Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

All,
Just a long (and pretty much pointless) post about how I think the
future of MOTM sequencers should be.

I think that the modular approach to sequencer design is by far the
best choice for MOTM, as opposed to one do it all style thing like
everyone else has. After all, Paul designed the system to be a
superior "studio" level synth, with as much capability and
flexibility as possible.. A true modular should have as many config
options as possible. (Im sure you all agree!!) Why handicap/limit
MOTM with a sequencer based on 30 year old ideas that has a fixed set
of options? The only downsides I can think of to this appriach would
be size and cost. As for size, it wouldn't be that bad because the
space would be taken up by features (modules) that you chose, not
wasted space, and as for cost, it wouldn't seem that bad because
you'd build it up in stages, module by module. I know that I
wouldn't worry about size when it came to sequencer capability
because musical "Movement" is at least as important as the sounds
themselves, and thats what sequencing is all about, sound evolution
and musical movement.
EMU went this approach, and Analogue Systems dabbled here too with
their minimum functionality lineup of seq's. I have a few of these
and the fun-ctionality of a system like this is great! Really gets
one experimenting, keeps you out of the "CV for pitch" groove, and
lets you go where your thoughts steer you. And lets face it, for
doing regualr melody types of things, modern MIDI sequencers and
computers have a huge advantage over analogs these days... why try
and swim against the current and beat MIDI when we can exploit the
modulars advantage of flexibility like no one else before us!!
Analog synth pioneers!! (As we follow EMU and Moe's maps)
I would propose starting with the basics, a clock source with a
bunch of divided ratios, maybe with MIDI-in for built in midi clock
sync, (you'd need some features that would differentiate it, or else
why not use a simple square VCO (300,310,320)) (maybe make the up and
coming pulse divider part of this series) A basic cv or gate jobbie
should actually be first since the 310 and other oscilaltors/LFO's
can be a clock source. After these basics, then maybe some more
advanced logic/switcher type things (out of my realm.. Moe?)
I'm guessing a bunch of you already feel this way and Im just
preaching to the choir.(who am I trying to convert here anyway? :) I
know that R&D of modules takes alot of time and money, so this would
obviously be a long build up for us as opposed to if Paul released
something more all in one. Plus Paul has alot of new modules on the
R&D stages already begging for his TLC. But perhaps the development
and production of these would be quicker than average because
(correct me if I am wrong) these modules wouldn't have to be as
strict when it came to s/n ratios and stuff like that because most of
them are just pulse driven and not really used directly for audio (Im
sure we'd be trying though!) Moe already gave us a taste of what
could be done, gave us a few templates that could be used for the
foundations of these future modules, cutting R&D even more. (Do you
have actual circuts built?)
All in one units do give a system a "Personality" though because of
the limits and characteristics they impose on the sounds being
produced. Like a 2600 as opposed to a bunch of modules in a rack,
the 2600 has a certain flavor because of the normalled connections
and all in one style of the machine. The same goes for sequencers.
Look at the 303. (just for a moment) The sequencer is as important
in giving it its sound as the actual synth circuts. Sucessful
replica designers like Jered/FutureRetro and his 777 put as much into
their sequencer design as the synth because they know that a
sequencer is as much a part of a sound as the actual sound. But as
far as I see it, MOTM hasn't been to concerned with having its own
sonic character as most synths out there, Paul has kept his focus on
other topics like build quality, stability, and module functionality,
which is a great thing for us.
So these are my thoughts, I love sequencers of all types and would
love to see MOTM have the ultimate sequencing capability, beyond any
manufacturer out there. Analog synth pioneers, moving into the
future!

~Steve M