Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2012-05-01 by codotinc
Hi there -- I know many people believe that it's an unnecessary distinction, but I am trying to remain completely analog in my modular. Can anyone explain (as I am having trouble getting my head around this) are the A-149-1 and A-149-2 completely analog in their function and construction, not just signal path? It doesn't matter to many, but I find it a useful constraint. Thanks!
2012-05-02 by Mr julian
when you get down to the actual physical implementation, digital electronic signals still exist in analogue form (and the faster you go, the more they end up being just like analogue signals....) so you're declaring an arbitrary line here. Do you stop st the inclusion of a microcontroller? Or do you stop at the inclusion of any "logic" ic in a circuit, even if it's not used for digital purposes (in that case, no wasp filter for you!) Or do you draw the line at any "digital" functionality in a module (sync input to a vco has a binary operational effect on the behaviour of the osc.. gate or trigger input for an envelope is similar.... Do you have no oscillators with a sync input and no envelopes with gate or trigger inputs?) Julian ------- Original message -------
> From: codotinc <doubleopards@hotmail.com> > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 2.5.'12, 9:35 > > Hi there
2012-05-02 by PAUL BURTON
A "useful constraint" in what way? ________________________________
From: codotinc <doubleopards@hotmail.com> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 7:35 PM Subject: [Doepfer_a100] A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? Hi there -- I know many people believe that it's an unnecessary distinction, but I am trying to remain completely analog in my modular. Can anyone explain (as I am having trouble getting my head around this) are the A-149-1 and A-149-2 completely analog in their function and construction, not just signal path? It doesn't matter to many, but I find it a useful constraint. Thanks! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-05-02 by Martin Klang
As you can see in this [1] picture there's a PIC mcu on the board, from which you can draw your own conclusions. I believe the Buchla SOU also uses a microcontroller to generate, store and quantise CVs. Given the function, it follows that no part of the A-149 signal path (that is: no signal) can really be described as completely analogue. So no, with your constraint, you can't have it. Too fun! /m [1] http://www.doepfer.de/A100_pictures/doepfer_a149_1.jpg
On 2 May 2012, at 00:35, codotinc wrote: > Hi there -- > > I know many people believe that it's an unnecessary distinction, but I am trying to remain completely analog in my modular. Can anyone explain (as I am having trouble getting my head around this) are the A-149-1 and A-149-2 completely analog in their function and construction, not just signal path? > > It doesn't matter to many, but I find it a useful constraint. > > Thanks!
2012-05-02 by yahoo@doepfer.de
> Hi there -- > > I know many people believe that it's an unnecessary distinction, > but I am trying to remain completely analog in my modular. Can > anyone explain (as I am having trouble getting my head around > this) are the A-149-1 and A-149-2 completely analog in their > function and construction, not just signal path? > > It doesn't matter to many, but I find it a useful constraint. > > Thanks! The A-149-1 has been designed after several suggestions and discussions in this group in 2003. So you can find a detailed "history" of the A-149-1 design in older messages. Summary: the A-149-1 uses a DAC (digital-to-analog converter) with microcontroller (whith a firmware that forms a shift register) instead of the (digital) shift register with weighting resistors of the original Buchla design. But finally the result is the same as digital outputs (of the shift registers) combined with weighting resistors is nothing but a simple DAC. But the usage of a precision DAC with a defined reference voltage has only advantages from my point of view (e.g. exact 1/12V or semitone steps if desired). I cannot see any advantage of the original shift register/weighting resistors design. Best wishes Dieter Doepfer
2012-05-02 by Zoë Blade
> I am trying to remain completely analog in my modular. Can anyone explain (as I am having trouble getting my head around this) are the A-149-1 and A-149-2 completely analog in their function and construction, not just signal path? If Buchla synths are your thing, it may surprise (or shock) you to learn that even the 200e isn't purely analogue (see http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec05/articles/buchla200e.htm#2 for details). Plus the name of the A-149-2, "digital random voltages", should be a clue. :) (Although this sounds like the electronics use of the term "digital", which translates to my software-centric mind as "boolean". I'm guessing you're not going to dismiss gate signals altogether as "too digital"?) At any rate, I wouldn't worry about it. Just get things that sound how you want them to, and don't worry about how they're achieving that effect. The listeners aren't going to care if you used a completely analogue setup. They're going to care how good the music sounds. Be a musician, not a collector or a fetishist. All the best, Zoë.
