On 6/18/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:
> >>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.<<
>
>The module is a filter bank, it has nothing to do with MIDI. How did MIDI
>get involved?
That's what you said you used, and as you continue to argue for
"actually playing" that would further imply the use of MIDI since
there are few CV controllers that produce more than trigger/gate and
a single voltage.
> >>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.<<
>
>So far you're making up the "several controls for each band".
No, others said variable frequency, variable bandwidth, and variable
gain for each band.
>Each band would have just a level slider like a graphic EQ. There
>would be some other global controls like band width, shift, capture
>formant, store patch, etc. There are currently more controls to set
>on a standard 31 band stereo EQ that are available from 100
>different companies. I don't see the problem.
The problem is that a 31-band graphic EQ would be something like 7U
in MOTM format (and would likely cost more than twice as much as a
Klark-Teknic). Even ignoring the global parameters, you still have
one knob per band. How many bands does this thing have?? Even if it
somehow managed to use sliders instead of knobs, it would still be
huge and expensive.
> >>You don't seem to have a design for a module, so much as a wish list
>without any idea how to implement it.<<
>
>Actually I've figured out how many bands are needed, the space it could fit
>into and most of the functions. I've been stating some of these but you're
>not listening.
Oh, I'm listening, but you haven't said anything about it until now, and
you are still being rather vague.
>It's not how well a person can play another instrument, it's whether they
>are using their synths for musical / melodic applications. I don't expect
>Mr. techno to want an advanced filter bank.
Perhaps he wouldn't, but I don't see how techno isn't musical or
melodic. You seem to be equating music with sounding like an
acoustic instrument, which seems like an awfully odd position for an
electronic musician :)
> >>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.<<
>
>UHG. Of course you don't have to, but if you're into expressive instrument
>performances, then you'll get it into the sequencer by actually playing.
>People didn't hear Shakespeare of Verdi perform, others did that. Boy, is
>this conversation getting ridiculous.
If it is getting ridiculous, it is because you are insisting on your
own homespun definitions of words like "expressive", "instrument",
and "melodic".
> >>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.<<
>
>Boy you twist everything I say into something completely different.
Perhaps you should go back and read what you wrote.
> >>Nor is your finding bugs in the synths you bought any sort evidence-- much
>less proof -- of how people use modulars.<<
>
>It's very good evidence as to how they're using them. They're not going
>much beyond rather basic patching. If they were, they'd start encountering
>all the problems.
So you are saying if people went beyond basic patching with their
modulars they would discover problems in other synths they might not
even use??
>And my Emu sampler also has the Z-Plane filters and I too never use it.
>Same reason. And yet you argue against a dedicated hardware module with all
>the controls right infront of you.
So we agree that the interface is important. What I'm arguing is
that I still don't see how such an interface could be implemented
without it being prohibitively huge and expensive.
If you are saying it would be something like 5U, cost $2K, and be of
little interest to anyone besides those who are doing imitative
synthesis, then I agree its market is "almost non-existent". Otoh,
if you came up with some clever way to do what you want that was only
2U and $400, then it might be very popular. For example, say you had
controls for the number of bands, the start and end points, and a
center and skew control, that would only be 5 knobs...