MOTM

Added many MARF photos (it's a mind-bogglin' thing) and some good 258 VCO shots for Herr Peake
to:

www.synthtech.com/pix/buchla

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.

I spotted 2 VERY NASTY ICs form this era: SSS was the worse CMOS vendor in history. In order to
take market share from National, RCA and Motorola they took shortcuts in the wafer fabrication.
Too bad it resulted in 30% (yes, 30%) field failure rates. At Data General I recall 10 techs or
so having a "purge SSS off the planet" day, pulling 100s of SSS chips out of parts drawers,
prototypes, you name it and tossing into the crusher.

Also, you young wipper-snappers are blessed with not only IC advances, but *capacitors* in the
1970s sucked pond water.  Ceramic disc caps were like +-80% tolerance and had ESR (effective
series resistance) 20X what a monolithic axial ceramic cap has today. But the largest advancement
has been in 'film' caps, what you make VCOs and VCFs/fixed filters with. In the 1970s, only a few
US companies made them, and they were $$$. They were rolled up like toilet paper, and had this
NASTY habit of de-laminating. One of the MARFs has 2 of these 0.015uf caps unrolled. Time to call
Digikey :)

These 2 modules are the dirtiest and all the slide pots are virtually frozen. Gack.

Paul S.

HI 

> A very reliable source told me there are about 30 MARFs in 
existence, but only 2 are known 100%
> functional.

 I know of about a dozen complete MARFS... and then there are 
another 4 or 5 around that are missing boards.... only a few of 
these are functional .... Don quickly scrapped the 248 MARF and 
replaced with the software MARF in the 300 series called the 364 
as the hardware version was buggy and pretty much everyone 
has had or needs service.. VERY cool module but not the most 
reliable controller.

> 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.

chances are you'd get the "funky Xmas light effect" :)
might not work but looks nice.
 
> These 2 modules are the dirtiest and all the slide pots are > 
virtually frozen. Gack.

that sucks as those Sliders are not easy to locate these days 
although some retailers will sell them  ($25+ each!!!!!)

I have taken them apart and cleaned them for Arps in the past as 
well as a couple of Buchla projects... this takes time and you 
have to be careful not to crack the plastic but it is worth an 
afternoon I think. 

 getting the front panel back on the 248, lining up all the LEDs 
and switches could  take another afternoon.. thats one of the 
most frustrating things I have ever done!

sweet system!!  I am sure it will clean up good!

have fun
-rick

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??"

a) Except for "rarity", I don't "see" the $$$ placed on the Buchla. As with any good modular, you
see little "flashes of greatness" here and there, scattered about. However, the slide pots are
useless, I counted 23 bad toggle switches and every jack needs replacing. I can't hear it in
action, as all 7 (!) Power One supplies need replacing. Yep, it has *7* power supplies!

Let's wait 30 years and see if I did my homework :)

b) Some folks will be pleased to hear that after tomorrow, Buchla is put away. It's not even mine
:) I just "borrowed" it for a week. It's going off for a $5000+ refurbish job (4 months at
20hr/week).

So, back to the 'real world' of MOTM. The kitting rate continues to be strong, still on track for
100% shipments in June. Bad part: I have to pay bills tomorrow :(  But after that, I'm making a
batch of '940s and the rough draft of the '890 manual.

Paul S.

HI 

> a) Except for "rarity", I don't "see" the $$$ placed on the Buchla. 

rarity is a big factor but also I notice that Pauls idea of what 
makes a modular great differs from what I think most buchlors 
look for in an instrument.. this is not a slam just a difference of 
opinion.

Buchlas instruments have always been pricey.. even when they 
were new they were among the most expensive modulars.

> However, the slide pots are
> useless, I counted 23 bad toggle switches and every jack 
needs replacing.

this has more to do with lack of servicing I am sure then actual 
poor build quality or design... most 200 series modulars were 
sold to schools and often didn't get the type of TLC any modular 
synthesizer needs... plus it is now 30 years old!

> I can't hear it in
> action, as all 7 (!) Power One supplies need replacing. Yep, it 
has *7* power supplies!

yup Dons supplies have to be the weak point.. I am sure he 
would be the first to admit this... he was into designing 
controllers and musical instruments not power supplies after all 
:)


> :) I just "borrowed" it for a week. It's going off for a $5000+ 
refurbish job (4 months at
> 20hr/week).

yikes.... I think that figure is err slighlty inflated.. I have been 
involved with number of Buchla system restorations over the last 
few years and have yet to see a bill that high... I guess if you were 
to change every jack, slider, pot, all the caps, and ICs it could get 
to cost that much.... or maybe we are charging too little! :)

just a note I read an earlier post from someone mentioning that 
he doesn't like all the colours that Don used.. the colour scheme 
and different knob sizes and module layouts were to help the 
user find the module they were looking for quikly as well as find 
the in/output jack with a glance rather then have to search 
around for it. 

 you have to remember that Don is an academic and his 
systems were designed for and marketed to Universities... the 
1/8th in jacks were there to make the understanding of signal 
flow easier for students to grasp... this may seem trival now but 
rememebr this was 40 years ago when there were few 
syntheszers on the planet and even few people who knew how to 
use them.

 I think MOTM stuff has wonderful build and sound quality but I 
personally think that all the modules are too similar looking and I 
think this can be a little confusing... I like the unique look of Dons 
Instruments.. sure the sound quality may not be up to some 
people standards but I think most people who use Buchlas are 
more interested in exploring Dons unique and interesting control 
modules which have not been available on any instrument until 
recently ( most of the new modular manufacturers seemed to 
have clued into the appeal of the Buchla modulars lately) 

take care
-r

I will say that even at 10 feet away, you can instantly glance at the Buchla and see what modules
are in there. However, this adds greatly to the cost and inventory headaches. I'll be the FIRST
to admit: MOTM went for a simple, easy to inventory, easy to maintain mechanical design. The
uniformity GREATLY helps keep the inventory and labor costs low. But Don really wasn't concerned
with such trival matters :)

If I had an inkling (cough cough) to come out with a smaller, compact design, the Buchla (minus
the *&#%*#! slide pots) is an interesting format. Loose the banana jacks, relocate the minis,
different color scheme, and you're on to something.

But, compactness, as I pointed out, drives the cost way UP. And you don't want to go overboard
like those Focusrite channel strips with 800 LEDs, switches, meters, etc.

Don's "problem" was he was way ahead of the available technology. By the time technology caught
up to him, the DX-7 blew the world up :(

Ask anyone in business: we NEVER 'charge enough'.

Paul S.