2012-05-02 by Florian Anwander
Hello as Julian already described, if you would not allow digital functions in a synth you would have a sawtooth VCO with a Filter and a VCA. Nothing else. The pulse wave is already a digital conversion from the saw-core of the VCO. I think you want to avoid A/D-D/A constructs in the audio signal path. This may make sense. But nearly all control modules (even envelopes, LFOs, ...) have some kind of digital function. So I suggest you should exclude this type of modules from your yonstraint. In consequence: the A-149-series would be allowed for you too. Florian
2012-05-02 by codotinc
Bloody hell, the last thing I wanted to do was start a topic which had everyone saying "it's a pointless distinction! just make music!" I can get enough of that over at muffwigglers. It's my instrument to make my music through my set of informed decisions. Thank you Dieter for responding in a clear, non-judgmental way to my query. I wanted to know: is there a small digital computer in this module? Yes, there is a DAC with a microcontroller with firmware forming a shift register. Everyone else, resume your squabbling over the ridiculousness of many modular users' distinction between analog and digital. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Florian Anwander <fanwander@...> wrote:
> > Hello > > as Julian already described, if you would not allow digital functions in > a synth you would have a sawtooth VCO with a Filter and a VCA. Nothing > else. The pulse wave is already a digital conversion from the saw-core > of the VCO. > > I think you want to avoid A/D-D/A constructs in the audio signal path. > This may make sense. But nearly all control modules (even envelopes, > LFOs, ...) have some kind of digital function. So I suggest you should > exclude this type of modules from your yonstraint. > > In consequence: the A-149-series would be allowed for you too. > > Florian >
2012-05-02 by Florian Anwander
Hello > ...Everyone else, resume your squabbling... We did not want to argue about digital or not, and for sure no one wanted to upset you. But your basic constraint was (and still is) not really clear. So we (or at least me) had to explain, what makes us worry. It would be really interesting for me, where you are making the distinction between digital aspects, which you accept for yourself, and those, you don't accept. Where is the boarder? Florian
2012-05-02 by achtung_999
I agree with Florian, I have sometimes been putting similar constraints on myself too. I am always interested in what way technology influences inspirational thoughts/systems behind music making! So no judgement here! On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Florian Anwander <fanwander@mnet-online.de>wrote: > ** > > > Hello > > > ...Everyone else, resume your squabbling... > We did not want to argue about digital or not, and for sure no one > wanted to upset you. But your basic constraint was (and still is) not > really clear. So we (or at least me) had to explain, what makes us worry. > > It would be really interesting for me, where you are making the > distinction between digital aspects, which you accept for yourself, and > those, you don't accept. Where is the boarder? > > Florian > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-05-02 by Mr julian
Calm down, it's just a modular synth discussion on the internet. And I'm not sure you're even being judged. As florian already asked, we were interested to know more about what you consider your informed choices about not having digital modules. You're the one making the distinction, not others. It seems that "contains a microcontroller" Is your definition. Fair enough. There was a pretty good chance the 149 didn't have one of those, so it's interesting to know what your response would be if it was just shift register based, and it was mixing shift register bits with resistors to form voltages. ------- Original message -------
> From: codotinc <doubleopards@hotmail.com> > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 3.5.'12, 5:49 > > It's my instrument to make my music through my set of informed decisions. > > > Everyone else, resume your squabbling over the ridiculousness of many > modular users' distinction between analog and digital. >
2012-05-03 by codotinc
Sorry -- I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I've been *actively* performing and recording electronic music for more than 15 years, and while I may be new to analog synths in the larger scheme (like probably 95% of us), I'm not uninformed about electronic music. With my modular I want to make electronic music based on the systems which would be found in a modular from the 'classic period' of electronic music, i.e. 1960s-1970s. Yes, pioneers like Barry Vercoe and Denis Smalley used early computer technology, but for the most part, digital technology wasn't widely used in electronic instruments until the 1980s. I can't come even close to affording an original instrument from the time period of my interest, so -- like so many of us in this field -- I am building one from newly-built/-designed components. I don't want computers in my modular. I've used tons of digital effects (you can't beat a long dead-clean digital delay), I record onto a computer. But for this ONE instrument, I want to constrain myself to a certain set of parameters which are -- to me -- *not* 'arbitrary'. And to try to make the best music I can within those limits. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Mr julian" <jujulilianan@...> wrote:
