Wiardgroup

> I often refer to Doepfer as a "Middlecoast" synthesizer.  Modcan 
also 
> has middlecoast aspects.

Here in Milwaukee, we like to call it "Third Coast" since 
Milwaukee is on the coast of a very large body of water. Not the 
ocean of course, but it is FRESH water.

> Ah, but there is a reason those oldies are golden. They work 
well and 
> we all know how to apply them. Let's face it: a filter is a filter is 
> a filter--at least in theory. Indeed, the best analog filter would 
be 
> a digital filter, as only in that realm can you achieve *absolute* 
> cutoff. And that is, after all, what a filter is supposed to do.

That would be an engineering definition. Bernie Hutchins spent 
a good bit of time developing a filter with a variable cutoff. I seem 
to recall it was because of research on acoustic instruments?

> New instruments that are truly new are rare as hen's teeth. 
How many 
> new instruments have popped up in the symphony orchestra?

I believe that the only instruments invented in the 20th century 
were the saxophone, the steel drum and the electronic music 
synthesizer.

> New instruments also tend to be novelties with limited musical 
> usefulness. 

Not meaning to insult anyone, but part of "Switched on Bachs" 
success was from it's novelty value.

> not forget the Harry Partch (sp?) instruments. They have been 
around 
> for decades, yet have never left their academic confines. 
> 

Probably the only instrument that will be invented in the 21st 
century will be the "Electronium", or purpose built music 
synthesizer. The Partch instruments would be an acoutic version 
of an Electronium, as would the instruments of the Basset (sp?) 
brothers.

> Buchla is much the same way. It is valuable mostly because it 
is 
> rare, not because it is unique. If Buchlas were as common as 
Moogs, 
> they would fetch far lower prices today. But they weren't as 
common 
> as Moogs because they were limited to one kind of music and 
simply 
> would never sell like a Moog. New? Yes. Unique? Yes. Useful? 
Only 
> within the confines of atonal experimentalism.

I would argue that the Buchla represents the first steps toward 
the Electronium concept. It is not intended as a general purpose 
synthesizer for imitative synthesis. There are a lot of "missing" 
features that I am sure Don was aware of. He simply chose not 
to include them.

It seems impossible to include every possible feature in an 
instrument. The designer has to make some restrictive choices. 
It is these choices that make the instrument have a unique 
character.

> If I were dictator of the World of Wiard (which I command you all 
to 
> proclaim me anyway!) I'd add some more modules to make 
the system 
> more "middlecoast". That way it would find the wide market that 
> Buchla never did. That is, pending you WANT a wide market. :-)

The 300 series modules were intended to be a middle ground 
between an Arp 2600 and a Buchla Music Easel. In that, I believe 
I succeeded. The instrument includes both a 24dB per octave 
Butterworth filter (Arp 2600) and a 12 dB per octave Sallen-Key 
design (Buchla). It supports subtractive synthesis and non-linear 
waveshaping. I could go on, but the idea was to, speaking in 
broad classes, support the majority of sounds available from 
either historical instrument, while adding additional sound 
resources.