Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:35 UTC

Thread

Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-18 by pugix

While awaiting arrival of my MOTM modules, I've been meditating on 
functional density in modular synthesizers.  I've always operated on 
a feeling about how much tonal richness I could get from a set of 
modules, which had to do roughly with the quantity of activity going 
on all at once.  This is directly related to the number of distinct 
signals available.  The richness also has to do with the number of 
voltage-controlled parameters that are being modulated 
simultaneously.  

I came up with a simple way to quantify the functional density of a 
module as follows.  It is the number of distinct signal sources 
produced by a module plus the number of independently variable 
voltage-controlled parameters afforded by the module, divided by the 
panel width.  Here's the breakdown for MOTM.  

MOTM    MODULE  SOURCES PARAMS  WIDTH   DENSITY
-----------------------------------------------
101     S&H     2       0       2       1
120     SUB     0       0       2       0
190     VCA     0       2       1       2
300     VCO     1       2       2       1.5
310     VCO     1       2       1       3
320     LFO     1       2       2       1.5
380     LFO     4       0       1       4
390     LFO     2       1       1       3
410     VCF     2       3       2       2.5
410     VCF+OMS 2       6       3       2.66
420     VCF     0       1       2       0.5
440     VCF     0       2       2       1
480     VCF     0       2       2       1
490     VCF     0       1       1       1
700     ROUTER  0       2       2       1
800     EG      0       0       1       0
820     LAG     0       2       2       1
830     MIX     0       0       2       0
850     PEDAL   0       0       1       0
890     MIX     0       0       1       0

My rational for counting sources: The 101 S&H has one noise source, 
plus one clock.  Even though filters can oscillate, I'm not counting 
that as a source.  I don't count multiple waveforms coming from the 
same oscillator.  

Most of this is not too surprising.  The quad LFO in a 1U panel has a 
high functional density.  Modules that do static processing, such as 
envelope generators and mixers have zero density, which means that 
when added to a system simply lower the overall density.  To me that 
gives them a lower value.  But then I seem to be obsessed with 
functional density!  

This analysis did produce a few interesting results.  The 310 micro 
VCO has twice the functional density as its big brother, the 300, 
because it has the same number of sources (1) and parameters (FM and 
PWM), but in half the space.  That's the idea, I suppose.  

The 410 Triple Resonant Filter has a high functional density due to 
the internal dual LFO, which adds two sources.  The 410 also has 
three independent parameters: combined filter frequency (sweep), LFO 
rate, LFO internal modulation depth.  Let's add the OMS-410.  Now 
there are six parameters: 3 independent filter frequency controls, 
LFO rate, internal LFO depth, external LFO depth.  This is based on 
the MOTM-standard option panel for the OMS-410.  But wait.  Now it's 
3U wide.  Doing the math shows that adding the OMS-410 increased the 
functional density only a tad from 2.5 to 2.66.  But I like getting 
those extra three parameters to control.  Notice that this analysis 
does not quantify the aspect of having the LFO outputs available 
externally.  Making the LFOs available for input to other processing 
does not add any new sources to the system.  

MY WISH LIST (Hey Paul!)

Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module.  
Now, if Paul would make a very minor modification to the 820 Lag 
Processor we would have this.  Put a comparator with big hysteresis 
on the output, so that when the output level reaches maximum (+5v) 
the comparator puts out a -6v.  Now the comparator will stay at -6v 
until the output goes all the way down to -5v, at which point it 
snaps back to +6v again.  So what, you say?  Well, now you now have a 
pulse output.  Patch that output into the lag input and now you have 
an LFO with a voltage-controllable waveshape.  Functional density 
goes up to 1.5.  But even better, I would like to see a micro Lag 
Processor/LFO, fitting into a 1U panel with six jacks and three 
pots.  

Jacks:  Input, Pulse Out, Lag Out, VC Up, VC Down, VC Up-Down
Pots:   Initial Up, Initial Down, +/- Inverting attenuator VC Up-Down 
input

Sources 1, Parameters 2, Width 1, Functional density 3.

I had about eight or so modules of different variants on this theme 
in my original synthesizer (which is now probably gathering dust in 
somebody's attic).  

-Richard Brewster

Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-18 by jhaible

> Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module.
> Now, if Paul would make a very minor modification to the 820 Lag
> Processor we would have this.  Put a comparator with big hysteresis
> on the output, so that when the output level reaches maximum (+5v)
> the comparator puts out a -6v.  Now the comparator will stay at -6v
> until the output goes all the way down to -5v, at which point it
> snaps back to +6v again.  So what, you say?  Well, now you now have a
> pulse output.  Patch that output into the lag input and now you have
> an LFO with a voltage-controllable waveshape.  Functional density
> goes up to 1.5.  But even better, I would like to see a micro Lag
> Processor/LFO, fitting into a 1U panel with six jacks and three
> pots.