> > > Calm down, it's just a modular synth discussion on the internet. And I'm > not sure you're even being judged. > > As florian already asked, we were interested to know more about what you > consider your informed choices about not having digital modules. > > You're the one making the distinction, not others. > > It seems that "contains a microcontroller" Is your definition. Fair enough. > There was a pretty good chance the 149 didn't have one of those, so it's > interesting to know what your response would be if it was just shift > register based, and it was mixing shift register bits with resistors to > form voltages. > > ------- Original message ------- > > From: codotinc <doubleopards@...> > > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: 3.5.'12, 5:49 > > > > It's my instrument to make my music through my set of informed decisions. > > > > > > Everyone else, resume your squabbling over the ridiculousness of many > > modular users' distinction between analog and digital. > > >
2012-05-03 by codotinc
Oh, thanks Paul Burton! I will now re-define my aesthetic approach based on the fact that *some* modulars used chips in *some* of their modules! You noticed, maybe, that I mentioned Barry Vercoe? Perhaps you know the 1970 album 'Computer Music' on Nonesuch on which he uses a *gasp* computer to make *swoon* music?? Check it out, it's great. I.e., I am aware of the use of computers by many composers and experimenters in electronic music, even during the classic era. I choose not to use computers in my modular. At this point in time that choice is important to me. And I'd love to hear about your rock-solid aesthetic approach, in all of its minutiae. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, PAUL BURTON <basicmodel101@...> wrote: > > This is from an SOS article about the E-mu modular system which is certainly classic and certainly from the era you describe: > > "There was also a series of logic > modules, for use with the sequencer modules. These included a hex > inverter, which was six simple inverters, and functioned more like a > switch depending on what sort of pulse it received, and a 'Triple Or > Gate' which logically outputs when it sees a 'logical input' (no, I > don't understand it either...). A triple latch module and a pulse > shaper, which is useful for converting audio to digital triggers, > complete the line-up. With some of these modules, you > suspect that the designers must have been doing things just because > technology meant they could! The hex digital inverter, for example, came into being simply because a CMOS hex inverter chip became available > which gave just those functions." > > As far as people calling your concerns fetishistic I am certainly not one to judge, but if you want to be historically accurate (which I am finding increasingly disappointing in general when it comes to the motivations of modern artists) then it is possible that you haven't quite defined your aesthetic approach based on an accurate assumption about the era you seem to want to emulate. > > > > ________________________________ > From: codotinc doubleopards@... > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:12 PM > Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? > > > Â > > > Sorry -- I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I've been *actively* performing and recording electronic music for more than 15 years, and while I may be new to analog synths in the larger scheme (like probably 95% of us), I'm not uninformed about electronic music. With my modular I want to make electronic music based on the systems which would be found in a modular from the 'classic period' of electronic music, i.e. 1960s-1970s. Yes, pioneers like Barry Vercoe and Denis Smalley used early computer technology, but for the most part, digital technology wasn't widely used in electronic instruments until the 1980s. I can't come even close to affording an original instrument from the time period of my interest, so -- like so many of us in this field -- I am building one from newly-built/-designed components. > > I don't want computers in my modular. I've used tons of digital effects (you can't beat a long dead-clean digital delay), I record onto a computer. But for this ONE instrument, I want to constrain myself to a certain set of parameters which are -- to me -- *not* 'arbitrary'. And to try to make the best music I can within those limits. > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Mr julian" jujulilianan@ wrote: > > > > > > Calm down, it's just a modular synth discussion on the internet. And I'm > > not sure you're even being judged. > > > > As florian already asked, we were interested to know more about what you > > consider your informed choices about not having digital modules. > > > > You're the one making the distinction, not others. > > > > It seems that "contains a microcontroller" Is your definition. Fair enough. > > There was a pretty good chance the 149 didn't have one of those, so it's > > interesting to know what your response would be if it was just shift > > register based, and it was mixing shift register bits with resistors to > > form voltages. > > > > ------- Original message ------- > > > From: codotinc doubleopards@ > > > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: 3.5.'12, 5:49 > > > > > > It's my instrument to make my music through my set of informed decisions. > > > > > > > > > Everyone else, resume your squabbling over the ridiculousness of many
> > > modular users' distinction between analog and digital. > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
2012-05-03 by Julian
I'm sorry too, reading my original reply I may have been being a bit of
an ass with the tone of my questions.
