MOTM

http://www.discretesynthesizers.com/dsc/pricing.htm

Was in Chicago last 3 days, just catching up. 

Paul S.

On Saturday 07 February 2004 04:30, Paul Schreiber wrote:
> http://www.discretesynthesizers.com/dsc/pricing.htm

Jeez! These must be gold plated or something.
What's the deal? Do you hear the price of a $1145 VCA?

- Robert

First time I've seen this CMS stuff.   It's fun to look at the panel 
designs, which are clearly well thought out.  Interesting how the mixers 
are integrated.  Yes, with those prices all that marketing blather about 
the sound quality is to be expected.  It's just like the "high end" 
audio spiel.  Somebody will always pay 10 times as much to get the 
supposed top end.  I hope they spend equivalently on their monitor 
speakers, because, after all, the sound of an electronic instrument is 
*produced* by a speaker, not reproduced.  The sound quality can be no 
better than the speakers or headphones can deliver.

I wonder what sort of business model CMS has.  They couldn't have much 
stock sitting on the shelves and have any money left in the bank unless 
they were independently wealthy to begin with.  Imagine going to the 
banker with this business plan!  "To build the most expensive modular 
synthesizer in the world and market it to wealthy people who need 
synthesizers."  Please lend us $1,000,000.

-Richard Brewster

Paul Schreiber wrote:

>http://www.discretesynthesizers.com/dsc/pricing.htm
>
>Was in Chicago last 3 days, just catching up. 
>
>Paul S.
>
>
>
>  
>

>http://www.discretesynthesizers.com/dsc/pricing.htm

And then they blow it by using 1/8" minijacks.

But I've always liked the graphics on those CMS modules.

You get to pay more money AND get 1/8" jacks.  No thanks, I'll pass!

Looks a lot like an Aries (just at first glance).

Ivan

Yep, if CMS was that concerned about longevity they would have used 1/4"
jacks.  You'd think a guy who did so much service on Arp 2600s would know
better.  Maybe it is part of a built in semi-retirement plan (snicker).

Nice panel designs, though if you pay attention the normalling (pulse or
sawtooth to PWM on the dual VCO, for instance) is limited and most of the
knobs are small, about the size of the UEG knobs.  I wouldn't mind seeing a
little more graphics variety in future MOTM panels, but not at the expense
of panel user interface. 

Right now I am really happy that I made the decision to go MOTM.  Paul and
Jurgen design the highest quality analog circuits in the business, and
provide those modules at a reasonable, non-boutique cost with exceptional
quality components.  I have no doubt that my MOTM will survive long past any
other modulars, including CMS.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ivancu@... [mailto:ivancu@...]
> 
> You get to pay more money AND get 1/8" jacks.  No thanks, I'll pass!
> 
> Looks a lot like an Aries (just at first glance).
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>

This is great news. So CMS is back in the saddle? I was this close to tearing 
into my 2600 myself. That runty anachronism has been seriously pissing me 
off lately. MOTM makes it sound like a broken toy. Like a rubber ducky 
squeaking through a transistor radio.

I have seen a CMS modular and they are really quite beautiful to behold. But 
I would still rather have MOTM!

Max

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:

> http://www.discretesynthesizers.com/dsc/pricing.htm
> 
> Was in Chicago last 3 days, just catching up. 
> 
> Paul S.

On Sunday 08 February 2004 03:23, ivancu@... wrote:
> You get to pay more money AND get 1/8" jacks.  No thanks,
> I'll pass!

Jeez, I thought the first mention of the 1/8" jacks here was 
a joke! Weird choice...

- Robert

> Right now I am really happy that I made the decision to go MOTM.  Paul 
> and
> Jurgen design the highest quality analog circuits in the business, and
> provide those modules at a reasonable, non-boutique cost with 
> exceptional
> quality components.  I have no doubt that my MOTM will survive long 
> past any
> other modulars, including CMS.

Hear, hear. I've seen nothing that's made me question my decision to go 
with MOTM.

nathan durham

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, nathan durham <nate@w...> wrote:
> 
> Hear, hear. I've seen nothing that's made me question my decision 
to go 
> with MOTM.
> 
> nathan durham

Or *heard* anything that made me change my mind for that matter :) !

Regarding recording MOTM onto disc: the less between the MOTM and 
the bits on the disc the better.  Once the signal is converted to 
bits, you can tweak if you want, but the keep original bits around.  
Also, go with 24 bits, then dither to 16 AS THE LAST STEP before 
burning the CD.  A 24 bit recording (properly) dithered to 16 sounds 
MUCH better than a straight up 16 bit reording.  I use Ozone to 
dither and it does a spectacular job.  

