Synth-DIY Yahoo! Groups Archives

Thread

Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-20 by paulhaneberg

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far.
I would not copyright the patches.
Everyone who had subscribed would receive a pdf of the patch diagram
and possibly an mp3.
These would be delivered by email.
There would be nothing to prevent a recipient from posting the patch
elsewhere, except their own sense of honor and honesty.
But if things got bad enough I could possibly devise some sort of
watermark so they could be traced. Hopefully that would not be
necessary.
I would want the contributors to recieve some compensation. I would
not expect to keep anything for myself.
It costs money to publish a book and to distibute/sell it.
This would cost the contributors nothing and they would actually
benefit from their contributions.
This will only work if there are enough people willing to subscribe
and to contribute.
A possible alternative form of distribution would be a secure
website requiring a password. This would be a little bit more
expensive and possibly a little more work to manage, but there is
still nothing to prevent someone from sharing his or her password.
There is also nothing to keep someone from photocopying a book or
scanning a book and posting the scans.

Just some thoughts.

Paul Haneberg

Re: [motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-20 by Greg Amann

I like the idea of subscribing to a web site if only because my wife
would naturally assume that I had finally, pathetically succumbed to the
deluge of porn offers that regularly appear in our in-baskets. I would
deliberately leave the passward somewhere where she could find it. The
look on her face when she logged in to bust me and found oot the site
was full of cabling diagrams and not pictures of b**bies would be priceless.

Reminder to self: install hidden video camera in home office. ;-)

PLL, BFG

paulhaneberg wrote:

> Thanks to everyone who has responded so far.
> I would not copyright the patches.
> Everyone who had subscribed would receive a pdf of the patch diagram
> and possibly an mp3.
> These would be delivered by email.
> There would be nothing to prevent a recipient from posting the patch
> elsewhere, except their own sense of honor and honesty.
> But if things got bad enough I could possibly devise some sort of
> watermark so they could be traced. Hopefully that would not be
> necessary.
> I would want the contributors to recieve some compensation. I would
> not expect to keep anything for myself.
> It costs money to publish a book and to distibute/sell it.
> This would cost the contributors nothing and they would actually
> benefit from their contributions.
> This will only work if there are enough people willing to subscribe
> and to contribute.
> A possible alternative form of distribution would be a secure
> website requiring a password. This would be a little bit more
> expensive and possibly a little more work to manage, but there is
> still nothing to prevent someone from sharing his or her password.
> There is also nothing to keep someone from photocopying a book or
> scanning a book and posting the scans.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Paul Haneberg
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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/>.
>
>

Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-24 by paulhaneberg

I would agree that the potential customers for a project such as this
would be small. If it was to be done as a book, I would suggest it be
done as a published on demand project.

I was one of the contributors to the thread in the past about writing
a book. I shelved the idea because, although I am quite knowledgeable
in the areas of electronics and music theory I cannot begin to
approach what Ken Elhardt can do when it comes to patching. I would
have to partner with someone with his ability. My patch of the week
suggestion was to try to find a way for us all to learn from the
masters of patching without asking them to give away their experience
without receiving some compensation.

I would also agree with the thoughts (rants) on using synthesizers for
scores, etc. Many of my clients in the studio ask me to add string
parts, orchestral parts etc. to their songs. They all want real
strings until they find out the cost. I usually use one of the very
expensive sample libraries. Nobody wants synthesizer parts unless
they cannot be recognized as such. In many cases these same clients
are using V-Drums or maybe guitars with a lot of processors. Somehow
what they are doing is natural but synthesizers are not. Many of
these people do not even consider the synthesizer to be a legitimate
musical instrument, but a sampler is, as long as it can pass as the
instrument it is sampling.

I'm personally interested in expanding the number of people who are
doing real synthesis. I think, especially taking into account the
prevailing attitude towards synths at the moment, that real synthesis
is in danger of going the way of the Krumhorn. (which I'm sure Elhardt
could synthesize)

I'd like to see more of us sharing what knowledge we have.

Re: [motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-24 by Mike Estee

On Tue, 24 May 2005, paulhaneberg wrote:

> I would agree that the potential customers for a project such as this
> would be small. If it was to be done as a book, I would suggest it be
> done as a published on demand project.

<rant>

I think the market would be larger is some elbow grease where put into the
book to make it an attractive thing to pick up. All of the books I've
found on the topic don't exactly scream "read me!" I think it's sort of
self fulfilling that way.