Interestingly enough, the Doepfer A149 is remake of (part of?) the
buchla 266 module.
The graphics on the 266 panel should look familiar if you've seen the
149-1.
http://www.musicsynthesizer.com/Buchla/source_of_uncertainty.htm
And according to this article, the 200 series modules were made from
1970-1982.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchla_200_series_Electric_Music_Box
so maybe this module is part of the classic period you're interested in?
(well, the late end of it....)
On Thu, May 3, 2012, at 03:12 AM, codotinc wrote:
>
>
> Sorry -- I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into
> the conversation. I've been *actively* performing and recording
> electronic music for more than 15 years, and while I may be new to analog
> synths in the larger scheme (like probably 95% of us), I'm not uninformed
> about electronic music. With my modular I want to make electronic music
> based on the systems which would be found in a modular from the 'classic
> period' of electronic music, i.e. 1960s-1970s. Yes, pioneers like Barry
> Vercoe and Denis Smalley used early computer technology, but for the most
> part, digital technology wasn't widely used in electronic instruments
> until the 1980s. I can't come even close to affording an original
> instrument from the time period of my interest, so -- like so many of us
> in this field -- I am building one from newly-built/-designed components.
>
> I don't want computers in my modular. I've used tons of digital effects
> (you can't beat a long dead-clean digital delay), I record onto a
> computer. But for this ONE instrument, I want to constrain myself to a
> certain set of parameters which are -- to me -- *not* 'arbitrary'. And to
> try to make the best music I can within those limits.
>
>
--
http://bleepin.com
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
wherever you are2012-05-03 by PAUL BURTON
This is from an SOS article about the E-mu modular system which is certainly classic and certainly from the era you describe: "There was also a series of logic modules, for use with the sequencer modules. These included a hex inverter, which was six simple inverters, and functioned more like a switch depending on what sort of pulse it received, and a 'Triple Or Gate' which logically outputs when it sees a 'logical input' (no, I don't understand it either...). A triple latch module and a pulse shaper, which is useful for converting audio to digital triggers, complete the line-up. With some of these modules, you suspect that the designers must have been doing things just because technology meant they could! The hex digital inverter, for example, came into being simply because a CMOS hex inverter chip became available which gave just those functions." As far as people calling your concerns fetishistic I am certainly not one to judge, but if you want to be historically accurate (which I am finding increasingly disappointing in general when it comes to the motivations of modern artists) then it is possible that you haven't quite defined your aesthetic approach based on an accurate assumption about the era you seem to want to emulate. ________________________________
From: codotinc <doubleopards@hotmail.com> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:12 PM Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? Sorry -- I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I've been *actively* performing and recording electronic music for more than 15 years, and while I may be new to analog synths in the larger scheme (like probably 95% of us), I'm not uninformed about electronic music. With my modular I want to make electronic music based on the systems which would be found in a modular from the 'classic period' of electronic music, i.e. 1960s-1970s. Yes, pioneers like Barry Vercoe and Denis Smalley used early computer technology, but for the most part, digital technology wasn't widely used in electronic instruments until the 1980s. I can't come even close to affording an original instrument from the time period of my interest, so -- like so many of us in this field -- I am building one from newly-built/-designed components. I don't want computers in my modular. I've used tons of digital effects (you can't beat a long dead-clean digital delay), I record onto a computer. But for this ONE instrument, I want to constrain myself to a certain set of parameters which are -- to me -- *not* 'arbitrary'. And to try to make the best music I can within those limits. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Mr julian" <jujulilianan@...> wrote: > > > Calm down, it's just a modular synth discussion on the internet. And I'm > not sure you're even being judged. > > As florian already asked, we were interested to know more about what you > consider your informed choices about not having digital modules. > > You're the one making the distinction, not others. > > It seems that "contains a microcontroller" Is your definition. Fair enough. > There was a pretty good chance the 149 didn't have one of those, so it's > interesting to know what your response would be if it was just shift > register based, and it was mixing shift register bits with resistors to > form voltages. > > ------- Original message ------- > > From: codotinc <doubleopards@...> > > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: 3.5.'12, 5:49 > > > > It's my instrument to make my music through my set of informed decisions. > > > > > > Everyone else, resume your squabbling over the ridiculousness of many > > modular users' distinction between analog and digital. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-05-03 by codotinc