About 48 vs 44.1, I record at 48 and convert to 44 for CD.  I think 
we will eventually get a format that will play back 48/24 and to my 
ears 48 has more air.  The converters on my Tascam FW-1884 sound 
good to me, but obviously a high end converter would be good, too.  
My problem is that I often have as many as eight outputs from a 
single patch that I have to record simultaneously.  In Apogee land, 
that means mor bucks than my MOTM costs!

Mike

On Sunday 08 February 2004 19:14, Mike Marsh wrote:

> Regarding recording MOTM onto disc: the less between the
> MOTM and the bits on the disc the better.  Once the
> signal is converted to bits, you can tweak if you want,
> but the keep original bits around. Also, go with 24 bits,
> then dither to 16 AS THE LAST STEP before burning the CD.
>  A 24 bit recording (properly) dithered to 16 sounds MUCH
> better than a straight up 16 bit reording.  I use Ozone
> to dither and it does a spectacular job.

I'm aware of the 24 bit technique, and the dithering. But 
I'm surprised that no one suggests the need for high sample 
rates. Afaik, sampling at 44.1 or 48k is asking for 
aliasing caused by signals living around the 20k range (I'm 
told they 'wrap' around the freq roof of an AD. Afaik, if 
I'd use a '300 saw waveform, I get lots of partials in that 
frequency range, and maybe even higher.

Mind you I've never tried it (no 96k option here). But I got 
this knowlegde from web articles written by a mastering 
engineer (can't remember the source right now). What I 
concluded from those articles is that you have to use the 
highest possible sample rate to approach that analog audio 
feel (apart from a jittter-free clock, etc, etc.). 

- Robert

If I read this correctly, your concern about aliasing in a digital 
recording is theoretically possible.  But in practice, the 
converters will filter any frequencies above the sampling rate.  
I've *never* heard any aliasing artifacts in my recordings of the 
MOTM (or acoustic guitar, etc.). 

Some argue that because these frquencies are filtered, you don't get 
quite the right sound (the interaction of these too-high-to-hear 
frequencies and the ones we can hear is missing).  This may be why I 
prefer higher sample rates, even if I have to convert back down.  
It's that 'air' thing again.

The 510 user manual will be on CD and will include sound examples in 
three formats: MP3 (128K), 44-16 wav, and 48-24 wav.  If your system 
can play all of these back it's worth comparing them.  It's also 
worth noting that a crappy playback system may obviate any of these 
differences...

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Robert van der Kamp <robnet@w...> wrote:

> On Sunday 08 February 2004 19:14, Mike Marsh wrote:
> 
> > Regarding recording MOTM onto disc: the less between the
> > MOTM and the bits on the disc the better.  Once the
> > signal is converted to bits, you can tweak if you want,
> > but the keep original bits around. Also, go with 24 bits,
> > then dither to 16 AS THE LAST STEP before burning the CD.
> >  A 24 bit recording (properly) dithered to 16 sounds MUCH
> > better than a straight up 16 bit reording.  I use Ozone
> > to dither and it does a spectacular job.
> 
> I'm aware of the 24 bit technique, and the dithering. But 
> I'm surprised that no one suggests the need for high sample 
> rates. Afaik, sampling at 44.1 or 48k is asking for 
> aliasing caused by signals living around the 20k range (I'm 
> told they 'wrap' around the freq roof of an AD. Afaik, if 
> I'd use a '300 saw waveform, I get lots of partials in that 
> frequency range, and maybe even higher.
> 
> Mind you I've never tried it (no 96k option here). But I got 
> this knowlegde from web articles written by a mastering 
> engineer (can't remember the source right now). What I 
> concluded from those articles is that you have to use the 
> highest possible sample rate to approach that analog audio 
> feel (apart from a jittter-free clock, etc, etc.). 
> 
> - Robert

The wrap-around you are referring to does not happen because the lowpass
filter in the converter prevents any frequencies above 22.05 khz from making
it to the converter.  The lowpass filter is a "brick wall filter."  It
typically starts to rolloff at around 20khz and by the time it gets to 22kHz
should be at -96 db or lower.  The steep slope of the filter means phase
shifts happen along with the rolloff.  In cheap filters these phase
artifacts often happen in the audible range.  This is what causes the loss
of "air."  In fact some cheap filters start to rolloff before they get to
20khz.  The higher quality filters are designed to minimize the phase shift
and to preserve the sound quality.  It's also possible to oversample.  You
can for instance sample at 88.2 khz set the filter to rolloff at 20kHz but
only store every other sample.  This could sound better because the filter
has more room to roll off and therefore does not need to be so drastic.
There are even 1-bit converters that sample in the Mhz range.  These would
take a little more time to explain, but the bottom line is that any
artifacts or loss of sound quality you notice in a recording sampled at
44.1kHz is due to the filter preceeding the A to D converter and possibly
the lowpass filter following the D to A converter to a lessser extent.

