Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM
Subject: Re: [motm] [ot] -- Re: MOTM Addiction - patch notation
From: jwbarlow@...
Date: 2003-07-04
Happy fourth everyone (or at least us US residents)!
In a message dated 7/3/2003 6:34:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ken.tkacs@... writes:
Ring modulators were actually notated as squares with an "X" touching the
corners. I don't know that there were ever specific shapes for all the
subtle kinds of modules, especially the ones we now have (what would be the
symbol for a "Dark Start Chaos" module? Sheesh! I think you would just use a
circle and some footnotes!).
Your right about the RM. Thanks for reminding me about that. In fact that reminded me that the old PAiA RM I built (I think it was a 4700 series) had that marking of the front panel IIRC. Maybe that whole PAiA series had there modules labeled with those markers.
In fact, I believe the system was loose enough that a particlar module
function might be notated differently depending on its use in the patch. For
instance, if a LPF was set to self-oscillate, it would be notated as a
circle to denote its function in the patch as a source, not the type of
module it was "sold as." It's misleading to use the triangle in this case.
Exactly!
Of course if I was going to use these notations as graphics for a front panel, I might want to make the right pointing triangle with a circle inside for a VCF -- then again, not all VCFs can oscillate.
Come to think about it, weren't HPFs denoted as triangles with upward sweeping curves inside, while LPFs had a downward sweeping curve (each indicating the pass function)?
I'm not sure that everyone would agree with that, but that's how we used it.
If you want to notate exactly what YOUR module is in the patch, then the
photoraphic method of notation is probably better. The "modular schematic"
notation, I believe, was more to indicate a function within a patch.
Because, if you think about it, if you notate an oscillating filter as if it
were an oscillator, because you're using it simply to show a sine source,
then someone else using the patch sheet with a different module content
could reproduce it using a VCO. You know? It's less system specific.
Precisely!
I also seem to recall drawing the waveshape being used in the circle.
Because no matter HOW detailed you write down your patches, you're never
going to exactly dial them back up from a drawing or list of knob settings;
you will always need to tweak. The patch notation just gets you close. So
it's more important to illustrate function, rather than what the module was
named.
Which is why I gave up documenting patches anyway. I'm starting to think that I might find (photographic) patch notation useful if I could link it to a sound file. Then I would be able to hear why I liked it without having to repatch it -- and without having to rely on some unconvincing mnemonic like, "good overblown flute sound".
Have a perfect fourth!
JB