Zoe, I didn't mean to pick you out in particular through your use of the word 'fetishist'. And Julian, I don't think you are an ass. I just found it overwhelming that after (I felt like) I explicitly stated that I did not want to get into a debate about the various benefits of all-analog/hybrid/digital synths -- in fact that I was just here to ask a technical question -- I received (what felt like) a barrage. Most of it well-meaning perhaps, but in one lump of (again, what felt like) disagreement. I have used so many different electronic and acoustic instruments over the years. I have made great music with the chuck-everything-in-there formula (e.g., guitar + ebow + pedals + yamaha cs-10 + kaoss pad + digital reverb + field recordings + VST plugins), and I have also been buried in sludge because of all the options. I wanted to get back the the _very_ _basics_. At first I thought I'd go all-Doepfer, but instead an all-analog approach is the way for me to simplify. It may be completely meaningless to many, but for where I am now, and what I am trying to achieve, it makes sense! There are a lot of rumours on these forums about people who just collect these things and never make any real music on them. So what? It makes them happy, and it keeps the module-designers in business. And maybe a contingent of analog-collector-freekz will push the development of modules displaying even more creative and twisted uses of analog circuitry. So, for those who were genuinely offering advice, encouragement or interest -- and not just here to sneer -- thank you. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Bakis Sirros <synth_freak_2000@...> wrote:
> > very nice advice Zoe, i really agree with you about this. > >  > best regards, > > > Bakis > > > ________________________________ > From: Zoë Blade <zoe@...> > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:54 AM > Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? > > >  > > I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. > > I didn't mean for this to be an insult. I have to constantly remind myself what my main goal is (make good music), and that the sub-goals (such as make good purely electronic music) are less important and even questionable, and I need to constantly remind myself to be and remain a musician, not a collector or a fetishist (we can use the term purist if you'd prefer). At any rate, as I need to constantly remind myself of this, I thought others might benefit from a little of the same advice. If this isn't true, or it's not my place to say so, then I apologise. I didn't mean any offence and I'm sorry if I caused any. > > All the best, > Zoë. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
2012-05-03 by Zoë Blade
> I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I didn't mean for this to be an insult. I have to constantly remind myself what my main goal is (make good music), and that the sub-goals (such as make good purely electronic music) are less important and even questionable, and I need to constantly remind myself to be and remain a musician, not a collector or a fetishist (we can use the term purist if you'd prefer). At any rate, as I need to constantly remind myself of this, I thought others might benefit from a little of the same advice. If this isn't true, or it's not my place to say so, then I apologise. I didn't mean any offence and I'm sorry if I caused any. All the best, Zoë.
2012-05-03 by PAUL BURTON
Dude, seriously what is so hard to understand about "Quantized Random Voltages" Quantization requires a choice to be made on the part of the device. It's a binary function. Random is a digital term for a number generation. The voltage part for sure is analog. You claim to have been making "electronic music" for fifteen years but have just recently discovered analog like 95% of the people on this list. I'm on this list, and I bought my a-100 basic system from a magazine ad in electronic musician before they even had an internet presence at least 15 years ago. You are splitting hairs. If you don't understand that people are going to question your rationale about a question as absurd as is this "quantized random voltage" module really analog, well I don't know what to say. Consider yourself lucky that you received the intelligent and informative answers that you did. If you want my opinion you should be concerned with the circuits that are actually in the signal path. A lot of the Doepfer modules use Curtis IC's which were prominent in the 1980's and a lot of them use modern OP amps, all of which ARE analog and NOT from the era you speak of. Does the irony escape you that you asked if a module was analog on an analog modular synth forum and people were defending what could be construed as digital about this certain module? I for one am not privy to the genius of the world that exists within the "useful constraints" you speak of. Please explain to me, if the Buchla module that the Doepfer A-149-1 and A-149-2 are based upon accomplishes this without digital components what the advantages or limitations be? I'm here to learn. To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 1:34 AM Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? Oh, thanks Paul Burton! I will now re-define my aesthetic approach based on the fact that *some* modulars used chips in *some* of their modules! You noticed, maybe, that I mentioned Barry Vercoe? Perhaps you know the 1970 album 'Computer Music' on Nonesuch on which he uses a *gasp* computer to make *swoon* music?? Check it out, it's great. I.e., I am aware of the use of computers by many composers and experimenters in electronic music, even during the classic era. I choose not to use computers in my modular. At this point in time that choice is important to me. And I'd love to hear about your rock-solid aesthetic approach, in all of its minutiae. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, PAUL BURTON <basicmodel101@...