MOTM

I was digging through a pile of old IC's I've had stashed here since, 
oh, 1982 or so, and have come across a number of mainly obsolete IC's I 
don't have any use for. If there's anything on here of value to 
anybody, please email me and I'll be happy to send them to you. 
Dontations gleefully accepted, but aren't required.

Quantity 1 of each, except where noted.

Texas Instruments:
3x MP3259
SN74LS196N
SN74LS73AN
SN74S195N

Motorola:
7x SCM90861P
3x SC45615PK
3x MOC604A
MC1741CP

NEC/RCA/SSS(?):
3x 5101

National Semi:
DM7404N
DM74L04N
DM7447N
DM74LS157N

ITT:
7490N

e

I have an idea that's been kicking around in my head for the last 25 years:
what's the best way to
combine the strengths of both digital and analog electronics to make a
modular synthesizer.

Picture a modular analog synth. I believe the day is coming when I could
replace the analog
guts of any of the modules with one DSP-like device, programmed to provide
the function
of that module, be it filtering, envelope generation, VCO, etc. Powering up
the machine
would cause each DSP to be programmed for its function by some master CPU.
Want
another VCO? Just make one. Could also keep the programming in flash,
possibly
incorporated directly on the DSP chip. Silicon capable of doing this is
pretty much
available right now.

To capitalize on the strength of the digital part of this rig, I'm thinking
the interfaces between
modules should be digital, not analog. But I'm somewhat torn on this part --
there's something
satisfying, logical, and concrete about connecting a patch cord from the
output of one
module to the input of another. Even with digital protocols we could still
have patch
cords.

But the digital world doesn't really need 'em. You could have a very general
routing
interconnect network inside the box that allows anything to connect to
anything else.
The question is how to control that routability and how to make it readily
visible to
the machine's operator.

To really take advantage of the extreme programmability of the modules,
you'd
probably want each of them to have some kind of display that reflects the
current
function of that module. LCD displays are pretty expensive right now,
especially
the color ones that I think would be necessary to quickly distinguish the
various
modules.

Why would anyone want such a rig? Well, one major reason is that you could
get all of the "knobs" back to their exact settings later, something that I
never
could achieve with an analog synth. In fact, if the patching is done via a
routing
network, you could reconfigure the machine to precisely what it was at any
previous time. Maybe a combination of internal routing network plus patch
cords?

Anyone else ever thought about doing this?

-BobC

> Anyone else ever thought about doing this?


Clavia. It's called the "Nord Modular G2".


-- 
-----------
Les Mizzell

There are many all digital analog synths out there. Kyma, Nord, pluggins ect.
However being the audio files we are, weR17;re all recognizing how good analog sounds compared to digital simulation.

I constantly think of ways of combining best of both worlds.
There are a few personal musings in this matter.
My main setup consist of a MOTM system and a Synclavier both connected to a Kyma system acting as the main hub.
An analog audio path simply just sounds the best. If you compare an analog oscillator with a digital high quality oscillator, there is no comparison. Analog wins. However digital completely rules over analog because of superior control and complexity. So how do we combine the building blocks of analog with the complexity of digital. High speed computer controlled CV. The PISM-1 is a first step towards such a thing, but ultimately I would want to connect my computer (without having to resort to MIDI then CV). I can only dream of the possibilities that would bring. Additive synthesis, scanning synthesis, true formant synthesis etc etc.

Now let\u2019s flip the concept.
Most of the time digital synths all share a final converter as an output. That means that the sound never quite feels bigger when you\u2019re playing more notes. Witch is the case with ex Giga studio or ESX24. You play one note and it sounds convincing, but a chord it sonically starts to collapse. The secret with the Synclavier is that each note polyphony has it\u2019s own voice card. That\u2019s also why the Synclav tower is so big. Each voice runs on a separate sample rate set to the speed of what key you press (not like ESX24 where a poor sounding real time sample rate converter changes the sample in reference to a fixed clock). The analog output from each card gets mixed together in an analog bus. Thus even when you play a chord with simple sample, it sounds rich and full. It\u2019s like several mono synths added together.
What does this have to do with Modular synths? Well, here\u2019s my thought. Why not create a sampler card for the modular world? Take the idea of a Synclav voice card, and put it in a MOTM module. A MOTM 300 ultra mono sampler! Let it even stream the audio from your computer, so ram wouldn\u2019t be an issue. Individual voice cards that can be linked together to create polyphony, AND now also give you access to all your filters, modifiers etc. The real interesting sounds happens when you breakup the analog digital chain a bit. Slap a MOTM filter in the middle of a KYMA patch, not just at the end. Same with the Synclav. Let me add some analog noise to modulate the pitch of each voice etc.


