Well, I don't know if I buy the analogy that a Serge is "slower" than a
2600. The Serge has a lot of functionality hidden behind the front panels
instead of just the basic circuits. For instance, the S/H Source output on
the Noise Source module. This is a frequency modulated sawtooth wave that's
perfect for getting a defined range S&H output. Using straight noise to S&H
has it's own problems - no defined amplitude range unless you clip the
signal, then it's no longer random. Yet every other modular uses that
method. There are many other examples that one could cite.
John Loffink
microtonal@...
2600. The Serge has a lot of functionality hidden behind the front panels
instead of just the basic circuits. For instance, the S/H Source output on
the Noise Source module. This is a frequency modulated sawtooth wave that's
perfect for getting a defined range S&H output. Using straight noise to S&H
has it's own problems - no defined amplitude range unless you clip the
signal, then it's no longer random. Yet every other modular uses that
method. There are many other examples that one could cite.
John Loffink
microtonal@...
> Maybe you could look at it this way: a 2600 is a quickly configurable yetSerge
> modular instrument if you need it. A Wiard or CMS system has less presets
> but still allows rather rapid programming. Most modulars form the next
> stage: no presets, standardized functionality (like ADSR envelopes). A
> is slower. Things are much more broken up, what with several differentetc.
> independent modules for binary and complex waveshaping, slew processing
> An analog computer is even "slower": a basic VCO wants to be patched up asone
> well as other functions which may be harder to understand from a common
> musician's view but may essentially be no more complex than a VCO which
> is used to buying as a readymade module.
>
>