So, speaking to the group at large as to "where have all the synthesists
gone?" comments, that's easy: they left your genre of music (figuratively
speaking, I don't know what you all listen too...) That is to say, they're
not writing popular rock music.

Living in the bay area at least, I can tell you they're writing ambient,
alternative, electro, d&b, psytrance, dub, industrial, and other
side-stream genre's that don't exactly get much airplay.

There's a rather large group of people currently engaged in trying to
figure this synthesis stuff out all over again. There's a lot of
twenty-somethings (such as myself) currently re-inventing the wheel. We
don't really know what we're doing, we're not sure how to get there, but
there's enough of us to keep Native Instruments, Access, Propellerheads,
etc in business.

And speaking from experience, a lot of us really need a helping hand in
certain departments. A good chapter on making a nice rolling baseline
patch would do a lot of local SF artists some good. How to make a
convincing string on a Virus would make some budding industrial producer
really happy. How to get nice kicks out of Reactor for a dance artist,
etc.

There are plenty of synthesists, they're just not trying to re-create 70's
era psychedelic rock anthems (of which I'm guilty of...) Heck, most of us
weren't even born then. I've got crates of music that doesn't have a
*single* naturally occurring sound in them. (Let's leave the debate as to
weather any of it is worth listening to for another day ;)

Of course, I talk a big talk, but I don't know what to do about it either.
Whenever friends come over I sit them down in front of the MOTM and let
them get their hands dirty. It takes a while, but they start to get it,
and then they're usually very excited. I don't know what this would look
like in book form, and my guess is that until someone who is passionate,
daring, and can write gooder grammar comes along, the status quo is going
to remain.

...and hey, maybe that's okay.

</rant>

> I'm personally interested in expanding the number of people who are
> doing real synthesis. I think, especially taking into account the
> prevailing attitude towards synths at the moment, that real synthesis
> is in danger of going the way of the Krumhorn. (which I'm sure Elhardt
> could synthesize)

My interest in understanding how to do "real" synthesis is largely based
on a desire to understand the rules in such a manner that I can break 'em
beyond recognition ;)

> I'd like to see more of us sharing what knowledge we have.

That's a damn fine solution ;) I'm currently struggling with methods for
creating different timbred sounds beyond FM/ring modulation. This feedback
thing is interesting, but I'm not sure how to get the most out of it.

--mikes

Re: [motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-24 by Neil Bradley

> I would also agree with the thoughts (rants) on using synthesizers for
> scores, etc. Many of my clients in the studio ask me to add string
> parts, orchestral parts etc. to their songs. They all want real
> strings until they find out the cost. I usually use one of the very
> expensive sample libraries. Nobody wants synthesizer parts unless
> they cannot be recognized as such. In many cases these same clients
> are using V-Drums or maybe guitars with a lot of processors. Somehow
> what they are doing is natural but synthesizers are not. Many of
> these people do not even consider the synthesizer to be a legitimate
> musical instrument,

It pains me to continue to see this type of behavior as well. I've pointed
out to people that, for example, a guitar is a synthesizer of sorts. You
have your oscillator (string pickup), your filter (effects
processors/boxes), and your amplifier (uh... amplifier). So... pressing a
note to generate the sound isn't music, but strumming a string is? That
logic ranks right up there with CD sound rings, drawing on the edges with
a green felt tipped marker for better sound, and polarized speaker wires.

It's amazing how pervasive this ignorance is. I recall reading (or
hearing) an interview with Tom Scholz where he openly blasted synthesizer
music as "not real music", and how their music was "pure". Considering
also that Scholz is also an engineer and started his own company making
effects processors, I've lost *ALL* respect for someone who should know
better. The hypocrocay is amazing. Sheesh. Yet these people also don't
remember that the electric guitar was considered a bastardization of the
acoustic, and the piano a bastardization of the harpsichord, etc... I'm
wondering when people will grow beyond their insecurities enough to accept
that music is music no matter how it's made.

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley "I've got a fever and the only prescription is MORE
Synthcom Systems, Inc. COWBELL!!!"

Re: [motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-24 by Mike Estee

> acoustic, and the piano a bastardization of the harpsichord, etc... I'm
> wondering when people will grow beyond their insecurities enough to accept
> that music is music no matter how it's made.

