Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

<<taking a break at the 1/2-way point of MOTM-440 kitting>>

I always like to delve into this area myself. Just a couple of ramblings:

a) everyone should ∗immediately∗ buy Wendy Carlos' CD "Secrets of
Synthesis".
I think EastSide Digital has them (also check The Artist's Shop). This is a
CD that
is in the form of a college lecture. She explains how both the Moog and the
DKI Synergy
(see www.synthtech.com/synergy) are used in her work, and how a certain
"feature"
is used/needed to produce a desired result.

b) In subtractive-based synths (ie MOTM) 85% of the "sound" is in the
filters. The other 15%
we'll talk about later. But for now, getting certain desired sounds will
eventually center on which
filter you are using, and how it is driven (CV-wise).

Some filter stuff is basic: like a '440 (24dB/oct) filters out 75% of the
treble the '420 passes. Then, there
are the subtle stuff: like the '420 has a certain "crispness" because of the
LM13600 OTA. A Moog
ladder "sounds like a Moog" because of how the harmonics are filtered as the
center frequency is swept
(actually, it has more to do about the ∗phase-shift∗ through the filter).

That is why we plan 7 different MOTM filters. Each will "sound different".
Personal preference will
then divide them into "I like these" versus "I don't like those". They will
sound different because of
filter topology, the parts used, and so on.

c) If you want to hear "new sounds", the best thing I've personally heard in
the
last 10 years is the (now being blown out) Yamaha FS1R FM-based module. Like
presets? How does
1536 sound??!? It combines the "breathyness" of the Roland D-50 with "bells"
of the DX-7. Going
throught the presets, you think it has to be a sampler: no synthesis engine
could possibly crank out
this diverse number of sounds. But it does! The downside: Yamaha ain't
∗telling how they did it∗! The
manual doesn't even ∗hint∗ at how the thing is programmed. Weird! But it
does demonstrate that
there are still new "ways" to make sound.

Now, would I prefer it over a MOTM? No, because it may be a tour-de-force in
DSP, it gets ZERO for
user interaction. I guess that explains 1536 presets!

There is a lure of a modular, and the lure is: the sound you need is inside,
you just have to find it!

What is interesting about the Carlos CD is she basically says the
instability of the Moog drove her
to the Synergy. Also, (as Ken), she was getting into microtunings (try to
hunt down her "Beauty In The Beast"
LP) and the Synergy has a RAM-based tuning table. Download any old tuning
you want! The only
other microtunable synths I know of are the Yamaha TX-802 and I think the
DX-1 can do this as well.

Of course, any analog VCO can be "scaled" for microtuning. It's just 1000
times easier with digital.

d) Lastly, I think analog synths went the "wrong direction" when they tried
to become fancy, expensive
combo organs (CS-80, OB-8, MemoryMoog, M12, blah blah blah). Why? because of
restraints (money, space)
these poly-hogs didn't offer 5% of the possibilities a small modular had in
terms of control/modulation/patching.

The synth companies went into a spiral of trying to increase market share by
positioning themselves as
a super-duper Hammond B3. So, instead of "staying" in the universities with
the modulars, they created
$6,000 monsters that had 10-20 good sounds and 400 bad ones!

I tell people modulars are like a piano. The really good piano players can
get a vast array of tones out of a piano.
You have to work at it. Same with modulars. You have to think about what you
are doing. But it's also fun
to patch and tweak "open loop".

Growing up, I lusted after owning a Minimoog. About 2 years ago I got one
pretty cheap ($650). Sure enough,
sounded just like a Minimoog (Wakeman, Chick Corea, etc). But after 6
months, it dawned on me
that a Mini "sounds like a Mini" and ∗that's all∗! The fixed patching (the
thing has basically zero options
in terms of modulation) with small keyboard/octave switching means an
extremely limited "sonic palette".

Now, don't get me wrong. I grew up on Mini solos (my favorite is Head East's
"Going Down for the Last Time")
but I eventually sold it. I love that ∗one sound∗ but that's boring! (maybe
if I could ∗play∗ like Chick Corea...)

I classify the Mini along with the Rhodes and the Wurli 200. They make 1
sound fantastically.

Eventually, any "synthesis engine" (additive, subtractive, FM, etc) will get
you stuck in a sonic rut. The
one advantage MOTM has is that (hopefully!) that point will occur ∗a very
long time∗ from now!

Paul S.
sigh....off to bag up