Tobias Enhus





Wanna spend 10 grand to get the knobs back?

http://www.buchla.com/200e/index.html

--George

----- Original Message -----

>     What does this have to do with Modular synths? Well, here\ufffds my
>     thought. Why not create a sampler card for the modular world? 

Well, you could just do this:

http://www.cyndustries.com/modules_minimac.cfm

So, Cynthia customizes the inputs/outputs as needed, and "Supercollider" 
suddenly becomes a module in my synth.

Get the Stooges to make a MOTM panel and you're good to go.


-- 
-----------
Les Mizzell

I've seen this very tantalizing Cynthia option. It sure makes for a cool
looking setup!
Supercollider for you and Csound for me =) Almost like an old Buchla with
computer control. However it's still just a Mac with the same audio dilemma
as before if you use the computer as a sampler.
What sound card would you opt for, ultimately without having to shoot audio
from the computer through the one and same converter? The idea with the
Synclav is that each voice card has a unique sample clock.

BTW, Stooge Synclav CV and audio breakout panels are in the works =)

Tobias Enhus

> 
>>     What does this have to do with Modular synths? Well, here¹s my
>>     thought. Why not create a sampler card for the modular world?
> 
> Well, you could just do this:
> 
> http://www.cyndustries.com/modules_minimac.cfm
> 
> So, Cynthia customizes the inputs/outputs as needed, and "Supercollider"
> suddenly becomes a module in my synth.
> 
> Get the Stooges to make a MOTM panel and you're good to go.
>

I think Tobius has it right.  I use the MOTM for analog stuff and Kyma
for digital sound manipulation and sound design.  I can't easily do
Granular Synthesis on the MOTM (thoough it *IS* possible) and the VCF
sound in Kyma does not really compare to any of Paul's filters.  But
if you put the two together, you get something that is more than the
sum of its parts...

