On 5/13/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:
>Sorry for the long delay in getting back to this.
It's OK. I just got this message. Apparently, yahoogroups dropped the ball.
>Mark writes:
> >>I'm more for practical modules than esoteric modules or modules that do
>things that are readily available elsewhere.<<
>
>And thus the lack of esoteric modules, which then leads to less interesting
>synth sounds. Practical modules already exist everywhere. There isn't a
>single advanced filter bank for synthesis unless you get into using Soft
>synths on a computer, and then you lose the immediacy of the modular synth
>interface.
The lack of esoteric modules is the result of two things, function
and economics. There are only so many things that can be done to
process or generate a signal, and hardware costs money to reproduce.
Although what you find "interesting" is purely subjective, I do not
believe this limitation leads to less interesting sounds. That is up
to the creativity of the producer. Apparently, Carlos, Eno, Rich,
and all these other bums have somehow managed to scrape by without this
advanced filter bank module.
> >>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??<<
>
>It seems like so much of what I had said in my last post wasn't remembered.
>I had mentioned that I apparently got enough expression out of my Nord
>violin playing in real-time (just using velocity and a pedal)
I remembered you said you used velocity, which means you used MIDI.
If you used MIDI, then whatever you were controlling could be
implemented 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.<<
>
>Interface, patchability and elimination of processing delay and of computer.
>Real knobs, rather than mouse and screen. Some of the same reasons people
>use real modulars over soft synths in the first place.
So then please explain this interface that accomplishes what you want
with a reasonable amount of knobs. If your controller is MIDI, and
this imagined module is CV, then that would make it less "patchable",
imho.
So far in this thread, I've heard about a filter bank, with a large
number of bands, with several controls for each band, as well as a
number of global settings, resulting in a massive number of
parameters. Imho, certain types of synthesis, including Chowning FM,
convolution, additive, etc., are best done with a computer interface.
In my experience, programming a DX-7 is much easier with editing
software than a fader box. You can make an any kind of synth with
"real knobs", but I would not want a K5000 the size of a refrigerator.
Take a look at the most popular MOTM module. It's an envelope
generator with four knobs and four jacks. It is very limited. It
only does one thing. Yet it it does this one thing very well. I
don't have to scroll through a tiny LCD window to find "Attack", then
hit another button to change its value, then hit another button to
save my changes. A module, almost by definition, is limited to a few
basic functions. That's why it is a module, not a complete synth.
You don't seem to have a design for a module, so much as a wish list
without any idea how to implement it.
> >>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.<<
>
>Judging by what I've heard, many if not must don't use them to produce
>music. Many aren't musicians which is one reason why. And you're
>contradicting yourself. How well someone can play an instrument DOES have
>to do with it. If somebody can't play a synth like a musical instrument,
>they probably aren't going to be interested in a product that's primarily
>for synthesizing complex musical instrument type sounds.
How am I contradicting myself?? I can play a few instruments, and I
can make "musical instrument type sounds" with my modular, but I'm
yet to put my mouth on it or hit it with sticks. However, I can
program a sequencer to control synths to produce sounds similar to
instruments I couldn't play myself. Given the example you posted,
how well can you play a real violin??
> >>Most of of today's electronic music uses sequencers -- either hardware or
>data in a DAW.<<
>
>And how does that music get into those sequencers? Usually it has to be
>played into them in the first place, then editting can be done where needed.
No it doesn't. Just like Shakespeare or Verdi used a pen and paper,
I can write directly into a sequencer. I don't have to play anything.
>I'm well aware of the flood of simple, robotic and repetitive stuff out
>there. An advanced filter bank isn't for the that latter group, since a
>melody or chordal structure needs to be there for filtering in the first
>place.
While you seem to have a limited scope or lack of appreciation of
what has been accomplished using computers and sequencers, you are
still missing my point. Regardless of genre, how well someone can
write music has very little with how well they can play music.
> >>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.<<
>
>It's completely relevant. Simplistic or limited use of the features and
>filters that currently exist in a modular means people aren't in the market
>for something that's way beyond what's already there. Just the
>arguing people are doing with me that an advanced filter bank isn't
>needed proves my point.
You don't know what "non-sequitur" means, do you?? :) It simply does
not follow, if people are arguing with you that something isn't
needed, then people are not using modulars to make music.
Nor is your finding bugs in the synths you bought any sort evidence
-- much less proof -- of how people use modulars. Nevermind that
real hardware modulars rarely have anything that could be described
as a "bug". One of the great things about a hardware modular, like
MOTM, is its reliability in the face of extreme creativity. It can
be patched up in all sorts of ways its designers never anticipated
and it will never freeze, crash, or malfunction in any way.
That a product does not yet exist does not mean that it does not have
a potential market. If you look at the modules produced by Synthesis
Technology, Modcan, etc. you will notice that there are more audio
filters than any other type of module. People like filters. If you
came up with a design for a filter that was "way beyond what's
already there" it might be very successful. However, you don't seem to
have a design.
Allow me to illustrate my point. I have an Emu Ultra Proteus. It
has all the sounds from the Proteus 1, 2 & 3, plus a piano, and the
"Z-Plane" filters of the Morpheus. You can program all sorts of
instruments, presets, "hyper-presets", with numerous splits, mod
routings, function generators, complex envelopes, etc. I bought it
new in 1995, and I've barely used it since. Why?? While it is very
powerful on the inside, its programming interface is atrocious.
In order for a filter module to be "way beyond what's already there"
it needs a way to control it that is at least comparable to what's
already there. If the user has to scroll through a tiny window to
select each band, then adjust each parameter, then select which
parameters the CV inputs might control, then that isn't beyond
anything.
Otoh, for example, if you were able to come up with an idea for a
digital filter where its frequency vs. impedance curve was the
function of a polynomial with a reasonable number of variables, say
five variables each with its own knob and CV input, then you might
have something.