MOTM

I'm really enjoying the discussions that have sprung up here surrounding
new noise/S&H/quantizing module possibilities. A lot of great points
have been brought up. Since the 'powers that be' may be watching this
discussion as 'voting' on the possible module(s)'s features, I figured
I'd weigh in with my opinions as well, long-winded as they are.

 

 

*Noise Module*

I personally don't see any reason to marry a noise module to any new S&H
module. I would keep them separate. Is there a need for another MOTM
noise module? Some have said that one noise source is enough, and others
have brought up valid reasons for having more than one white/pink noise
source, such as simultaneous random "seeding" and more dramatic stereo
spreads. 

 

To me, it makes sense to look at any new noise module not as an added
feature of an S&H module, but more as a more complete 'randomness'
module, and that's why I think that a new noise source as part of a
general "Source of Uncertainty" module (after Buchla) is a fantastic
idea, and gets my vote wholeheartedly. There are other things that you
can add to a 'randomness' module, too, that are more in keeping with
that spirit - Ken Stone has some interesting circuits for random trigger
generation, even trigger-burst circuitry, that would make a nice
compliment to a noise/uncertainty module. I think there are enough
interesting "randomness/uncertainty" features that could justify a new
noise module that it should be its own entity, and be a lot more
interesting than just more white/pink built into an S&H. Let the '101 be
the '101.

 

And then, of course, there are other kinds of noise, such as "digital
noise" and other probability spreads that would make the creation of a
new noise/randomness module a wonderful idea.

 

 

*Sample & Hold*

I think we're generally talking here of 3 or 4 S&H circuits, normall'd
in series, so the common term "analog shift register" to me is more
enlightening than just S&H. "S&H Bank"? "Ladder"? 

 

Personally, I'm a big fan of the canonic effects of chaining together
lots of S&H stages, and I would probably buy several of these. For that
reason, I'd be happiest if these were 1u modules, and as economical as
possible, although on the subject of the DAC resolution, I always find
it hard to vote for "less quality/accuracy" when the price difference is
only a few sawbucks. I'd go along with the group on that one, but
'erring' on the side of precision sure is tempting.

 

 

*Quantizer*

I'm all for an MOTM quantizer. It would be a great help both with tuning
the output of an analog sequencer and as a foil to my terrible Theremin
playing, among other things. It seems like whenever this subject comes
up, most people say "buy a Mini-Wave," but while I have a couple of
those, I don't find myself using them much for quantizing. For one
thing, Major/Minor/Chromatic scale quantizing isn't for me the be-all
end-all of quantizing. I personally spend surprising little time in
Major/Minor modes when using my modular... in fact, I'd like a quantizer
that can do 19-tone temperament, at a minimum. 

 

I do like the idea of a scale programmer/quantizer where the 'allowable'
output voltages can be manually tuned, not just selected from a
pre-programmed ROM bank that was somebody else's idea of covering all
the bases. From an interface standpoint, it might be cool if there's a
way to do this using "pitch classes," meaning that 12 or so knobs could
tune pitches over a ten-octave range to restrict the output to certain
"voltage classes" with each volt-step... or something... I'm sure that's
non-trivial, especially in the analog domain.

 

My ideal quantizer would have another feature that I've never heard
discussed, which would be "magnetic" allowable output levels, rather
than perfectly discreet ones. In other words, a "slippage" or
"strictness" knob could control the "rounding" of the stair-stepped
output as opposed to a linear sweep input curve being output to a
perfect staircase. This would be less of a "quantizing" module and more
of a "tendency" module; the output voltages would "tend" to hover around
the allowable, preset voltage levels, but not be absolutely bound to do
so. In some ways it's kind of like putting a gentle lag after a
quantizer, but the lag would only work while the changes were in
"motion" and not be able to hold a sustained "intermediate" level, as an
input hovers right near the center between two preset voltage levels it
should be allowed to go "off mission" at that point, depending on the
"strictness" setting. I'm reminded of some of those 'vocal pitch tuning'
plug-ins for doing subtle (not Cher-like) corrections of intonation.