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Machine Head <tobias@m...> wrote:
> > There are many all digital analog synths out there. Kyma, Nord,
pluggins ect.
> > However being the audio files we are, we¹re all recognizing how
good analog
> > sounds compared to digital simulation.
> > 
> > I constantly think of ways of combining best of both worlds.
> > There are a few personal musings in this matter.
> > My main setup consist of a MOTM system and a Synclavier both
connected to a
> > Kyma system acting as the main hub.
> > An analog audio path simply just sounds the best. If you compare
an analog
> > oscillator with a digital high quality oscillator, there is no
comparison.
> > Analog wins. However digital completely rules over analog because
of superior
> > control and complexity. So how do we combine the building blocks
of analog
> > with the complexity of digital. High speed computer controlled CV.
The PISM-1
> > is a first step towards such a thing, but ultimately I would want
to connect
> > my computer (without having to resort to MIDI then CV). I can only
dream of
> > the possibilities that would bring. Additive synthesis, scanning
synthesis,
> > true formant synthesis etc etc.
> > 
> > Now let¹s flip the concept.
> > Most of the time digital synths all share a final converter as an
output. That
> > means that the sound never quite feels bigger when you¹re playing
more notes.
> > Witch is the case with ex Giga studio or ESX24. You play one note
and it
> > sounds convincing, but a chord it sonically starts to collapse.
The secret
> > with the Synclavier is that each note polyphony has it¹s own voice
card.
> > That¹s also why the Synclav tower is so big. Each voice runs on a
separate
> > sample rate set to the speed of what key you press (not like ESX24
where a
> > poor sounding real time sample rate converter changes the sample
in reference
> > to a fixed clock). The analog output from each card gets mixed
together in an
> > analog bus. Thus even when you play a chord with simple sample, it
sounds rich
> > and full. It¹s like several mono synths added together.
> > What does this have to do with Modular synths? Well, here¹s my
thought. Why
> > not create a sampler card for the modular world? Take the idea of
a Synclav
> > voice card, and put it in a MOTM module. A MOTM 300 ultra mono
sampler! Let it
> > even stream the audio from your computer, so ram wouldn¹t be an issue.
> > Individual voice cards that can be linked together to create
polyphony, AND
> > now also give you access to all your filters, modifiers etc. The real
> > interesting sounds happens when you breakup the analog digital
chain a bit.
> > Slap a MOTM filter in the middle of a KYMA patch, not just at the
end. Same
> > with the Synclav. Let me add some analog noise to modulate the
pitch of each
> > voice etc.
> > 
> > 
> > Tobias Enhus
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Wanna spend 10 grand to get the knobs back?
> >  
> > http://www.buchla.com/200e/index.html
> >  
> > --George
> >  
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Bob Colwell <mailto:bob.colwell@c...>
> >> To: MOTM <mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 4:04 PM
> >> Subject: [motm] an all-digital "analog" synthesizer
> >> 
> >> I have an idea that's been kicking around in my head for the last
25 years:
> >> what's the best way to
> >> combine the strengths of both digital and analog electronics to
make a
> >> modular synthesizer.
> >>  
> >> Picture a modular analog synth. I believe the day is coming when
I could
> >> replace the analog
> >> guts of any of the modules with one DSP-like device, programmed
to provide
> >> the function
> >> of that module, be it filtering, envelope generation, VCO, etc.
Powering up
> >> the machine
> >> would cause each DSP to be programmed for its function by some
master CPU.
> >> Want 
> >> another VCO? Just make one. Could also keep the programming in flash,
> >> possibly 
> >> incorporated directly on the DSP chip. Silicon capable of doing
this is
> >> pretty much 
> >> available right now.
> >>  
> >> To capitalize on the strength of the digital part of this rig,
I'm thinking
> >> the interfaces between
> >> modules should be digital, not analog. But I'm somewhat torn on
this part --
> >> there's something
> >> satisfying, logical, and concrete about connecting a patch cord
from the
> >> output of one
> >> module to the input of another. Even with digital protocols we
could still
> >> have patch
> >> cords. 
> >>  
> >> But the digital world doesn't really need 'em. You could have a
very general
> >> routing
> >> interconnect network inside the box that allows anything to
connect to
> >> anything else.
> >> The question is how to control that routability and how to make
it readily
> >> visible to
> >> the machine's operator.
> >>  
> >> To really take advantage of the extreme programmability of the
modules, you'd
> >> probably want each of them to have some kind of display that
reflects the
> >> current
> >> function of that module. LCD displays are pretty expensive right now,
> >> especially
> >> the color ones that I think would be necessary to quickly
distinguish the
> >> various
> >> modules.
> >>  
> >> Why would anyone want such a rig? Well, one major reason is that
you could
> >> get all of the "knobs" back to their exact settings later,
something that I
> >> never
> >> could achieve with an analog synth. In fact, if the patching is
done via a
> >> routing
> >> network, you could reconfigure the machine to precisely what it
was at any
> >> previous time. Maybe a combination of internal routing network
plus patch

> >> cords?
> >>  
> >> Anyone else ever thought about doing this?
> >>  
> >> -BobC
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
> >> *  
> >> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >> * motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >> <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >> *  
> >> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> >> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> >> 
> >> 
> >>

Exactly Mike! 1+1=3!!!
It's not a question if you can use Csound or Supercollider and if those
programs are good for making noise or not. It's how can you combine the two
in a way that goes beyond just routing audio in and out? And ultimately
achieve something new and better sounding. The bottleneck is still control
(with a high speed protocol), too and from the CV world.

As a matter of fact Csound, Kyma and Supercollider all make superb programs
to control analog components from. They move freely between any number units
and conversions. It would be quite easy to set up a ex VCA by just
converting it to CV range numbers. I can think of quite few things that
would be cool to try out with just control of the modular, not even passing
audio through it. There are so many areas in digital audio that are just
waiting to be plugged into some good sounding analog building blocks.
Popcorn makers, gravity fields, orbiting stars, etc. Things that doesn't
necessarily make sound by them selves but makes for some awesome naturally
evolving control data!

I did try an experiment of simply "Frankensteining" an M-Audio soundcard to
range down to DC. The results were very promising. Yet to get something that
is accurate and stable enough (self calibrating), but I did see the light of
the promised land for a second.