> wrote: > > This is from an SOS article about the E-mu modular system which is certainly classic and certainly from the era you describe: > > "There was also a series of logic > modules, for use with the sequencer modules. These included a hex > inverter, which was six simple inverters, and functioned more like a > switch depending on what sort of pulse it received, and a 'Triple Or > Gate' which logically outputs when it sees a 'logical input' (no, I > don't understand it either...). A triple latch module and a pulse > shaper, which is useful for converting audio to digital triggers, > complete the line-up. With some of these modules, you > suspect that the designers must have been doing things just because > technology meant they could! The hex digital inverter, for example, came into being simply because a CMOS hex inverter chip became available > which gave just those functions." > > As far as people calling your concerns fetishistic I am certainly not one to judge, but if you want to be historically accurate (which I am finding increasingly disappointing in general when it comes to the motivations of modern artists) then it is possible that you haven't quite defined your aesthetic approach based on an accurate assumption about the era you seem to want to emulate. > > > > ________________________________ > From: codotinc doubleopards@... > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:12 PM > Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? > > > Â > > > Sorry -- I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I've been *actively* performing and recording electronic music for more than 15 years, and while I may be new to analog synths in the larger scheme (like probably 95% of us), I'm not uninformed about electronic music. With my modular I want to make electronic music based on the systems which would be found in a modular from the 'classic period' of electronic music, i.e. 1960s-1970s. Yes, pioneers like Barry Vercoe and Denis Smalley used early computer technology, but for the most part, digital technology wasn't widely used in electronic instruments until the 1980s. I can't come even close to affording an original instrument from the time period of my interest, so -- like so many of us in this field -- I am building one from newly-built/-designed components. > > I don't want computers in my modular. I've used tons of digital effects (you can't beat a long dead-clean digital delay), I record onto a computer. But for this ONE instrument, I want to constrain myself to a certain set of parameters which are -- to me -- *not* 'arbitrary'. And to try to make the best music I can within those limits. > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Mr julian" jujulilianan@ wrote: > > > > > > Calm down, it's just a modular synth discussion on the internet. And I'm > > not sure you're even being judged. > > > > As florian already asked, we were interested to know more about what you > > consider your informed choices about not having digital modules. > > > > You're the one making the distinction, not others. > > > > It seems that "contains a microcontroller" Is your definition. Fair enough. > > There was a pretty good chance the 149 didn't have one of those, so it's > > interesting to know what your response would be if it was just shift > > register based, and it was mixing shift register bits with resistors to > > form voltages. > > > > ------- Original message ------- > > > From: codotinc doubleopards@ > > > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: 3.5.'12, 5:49 > > > > > > It's my instrument to make my music through my set of informed decisions. > > > > > > > > > Everyone else, resume your squabbling over the ridiculousness of many
> > > modular users' distinction between analog and digital. > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
2012-05-03 by PAUL BURTON
My rock solid aesthetic approach at a little house party. The bassline was made using a Roland System 100. A-100, and a Pro One. Sorry about the audio quality, someone shot this with a minicam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG-l-JhpEGE ________________________________
From: PAUL BURTON <basicmodel101@yahoo.com> To: "Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? Dude, seriously what is so hard to understand about "Quantized Random Voltages" Quantization requires a choice to be made on the part of the device. It's a binary function. Random is a digital term for a number generation. The voltage part for sure is analog. You claim to have been making "electronic music" for fifteen years but have just recently discovered analog like 95% of the people on this list. I'm on this list, and I bought my a-100 basic system from a magazine ad in electronic musician before they even had an internet presence at least 15 years ago. You are splitting hairs. If you don't understand that people are going to question your rationale about a question as absurd as is this "quantized random voltage" module really analog, well I don't know what to say. Consider yourself lucky that you received the intelligent and informative answers that you did. If you want my opinion you should be concerned with the circuits that are actually in the signal path. A lot of the Doepfer modules use Curtis IC's which were prominent in the 1980's and a lot of them use modern OP amps, all of which ARE analog and NOT from the era you speak of. Does the irony escape you that you asked if a module was analog on an analog modular synth forum and people were defending what could be construed as digital about this certain module? I for one am not privy to the genius of the world that exists within the "useful constraints" you speak of. Please explain to me, if the Buchla module that the Doepfer A-149-1 and A-149-2 are based upon accomplishes this without digital components what the advantages or limitations be? I'm here to learn. To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 1:34 AM Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? Oh, thanks Paul Burton! I will now re-define my aesthetic approach based on the fact that *some* modulars used chips in *some* of their modules! You noticed, maybe, that I mentioned Barry Vercoe? Perhaps you know the 1970 album 'Computer Music' on Nonesuch on which he uses a *gasp* computer to make *swoon* music?? Check it out, it's great. I.e., I am aware of the use of computers by many composers and experimenters in electronic music, even during the classic era. I choose not to use computers in my modular. At this point in time that choice is important to me. And I'd love to hear about your rock-solid aesthetic approach, in all of its minutiae. