Exactly Mike! 1+1=3!!!
It's not a question if you can use Csound or Supercollider and if those
programs are good for making noise or not. It's how can you combine the two
in a way that goes beyond just routing audio in and out? And ultimately
achieve something new and better sounding. The bottleneck is still control
(with a high speed protocol), too and from the CV world.
As a matter of fact Csound, Kyma and Supercollider all make superb programs
to control analog components from. They move freely between any number units
and conversions. It would be quite easy to set up a ex VCA by just
converting it to CV range numbers. I can think of quite few things that
would be cool to try out with just control of the modular, not even passing
audio through it. There are so many areas in digital audio that are just
waiting to be plugged into some good sounding analog building blocks.
Popcorn makers, gravity fields, orbiting stars, etc. Things that doesn't
necessarily make sound by them selves but makes for some awesome naturally
evolving control data!
I did try an experiment of simply "Frankensteining" an M-Audio soundcard to
range down to DC. The results were very promising. Yet to get something that
is accurate and stable enough (self calibrating), but I did see the light of
the promised land for a second.
Tobias Enhus
>
>
> I think Tobius has it right. I use the MOTM for analog stuff and Kyma
> for digital sound manipulation and sound design. I can't easily do
> Granular Synthesis on the MOTM (thoough it ∗IS∗ possible) and the VCF
> sound in Kyma does not really compare to any of Paul's filters. But
> if you put the two together, you get something that is more than the
> sum of its parts...
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Machine Head <tobias@m...> wrote:
>>> There are many all digital analog synths out there. Kyma, Nord,
> pluggins ect.
>>> However being the audio files we are, we¹re all recognizing how
> good analog
>>> sounds compared to digital simulation.
>>>
>>> I constantly think of ways of combining best of both worlds.
>>> There are a few personal musings in this matter.
>>> My main setup consist of a MOTM system and a Synclavier both
> connected to a
>>> Kyma system acting as the main hub.
>>> An analog audio path simply just sounds the best. If you compare
> an analog
>>> oscillator with a digital high quality oscillator, there is no
> comparison.
>>> Analog wins. However digital completely rules over analog because
> of superior
>>> control and complexity. So how do we combine the building blocks
> of analog
>>> with the complexity of digital. High speed computer controlled CV.
> The PISM-1
>>> is a first step towards such a thing, but ultimately I would want
> to connect
>>> my computer (without having to resort to MIDI then CV). I can only
> dream of
>>> the possibilities that would bring. Additive synthesis, scanning
> synthesis,
>>> true formant synthesis etc etc.
>>>
>>> Now let¹s flip the concept.
>>> Most of the time digital synths all share a final converter as an
> output. That
>>> means that the sound never quite feels bigger when you¹re playing
> more notes.
>>> Witch is the case with ex Giga studio or ESX24. You play one note
> and it
>>> sounds convincing, but a chord it sonically starts to collapse.
> The secret
>>> with the Synclavier is that each note polyphony has it¹s own voice
> card.
>>> That¹s also why the Synclav tower is so big. Each voice runs on a
> separate
>>> sample rate set to the speed of what key you press (not like ESX24
> where a
>>> poor sounding real time sample rate converter changes the sample
> in reference
>>> to a fixed clock). The analog output from each card gets mixed
> together in an
>>> analog bus. Thus even when you play a chord with simple sample, it
> sounds rich
>>> and full. It¹s like several mono synths added together.
>>> What does this have to do with Modular synths? Well, here¹s my
> thought. Why
>>> not create a sampler card for the modular world? Take the idea of
> a Synclav
>>> voice card, and put it in a MOTM module. A MOTM 300 ultra mono
> sampler! Let it
>>> even stream the audio from your computer, so ram wouldn¹t be an issue.
>>> Individual voice cards that can be linked together to create
> polyphony, AND
>>> now also give you access to all your filters, modifiers etc. The real
>>> interesting sounds happens when you breakup the analog digital
> chain a bit.
>>> Slap a MOTM filter in the middle of a KYMA patch, not just at the
> end. Same
>>> with the Synclav. Let me add some analog noise to modulate the
> pitch of each
>>> voice etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tobias Enhus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wanna spend 10 grand to get the knobs back?
>>>
>>> http://www.buchla.com/200e/index.html
>>>
>>> --George
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Bob Colwell <mailto:bob.colwell@c...>
>>>> To: MOTM <mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 4:04 PM
>>>> Subject: [motm] an all-digital "analog" synthesizer
>>>>
>>>> I have an idea that's been kicking around in my head for the last
> 25 years:
>>>> what's the best way to
>>>> combine the strengths of both digital and analog electronics to
> make a
>>>> modular synthesizer.
>>>>
>>>> Picture a modular analog synth. I believe the day is coming when
> I could
>>>> replace the analog
>>>> guts of any of the modules with one DSP-like device, programmed
> to provide
>>>> the function
>>>> of that module, be it filtering, envelope generation, VCO, etc.
> Powering up
>>>> the machine
>>>> would cause each DSP to be programmed for its function by some
> master CPU.
>>>> Want
>>>> another VCO? Just make one. Could also keep the programming in flash,
>>>> possibly
>>>> incorporated directly on the DSP chip. Silicon capable of doing
> this is
>>>> pretty much
>>>> available right now.
>>>>
>>>> To capitalize on the strength of the digital part of this rig,
> I'm thinking
>>>> the interfaces between
>>>> modules should be digital, not analog. But I'm somewhat torn on
> this part --
>>>> there's something
>>>> satisfying, logical, and concrete about connecting a patch cord
> from the
>>>> output of one
>>>> module to the input of another. Even with digital protocols we
> could still
>>>> have patch
>>>> cords.
>>>>
>>>> But the digital world doesn't really need 'em. You could have a
> very general
>>>> routing
>>>> interconnect network inside the box that allows anything to
> connect to
>>>> anything else.
>>>> The question is how to control that routability and how to make
> it readily
>>>> visible to
>>>> the machine's operator.
>>>>
>>>> To really take advantage of the extreme programmability of the
> modules, you'd
>>>> probably want each of them to have some kind of display that
> reflects the
>>>> current
>>>> function of that module. LCD displays are pretty expensive right now,
>>>> especially
>>>> the color ones that I think would be necessary to quickly
> distinguish the
>>>> various
>>>> modules.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone want such a rig? Well, one major reason is that
> you could
>>>> get all of the "knobs" back to their exact settings later,
> something that I
>>>> never
>>>> could achieve with an analog synth. In fact, if the patching is
> done via a
>>>> routing
>>>> network, you could reconfigure the machine to precisely what it
> was at any
>>>> previous time. Maybe a combination of internal routing network
> plus patch
>>>> cords?
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else ever thought about doing this?
>>>>
>>>> -BobC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>> ∗ To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>>> ∗ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
>>>> ∗
>>>> ∗ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>> ∗ motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>> <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>>> ∗
>>>> ∗ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>>>> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>