Tobias Enhus

> 
> 
> I think Tobius has it right.  I use the MOTM for analog stuff and Kyma
> for digital sound manipulation and sound design.  I can't easily do
> Granular Synthesis on the MOTM (thoough it *IS* possible) and the VCF
> sound in Kyma does not really compare to any of Paul's filters.  But
> if you put the two together, you get something that is more than the
> sum of its parts...
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Machine Head <tobias@m...> wrote:
>>> There are many all digital analog synths out there. Kyma, Nord,
> pluggins ect.
>>> However being the audio files we are, we¹re all recognizing how
> good analog
>>> sounds compared to digital simulation.
>>> 
>>> I constantly think of ways of combining best of both worlds.
>>> There are a few personal musings in this matter.
>>> My main setup consist of a MOTM system and a Synclavier both
> connected to a
>>> Kyma system acting as the main hub.
>>> An analog audio path simply just sounds the best. If you compare
> an analog
>>> oscillator with a digital high quality oscillator, there is no
> comparison.
>>> Analog wins. However digital completely rules over analog because
> of superior
>>> control and complexity. So how do we combine the building blocks
> of analog
>>> with the complexity of digital. High speed computer controlled CV.
> The PISM-1
>>> is a first step towards such a thing, but ultimately I would want
> to connect
>>> my computer (without having to resort to MIDI then CV). I can only
> dream of
>>> the possibilities that would bring. Additive synthesis, scanning
> synthesis,
>>> true formant synthesis etc etc.
>>> 
>>> Now let¹s flip the concept.
>>> Most of the time digital synths all share a final converter as an
> output. That
>>> means that the sound never quite feels bigger when you¹re playing
> more notes.
>>> Witch is the case with ex Giga studio or ESX24. You play one note
> and it
>>> sounds convincing, but a chord it sonically starts to collapse.
> The secret
>>> with the Synclavier is that each note polyphony has it¹s own voice
> card.
>>> That¹s also why the Synclav tower is so big. Each voice runs on a
> separate
>>> sample rate set to the speed of what key you press (not like ESX24
> where a
>>> poor sounding real time sample rate converter changes the sample
> in reference
>>> to a fixed clock). The analog output from each card gets mixed
> together in an
>>> analog bus. Thus even when you play a chord with simple sample, it
> sounds rich
>>> and full. It¹s like several mono synths added together.
>>> What does this have to do with Modular synths? Well, here¹s my
> thought. Why
>>> not create a sampler card for the modular world? Take the idea of
> a Synclav
>>> voice card, and put it in a MOTM module. A MOTM 300 ultra mono
> sampler! Let it
>>> even stream the audio from your computer, so ram wouldn¹t be an issue.
>>> Individual voice cards that can be linked together to create
> polyphony, AND
>>> now also give you access to all your filters, modifiers etc. The real
>>> interesting sounds happens when you breakup the analog digital
> chain a bit.
>>> Slap a MOTM filter in the middle of a KYMA patch, not just at the
> end. Same
>>> with the Synclav. Let me add some analog noise to modulate the
> pitch of each
>>> voice etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tobias Enhus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Wanna spend 10 grand to get the knobs back?
>>>  
>>> http://www.buchla.com/200e/index.html
>>>  
>>> --George
>>>  
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Bob Colwell <mailto:bob.colwell@c...>
>>>> To: MOTM <mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 4:04 PM
>>>> Subject: [motm] an all-digital "analog" synthesizer
>>>> 
>>>> I have an idea that's been kicking around in my head for the last
> 25 years:
>>>> what's the best way to
>>>> combine the strengths of both digital and analog electronics to
> make a
>>>> modular synthesizer.
>>>>  
>>>> Picture a modular analog synth. I believe the day is coming when
> I could
>>>> replace the analog
>>>> guts of any of the modules with one DSP-like device, programmed
> to provide
>>>> the function
>>>> of that module, be it filtering, envelope generation, VCO, etc.
> Powering up
>>>> the machine
>>>> would cause each DSP to be programmed for its function by some
> master CPU.
>>>> Want 
>>>> another VCO? Just make one. Could also keep the programming in flash,
>>>> possibly 
>>>> incorporated directly on the DSP chip. Silicon capable of doing
> this is
>>>> pretty much 
>>>> available right now.
>>>>  
>>>> To capitalize on the strength of the digital part of this rig,
> I'm thinking
>>>> the interfaces between
>>>> modules should be digital, not analog. But I'm somewhat torn on
> this part --
>>>> there's something
>>>> satisfying, logical, and concrete about connecting a patch cord
> from the
>>>> output of one
>>>> module to the input of another. Even with digital protocols we
> could still
>>>> have patch
>>>> cords. 
>>>>  
>>>> But the digital world doesn't really need 'em. You could have a
> very general
>>>> routing
>>>> interconnect network inside the box that allows anything to
> connect to
>>>> anything else.
>>>> The question is how to control that routability and how to make
> it readily
>>>> visible to
>>>> the machine's operator.
>>>>  
>>>> To really take advantage of the extreme programmability of the
> modules, you'd
>>>> probably want each of them to have some kind of display that
> reflects the
>>>> current
>>>> function of that module. LCD displays are pretty expensive right now,
>>>> especially
>>>> the color ones that I think would be necessary to quickly
> distinguish the
>>>> various
>>>> modules.
>>>>  
>>>> Why would anyone want such a rig? Well, one major reason is that
> you could
>>>> get all of the "knobs" back to their exact settings later,
> something that I
>>>> never
>>>> could achieve with an analog synth. In fact, if the patching is
> done via a
>>>> routing
>>>> network, you could reconfigure the machine to precisely what it
> was at any
>>>> previous time. Maybe a combination of internal routing network
> plus patch
>>>> cords?
>>>>  
>>>> Anyone else ever thought about doing this?
>>>>  
>>>> -BobC
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>>> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
>>>> *  
>>>> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>> * motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>> <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>>> *  
>>>> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
>>>> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

