MOTM

I'm way behind and trying to catch up.

Arran Day writes:
>>What exactly are "ghetto noises"?<<

Anything from scratching sounds, twitchy, tweaky, squelchy, fart sounds, and
that endless thumping bassdrum.  If it has that distasteful rap / hip-hop
flavor, then we're talking ghetto sounds.

Mark writes:
>>It's what you used for your demos.  The point being that imitative
synthesis requires imitative playing.  Which means without an
unusually sophisticated CV controller such playing would require MIDI.<<

This has gone on so long and it's just going arond in circles.  I just use a
keyboard with velocity and a pedal for most of my stuff.  Nothing unsual.
The point is those who can't play a musical instrument like a keyboard
wouldn't be a market for this.

>>That would be so much less cumbersome using a computer interface.
Even if the DSP was done in separate hardware, and that hardware had
CV inputs and other interface features, it still would make much more
sense to program it with a computer.  Not only would that result in a
much more mechanically reliable product, but it would make it much
easier to add analysis features, store patches, program changes, etc.
Unless it has motorized controls, any device that has patch storage
or automation is not WYSIWYG.<<

Well the same could be said for a modular synth.  I can't even store patches
on my MOTM.  CV inputs work a lot better on a stand alone device since there
are none into a computer.  And I still think moving sliders by hand, where I
can use both hands and move several sliders at once work better than using a
mouse for each one.  You just keep flip-flopping.  Before it was the
computer that you didn't want, now that's what you want.  I can't keep track
of what's going on anymore

>>It might have a larger panel, but it doesn't have 52 sliders...<<

A stereo 1/3 octave EQ has 62 sliders.  I'm still not seeing the problem.

>You're basing things on motm product pricing.<
>>I thought we were talking about an idea for an MOTM module.<<

An MOTM compatible module doesn't mean MOTM parts and pricing.

>Other companies put out sequencers that are nearly as large, and they do
fine.
>>Well, lets see, a Doepfer MAQ 16/3, which is crap, costs around $1K.
A Modcan 54B costs around $1900 if you include the power supply.
They both have at least 48 pots and fit in a 19" rack.  A DN360,
arguably the most popular graphic EQ ever made, has 62 bands and
costs around $1600...<<

Not seeing the point to your response.  There are expensive things in this
world and not so expensive.  Perhaps look at Synthesizers.com's sequencer,
or a dbx or lower EQ.

>>Again, you are using your own made-up definitions of "musical" and
"melodic".<<

No I'm not.  I've already posted the definition once for music.  Might as
well get it all out there.  Music: "an art of sound in time that expresses
ideas and emotions in significant forms through the organized elements of
rhythm, melody, harmony, and dynamics.".  Melodic: "of, having, or producing
melody. pleasant-sounding."

>>You also seem to have an ridiculously limited idea of techno.  It can be
quite complex in its use of sounds.<<

My idea of techno is based on having to hear 9 years of it, including stuff
that people told me was "good techno".  None of it is complex in its use of
sounds, unless you think stealing / sampling somebody elses work and pasting
it can be creditted to techno.

>>Regardless, structured music such as techno which is based on notes,
rhythm, and a discernable arrangement of instruments is way more musical and
melodic than beatless ambient and various forms of electro-acoustic music.<<

Melody is not an element of techno.  Therefore it's not melodic.  It's not
based on notes either, in fact most techno creators don't know how to play a
keyboard and some don't even own one, unless you consider a sound at a
different pitch being triggered at some point.  Techno lacks all in the
definition of music above except rhythm.  And those rhythms are simplistic,
repetitive and unoriginal/predictable.  The point was that this is not the
market for a complex filter bank.

>>This does not mean that electronic music that relies more on texture or
less on traditional musical elements is more simplistic in its use of
synthesizers.<<

Maybe, but most synth use is rather simplistic.  That's the problem.  There
aren't many people with the attention spans to put towards using a 52 band
filter bank for it's main purpose of creating complex resonant instrument
bodies.

>>It's not obvious to me.  Some rack gear is dirt cheap, but most of it
is not reliable, sounds terrible, or has a very minimal interface.
It also has a much larger market.  An Alesis MEQ 230 has 31 sliders,
but it's crap -- it's noisy, distorted, and is almost guaranteed to
break.  What you are suggesting is a cheaply-built product that needs
to be mass-manufactured for a small quality-conscious market.  That's
not going to work.<<

I'm not talking cheaply built, but I'm not talking overkill with sealed pots
or $5 slider caps either.  There is a middle ground.  The point is whether
there was a market in the first place which I said no, not much of one.
Then you've argued back and forth for whatever reason.

-Elhardt