 

Such a module, when put into a feedback loop, might even be able to
simulate "strange attractor"-like behavior, especially if the
"strictness" or "volt-base" parameters were voltage-controllable.

 

Wow, I don't know if those last paragraphs made any sense at all. A
picture would be worth a thousand words here. Or maybe that's all
perfectly obvious to everybody already.

 

 

*Wanderlust*

Okay, this sidebar is off the track of my email up to this point, but it
does curve back into the discussion. Please bear with me.

 

I love my modular, but, as they say, "just because you're full doesn't
mean you can't still read the menu." So I still find myself staring at
pictures of how the "other half" live and wonder what it would be like
to have some of "that." Specifically, Buchla, Serge, and other
synthesizer systems that are a little more "perpendicular" to the MOTM
system. It's not unlike owning either a PC or Mac and every now & then
wondering what it would be like to have one of those other machines.
(Not intended to start a discussion on that topic, please!)

 

In those times when I'm staring at photos and catalogs, I find that the
weird charm of some of those other systems really come down to a very
few simple factors, and not a sweeping difference across the entire
system. Sure, maybe it's the non-black panels; maybe it's the whole
"banana jack" thing... not that either is "better" or "worse" ...
sometimes it's just attractive because it's different, it's new. (Like
ones wife wearing a wig...) 

 

But to my mind, more often than not, the lure of other systems stems
from the idea of a small number of "signature modules" that help define
those other systems - a few particular modules that generate a lot of
buzz because they have a unique personality that spills over to the
entire system - and I would just *love* to integrate the functions of
some of those "signature modules" into my predominantly MOTM system.
Modules with a lot of weird personality are a lot of fun! (That's why I
love some of John Blacet's crazier modules, such as the Klang Werk and
Dark Star... lots of personality. You know when you're jacking one of
those into the mix that you are not going to end up with your father's
MiniMoog sound.)

 

For example, when I find myself pouring over photos of Buchla machines,
what comes to mind? The "Source of Uncertainty" module, certainly
(DOH!), and the "Lowpass Gates." Those modules go a long way toward
defining the personality of the Buchla. They are always singled out in
any discussion of the Buchlas systems - there must be something to them!
Oh, and the touch-keyboard.

 

When I spend hours staring at the circa 1982 Serge catalog and ask
myself, "Doesn't my MOTM do all of this?" The answer is, generally
_yes_, but it sure would be nice to have a bank of those "Dual Universal
Slope Generators" and that "Wave Multiplier" module, which so many
people have raved about and tried to analyze and imitate. And the Analog
Shift Register module! Oh, and that programmable Touch Keyboard. (Yeah,
I keep coming back to those... )

 

 

So all of this - and I appreciate your indulgence if you're still
reading - is just to say that there are still way-cool things to be had
in our systems, and important functions with a lot of personality and
potential that can be had in future MOTM modules. There's no shortage of
inspiration out there. If it comes down to just having 'another' output
jack for white noise, or else having a full-blown Buchla-esque "SoU"
module, I say run - don't walk - to the SoU! When the other day folks
were asking for an EG with an "end-trigger," I read that thinking,
"Yes!! That's halfway to recreating a Dual Universal Slope Generator"!!

 

I hope we don't combine two 'only-somewhat-related' functions into a
single panel (like Noise and S&H), but rather make each "all that it can
be" in its own module.

 

Thanks for the bandwidth! Sorry about all of the "raised eyebrows"
punctuation.

 

Ken Tkacs

I like everything Ken said and agree with all of it.  So if this is
about voting, then I vote for Ken...

:)

Mike

PS - I see that Ken Stone has a new new Slope Detector board.  This
married to an Oakley Little Lag is perfect for at least one of the
things I'm after.  I'm thinking of building a 1U module with two of
these in it, then maybe adding another one.  Or maybe a 2U with four;
can't decide.

m

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
>
>  
> 
> I'm really enjoying the discussions that have sprung up here surrounding
...snipped