Probably never. The social grouping effect of music and its ability to act
as a symbol of ones identity are too strong for this to ever go away.
Elitism is here to stay, the best we can do if we don't like it is to be
elitist and intolerant of the intolerance ;)

--mikes

RE: [motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-24 by Aardvark

Thought I’d chime in with my 2 cents!

As far as modular synthesis goes I’m still a newbie ;) As my MOTM grows so does its capability and to be honest I’m in a patching rut! A book is a great idea but I would be happy with a patch a week as a .jpg drawing posted in the files of this list. Those of us who are looking for patch books are really looking for inspiration to try things we wouldn’t have thought of. Although I didn’t have the same module mix as Ken to try the wooden recorder patch I improvised with the module mix I had and came up with a something surprisingly different (kewl). Hey Ken, how about posting the patch for the vocal/chorus demos?????

As for where all the synthesizers went thread, that’s a whole ‘nother rant on the sorry sad state of today’s music industry. Who the heck decides that the same crappy songs play on every station, in every office, and every fricken store you walk into… gaaaack…

Re: [motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by Andrew Sanchez

On 5/24/05, Aardvark <aardvark-mi@...> wrote:

(edited)

Although I didn't have the same module mix as Ken to try the wooden recorder patch I improvised with the module mix I had and came up with a something surprisingly different (kewl).

This is one aspect (module complement) that may hamper efforts of a patch of the week endeavor. Modules in peoples' systems probably vary greatly. Patches that used more than the run-of-the-mill modules might not be possible with some systems, though it could offer starting points for other sounds, as is mentioned above.

Andrew

Re: [motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by Neil Bradley

>> that music is music no matter how it's made.
> Probably never. The social grouping effect of music and its ability to act
> as a symbol of ones identity are too strong for this to ever go away.
> Elitism is here to stay, the best we can do if we don't like it is to be
> elitist and intolerant of the intolerance ;)

Makes me wonder how much popular music would be popular if people were
actually educated musically. ;-)

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley "I've got a fever and the only prescription is MORE
Synthcom Systems, Inc. COWBELL!!!"

[motm] Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by elhardt@att.net

Paul Haneberg writes:

>>My patch of the week suggestion was to try to find a way for us all to learn from the masters of patching without asking them to give away their experience without receiving some compensation.<<

We're all here to answer reasonable questions for free. When somebody asks how I did something or other specifics I have no problem telling them if it's easy to explain. The problem comes when they want to see the patch. The only motm patch I have on the computer is my recorder patch. All my other motm patches are on sheets of paper that contain my entire synth on it, all marked up, with notes on the back, and too small and detailed to get a clear scan of at a reasonable size. I'd have to get into Corel draw and create nice clean readable ones from scratch, and that's not practical unless it's for a bigger project like a book or CD.

>>I'm personally interested in expanding the number of people who are doing real synthesis.<<

People start yahoo message boards for the most narrow niches, and yet when I suggested somebody set one up for synth programming, nothing happened. Too bad, because there are probably some people from many other groups that might be interested. The board would be for those who want to advance synthesis and do great things, not techno, tb303s, ghetto beats, or any of that stuff that we're neck deep in on other boards. A prerequisite to getting on the site would be to own most of Carlos' and Tomita's analog recordings (a list could be posted). Those are the two synth masters and things they've done would be refered to in conversation. Those interested in synthesis already have those. Those who have avoided those two or who still avoid those two show by their very actions a lack of interest in advanced synthesis and the board probably isn't for them. That's what I'd like to see.

>>real synthesis is in danger of going the way of the Krumhorn. (which I'm sure Elhardt could synthesize)<<

At about the 00:26 point in my MOTM_Renaissance3.mp3 piece most noticable in the left channel is a buzzy Krumhorn sound.

Mike Estee writes:

>>There's a rather large group of people currently engaged in trying to figure this synthesis stuff out all over again. There's a lot of twenty-somethings (such as myself) currently re-inventing the wheel. We don't really know what we're doing, we're not sure how to get there<<

Unfortunately, people aren't listening to masters from the past and seeing what a synthesizer can sound like and what's already been done. As a result, they're starting over from scratch as you say. Back when I was on the Access Virus list I'd hear people say they don't think a synth can do this or that, when in fact, it was doing those things 25 years ago. Ignorance of the past is a major problem.