This is a good idea, but what about this: A sparate module with all kind
of auxiliary modules, comparators, inverters, logic functions. Then you
can route the VCLAG to a comparator, but you can also connect the ADSR
this way (only guessing here). And you could use the comparator for
other functions, like keyboard split, for triggering a ADSR from an
amplified audio signal, and so on.

I would provide multiple jacks on the auxiliary module then (like, the
comparator having two input jacks in parallel), because you will
most likely use it together with another module.

JH.

Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-18 by Richard Brewster

You are talking about micro modules.  The problem with them is they usually
have zero functional density.  Comparators, inverters, attenuators, mixers,
and so forth do not originate any signals, nor do they ordinarily have
voltage-controllable parameters.  So unless you have a large studio with a
lot of panel space to spare, it's better to integrate these processors into
other modules, just like you see in most MOTM modules.

Here is an example of extremely high functional density.  I once built an
Electronotes "multiphase waveform animator."  This module had only two panel
jacks, in and out.  The input was a sawtooth wave.  Nine internal mutually
detuned fixed-frequency VCOs drove nine parallel phase shifters, and all the
outputs were mixed.  This produced an incredibly rich and active timbre that
perfectly tracked the input frequency.  The functional density was 9.  For
two jacks of panel space there were 9 independent signal sources.  The
animator offered no voltage-controlled parameters at all.  Hmm...
Actually, there were the nine phase shifters, too.  So maybe this could be
considered 18 density!  That really was an amazing module.

I may need to rethink the quantification of a controllable parameter to
include internally controlled ones, such as the 410 VCF.  It has three
filters, each having VC frequency controlled by internal VCOs.  This is
similar to what I just described.  By this criterion, I'd have to increase
the number of controllable parameters for the 410 from 3 to 5.  Coming full
circle, here is an argument for just the opposite of micro modules.  What if
more modules contained internal LFOs?

Whatever direction these design considerations go would skew the resulting
music in certain directions.  It would be a different sort of sound that
contained, say dozens of LFOs whirring, as opposed, say to dozens of
sequencers.  What it comes down to is that we as musicians will tend to
select the kinds of modules that get us closer to the sounds we like.  And
the less we know in advance what we will like, the more and varied modules
we will want!

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: "jhaible" <jhaible@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>; "pugix" <pugix@...>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for
your MOTM modules
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module.
> > Now, if Paul would make a very minor modification to the 820 Lag
> > Processor we would have this.  Put a comparator with big hysteresis
> > on the output, so that when the output level reaches maximum (+5v)
> > the comparator puts out a -6v.  Now the comparator will stay at -6v
> > until the output goes all the way down to -5v, at which point it
> > snaps back to +6v again.  So what, you say?  Well, now you now have a
> > pulse output.  Patch that output into the lag input and now you have
> > an LFO with a voltage-controllable waveshape.  Functional density
> > goes up to 1.5.  But even better, I would like to see a micro Lag
> > Processor/LFO, fitting into a 1U panel with six jacks and three
> > pots.
>
> This is a good idea, but what about this: A sparate module with all kind
> of auxiliary modules, comparators, inverters, logic functions. Then you
> can route the VCLAG to a comparator, but you can also connect the ADSR
> this way (only guessing here). And you could use the comparator for
> other functions, like keyboard split, for triggering a ADSR from an
> amplified audio signal, and so on.
>
> I would provide multiple jacks on the auxiliary module then (like, the
> comparator having two input jacks in parallel), because you will
> most likely use it together with another module.
>
> JH.
>
>
>

Re: Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-18 by mmarsh100

I wonder if this is a West Coast vs East Coast thing?  Moog vs 
Buchla (or Serge for that matter).  MOTM is East coast with each 
module dedicated (more or less) to a single function.  So if I 
understand correctly, each MOTM module would have low desity.  I 
like it that way, but that's just me.

Jurgen's idea for a utility module is very welcome.  I have long 
wanted something like this for my MOTM.

