re: [sdiy] History of SDIY?
> This belief is why so few of us "purely" software folks find their way
> to this list, sadly
> I hardly see why Serum (predominantly written by two people in their
> homes) wouldn't be SDIY, yet many of the Eurorack builders would be
> If you ported Serum to, say, ARM and put it in a box with some knobs on
> it, it would magically transform from "not a synthesizer" into a
and THIS is precisely why I feel defining something is BAD.
BY defining it you are limiting it, I do NOT believe we should be
shunning software synth people.
Their craft lies in their code.
> Paula, if you water down the definition too much it becomes
> meaningless. 99% of people I know, when they think SDIY they think of
> hardware synths and modules, whether they are analog or digital. To me
> at least it makes sense to keep ITB and dedicated hardware somewhat
> separate. Call it Soft Synth DIY if you will :)
> Just my 2 c
ok, so, 99% of people on SDIY are male, so does that mean things made by
women are not SDIY?
That's exactly where this kind of "lets define things" debate ends up
and that is not healthy.
So, let's stop trying to define this list, let's enjoy it and embrace
Synth-diy mailing list
Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Synth-diy