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, PAUL BURTON <basicmodel101@...> wrote: > > This is from an SOS article about the E-mu modular system which is certainly classic and certainly from the era you describe: > > "There was also a series of logic > modules, for use with the sequencer modules. These included a hex > inverter, which was six simple inverters, and functioned more like a > switch depending on what sort of pulse it received, and a 'Triple Or > Gate' which logically outputs when it sees a 'logical input' (no, I > don't understand it either...). A triple latch module and a pulse > shaper, which is useful for converting audio to digital triggers, > complete the line-up. With some of these modules, you > suspect that the designers must have been doing things just because > technology meant they could! The hex digital inverter, for example, came into being simply because a CMOS hex inverter chip became available > which gave just those functions." > > As far as people calling your concerns fetishistic I am certainly not one to judge, but if you want to be historically accurate (which I am finding increasingly disappointing in general when it comes to the motivations of modern artists) then it is possible that you haven't quite defined your aesthetic approach based on an accurate assumption about the era you seem to want to emulate. > > > > ________________________________ > From: codotinc doubleopards@... > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 11:12 PM > Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? > > > Â > > > Sorry -- I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I've been *actively* performing and recording electronic music for more than 15 years, and while I may be new to analog synths in the larger scheme (like probably 95% of us), I'm not uninformed about electronic music. With my modular I want to make electronic music based on the systems which would be found in a modular from the 'classic period' of electronic music, i.e. 1960s-1970s. Yes, pioneers like Barry Vercoe and Denis Smalley used early computer technology, but for the most part, digital technology wasn't widely used in electronic instruments until the 1980s. I can't come even close to affording an original instrument from the time period of my interest, so -- like so many of us in this field -- I am building one from newly-built/-designed components. > > I don't want computers in my modular. I've used tons of digital effects (you can't beat a long dead-clean digital delay), I record onto a computer. But for this ONE instrument, I want to constrain myself to a certain set of parameters which are -- to me -- *not* 'arbitrary'. And to try to make the best music I can within those limits. > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Mr julian" jujulilianan@ wrote: > > > > > > Calm down, it's just a modular synth discussion on the internet. And I'm > > not sure you're even being judged. > > > > As florian already asked, we were interested to know more about what you > > consider your informed choices about not having digital modules. > > > > You're the one making the distinction, not others. > > > > It seems that "contains a microcontroller" Is your definition. Fair enough. > > There was a pretty good chance the 149 didn't have one of those, so it's > > interesting to know what your response would be if it was just shift > > register based, and it was mixing shift register bits with resistors to > > form voltages. > > > > ------- Original message ------- > > > From: codotinc doubleopards@ > > > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: 3.5.'12, 5:49 > > > > > > It's my instrument to make my music through my set of informed decisions. > > > > > > > > > Everyone else, resume your squabbling over the ridiculousness of many > > > modular users' distinction between analog and digital. > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-05-03 by Bakis Sirros
very nice advice Zoe, i really agree with you about this. best regards, Bakis ________________________________
From: Zoë Blade <zoe@bytenoise.co.uk> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? > I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I didn't mean for this to be an insult. I have to constantly remind myself what my main goal is (make good music), and that the sub-goals (such as make good purely electronic music) are less important and even questionable, and I need to constantly remind myself to be and remain a musician, not a collector or a fetishist (we can use the term purist if you'd prefer). At any rate, as I need to constantly remind myself of this, I thought others might benefit from a little of the same advice. If this isn't true, or it's not my place to say so, then I apologise. I didn't mean any offence and I'm sorry if I caused any. All the best, Zoë. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-05-03 by Gavin Pykerman
We’ve all got our own methods of working with the equipment we use, why question the artistic choice of somebody else? Sometimes working within a chosen set of constraints can take you out of your musical comfort zone and be more rewarding. How we choose those constraints is our choice to make.
