MOTM

Mark writes:
>>That's what you said you used, and as you continue to argue for
"actually playing" that would further imply the use of MIDI since
there are few CV controllers that produce more than trigger/gate and
a single voltage.<<

What I've used?  This filter bank doesn't exist so I haven't used it.  And
even if I used something with other midi non-modular synths, that has little
to do with a module for an analog modular synth which would have a CV input
for shifting the bank.

>>No, others said variable frequency, variable bandwidth, and variable gain
for each band.<<

You'll have to take that up with them.  But as in parametric EQ vs graphic
EQ, parametrics have fewer bands because you have more control, while
graphics just give you a bunch of bands so if you want variable bandwidth,
just pull up more sliders, or for the freq you want, you'll already have a
band at or near it.

>>The problem is that a 31-band graphic EQ would be something like 7U
in MOTM format (and would likely cost more than twice as much as a
Klark-Teknic). Even ignoring the global parameters, you still have
one knob per band.  How many bands does this thing have??  Even if it
somehow managed to use sliders instead of knobs, it would still be
huge and expensive.<<

Since I was thinking of programming a virtual version or short of that
wiring up something similar in Reaktor I've calculated some of this out.
IIRC it would be about 52 to 56 bands.  It has to use sliders for giving you
a representation of the shape of the filtering like a graphic EQ.  It would
need about a 12U width.  Global parameters go below the sliders.  Huge
doesn't mean expensive.  I'm looking at my Alesis Ion which I bought new for
$540.  It has a panel much larger than this filter bank hypothetically would
and it's a complete synth.  You're basing things on motm product pricing.
Other companies put out sequencers that are nearly as large, and they do
fine.

>>Oh, I'm listening, but you haven't said anything about it until now, and
you are still being rather vague.<<

That's because this whole thing was brought up by somebody else, I had
mentioned that I had already milled the idea over but because of the current
lethargic attitude toward synthesis it probably wouldn't sell well.  I
mentioned some things it could do, but it didn't seem like getting into
details like how much space it would take up, how the panel would be laid
out, or band count was applicable yet.  Either there is a need for a complex
filter bank or not.

>>Perhaps he wouldn't, but I don't see how techno isn't musical or
melodic.  You seem to be equating music with sounding like an
acoustic instrument, which seems like an awfully odd position for an
electronic musician :)<<

Techno isn't musical or melodic.  You need musical elements for something to
be musical and melody to be melodic.  That's also a group that gets off on
the most simplistic sounds imaginable.  Does a simpler synth than the TB-303
even exist?  Maybe a turntable.  SH-101, Juno-60, boring 1 osc synths,
simple filter sweeps, chirpy sounds, farty sounds.  When they want something
more complex they just sample somebody elses work.  That's not the group
that's going to spend hours/days crafting some acoustically realistic
acoustic-like instrument sound nor has the knowledge or expertise to even do
so in the first place.  And as an electronic musician I'm interested in
electronic music, not bleeps and bloops or ghetto noises.

>>So you are saying if people went beyond basic patching with their
modulars they would discover problems in other synths they might not
even use??<<

Here we go again.  I'm saying that synths are being released either full of
bugs or limitations and nobody is noticing.  Why?  Because of the simplistic
use of synths.  That's everywhere.  It's a global problem.  It's not like
analog modular synth owners are exempt from that.  They're doing the same
kinds of sounds and music as other synth users are doing, and most of them
are the same people, since most people have more than one synth.

>>So we agree that the interface is important.<<

Yes, that was the very point of even suggesting doing it in hardware instead
of in a computer in the first place.

>>What I'm arguing is that I still don't see how such an interface could be
implemented without it being prohibitively huge and expensive...If you are
saying it would be something like 5U, cost $2K, and be of little interest to
anyone besides those who are doing imitative synthesis, then I agree its
market is "almost non-existent".<<

Why would a little extra metal cost so much?  I'm talking a few inches wider
than a standard 19" piece of rack gear.  I have three racks of 19" gear.
Some of it is dirt cheap.  There's no problem there.  Obviously it would be
in the hundreds of dollars range, not the thousands.  As far as hardware,
it's just a big digital graphic EQ.  You're making way too much of it,
especially since it doesn't and probably won't even exist.  Speaking of a
digital EQ, I have the schematics to a high end digital graphic EQ which
could literally almost be used as is, only changing the number of sliders
and buttons and adding a CV input.  It has at least 62 sliders and some
buttons, is way overpriced at a list of $1000.  It's plenty easy to come in
well below that price.

-Elhardt