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Richard Brewster" <pugix@n...> wrote:
> You are talking about micro modules.  The problem with them is 
they usually
> have zero functional density.  Comparators, inverters, 
attenuators, mixers,
> and so forth do not originate any signals, nor do they ordinarily 
have
> voltage-controllable parameters.  So unless you have a large 
studio with a
> lot of panel space to spare, it's better to integrate these 
processors into
> other modules, just like you see in most MOTM modules.
> 
> Here is an example of extremely high functional density.  I once 
built an
> Electronotes "multiphase waveform animator."  This module had only 
two panel
> jacks, in and out.  The input was a sawtooth wave.  Nine internal 
mutually
> detuned fixed-frequency VCOs drove nine parallel phase shifters, 
and all the
> outputs were mixed.  This produced an incredibly rich and active 
timbre that
> perfectly tracked the input frequency.  The functional density was 
9.  For
> two jacks of panel space there were 9 independent signal sources.  
The
> animator offered no voltage-controlled parameters at all.  Hmm...
> Actually, there were the nine phase shifters, too.  So maybe this 
could be
> considered 18 density!  That really was an amazing module.
> 
> I may need to rethink the quantification of a controllable 
parameter to
> include internally controlled ones, such as the 410 VCF.  It has 
three
> filters, each having VC frequency controlled by internal VCOs.  
This is
> similar to what I just described.  By this criterion, I'd have to 
increase
> the number of controllable parameters for the 410 from 3 to 5.  
Coming full
> circle, here is an argument for just the opposite of micro 
modules.  What if
> more modules contained internal LFOs?
> 
> Whatever direction these design considerations go would skew the 
resulting
> music in certain directions.  It would be a different sort of 
sound that
> contained, say dozens of LFOs whirring, as opposed, say to dozens 
of
> sequencers.  What it comes down to is that we as musicians will 
tend to
> select the kinds of modules that get us closer to the sounds we 
like.  And
> the less we know in advance what we will like, the more and varied 
modules
> we will want!
> 
> Richard
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jhaible" <jhaible@d...>
> To: <motm@y...>; "pugix" <pugix@n...>
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while 
waiting for
> your MOTM modules
> 
> 
> > > Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing 
module.
> > > Now, if Paul would make a very minor modification to the 820 
Lag
> > > Processor we would have this.  Put a comparator with big 
hysteresis
> > > on the output, so that when the output level reaches maximum 
(+5v)
> > > the comparator puts out a -6v.  Now the comparator will stay 
at -6v
> > > until the output goes all the way down to -5v, at which point 
it
> > > snaps back to +6v again.  So what, you say?  Well, now you now 
have a
> > > pulse output.  Patch that output into the lag input and now 
you have
> > > an LFO with a voltage-controllable waveshape.  Functional 
density
> > > goes up to 1.5.  But even better, I would like to see a micro 
Lag
> > > Processor/LFO, fitting into a 1U panel with six jacks and three
> > > pots.
> >
> > This is a good idea, but what about this: A sparate module with 
all kind
> > of auxiliary modules, comparators, inverters, logic functions. 
Then you
> > can route the VCLAG to a comparator, but you can also connect 
the ADSR
> > this way (only guessing here). And you could use the comparator 
for
> > other functions, like keyboard split, for triggering a ADSR from 
an
> > amplified audio signal, and so on.
> >
> > I would provide multiple jacks on the auxiliary module then 
(like, the
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > comparator having two input jacks in parallel), because you will
> > most likely use it together with another module.
> >
> > JH.
> >
> >
> >

Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-18 by Paul Schreiber

[[taking a quick break]]

a) I'm considering doing the Electronotes MPWA design (MOTM-ized) for next year. I want to hear
audio examples first if possible. Anyone? I built one in like 1980 but I can't recall it's "cool"
factor.

b) Welcome to the gut-knotting world of system archetecture :) It's a problem I struggle with all
the time.

Is it "better" to crank out 4 or 5 1U wide, easy-to-build (therefore, easy for me to KIT) modules
or have a SuperWoggleGonkulator?

There is no easy answer. But it doesn't mean we can't debate it. That is what this forum is for.
We leave the immature sniping to other groups and discuss reality here.

OK, back to a 64oz Dr. Pepper, Pat Methney on the CD and lots of little plastic bags.....

<Paul S>

Re: Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-18 by mmarsh100

b) Well, one does not preclude the other!

I would not mind having the 500 series available :) East Coast or 
West Coast or in between, it's all musical!

