MOTM

On 6/8/03, Paul Schreiber put forth:
>A very reliable source told me there are about 30 MARFs in
>existence, but only 2 are known 100%
>functional. My system has 2, chained via ribbon cables as a 4 x 32
>sequencer. But there is NO WAY
>I'm applying power to 350+ 30yr old CMOS ICs.

Since I've never played with a MARF, ignoring that the parts are
crap, even if a MARF was in 100% working condition, what would be so
great about it??  Besides historical mystique, what sort of features
does it have that make it special??

>What I stress is *understanding* where the "karma" comes from. I
>claim that 99.99% of 'musical karma', especially when dealing with
>electronics, can be understood AND explained.

Besides my own experience, I've learned the most from the various
analyses and cloning projects that JH has posted over the years.
While things like noise, drift, and sheer crapiness are legitimate
factors, they are not unique to any one make or model.  Imho, it is
more a gestalt of unique features, odd implementations (such as knob
interactions, filter response, envelope behavior, oscillator
waveshapes, etc.), and the ergonomics and limitations of the
interface.

Take for example the Roland SH-101.  Yes, it is very noisy, easy to
break, and many of its parts are crap.  However it has only one EG
which is very fast, a mod switch on the bender, a stable VCO driven
by a terrible DAC, quantized sample and hold, a sub oscillator with
PWM, delayed LFO, etc. that make it what it is.  If you were to get
rid of the hum and noise, and replace the cheap switches, imho, it
would still retain its charm.

Consider that excluding the keyboard and sequencer, it would take at
least ten MOTM modules and a Blacet uWaves to replace all the
functions of one crappy SH-101.  Of course, such a collection of
modules would cost about six times as much as used SH-101, and it
would do infinitely more.  However, if you wanted ease and
limitations of an SH-101, then you need to get an SH-101.

>I agree 100% that some people enjoy the fact the Buchla is (being
>kind) "non-repeatable". However, that's not my *personal idea* of
>what make a "great" modular (to me, it makes a great pain-in-the-ass
>modular).

One of the reasons I sold my Mini-Moog, that as much as a liked it,
the oscillator drift made it too impractical.  It wasn't
"non-repeatable" in any sort of complex or creative way.  In fact,
its behavior was quite predictable -- I knew it was going to drift, and
it did.  Otoh, I still have two Roland TB-303's.  Even though by any
sane reckoning they are cheap toys, they have so many unique
qualities, as both a synth and a sequencer, that for myself it makes
them worth keeping.

However, I would not want such idiosyncratic behavior, limited
capability, or inferior build quality in a modular -- especially not
a big expensive modular.  If a Buchla briefcase or EMS Synthi only
cost a few hundred dollars I'd probably own one.

The great thing about any modular is its flexibility, and MOTM is no
exception.  MOTM is extremely "repeatable", but it can also be
patched to exhibit chaotic and random behavior.  Its signal levels
and 1/4" jacks also make it easy to interface with almost any weird
gizmo you have lying around.  It seems the biggest PITA with MOTM, as
opposed to buying a crazy antique such as Paul's Buchla, is actually
getting the modules.  I visited two studios while I was away the
other week, and first thing each of their owners asked me was "did
you get your oscillators yet??"