My studio uses an Apogee AD8000 SE converter and yes these are very
expensive.  But I cannot hear the difference between using this converter at
44.1 kHz and a ProTools HD converter running at 192kHz.  I also use Apogee's
dither which is very good and does add apparent resolution when converting a
24 bit recording to 16 bits.  I record from the MOTM straight into the
converter, after passing the signal through a very good transformer to make
it Lo-Z.

> I'm aware of the 24 bit technique, and the dithering. But
> I'm surprised that no one suggests the need for high sample
> rates. Afaik, sampling at 44.1 or 48k is asking for
> aliasing caused by signals living around the 20k range (I'm
> told they 'wrap' around the freq roof of an AD. Afaik, if
> I'd use a '300 saw waveform, I get lots of partials in that
> frequency range, and maybe even higher.
>
> Mind you I've never tried it (no 96k option here). But I got
> this knowlegde from web articles written by a mastering
> engineer (can't remember the source right now). What I
> concluded from those articles is that you have to use the
> highest possible sample rate to approach that analog audio
> feel (apart from a jittter-free clock, etc, etc.).

>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

On Monday 09 February 2004 00:44, Paul Haneberg wrote:

> but the bottom line is that any artifacts or
> loss of sound quality you notice in a recording sampled
> at 44.1kHz is due to the filter preceeding the A to D
> converter and possibly the lowpass filter following the D
> to A converter to a lessser extent.

I see! Good explanation.

> My studio uses an Apogee AD8000 SE converter and yes
> these are very expensive.  But I cannot hear the
> difference between using this converter at 44.1 kHz and a
> ProTools HD converter running at 192kHz.  

That's quite a claim! I'm impressed.

> I record from the MOTM straight into the converter,
> after passing the signal through a very good transformer
> to make it Lo-Z.

Maybe this is getting a little too off-topic, but good you 
(or someone else) explain me this Hi-Z/Lo-Z thing? 

- Robert

Rober VdK wrote:

>Jeez! These must be gold plated or something.<

Nope, that's MOTM.  :-)

>What's the deal? Do you hear the price of a $1145 VCA?<

Do you hear the price of one inch of shielded wire vs. one inch of 
not shielded?  It's all about marketing...

Given the choice between the two, however, I'd say MOTM delivers more 
bang for the buck. But neither give you delineated edges...

johnm

On Feb 6, 2004, at 7:30 PM, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> http://www.discretesynthesizers.com/dsc/pricing.htm
>
> Was in Chicago last 3 days, just catching up.

I like the overall aesthetic of the DSC, but good heavens, I can think 
of much better things to do with a thousand bucks than buy a single 
VCO. Like make my own. These aren't in some random foreign currency are 
they?

He implies he uses mil-spec parts, maybe these are destined for the 
military? What unspeakable horrors will they unleash?

--mikes

On Feb 6, 2004, at 11:23 PM, Robert van der Kamp wrote:

> On Saturday 07 February 2004 04:30, Paul Schreiber wrote:
>> http://www.discretesynthesizers.com/dsc/pricing.htm
>
> Jeez! These must be gold plated or something.
> What's the deal? Do you hear the price of a $1145 VCA?

Yeah, it makes a huge sucking sound when you get near the cash register.

--mikes

I am a strong advocate of using synthesizers for peaceful purposes.  I
suggest a boycott of CMS, or better yet, a sit-in.  (tongue in cheek)

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Estee [mailto:mikest@...]
> He implies he uses mil-spec parts, maybe these are destined for the
> military? What unspeakable horrors will they unleash?
> 
> --mikes
>

> Given the choice between the two, however, I'd say MOTM delivers more
> bang for the buck. But neither give you delineated edges...

If this bothers you a light to the side of the MOTM works wonders.  This
highlights the edges of the modules more effectively than frontal lighting.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> Do you hear the price of one inch of shielded wire vs. one inch of
> not shielded?  It's all about marketing...

My MOTM has better S/N ratio than my 24 bit audio card or any other modular
I've tested, so it may be more than just marketing.  It is hard to tell how
much of that is attributed to the shielded wire compared to the low noise
Schreiber and Haible designs.  Maybe we should just compare the noise level
to your dotcom? :-)

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com