Andrew Sanchez writes:

>>This is one aspect (module complement) that may hamper efforts of a patch of the week endeavor. Modules in peoples' systems probably vary greatly. Patches that used more than the run-of-the-mill modules might not be possible with some systems, though it could offer starting points for other sounds, as is mentioned above.<<

That is a problem. Some of my patches use outboard gear too. Some aren't even on the motm. But sometimes seeing what's there and how it's used might apply to something else.

Neil Bradley writes:

>>Makes me wonder how much popular music would be popular if people were actually educated musically.<<

Case in point. The latest song by Beck that made its rounds on the late night shows (usually means it's the best song on the CD, yikes) consisted of something like 4 measures of material stretched into an entire song. It went something like this: No introduction, repeat first 2 measures 4 times, repeat second 2 measures 4 times, repeat first 2 measures 4 times again, repeat second 2 measures 4 times again, repeat first 2 measures 4 times yet again but without vocals, repeat second 2 meastures 4 times yet again, maybe repeat first 2 measures 4 times still again, song over. Those who can't write, repeat over and over and over again. No memorable tune, no substance, no thought or effort went into it at all. Why put in any effort when millions will buy it anyway.

Aardvark writes:

>>Hey Ken, how about posting the patch for the vocal/chorus demos?????<<

I had somebody ask for those, but I had to point out to him that the male voices were done on a Doepfer synth and I didn't write down the patch, only the filter bank settings. And as per the earlier part of this post, the motm stuff is on paper, not in the computer. But I can paste below an old Analogue Heaven post where I verbally explained those patches. I forgot to mention below that the female also had some portamento on it.

---------- AH Post -----------

Les Mizzell writes:

>>As usual, the vocal here is very nice, IMHO. I'm beginning to think that

you have way too much free time on your hands!<<

Thanks for the compliment. Being a fast synthesist it only took a couple of
hours to come up with that sound despite it being quite complex. I was
influenced by the vocal of a real woman Tomita used in the beginning of
Venus from "The Planets". With no vibrato it becomes much more difficult to
sound real.

>>So, care to enlighten us all and share the patch?<<

I can explain the elements involved. It's an MOTM synth using a couple of
420 filters in series with high resonance creating a bandpass filter with a
couple of peaks, plus a 410 triple filter in parallel forming more
resonances (with some additional feedback to boost those resonances a bit),
plus a 440 lowpass to act as a treble control. I couldn't tell you what
frequencies are involved because it was done by ear, and the motm only gives
0-10 tick marks anyway. I'm using noise modulated PWM for noisy harmonic
modulation, slewed s/h for wavy pitch motion (hard to tell amongst all the
reverb and echo). That goes through a 31 band EQ with a complex setting
then into a Boss VT-1 voice transformer where I can easily shift the
formants that I synthesized, up or down with a single slider. I shifted
them up a bit until I got the particular quality of female voice I liked,
kind of moved it from an alto to a soprano type sound. That's the general
overall scheme.

Unknown Freak writes:

>>Awesome, Ken. Very nice rendition of Vaughn Williams too. I found this

chart on Mark Smart's site (Is this basically what you're following<<

Thanks. The Vaughn Williams came off a CD just incase you confused that
part as mine. As for the motm female voice, I'm not following anything,
just doing that by ear. For the Doepfer male voices I'm following something
roughly like his charts. I don't have any URL handy, but if you do an
internet search for vocal formants you can probably find a chart that I've
seen in several places that shows the 5 main vocal formants of different
vowel sounds and for male and female. Things don't need to be all too
accurate though, and in the analog world usually can't be anyway, especially
if using a fixed filter bank. I'm running a Doepfer fixed filter bank into
the synthesis vocoder module (another fixed filter bank) and boosting the
same frequencies for an "ah" type sound. This gives me steeper filter
slopes. But I'm also running a 3 band filter in parallel and EQ and a
Roland chorus unit. I still need to experiment with different
configurations to get a stronger and brighter sound while trying to avoid
that vocoder frequency limited bandpass filter sound.

