On 4/25/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:
>
>Yeah, there's plenty of untapped potential in a modular synth even beyond
>filtering. Unfortunately today's synth climate isn't one where people want
>to put in the time or to learn to tap into that potential. The pioneering
>spirit died out decades ago.
I don't think that's true. I doubt anyone would build a modular
unless they were into using it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other
ways to get standard synth sounds -- such as all of the software
plugins that are now available -- that have presets, are easily
controlled by a DAW, and cost much less space, time, and money.
> >>Or maybe some
>interpid folks could come up with settings to share with the user
>community that would be also useful for imitative sounds, based on
>their hours of spectral analysis? Or maybe a setting that imitates
>the MoogCE String Filter?<<
>
>Actually below is a demo I did where you can hear the difference between
>different generic string filter imitations (similar to the Moog) done by
>placing bandpass filters in various spacings and patterns followed by a
>couple of demos where I started to modifiy one of them to match a real
>violin. I'm still not finished with the violin ones, but the confined boxy
>sound is gone when you start to randomonize the freqs and amplitudes of the
>bands to more closely match a real instrument.
While I think that the ability to share files, and having a massive
number of bands, and the ability to analyze sounds, and all these
other features, are great for a filter plugin, I do not see how they
would translate well into a hardware synth module. If you have to
page through all these menus, or use editor/librarian software in
order to use it, then what's the point in making it hardware??
The user interface is very important. As JH has pointed out several
times in the past, having a knob and CV control for everything, where
every possible parameter is adjustable and controllable, is not
always the best interface. Often, less is more. I never had any
interest in getting the Oakley expander modules for the MOTM-820 or
MOTM-410. I think those modules are fine just the way they are. I
have nothing against the idea of modules that use DSP, but they
should have a good reason why they are are hardware modules. They
should have obvious benefits from parallel input and voltage control.
Imho, trying to put the equivalent of a DX-7 or K5000 in a module is
silly.
Now, I'm not saying that there is no way a digital filter could make
a good module, but it would need an interface as intuitive and be as
conducive to voltage control as the other MOTM filters.
Just to throw things out there, I think these would make good digital modules:
Pitch-to-CV converter
CV quantizer
voltage controlled pulse divider
Clock-synced LFO
voltage controlled sampler
voltage controlled pitch shifter
CV recorder
CV/Gate sequencer
voltage controlled reverb
voltage controlled non-linear delay
Notice that many of these could be combined in the same module. For
example, a pitch-to-CV converter and quantizer, or a pulse divider
and clock-synced LFO, could easily be put in the same module. Also,
modules that do things such as delay or sampling can be made more
suitable for MOTM by allowing them to process CV as well as audio.