>
> I did try an experiment of simply "Frankensteining" an M-Audio 
> soundcard to
> range down to DC. The results were very promising. Yet to get 
> something that
> is accurate and stable enough (self calibrating), but I did see the 
> light of
> the promised land for a second.

I use MAX/MSP and Logic to send gate pulses via my RME (8 in/out 
soundcard)  to my TM-116 analog sequencer and then to the modular which 
is routed back into either Logic or MAX/MSP.

Yes, I could do this w/ MIDI but the integration is easier (I have an 
audio buss from my desk to both modular and soundcard) and I've got the 
latency down way low.

Using the MOTM to process different digital apps (SuperC, soundhack, 
MSP etc...) and vice versa has been pure joy for my sound design and 
AUI work.

It seems there are a number of folks doing this. I'll add my name to 
the list in terms of a MOTM user who might be willing to shell out for 
a module that makes this process easier/takes it farther etc....

Something I could drop MSP patches into and then access directly in the 
modular interface.  Racking up a mini-Mac isn't the solution... There 
are a few hardware modules out there that do this w/ VST plug ins I 
know of but I haven't had any direct experience w/ them

ad





>
> Tobias Enhus
>
>
>>
>>
>> I think Tobius has it right.  I use the MOTM for analog stuff and Kyma
>> for digital sound manipulation and sound design.  I can't easily do
>> Granular Synthesis on the MOTM (thoough it *IS* possible) and the VCF
>> sound in Kyma does not really compare to any of Paul's filters.  But
>> if you put the two together, you get something that is more than the
>> sum of its parts...
>>
>> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Machine Head <tobias@m...> wrote:
>>>> There are many all digital analog synths out there. Kyma, Nord,
>> pluggins ect.
>>>> However being the audio files we are, we’re all recognizing how
>> good analog
>>>> sounds compared to digital simulation.
>>>>
>>>> I constantly think of ways of combining best of both worlds.
>>>> There are a few personal musings in this matter.
>>>> My main setup consist of a MOTM system and a Synclavier both
>> connected to a
>>>> Kyma system acting as the main hub.
>>>> An analog audio path simply just sounds the best. If you compare
>> an analog
>>>> oscillator with a digital high quality oscillator, there is no
>> comparison.
>>>> Analog wins. However digital completely rules over analog because
>> of superior
>>>> control and complexity. So how do we combine the building blocks
>> of analog
>>>> with the complexity of digital. High speed computer controlled CV.
>> The PISM-1
>>>> is a first step towards such a thing, but ultimately I would want
>> to connect
>>>> my computer (without having to resort to MIDI then CV). I can only
>> dream of
>>>> the possibilities that would bring. Additive synthesis, scanning
>> synthesis,
>>>> true formant synthesis etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> Now let’s flip the concept.
>>>> Most of the time digital synths all share a final converter as an
>> output. That
>>>> means that the sound never quite feels bigger when you’re playing
>> more notes.
>>>> Witch is the case with ex Giga studio or ESX24. You play one note
>> and it
>>>> sounds convincing, but a chord it sonically starts to collapse.
>> The secret
>>>> with the Synclavier is that each note polyphony has it’s own voice
>> card.
>>>> That’s also why the Synclav tower is so big. Each voice runs on a
>> separate
>>>> sample rate set to the speed of what key you press (not like ESX24
>> where a
>>>> poor sounding real time sample rate converter changes the sample
>> in reference
>>>> to a fixed clock). The analog output from each card gets mixed
>> together in an
>>>> analog bus. Thus even when you play a chord with simple sample, it
>> sounds rich
>>>> and full. It’s like several mono synths added together.
>>>> What does this have to do with Modular synths? Well, here’s my
>> thought. Why
>>>> not create a sampler card for the modular world? Take the idea of
>> a Synclav
>>>> voice card, and put it in a MOTM module. A MOTM 300 ultra mono
>> sampler! Let it
>>>> even stream the audio from your computer, so ram wouldn’t be an 
>>>> issue.
>>>> Individual voice cards that can be linked together to create
