Synth-DIY Yahoo! Groups Archives

Thread

Re: [motm] [ot] -- Re: MOTM Addiction - patch notation

2003-07-03 by jwbarlow@aol.com

With this "flow chart" style of patch diagramming in my head, I looked over at my ARP and thought, "what if they had adopted those symbols and used them on the panel instead of merely using rectangles for all modules?" So while I think about making some graphics for diy modules which might incorporate this notation, I wanted to ask specific questions about the system since I don't remember it that well:

1) Oscillators (and other signal sources) are round -- I can see this is a great indicator since the sources are cyclical, and the radians, and the thing.

2) VCFs, VCAs and mixers are right pointing triangles -- I can see this is a good indicator since these look kinda like an op amp figure pointing in the direction of signal flow.

3) CV sources (ADSRs, keyboards, sequencers, S/H) are rectangles -- I can see this because they wouldn't be round or triangular.

Now I believe that ring modulators, timbre modulators, reverbs, FFBs, the Wave Warper, the Time Machine, the Mini Wave, Wave Multipliers would all be modifiers/processors and hence be written as a triangle. Is that true?

I believe that S/H are documented as rectangles, but aren't they really modifiers too? And how are lag processors documented? Aren't they just filters and shouldn't they be documented the same way with triangles?

What about pulse and frequency dividers? What about VC switches (like the great MOTM 700)?

Just wondering if these have been worked out,
John Barlow

In a message dated 7/2/2003 5:04:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pacificamsx@earthlink.net writes:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Tkacs, Ken" wrote:
>Way back in the Dark Ages (the 70's) there WAS a standard for
>this. In a
>flowchart-like format...
>You can see it in a lot of old
>issues of Keyboard and Polyphony (later Electronic Musician)
>magazines.

That was always my favorite method of documenting patches.

And I got about four of my patches published in Polyphony way back
then! I think I made $5.00 per accepted patch, which may very well
be the first professional music gig I ever had! :)

-Russell

RE: [motm] [ot] -- Re: MOTM Addiction - patch notation

2003-07-04 by Tkacs, Ken

Ring modulators were actually notated as squares with an "X" touching the
corners. I don't know that there were ever specific shapes for all the
subtle kinds of modules, especially the ones we now have (what would be the
symbol for a "Dark Start Chaos" module? Sheesh! I think you would just use a
circle and some footnotes!).

In fact, I believe the system was loose enough that a particlar module
function might be notated differently depending on its use in the patch. For
instance, if a LPF was set to self-oscillate, it would be notated as a
circle to denote its function in the patch as a source, not the type of
module it was "sold as." It's misleading to use the triangle in this case.

I'm not sure that everyone would agree with that, but that's how we used it.
If you want to notate exactly what YOUR module is in the patch, then the
photoraphic method of notation is probably better. The "modular schematic"
notation, I believe, was more to indicate a function within a patch.

Because, if you think about it, if you notate an oscillating filter as if it
were an oscillator, because you're using it simply to show a sine source,
then someone else using the patch sheet with a different module content
could reproduce it using a VCO. You know? It's less system specific.

Because no matter HOW detailed you write down your patches, you're never
going to exactly dial them back up from a drawing or list of knob settings;
you will always need to tweak. The patch notation just gets you close. So
it's more important to illustrate function, rather than what the module was
named.

Just my 2-cents.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: jwbarlow@...
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/3/2003 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] [ot] -- Re: MOTM Addiction - patch notation

With this "flow chart" style of patch diagramming in my head, I looked
over at my ARP and thought, "what if they had adopted those symbols and
used them on the panel instead of merely using rectangles for all
modules?" So while I think about making some graphics for diy modules
which might incorporate this notation, I wanted to ask specific
questions about the system since I don't remember it that well:

1) Oscillators (and other signal sources) are round -- I can see this is
a great indicator since the sources are cyclical, and the radians, and
the thing.

