You are talking about micro modules. The problem with them is they usually
have zero functional density. Comparators, inverters, attenuators, mixers,
and so forth do not originate any signals, nor do they ordinarily have
voltage-controllable parameters. So unless you have a large studio with a
lot of panel space to spare, it's better to integrate these processors into
other modules, just like you see in most MOTM modules.
Here is an example of extremely high functional density. I once built an
Electronotes "multiphase waveform animator." This module had only two panel
jacks, in and out. The input was a sawtooth wave. Nine internal mutually
detuned fixed-frequency VCOs drove nine parallel phase shifters, and all the
outputs were mixed. This produced an incredibly rich and active timbre that
perfectly tracked the input frequency. The functional density was 9. For
two jacks of panel space there were 9 independent signal sources. The
animator offered no voltage-controlled parameters at all. Hmm...
Actually, there were the nine phase shifters, too. So maybe this could be
considered 18 density! That really was an amazing module.
I may need to rethink the quantification of a controllable parameter to
include internally controlled ones, such as the 410 VCF. It has three
filters, each having VC frequency controlled by internal VCOs. This is
similar to what I just described. By this criterion, I'd have to increase
the number of controllable parameters for the 410 from 3 to 5. Coming full
circle, here is an argument for just the opposite of micro modules. What if
more modules contained internal LFOs?
Whatever direction these design considerations go would skew the resulting
music in certain directions. It would be a different sort of sound that
contained, say dozens of LFOs whirring, as opposed, say to dozens of
sequencers. What it comes down to is that we as musicians will tend to
select the kinds of modules that get us closer to the sounds we like. And
the less we know in advance what we will like, the more and varied modules
we will want!
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "jhaible" <jhaible@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>; "pugix" <pugix@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for
your MOTM modules
> > Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module.
> > Now, if Paul would make a very minor modification to the 820 Lag
> > Processor we would have this. Put a comparator with big hysteresis
> > on the output, so that when the output level reaches maximum (+5v)
> > the comparator puts out a -6v. Now the comparator will stay at -6v
> > until the output goes all the way down to -5v, at which point it
> > snaps back to +6v again. So what, you say? Well, now you now have a
> > pulse output. Patch that output into the lag input and now you have
> > an LFO with a voltage-controllable waveshape. Functional density
> > goes up to 1.5. But even better, I would like to see a micro Lag
> > Processor/LFO, fitting into a 1U panel with six jacks and three
> > pots.
>
> This is a good idea, but what about this: A sparate module with all kind
> of auxiliary modules, comparators, inverters, logic functions. Then you
> can route the VCLAG to a comparator, but you can also connect the ADSR
> this way (only guessing here). And you could use the comparator for
> other functions, like keyboard split, for triggering a ADSR from an
> amplified audio signal, and so on.
>
> I would provide multiple jacks on the auxiliary module then (like, the
> comparator having two input jacks in parallel), because you will
> most likely use it together with another module.
>
> JH.
>
>
>