>
>The same is true on the Buchla: has anyone noticed there are no VCAs??!?
>That's because the ARE
>no VCAs in a Buchla. There is a Quad Lowpass Gate module that is Vactrol
>based, that is used as a
>VCA (or cheesy LPF). This prevents 'snappy' envelopes, so the sound is
>"mushed up" like an
>Oberheim Xpander is (the Xpander has SW envelopes that are infamous for
>non-snappy-ness).
There is a certain "sound" that comes from the Buchla Lowpass Gate that
allows some very interesting percussive sounds. I wouldn't call them
mushy. Subotnick got some very nice percussive tones out of the Buchla so
I don't think that is quite it. Yes, the Vactrols can be slow but there is
a non-linearity there that makes it happen. Perhaps it is a type of
compression that occurs because of the Vactrols. I certainly wouldn't
compare it to the Xpander envelopes!
>Also, PWM is non-existent. This is a shame, as I am a fan of PWM.
Take another look at the wave control on those oscillators. The complex
oscillators have a variable "timbre" control that does some very different
wave shaping. For square waves, this is a bit of PWM. It is quite a
different sound that I haven't heard elsewhere (hint hint).
>I agree 100% that some people enjoy the fact the Buchla is (being kind)
>"non-repeatable".
>However, that's not my ∗personal idea∗ of what make a "great" modular (to
>me, it makes a great
>pain-in-the-ass modular).
It all depends on where you are going. When I know exactly what I want to
get, I go for MOTM and MOTM-like modulars. When I want to explore and
perhaps let the synth lead me to sonic places I haven't been before, I go
for things like Buchla and Serge. Of course, this isn't black and white
and there are times when the opposite is true.
Eric