On 4/26/07, rogerpellegrini put forth:
>Interesting and perfectly valid point of view. You appear to
>approach the problem as someone primarily interested in using the
>modular synth as a self contained compositional tool - i.e. a system
>that allows for interesting automated sequences, with events and
>modulation determined by the processes defined by the patch. Hence
>your primary interest in quantizers, pulse dividers, sequencers, CV
>recorders, clock-synced LFO's as well as voltage controlled FX
>devices.
Actually, I don't use my modular as a self-contained unit. I use it
with other gear all the time. Which is one reason why I chose a
format that uses 1/4" jacks.
The sole reason I listed those things is because they require
digital circuitry. Well, pulse dividers and pitch-to-voltage
converters have been made without digital, but considering how
inexpensive converters have become, imho, it would be better to use
digital.
I'm more for practical modules than esoteric modules or modules that
do things that are readily available elsewhere. I'm thinking if
Synthesis Technology combined a simple pre-amp, pitch-to-CV
converter, quantizer, and envelope follower in a "front end" module,
it would fit nicely in 2U with room to spare, and would be very
popular. A dual CV pulse divider with pulse input, CV input, pulse
output, LFO output, knobs for divide and CV, and a range switch and
numerical display for each channel would fit nicely in 2U (which
makes more sense, imho, than adding a bunch of fixed dividers) would
have a wealth of practical uses.
>Consistent with that perfectly valid point of view, you
>make no comment on the beauty of Ken's sounds.
It wouldn't have been relevant to my points, except to point out that
he did a fine job -- making them all without using this proposed
module.
>My interest is not at all in the degree to which my modular can be
>configured as a free-standing generator, but instead I'm interested
>in using it to produce some nice sounds. I think both approaches to
>the modular are
>perfectly valid. The machine can be configured to suit different
>situations. I suggest that the module we've been discussing would be
>very useful for those among us interested in creating nice sounds
>that may or may not be reminiscent of traditional instruments.
My question is not why you would want something that can do that, but
why would you want it in a module??
Imho, imitative synthesis requires imitative playing. Even if you
could create a violin patch that was indistinguishable from the sound
of a real violin, you would need an awfully sophisticated controller
to get it to sound anything like a person playing a violin. I
severely doubt anyone could accomplish it with a CV/gate sequencer
without a massive amount of steps and channels. So if you are
already using MIDI to control it, and you are using an
editor/librarian to edit the parameters on this proposed module, then
why not just do the whole thing in a computer??
That's my point, if something is DSP, then it should have reasons to
justify being in a separate piece of hardware -- interface,
stability, copy-protection, portability, etc.
>Certainly, if I were to be able to create a string sound, simply and
>with just a few modules that sounds anything like Ken's, I'd be very
>happy! I'd imagine Paul might have quite a few other customers who
>would be quite happy as well.
Possibly, although I am curious what sort of UI you have in mind. If
you could come up with a way to control it with something like seven
knobs, eight jacks, and couple of switches, then you might have
something.
On 4/27/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:
>
>People build modulars and buy synths all the time and use them in relatively
>basic ways. Most who are buying modulars are only hobbiests, many can't
>even play an instrument. There is no better evidence for this than what
>I've been through with the latest synths I've bought. Within days, I'm
>finding all kinds of bugs and limits that thousands of other owners never
>noticed. That right there points to the limited use these synths are
>getting.
While I agree that there are people who buy synths, and perhaps even
modulars, who use them in limited ways, I doubt that most people who buy
modulars don't produce music. How well someone can play an
instrument doesn't have much to do with it. Especially if that
person is not using that instrument as a controller. By all
accounts, Verdi could barely sing and Shakespeare was a lousy actor.
Most of of today's electronic music uses sequencers -- either
hardware or data in a DAW.
Regardless, I find your argument -- that you found all kinds of bugs
in the latest synths you bought is evidence of how people use
modulars -- rather non-sequitur.