Mike


--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> [[taking a quick break]]
> 
> a) I'm considering doing the Electronotes MPWA design (MOTM-ized) 
for next year. I want to hear
> audio examples first if possible. Anyone? I built one in like 1980 
but I can't recall it's "cool"
> factor.
> 
> b) Welcome to the gut-knotting world of system archetecture :) 
It's a problem I struggle with all
> the time.
> 
> Is it "better" to crank out 4 or 5 1U wide, easy-to-build 
(therefore, easy for me to KIT) modules
> or have a SuperWoggleGonkulator?
> 
> There is no easy answer. But it doesn't mean we can't debate it. 
That is what this forum is for.
> We leave the immature sniping to other groups and discuss reality 
here.
> 
> OK, back to a 64oz Dr. Pepper, Pat Methney on the CD and lots of 
little plastic bags.....
> 
> <Paul S>

Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-19 by Richard Brewster

Paul wrote:

> a) I'm considering doing the Electronotes MPWA design (MOTM-ized) for next
year. I want to hear
> audio examples first if possible. Anyone? I built one in like 1980 but I
can't recall it's "cool"
> factor.
>

As part of my getting back into synthesizers after a 20-year hiatus, I will
be putting all of my tape recordings onto CD.  I have *lots* of examples of
the MPWA!  Combined with a wonderful Electronotes 4-pole LPF it produced
what I called "the voice of God".  I will be glad to provide samples when I
get there.  It may be a few weeks.  I am rebuilding an older Windows 98 PC
to set it up just for this task.

Richard

Re: Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-19 by mmarsh100

I am but an ignorant laborer.  Please indulge my lack of education: 
what is MPWA?

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Richard Brewster" <pugix@n...> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> 
> > a) I'm considering doing the Electronotes MPWA design (MOTM-
ized) for next
> year. I want to hear
> > audio examples first if possible. Anyone? I built one in like 
1980 but I
> can't recall it's "cool"
> > factor.
> >
> 
> As part of my getting back into synthesizers after a 20-year 
hiatus, I will
> be putting all of my tape recordings onto CD.  I have *lots* of 
examples of
> the MPWA!  Combined with a wonderful Electronotes 4-pole LPF it 
produced
> what I called "the voice of God".  I will be glad to provide 
samples when I
> get there.  It may be a few weeks.  I am rebuilding an older 
Windows 98 PC
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> to set it up just for this task.
> 
> Richard

Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-19 by Tony Allgood

This is an interesting idea, but I think the list would need another
column if I were looking at the whole aspect of module usage. Perhaps
'functional outputs' or something. Rating the Sub-oct-mux as zero
appears to be missing the whole point of the module.

> Doing the math shows that adding the OMS-410 increased the functional
density only a tad from 2.5 to 2.66.

Yes, but the 'density' list allows internal modulators to be counted as
sources. The MOTM-410s LFOs are not accesible as separate entities. One
of the requests that people made on the Oakley group was to make these
available to the front panel. Hence the use of the OMS-410. I actually
end up using the 410's LFOs for all sorts of other things too.

> Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module.

Advert time: You may want to take a look at the OMS-820 with MOTM-820
combination. And it has four pretty LEDs that flash very nicely.

Tony

Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-19 by Richard Brewster

> This is an interesting idea, but I think the list would need another
> column if I were looking at the whole aspect of module usage. Perhaps
> 'functional outputs' or something. Rating the Sub-oct-mux as zero
> appears to be missing the whole point of the module.
>

I totally agree.  My quantifications of functionality are too simplistic.
There should be a third factor that quantifies functionality other than by
the number of independent signals and the number of independent controllable
parameters.  Please don't take my simple idea too seriously.

> > Doing the math shows that adding the OMS-410 increased the functional
> density only a tad from 2.5 to 2.66.
>
> Yes, but the 'density' list allows internal modulators to be counted as
> sources. The MOTM-410s LFOs are not accesible as separate entities. One
> of the requests that people made on the Oakley group was to make these
> available to the front panel. Hence the use of the OMS-410. I actually
> end up using the 410's LFOs for all sorts of other things too.
>
> > Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module.
>
> Advert time: You may want to take a look at the OMS-820 with MOTM-820
> combination. And it has four pretty LEDs that flash very nicely.

I looked at the OMS-820, and it did remind me of the Serge slewing module.
Great idea, Tony!

-Richard

Re: [motm] Re: Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules

2002-08-20 by nathan durham

>> Is it "better" to crank out 4 or 5 1U wide, easy-to-build 
(therefore, easy for me to KIT) modules or have a SuperWoggleGonkulator?

>b) Well, one does not preclude the other!

Actually, given Paul's hectic schedule, one probably does preclude the 
other. In this case, I'd rather have more modules with individual 
functions than one with everything.

nathan

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.