I wonder if this is a West Coast vs East Coast thing? Moog vs
Buchla (or Serge for that matter). MOTM is East coast with each
module dedicated (more or less) to a single function. So if I
understand correctly, each MOTM module would have low desity. I
like it that way, but that's just me.
Jurgen's idea for a utility module is very welcome. I have long
wanted something like this for my MOTM.
Mike
--- In motm@y..., "Richard Brewster" <pugix@n...> wrote:
> 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@d...>
> To: <motm@y...>; "pugix" <pugix@n...>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >