SergeModular

You can substitute a VCFQX for one of the quad osc's... You can generate
sine-cosine waves from the VCF just like the quad osc, but you won't have the
'hold' feature.
What are you using the ACPR's for?
And what is the DRG? Dual random voltage generator?
A WAD would be nice on that panel too, unless you already have one.... you
could create strange spatial fx with very small amounts of delay.
DTG always gets my vote.

JP

rk wrote:

> You can substitute a VCFQX for one of the quad osc's.

Do you need (or is there an advantage to having) 2 Quadrature Oscillators.
Also, what is the minimum requirement of 'quad' modules to make a useful
quad panel (I notice Robert has two quad channels listed).
Thanks for any advice.
CW

In a message dated 6/12/01 8:13:50 AM, chris@... writes:

<< Do you need (or is there an advantage to having) 2 Quadrature Oscillators.

The way it was explained to me is that you use the
first 0 degree QO output applied to the mixer at the
left-to-right arrow indicator (CVinput) - then you
apply the 90 degree out to the right-front-to-right
rear input. these, by necessity (there is only 1 rate
control) will have the same cycle time. The second QO
is thus for the other two CV inputs on the mixer,
which, when applied in the same manner as the first,
completes a circular sweep of the mixer outs. This a
standard application and you can see that you can just
as easily perform elaborate cross-sweeps in differing
directions. The problems with this setup are several,
none of which are faults of the Serge.
1. Quad has fallen into disuse.
2. You have a minimum of 4 channel out of the Serge,
and this means four mixer channels must be used, but
unless your mixer has Matrix routing ala Yamaha, and
you can derive four seperate and distinct mixer outs
which can be assigned at the input channel, you cannot
get real quad.
3. This monitoring scheme does not integrate easily
into the current standard of 5.1, which most new
digital mixers Do support, as well as ProTools and
Logic Audio Platinum.

I have discussed all this with Rex and he understands
the issues. At present the way I derive moving 5.1
mixes from the Serge is by sending multiple channels
of output from the Serge (all mono outs) to my 2408,
where I record them on seperate mono tracks in Logic
Audio. These tracks are individually assigned to the
5.1 matrix outs in logic and panned and moved around
there. you can use a joystick or simply draw the
movements with your mouse. If you have the record
button depressed, all the moves will be automated.
Voila!! moving 5.1 from the Serge. Now I would love to
see Rex develop a 5.1 moving field mixer for the
Serge, but realistically that will probably never
happen, for several reasons. STS is moving the Serge
forward in very controlled fashion, which is good for
everybody. new modules are thoroughly tested and
justified before they are incorporated into the
system. This is as it should be. The workaround
detailed above is practical for me, and saves me
valuable real estate on planned future panels.
BarryM

Barry,
At last I have some understanding of what is involved.
Thanks for the thorough and detailed explanation.
In short do you think the Serge quad mixer is a practical no no.
It sounds as if you might as well record 4 separate tracks in Logic or
Pro-Tools from 4 mono Serge outputs (ie not neccesarily from the 'Quad'
output).
CW

CW,
I can't think of anything much more spectacular than
one of these Quad setups spinning around a live venue
with the TKB serving up the polyrhythms as they spin
around the dance floor. I see this as the main usage
in this day and age for the Classical Serge Quad
Spinner setup. You could get some interesting effects
using one in a DJ setup with a couple of stereo CD
players running into it. As far as recording goes, I
think everything is heading for 5:1 as a defacto
standard with 7:1 as an upscale cousin. People will
use Protools, Logic Audio, Mackie D8B, and othner
higher end 5:1 mixers to achieve their ends. The
distribution medium of choice for commercial
production delivery will move from Tascam 8 track
format (which is how most 5:1 is delivered to clients
today) to DVD Audio, as soon as the recorders and
media become more affordable. Allready you can buy a
DVD Recorder for a couple of thousand dollars. The
software is not quite there yet at the project studio
level, but will be soon. I believe the quad mixer by
Serge is an elegant and interesting piece of modular
synthesis toolbox. I would love to have one. At this
time, however, My aim is to further round out my
system with modules that are not readily available in
the "shop" panels. My system is very versatile and
borders on being "large" (7 panels). They are all shop
panels, and if I didn't have the "processor" panel in
the mix, I would really be hurting. My focus now is on
the extended filter, variable banwidth filter, dual VC
clock, and the new version of the SSG/DTG/RG seen in
the Animal panel. I do need a larger mixer in my
system, and the basic quad panel would be a good
choice.
BarryM

In a message dated 6/16/01 5:01:40 PM, dzogchen2002@... writes:

<< I
think everything is heading for 5:1 as a defacto
standard with 7:1 as an upscale cousin. People will
use Protools, Logic Audio, Mackie D8B, and othner
higher end 5:1 mixers to achieve their ends. >>

I guess I'm just an old "has been" Except for theater i just can't get behind
5:1. I don't listen to music sitting down anymore unless I'm in the studio
mixing. Quite frankly i don't want to hear my music in surround, I want to
hear it just as if i were sitting in front of the band or whatever. In other
words..... stereo. I'm sure it sounds cool and all, but unless your sitting
in the middle and have time to remain stationary for awhile, who needs it?.
However I'm open for persuasion so if anyone wants to drag me kicking and
screaming into the future, please help me out. : )
Kind regards
John DuVal

--- In SergeModular@y..., DarkStr717@a... wrote:

John and Sebastian,
I take your comments to heart and I see that I am
biased toward a future full of 5:1. Mainly because I
do a lot of sound design and scoring for film/DVD
release, and all my delivery is on Tascam D88 format
with six channels for the 5:1 plus a stereo mix. Time
code is VITC. I too monitor a lot in mono and do a lot
of stereo mixes, which remains my favorite medium. I
was just trying to put the gentlemans' question
concerning the present day value of the Quad mixer
setup into some kind of perspective. I mean if someone
is asking your opinion about whether to spend big
bucks on this kind of mixer, you just tell him what
you know about what people are asking for and what the
real world uses of that particular set of modules
might be. As I told him, I see great uses for the
Serge quad panner in the Dance arena, where it can
find great and current application. Sorry if I offend.
That is certainly not the intention.
BarryM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/

> I
> was just trying to put the gentlemans' question
> concerning the present day value of the Quad mixer
> setup into some kind of perspective.

Barry is right. He did help my understanding of the value or lack thereof of
purchasing a Serge Quad panel. I didn't take anything he said as a personal
endorsement. In addition it doesn't mean to say that anybody prefers
surround over stereo.
I too work a lot in film and happen to hate the Tascam DA88, but I can't get
away from the fact that it is the industry standard. 5:1 is becoming the
industry standard even in some cases for television, therefore I was
thinking about the possible advantages of utilising a Serge quad panel.
I know other composers who are very conservative in their use of surround in
film score, I was thinking wouldn't it be great if I could persuade them to
let me spin half of the orchestra 'round the back of people's heads via the
Serge synthesizer. It seems, after Barry's comments, this might not be as
easy as I thought.
Each to their own. I however listen to most of my music 1. in my studio, 2.
sitting at the computer and 3. in the car. I can see 'surround' being a
possible revolution in music appreciation in all of these scenarios.
There is half a panel of Serge modules languishing forgotten in the
catalogue (apart from the odd DJ or live musician) and I just wanted to know
if there was a brighter future for them.
CW

Hi Barry, Chris;

never any offense taken, nor intended to hand out, and I have no clue
why it should have been. I am dead glad we do not all share the same
views.

Sebastian Kuehnl


Serge is Serge, Kyma is Kyma...

CW,
You know , the funny thing about it is that I was
looking at the Serge catalogue last night, and the
Quad Panner is shown there with two associated input
chanels. It Still looks like the most interesting
mixer in the lineup. It just takes up so much real
estate. But there are a lot of aux ins. It looks like
you could get away with just buying the Quad master
panel and One of the input channels, using your
Universal audio processors and Stereo mixers, which
are on almost every panel, to do submixing in to the
quad input channel. Then you could get the best of
both worlds and have the quad panning if you wanted
it. Of course you would still need the two Quadrature
Osc.s, to make it happen, and the question of how to
best modulate/sync/phase lock these is, as sebastian
points out, an interesting one. I might just end up
buying one of these myself after all is said and done.
Can't let those modules just languish, now can we?
BarryM

Barry,
Thanks for all the interesting contributions of late. I have personally
found some things thought provoking especially your photos.
First off, the other day I was going to ask you if you used the Serge very
much in your film work. I rarely use mine because the turnaround times are
so short. It can take me a couple of hours to refine a patch and that is
often about the time I have to get a whole piece into shape.
After looking at your pictures I was wondering if you ended up with 3
sequencers by default and whether you used them all. I have often thought
that having a couple of the odd numbered sequencers working with the TKB
would be amazing but in practice I often find that the more complex a Serge
patch the harder it is to fit it into my music.
CW

