| previous by date | index | next by date |
| topic list | next in topic |
I’m really enjoying the discussions that have sprungup here surrounding new noise/S&H/quantizing module possibilities. A lot ofgreat points have been brought up. Since the ‘powers that be’ maybe watching this discussion as ‘voting’ on the possible module(s)’sfeatures, I figured I’d weigh in with my opinions as well, long-winded asthey are.
∗Noise Module∗
I personally don’t see any reason to marry a noisemodule to any new S&H module. I would keep them separate. Is there a needfor another MOTM noise module? Some have said that one noise source is enough,and others have brought up valid reasons for having more than one white/pinknoise source, such as simultaneous random “seeding” and moredramatic stereo spreads.
To me, it makes sense to look at any new noise module not asan added feature of an S&H module, but more as a more complete ‘randomness’module, and that’s why I think that a new noise source as part of ageneral “Source of Uncertainty” module (after Buchla) is afantastic idea, and gets my vote wholeheartedly. There are other things thatyou can add to a ‘randomness’ module, too, that are more in keepingwith that spirit – Ken Stone has some interesting circuits for randomtrigger generation, even trigger-burst circuitry, that would make a nicecompliment to a noise/uncertainty module. I think there are enough interesting “randomness/uncertainty”features that could justify a new noise module that it should be its ownentity, and be a lot more interesting than just more white/pink built into anS&H. Let the ‘101 be the ‘101.
And then, of course, there are other kinds of noise, such as“digital noise” and other probability spreads that would make thecreation of a new noise/randomness module a wonderful idea.
∗Sample & Hold∗
I think we’re generally talking here of 3 or 4 S&Hcircuits, normall’d in series, so the common term “analog shiftregister” to me is more enlightening than just S&H. “S&HBank”? “Ladder”?
Personally, I’m a big fan of the canonic effects ofchaining together lots of S&H stages, and I would probably buy several ofthese. For that reason, I’d be happiest if these were 1u modules, and aseconomical as possible, although on the subject of the DAC resolution, I alwaysfind it hard to vote for “less quality/accuracy” when the pricedifference is only a few sawbucks. I’d go along with the group on thatone, but ‘erring’ on the side of precision sure is tempting.
∗Quantizer∗
I’m all for an MOTM quantizer. It would be a greathelp both with tuning the output of an analog sequencer and as a foil to myterrible Theremin playing, among other things. It seems like whenever thissubject comes up, most people say “buy a Mini-Wave,” but while Ihave a couple of those, I don’t find myself using them much for quantizing.For one thing, Major/Minor/Chromatic scale quantizing isn’t for me thebe-all end-all of quantizing. I personally spend surprising little time inMajor/Minor modes when using my modular… in fact, I’d like aquantizer that can do 19-tone temperament, at a minimum.
I do like the idea of a scale programmer/quantizer where the‘allowable’ output voltages can be manually tuned, not justselected from a pre-programmed ROM bank that was somebody else’s idea ofcovering all the bases. From an interface standpoint, it might be cool if there’sa way to do this using “pitch classes,” meaning that 12 or so knobscould tune pitches over a ten-octave range to restrict the output to certain “voltageclasses” with each volt-step… or something… I’m surethat’s non-trivial, especially in the analog domain.
My ideal quantizer would have another feature that I’venever heard discussed, which would be “magnetic” allowable outputlevels, rather than perfectly discreet ones. In other words, a “slippage”or “strictness” knob could control the “rounding” ofthe stair-stepped output as opposed to a linear sweep input curve being outputto a perfect staircase. This would be less of a “quantizing” moduleand more of a “tendency” module; the output voltages would “tend”to hover around the allowable, preset voltage levels, but not be absolutelybound to do so. In some ways it’s kind of like putting a gentle lag aftera quantizer, but the lag would only work while the changes were in “motion”and not be able to hold a sustained “intermediate” level, as aninput hovers right near the center between two preset voltage levels it shouldbe allowed to go “off mission” at that point, depending on the “strictness”setting. I’m reminded of some of those ‘vocal pitch tuning’plug-ins for doing subtle (not Cher-like) corrections of intonation.
Such a module, when put into a feedback loop, might even beable to simulate “strange attractor”-like behavior, especially ifthe “strictness” or “volt-base” parameters werevoltage-controllable.
Wow, I don’t know if those last paragraphs made anysense at all. A picture would be worth a thousand words here. Or maybe that’sall perfectly obvious to everybody already.
∗Wanderlust∗
Okay, this sidebar is off the track of my email up to thispoint, but it does curve back into the discussion. Please bear with me.
I love my modular, but, as they say, “just because you’refull doesn’t mean you can’t still read the menu.” So I stillfind myself staring at pictures of how the “other half” live andwonder what it would be like to have some of “that.” Specifically, Buchla,Serge, and other synthesizer systems that are a little more “perpendicular”to the MOTM system. It’s not unlike owning either a PC or Mac and everynow & then wondering what it would be like to have one of those othermachines. (Not intended to start a discussion on that topic, please!)
In those times when I’m staring at photos andcatalogs, I find that the weird charm of some of those other systems reallycome down to a very few simple factors, and not a sweeping difference acrossthe entire system. Sure, maybe it’s the non-black panels; maybe it’sthe whole “banana jack” thing... not that either is “better”or “worse” … sometimes it’s just attractive because it’sdifferent, it’s new. (Like ones wife wearing a wig…)
But to my mind, more often than not, the lure of othersystems stems from the idea of a small number of “signature modules”that help define those other systems – a few particular modules thatgenerate a lot of buzz because they have a unique personality that spills overto the entire system – and I would just ∗love∗ to integrate the functions of some of those “signaturemodules” into my predominantly MOTM system. Modules with a lot of weirdpersonality are a lot of fun! (That’s why I love some of John Blacet’scrazier modules, such as the Klang Werk and Dark Star… lots ofpersonality. You know when you’re jacking one of those into the mix thatyou are not going to end up with your father’s MiniMoog sound.)
For example, when I find myself pouring over photos ofBuchla machines, what comes to mind? The “Source of Uncertainty”module, certainly (DOH!), and the “Lowpass Gates.” Those modules goa long way toward defining the personality of the Buchla. They are alwayssingled out in any discussion of the Buchlas systems – there must besomething to them! Oh, and the touch-keyboard.
When I spend hours staring at the circa 1982 Serge catalogand ask myself, “Doesn’t my MOTM do all of this?” The answeris, generally _yes_, but it surewould be nice to have a bank of those “Dual Universal Slope Generators”and that “Wave Multiplier” module, which so many people have ravedabout and tried to analyze and imitate. And the Analog Shift Register module! Oh,and that programmable Touch Keyboard. (Yeah, I keep coming back to those…)
So all of this – and I appreciate your indulgence ifyou’re still reading – is just to say that there are still way-coolthings to be had in our systems, and important functions with a lot ofpersonality and potential that can be had in future MOTM modules. There’sno shortage of inspiration out there. If it comes down to just having ‘another’output jack for white noise, or else having a full-blown Buchla-esque “SoU”module, I say run – don’t walk – to the SoU! When the otherday folks were asking for an EG with an “end-trigger,” I read thatthinking, “Yes!! That’s halfway to recreating a Dual UniversalSlope Generator”!!
I hope we don’t combine two ‘only-somewhat-related’functions into a single panel (like Noise and S&H), but rather make each “allthat it can be” in its own module.
Thanks for the bandwidth! Sorry about all of the “raisedeyebrows” punctuation.
Ken Tkacs