From: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bakis Sirros Sent: 03 May 2012 10:00 To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? very nice advice Zoe, i really agree with you about this. best regards, Bakis ________________________________ From: Zoë Blade <zoe@bytenoise.co.uk <mailto:zoe%40bytenoise.co.uk> > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-149-1 and A-149-2 -- digital or analog? > I just find it tacky when words like 'fetishist' get thrown into the conversation. I didn't mean for this to be an insult. I have to constantly remind myself what my main goal is (make good music), and that the sub-goals (such as make good purely electronic music) are less important and even questionable, and I need to constantly remind myself to be and remain a musician, not a collector or a fetishist (we can use the term purist if you'd prefer). At any rate, as I need to constantly remind myself of this, I thought others might benefit from a little of the same advice. If this isn't true, or it's not my place to say so, then I apologise. I didn't mean any offence and I'm sorry if I caused any. All the best, Zoë. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2012-05-03 by Zoë Blade
> Zoe, I didn't mean to pick you out in particular through your use of the word 'fetishist'. Oh, I wouldn't mind even if you did. I know I can come off a bit confrontational online where you can't hear anyone's tone of voice or anything. > I just found it overwhelming that after (I felt like) I explicitly stated that I did not want to get into a debate about the various benefits of all-analog/hybrid/digital synths -- in fact that I was just here to ask a technical question -- I received (what felt like) a barrage. Most of it well-meaning perhaps, but in one lump of (again, what felt like) disagreement. I don't think anyone was trying to start an argument, so much as give the advice that they wish others would give them more. One of the common mistakes people make is to ask how to do something very specific, when they should be asking a broader question, because it turns out the best way to accomplish the overall goal they have isn't necessarily the specific route they're trying. People pull me up on this all the time, and as part of my day job I have to do this with my employer sometimes, and it generally leads to less wasted effort, is all. > I have used so many different electronic and acoustic instruments over the years. I have made great music with the chuck-everything-in-there formula (e.g., guitar + ebow + pedals + yamaha cs-10 + kaoss pad + digital reverb + field recordings + VST plugins), and I have also been buried in sludge because of all the options. I wanted to get back the the _very_ _basics_. At first I thought I'd go all-Doepfer, but instead an all-analog approach is the way for me to simplify. It may be completely meaningless to many, but for where I am now, and what I am trying to achieve, it makes sense! Ah, now having less gear so you can learn what's left inside out is indeed a good idea. The only part I'd question, to make sure you've thought it through, is the criterion of what stays. I'd recommend keeping what's most useful to you, regardless of how it works behind the scenes. Think of each module as a black box, if you're not going to modify it: it doesn't matter how it converts the inputs to outputs. It matters how easy it is to use, how versatile it is, and how good it sounds. > There are a lot of rumours on these forums about people who just collect these things and never make any real music on them. So what? It makes them happy, and it keeps the module-designers in business. And maybe a contingent of analog-collector-freekz will push the development of modules displaying even more creative and twisted uses of analog circuitry. Oh, I certainly don't mind that collectors exist, I just have to be constantly vigilant to make sure I don't become one myself. As fun as it is to build up my synth, it's even more satisfying to make music, and it's all too easy for me to forget that! (And I say this as someone buying more Doepfer modules later today...) Anyway, I, and I think others, just wanted to make sure you'd given sufficient thought to why you'd want an all analogue setup. If you have, great. Go for it! It's just in my personal experience, I make the best music when not constraining myself in that way, so I thought the same might be true for others. If it's not, cool, go forth and make some good purely analogue music. :) All the best, Zoë.