> The more "noisy" modules you add to your product line, the less
> worthy it will be of the "CD quality" claim on the website.
I sort of understand your point, but not entirely. "noisy" and "CD quality"
are not mutually exclusive. Many people make CDs of noisy equipment. Is a
recording of a Buchla system automatically not "CD quality"? Or of an ARP
2600? If so, then a great number of CDs in my collection must not be "CD
quality".
Maybe you would be happy if modules that deliberately emulate certain
"noisy" equipment were identified as such in Paul's marketing literature?
> Ideally, a synthesizer isn't supposed to have any kind
> of sound. That is up to the synthesist to create.
Ideally and theoretically, yes, but that implies that the synthesist's tools
are capable of creating any sound. That hasn't yet been achieved.
It is also difficult to create "character" with tools that do not innately
have the desired character. The 420, 440, and 490 filters all have different
character. It would be difficult to make one sound like the other two.
Unless Paul (et al) can design and build some sort of meta-filter that can
take on the character of all of the various filters that we (synthesists)
know and love, it seems entirely reasonable to create new modules that
specifically capture certain character found in other equipment. This is
particularly true of equipment that is no longer in production and less
reliable than MOTM products, such as almost everything built by ARP.
--Adam
(who admits to having a special place in his heart for the 2600 because it
was the first synth he ever used, and yes, he'd probably buy a 2600-style
MOTM filter)