Jason Proctor writes:

>>can you post the actual frequencies you used for the solo female

voice? - i'm using 730, 1090, 2440hz, with a bit of 3100hz but that
seems to make it too buzzy.
what resonance on the filters? - i'm using about 60%.
one oscillator or multiple? - i'm using one.
what duty cycle on the pulse wave? - narrower seems to sound better on the
ion.
the formant filters sound better but i want to do this from the ground up.<<

I'm just using one osc, but as per above I'm moduling the pulsewidth, but
I'm also mixing in some sawtooth from the same osc. Since I'm using
different methods for different voices I don't know the resonance settings.
For example there are no resonance settings on a fixed filter bank or the
motm triple filter. But you are experiencing the problems of analog
filters. They suck when it comes to this kind of stuff. They let too much
through and so your timbre will sound buzzy and synthetic. EQ helps to
further shape the sound. Running filters in series sometimes helps. If I
get a spectrum of a male voice saying "ah", there is a really steep almost
vertical dropoff at about 1KHz. No analog filter can do that. But using a
digital filter that can go to extreme settings I can set up formants that
are far more extreme than in the analog realm.

Following is an audio example that literally only took me a few seconds to
set up formants on. The first me recording my voice without formants by
holding the mic to my throat and humming. Then using a digital EQ that can
go far beyond +/- 12dB I added formants to my humming, after which it then
sounds like my mouth is open and I'm saying "ah".

http://home.att.net/~elhardt2/Hum_With_Artificial_Formants.mp3

-Elhardt

Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by charlesosthelder

Hi All!

I've been reading this thread for awhile and it sounds to me like you
would like some sort of guide to modular synthesizer patching. That
is an odd request, don't you think? I mean, you are putting together
a collection of different modules for the sole reason of having
unlimited complexity. Well, now what?

The objective, really, is to consider the sound you wish to create.
Once you understand sound, look at your module complement. What does
each module do by itself? Take one oscillator and make different
sounds with it. Patch the triangle out in the FM input and turn the
knobs. Try different combinations of patches and knob settings.

Kids play with the Engine of Chaos all the time. My grandson will
ask, "what if...?" and, though I know the answer, my response is
always, "let's find out!" When people call a particular
module "boring", they aren't playing with it hard enough! Yes, a
subharmonic generator can be rather dull, but what if you do THIS...

Brian Eno carries a box of cards with him. Each card has an idea or
action written on it like, "take a nap" or "work standing up" or
other silly things. When he feels stumped or at a creative impass,
he picks a card and does what is written on it. Spontaneous actions,
even when they lead you down a blind alley, will foster creativity.
Pull out all of your patch cords. Try using only one oscillator and
no filter. Stop doing what you think should be done!

The modular format removes limitations. Don't impose limitations on
yourself. Don't listen to purists. Make a weird noise, laugh at it
and pull the patch cords. Repeat.

Chub

Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by Mike Marsh

I couldn't agree more! Put in a cable and twirle a knob and see what
comes out. Elhardt said, and I agree, listen to past Masters, too.
Then listen to the sound in your head and see if you can find it in
your synth. Even if you can't, I guarantee you'll find something cool.

Here's a fun place to start: take the SINE OUT of you vco to your
amp/desk/computer (watch those sound pressure levels :). Take the SAW
OUT of the same vco into the FM IN of the same vco. Play with the FM
knob. Many questions pop up, no? What if I use the SQR OUT to FM?
What if I switch SIN and SAW? What if I use another VCO to modulate
the FM IN, one that is driven by a sequencer?

That's why I love modulars!

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "charlesosthelder" <osthelder@n...> wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> I've been reading this thread for awhile and it sounds to me like you
> would like some sort of guide to modular synthesizer patching. That
> is an odd request, don't you think? I mean, you are putting together
> a collection of different modules for the sole reason of having
> unlimited complexity. Well, now what?
>
> The objective, really, is to consider the sound you wish to create.
> Once you understand sound, look at your module complement. What does
> each module do by itself? Take one oscillator and make different
> sounds with it. Patch the triangle out in the FM input and turn the
> knobs. Try different combinations of patches and knob settings.
>
> Kids play with the Engine of Chaos all the time. My grandson will
> ask, "what if...?" and, though I know the answer, my response is
> always, "let's find out!" When people call a particular
> module "boring", they aren't playing with it hard enough! Yes, a
> subharmonic generator can be rather dull, but what if you do THIS...
>
> Brian Eno carries a box of cards with him. Each card has an idea or
> action written on it like, "take a nap" or "work standing up" or
> other silly things. When he feels stumped or at a creative impass,
> he picks a card and does what is written on it. Spontaneous actions,
> even when they lead you down a blind alley, will foster creativity.
> Pull out all of your patch cords. Try using only one oscillator and
> no filter. Stop doing what you think should be done!
>
> The modular format removes limitations. Don't impose limitations on
> yourself. Don't listen to purists. Make a weird noise, laugh at it
> and pull the patch cords. Repeat.
>
> Chub

Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by Mike Marsh

Oh yeah, and I guess what I meant to say with my last post is that you
don't need a lot of stuff to make cool noise/music...just a little
inspiration and some ingenuity. A vco helps, though.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "charlesosthelder" <osthelder@n...> wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> I've been reading this thread for awhile and it sounds to me like you
> would like some sort of guide to modular synthesizer patching. That
> is an odd request, don't you think? I mean, you are putting together
> a collection of different modules for the sole reason of having
> unlimited complexity. Well, now what?
>
> The objective, really, is to consider the sound you wish to create.
> Once you understand sound, look at your module complement. What does
> each module do by itself? Take one oscillator and make different
> sounds with it. Patch the triangle out in the FM input and turn the
> knobs. Try different combinations of patches and knob settings.
>
> Kids play with the Engine of Chaos all the time. My grandson will
> ask, "what if...?" and, though I know the answer, my response is
> always, "let's find out!" When people call a particular
> module "boring", they aren't playing with it hard enough! Yes, a
> subharmonic generator can be rather dull, but what if you do THIS...
>
> Brian Eno carries a box of cards with him. Each card has an idea or
> action written on it like, "take a nap" or "work standing up" or
> other silly things. When he feels stumped or at a creative impass,
> he picks a card and does what is written on it. Spontaneous actions,
> even when they lead you down a blind alley, will foster creativity.
> Pull out all of your patch cords. Try using only one oscillator and
> no filter. Stop doing what you think should be done!
>
> The modular format removes limitations. Don't impose limitations on
> yourself. Don't listen to purists. Make a weird noise, laugh at it
> and pull the patch cords. Repeat.
>
> Chub

Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by paulhaneberg

Okay,

I'd agree that the number of sounds available on a modular are
infinite, and that one can learn a lot by experimenting, but anyone
can just run patchcords and twiddle knobs.

I'd also agree that you can imagine a sound, then visualize how to
synthesize it and use that as a starting point. I can do that.

I'm not inexperienced nor am I uneducated. I have a BSEE
specializing in audio. My senior project involved analyzing sounds
using the FFT and replicating them using additive synthesis. I
attended the Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music. I have
played synthesizers since around 1969.

Synthesis is extrememly broad. So broad in fact that one person
cannot possibly know all possible techniques. There is also the
time factor. I have a family and own three businesses. I do not
have that much time to noodle around. So I am looking for a
shortcut. I am looking to learn from others. I do not wish to
waste time reinventing the wheel.

I have great respect and admiration for many on this list. I think
what Ken Elhardt does is amazing, and I'd like to learn not just how
he synthesizes, but I'd also like to learn how he decides how to
synthesize. I do not have the time to do what he does. The point
is that since I don't have the time I am more than willing to trade
dollars for knowledge.

I'm sure there are many on this list that have the time to
experiment thoroughly. I used to have the time 30 years ago. But
there are many others on this list who are the older farts from the
good old days like me (I'm 51.) Most of us are busy with our jobs
and families and are also willing to trade dollars for knowledge.

So that's where this idea comes from. It's not laziness, or lack of
ability. It's about asking for help. I've tried very hard to help
out many on this list, I've contributed whenever I could. Maybe I'm
being overly sensitive, maybe not.

Re: Patch of the Week

2005-05-25 by charlesosthelder

Paul-

You make a valid point, too. Having an "idea book" for complex
soundscapes or a programming guide for synth "standards" like
Minimoog bass or reed instrument sounds would indeed be useful to
those who require them. I, too, have little time as I'm raising a
grandson and working as an EE. Not sleeping much helps, but most of
my synth sounds are not reality-based.

Such a guide could be fairly universal and useful to owners of non-
MOTM modules, too. As everyone has no doubt seen, there are many
roads to Mecca. That is, several patch schemes will produce quite
similar results. Still, one could follow, say, Ehlardt's recorder
patch concept within the abilities of one's synth.

My comments in the earlier post were intended to inspire the newer
modular devotee to look more closely at the incredible
possibilities. Certainly, everyone has different expectations and
musical requirements.

Chub