MOTM

>
>The same is true on the Buchla: has anyone noticed there are no VCAs??!? 
>That's because the ARE
>no VCAs in a Buchla. There is a Quad Lowpass Gate module that is Vactrol 
>based, that is used as a
>VCA (or cheesy LPF). This prevents 'snappy' envelopes, so the sound is 
>"mushed up" like an
>Oberheim Xpander is (the Xpander has SW envelopes that are infamous for 
>non-snappy-ness).

There is a certain "sound" that comes from the Buchla Lowpass Gate that 
allows some very interesting percussive sounds.  I wouldn't call them 
mushy.  Subotnick got some very nice percussive tones out of the Buchla so 
I don't think that is quite it.  Yes, the Vactrols can be slow but there is 
a non-linearity there that makes it happen.  Perhaps it is a type of 
compression that occurs because of the Vactrols.  I certainly wouldn't 
compare it to the Xpander envelopes!


>Also, PWM is non-existent. This is a shame, as I am a fan of PWM.

Take another look at the wave control on those oscillators.  The complex 
oscillators have a variable "timbre" control that does some very different 
wave shaping.  For square waves, this is a bit of PWM.  It is quite a 
different sound that I haven't heard elsewhere (hint hint).

>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).

It all depends on where you are going.   When I know exactly what I want to 
get, I go for MOTM and MOTM-like modulars.  When I want to explore and 
perhaps let the synth lead me to sonic places I haven't been before, I go 
for things like Buchla and Serge.  Of course, this isn't black and white 
and there are times when the opposite is true.

         Eric