CW,
I Do use the Serge in film/TV work, but mainly for FX
or as a specialty sound design job. Sometimes my
friends on the west coast will say "Here's the video
of the effect sequence. We are looking for a sound
like ... sort of like lightning, or sort of like a
phaser, or maybe like lightning combined with a
phaser." So I watch the video over and over while I
patch up the Serge. This seems to work fairly well,
although it Does take longer than a couple of hours. I
usually have at least three days to turn it around,
and I'll usually get two or three FX from the same
source, so it helps if I can get them all at once.
I've been renting a Tascam when it comes time to lay
back, as I too hate this format, and refuse to buy
one. It's better now that you can deliver 24bit, but
tape is still a pain for me (spent too long with 2inch
and half track). I look forward to a time in the
future when you can deliver 5:1 mixes on DVD Audio
format in 24bit. It's coming, but we'll have to wait.
I do find that the Serge is harder to use quickly when
it comes to scoring, although it is not out of the
question. As you point out, it is a matter of lead
time. Very often I will finish? a mix for delivery,
take it over as audio to Logic Audio, and do a sort of
"performance" track against it using the Serge. I will
send a second tape with a stereo mix of the score and
the tracks from the Serge on seperate tracks. As you
know, scores are very often recut using different
sounds or instruments, but there is no way to replace
or redo the Serge sounds. I do this work at no extra
charge, and it has gotten me a lot of other, really
interesting work, such as the FX stuff. I Do find that
certain patches are easily repeatable, and you Can get
them back fairly easily, although as you say, the more
complex the patch is, the harder this is in practice.
I have the graphic which I posted blown up and printed
out, so I always keep a stack of them handy for
documenting patches. My system is built around "shop"
panels, and the dual sequencer panel is one which I
definitely wanted. I had not originally intended to
include the TKB, but Rex is a persuasive guy, and he
really helped to guide me in the build of this system.
Some things he insisted I try, I did not fully
understand at the time. I trusted him though, and it
has proved out. Every module that he said I needed I
Have needed, and there are some which he suggested I
did Not need right away. He was right there too. I Do
use the sequencer modules in conjunction with the TKB.
One might think that the TKB is like a master
controller, but the real master for me is the clock. I
derive all the pulses for all the sequencers from one
master clock, dividing the pulses down in time with
the two pulse dividers in the system. I've got five
oscillators, so I don't divide down Audio frequencies
that often. Actually I keep one of the PCOs patched
w/comparator most of the time to serve as the master
VC clock, so I effectively use four audio sources,
although I usually end up only using the two NTOs.
Using the pulse dividers in this way you can
synchronise the firing of multiple sequencer, DTGs,
and DSGs, as well as the VCFQs "ring", in very
"musical" ways, so it's not just timing bedlam as it
well could be if you are not careful. I Do sometimes
cross patch the individual stages of the sequencers
through the boolean logic module to acquire
"events",again always based on subdivisions of the
master clock rate. I usually use the last row of the
TKB to VC the freq. of the master clock, so I get my
whole/half/quarter/16/32/64 variances that way.
As an aside, one of the main reasons I went ahead and
got the dual sequencer panel was not for the
sequencers per se, but for the concentration of other
"logic" modules on that panel. I use these with the
TKB even when I don't use all the sequencers. For the
kind of whacked out rhythms I tend to favor, I think
the odd-stage-number sequencers are the most
interesting. The old seven stage with built in
quantiser looks Very interesting. Hope I half-way
answered your very thought provoking questions.
BarryM

CW,
This post is in following the thread of using the
Serge in Post production. Thought I'd let you know
that I've been doing some experimenting of late with
locking the Serge up to Post projects using Logic
Audio Platinum and the Encore Expressionist. I work
mostly in 29.97, and lock to VITC from Sony BetaSP
using a MOTU Digital Timepiece. Right now I'm using a
MOTU Midi Timepiece AV LPT port version, but I'm not
really happy with its' midi timing "tightness", and
will probably add a Unitor8 USB soon, using the
Unitor8 for the midi instruments, including the
Expressionist/Serge, and the MOTU AV for talking to
devices such as reverbs, the Pod, the Waldorf xpole
filter, etc. I've diverged a bit, but only so that you
had a picture of the environment. With the scoring
well along, it becomes really easy while locked to
video, to assign a midi track in Logic to the Serges'
port, and using the Z1 keyboard, record triggers for
events on the timeline. I say triggers because more
often than not, I only use the Gate/Trigger outs on
the Encore, rather than the CV outs, and simply tune
the Serge to the key of the track (when the Serge is
used tonally). Of course it's just it's just as easy
to make sure your trigger note is in the key of the
track, just in case you Do want to track an
oscillator, but I haven't really used the Serge much
as a tracking instrument, although it works well, the
expressionist being the unit it is. I find that the
NTO has amuch wider range than most keyboards evenwith
octave switching, and I like to use the extreme ranges
of the oscillators a lot of times. As long as you have
the time to get the sounds on the Serge, and you are
far enough along in the project, these methods work
like charm. Juuuust Smilin'
BarryM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/