>> polyphony, AND
>>>> now also give you access to all your filters, modifiers etc. The 
>>>> real
>>>> interesting sounds happens when you breakup the analog digital
>> chain a bit.
>>>> Slap a MOTM filter in the middle of a KYMA patch, not just at the
>> end. Same
>>>> with the Synclav. Let me add some analog noise to modulate the
>> pitch of each
>>>> voice etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tobias Enhus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wanna spend 10 grand to get the knobs back?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.buchla.com/200e/index.html
>>>>
>>>> --George
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Bob Colwell <mailto:bob.colwell@c...>
>>>>> To: MOTM <mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com>
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 4:04 PM
>>>>> Subject: [motm] an all-digital "analog" synthesizer
>>>>>
>>>>> I have an idea that's been kicking around in my head for the last
>> 25 years:
>>>>> what's the best way to
>>>>> combine the strengths of both digital and analog electronics to
>> make a
>>>>> modular synthesizer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Picture a modular analog synth. I believe the day is coming when
>> I could
>>>>> replace the analog
>>>>> guts of any of the modules with one DSP-like device, programmed
>> to provide
>>>>> the function
>>>>> of that module, be it filtering, envelope generation, VCO, etc.
>> Powering up
>>>>> the machine
>>>>> would cause each DSP to be programmed for its function by some
>> master CPU.
>>>>> Want
>>>>> another VCO? Just make one. Could also keep the programming in 
>>>>> flash,
>>>>> possibly
>>>>> incorporated directly on the DSP chip. Silicon capable of doing
>> this is
>>>>> pretty much
>>>>> available right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> To capitalize on the strength of the digital part of this rig,
>> I'm thinking
>>>>> the interfaces between
>>>>> modules should be digital, not analog. But I'm somewhat torn on
>> this part --
>>>>> there's something
>>>>> satisfying, logical, and concrete about connecting a patch cord
>> from the
>>>>> output of one
>>>>> module to the input of another. Even with digital protocols we
>> could still
>>>>> have patch
>>>>> cords.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the digital world doesn't really need 'em. You could have a
>> very general
>>>>> routing
>>>>> interconnect network inside the box that allows anything to
>> connect to
>>>>> anything else.
>>>>> The question is how to control that routability and how to make
>> it readily
>>>>> visible to
>>>>> the machine's operator.
>>>>>
>>>>> To really take advantage of the extreme programmability of the
>> modules, you'd
>>>>> probably want each of them to have some kind of display that
>> reflects the
>>>>> current
>>>>> function of that module. LCD displays are pretty expensive right 
>>>>> now,
>>>>> especially
>>>>> the color ones that I think would be necessary to quickly
>> distinguish the
>>>>> various
>>>>> modules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone want such a rig? Well, one major reason is that
>> you could
>>>>> get all of the "knobs" back to their exact settings later,
>> something that I
>>>>> never
>>>>> could achieve with an analog synth. In fact, if the patching is
>> done via a
>>>>> routing
>>>>> network, you could reconfigure the machine to precisely what it
>> was at any
>>>>> previous time. Maybe a combination of internal routing network
>> plus patch
>>>>> cords?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else ever thought about doing this?
>>>>>
>>>>> -BobC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>>>> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
>>>>> *
>>>>> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>>> * motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>>> <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>>>> *
>>>>> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
>>>>> Service
>>>>> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_____________________
Receive-Transmit
Marienburgerstr. 33
VH EG rechts
10405 Berlin
Germany
_____________________
Mobile +49 179.750.1854
Office +49 030.255.627.94
Fax +49 030.255.627.96