2) VCFs, VCAs and mixers are right pointing triangles -- I can see this
is a good indicator since these look kinda like an op amp figure
pointing in the direction of signal flow.

3) CV sources (ADSRs, keyboards, sequencers, S/H) are rectangles -- I
can see this because they wouldn't be round or triangular<g>.

Now I believe that ring modulators, timbre modulators, reverbs, FFBs,
the Wave Warper, the Time Machine, the Mini Wave, Wave Multipliers would
all be modifiers/processors and hence be written as a triangle. Is that
true?

I believe that S/H are documented as rectangles, but aren't they really
modifiers too? And how are lag processors documented? Aren't they just
filters and shouldn't they be documented the same way with triangles?

What about pulse and frequency dividers? What about VC switches (like
the great MOTM 700)?

Just wondering if these have been worked out,
John Barlow

In a message dated 7/2/2003 5:04:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pacificamsx@... writes:

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
>Way back in the Dark Ages (the 70's) there WAS a standard for
>this. In a
>flowchart-like format...
>You can see it in a lot of old
>issues of Keyboard and Polyphony (later Electronic Musician)
>magazines.

That was always my favorite method of documenting patches.

And I got about four of my patches published in Polyphony way back 
then! I think I made $5.00 per accepted patch, which may very well 
be the first professional music gig I ever had!  :)

-Russell

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	 

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
032277:HM/A=1595056/R=0/SIG=124bf4lrb/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitak
enattogyo?YH=3512152&yhad=1595056> Click Here!	

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3512152.4794593.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1595056/rand=543775649> 	

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Re: [motm] [ot] -- Re: MOTM Addiction - patch notation

2003-07-04 by jwbarlow@aol.com

Happy fourth everyone (or at least us US residents)!

In a message dated 7/3/2003 6:34:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ken.tkacs@... writes:

Ring modulators were actually notated as squares with an "X" touching the
corners. I don't know that there were ever specific shapes for all the
subtle kinds of modules, especially the ones we now have (what would be the
symbol for a "Dark Start Chaos" module? Sheesh! I think you would just use a
circle and some footnotes!).

Your right about the RM. Thanks for reminding me about that. In fact that reminded me that the old PAiA RM I built (I think it was a 4700 series) had that marking of the front panel IIRC. Maybe that whole PAiA series had there modules labeled with those markers.

In fact, I believe the system was loose enough that a particlar module
function might be notated differently depending on its use in the patch. For
instance, if a LPF was set to self-oscillate, it would be notated as a
circle to denote its function in the patch as a source, not the type of
module it was "sold as." It's misleading to use the triangle in this case.

Exactly!

Of course if I was going to use these notations as graphics for a front panel, I might want to make the right pointing triangle with a circle inside for a VCF -- then again, not all VCFs can oscillate.

Come to think about it, weren't HPFs denoted as triangles with upward sweeping curves inside, while LPFs had a downward sweeping curve (each indicating the pass function)?

I'm not sure that everyone would agree with that, but that's how we used it.
If you want to notate exactly what YOUR module is in the patch, then the
photoraphic method of notation is probably better. The "modular schematic"
notation, I believe, was more to indicate a function within a patch.

Because, if you think about it, if you notate an oscillating filter as if it
were an oscillator, because you're using it simply to show a sine source,
then someone else using the patch sheet with a different module content
could reproduce it using a VCO. You know? It's less system specific.

Precisely!

I also seem to recall drawing the waveshape being used in the circle.

Because no matter HOW detailed you write down your patches, you're never
going to exactly dial them back up from a drawing or list of knob settings;
you will always need to tweak. The patch notation just gets you close. So
it's more important to illustrate function, rather than what the module was
named.

Which is why I gave up documenting patches anyway. I'm starting to think that I might find (photographic) patch notation useful if I could link it to a sound file. Then I would be able to hear why I liked it without having to repatch it -- and without having to rely on some unconvincing mnemonic like, "good overblown flute sound".

Have a perfect fourth!
JB