On 6/22/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:
>Mark writes:
> >>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.<<
>
>What I've used? This filter bank doesn't exist so I haven't used it. And
>even if I used something with other midi non-modular synths, that has little
>to do with a module for an analog modular synth which would have a CV input
>for shifting the bank.
It's what you used for your demos. The point being that imitative
synthesis requires imitative playing. Which means without an
unusually sophisticated CV controller such playing would require MIDI.
> >>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.<<
>
>Since I was thinking of programming a virtual version or short of that
>wiring up something similar in Reaktor I've calculated some of this out.
>IIRC it would be about 52 to 56 bands.
Excuse me, did you just say that this thing has at least 52 sliders??
>It has to use sliders for giving you a representation of the shape
>of the filtering like a graphic EQ.
That would be so much less cumbersome using a computer interface.
Even if the DSP was done in separate hardware, and that hardware had
CV inputs and other interface features, it still would make much more
sense to program it with a computer. Not only would that result in a
much more mechanically reliable product, but it would make it much
easier to add analysis features, store patches, program changes, etc.
Unless it has motorized controls, any device that has patch storage
or automation is not WYSIWYG.
>It would need about a 12U width. Global parameters go below the
>sliders. Huge doesn't mean expensive. I'm looking at my Alesis Ion
>which I bought new for $540. It has a panel much larger than this
>filter bank hypothetically wouldand it's a complete synth.
It might have a larger panel, but it doesn't have 52 sliders...
>You're basing things on motm product pricing.
I thought we were talking about an idea for an MOTM module.
>Other companies put out sequencers that are nearly as large, and they do fine.
Well, lets see, a Doepfer MAQ 16/3, which is crap, costs around $1K.
A Modcan 54B costs around $1900 if you include the power supply.
They both have at least 48 pots and fit in a 19" rack. A DN360,
arguably the most popular graphic EQ ever made, has 62 bands and
costs around $1600. The key word being popular. There are thousands
of companies doing installations and live sound who have kept buying
them over the last 20 years.
>Techno isn't musical or melodic. You need musical elements for something to
>be musical and melody to be melodic. That's also a group that gets off on
>the most simplistic sounds imaginable.
Again, you are using your own made-up definitions of "musical" and
"melodic". You also seem to have an ridiculously limited idea of
techno. It can be quite complex in its use of sounds. Regardless,
structured music such as techno which is based on notes, rhythm, and
a discernable arrangement of instruments is way more musical and
melodic than beatless ambient and various forms of electro-acoustic
music. This does not mean that electronic music that relies more on
texture or less on traditional musical elements is more simplistic in
its use of synthesizers.
> >>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??<<
>
>Here we go again. I'm saying that synths are being released either full of
>bugs or limitations and nobody is noticing. Why? Because of the simplistic
>use of synths.
I think certain people do notice, and one of the reasons people choose
modulars is to avoid these bugs and limitations -- because they are
going beyond "the simplistic use of synths".
For some unknown reason, I receive a free subscription to Keyboard
magazine. Each issue is filled with advertisements for synthesizers
that are very limited in their ability to create new sounds.
Ironically, it's because the people who buy them are primarily
interested in "imitative synthesis" -- they want presets that serve
the function of traditional instruments -- bass, strings, horns, etc.
> >>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".<<
>
>Why would a little extra metal cost so much? I'm talking a few inches wider
>than a standard 19" piece of rack gear.
It's an economy of scale -- having a thousand 21" enclosures custom
made is way more expensive than buying a thousand 19" enclosures off
the shelf.
>I have three racks of 19" gear. Some of it is dirt cheap. There's
>no problem there. Obviously it would be in the hundreds of dollars
>range, not the thousands.
It's not obvious to me. Some rack gear is dirt cheap, but most of it
is not reliable, sounds terrible, or has a very minimal interface.
It also has a much larger market. An Alesis MEQ 230 has 31 sliders,
but it's crap -- it's noisy, distorted, and is almost guaranteed to
break. What you are suggesting is a cheaply-built product that needs
to be mass-manufactured for a small quality-conscious market. That's
not going to work.