Wiardgroup

liquidcolor@earthlink.net wrote

> >>The main criticism levelled at Wiard in the EM review was the 'steep
> >>learning curve' and the confusing layout.
> 
>And we know that there were no ulterior motives...

Could you go into more detail about  this comment? I'm curious about what
you perceive the motives to be.


>>I found it very disturbing that Mr. Rich gave the Wiard and the M*TM 
>>equal points for features. Jigga what ?

That's not correct. He gave Wiard 4.5 for features, and M*TM 4.0. 

> >Do modulars really need manuals ? Seriously.
> 
Obviously some say yes and some say no. The two schools of thought sort of
reflect the perceived East coast/West coast differences, especially because
some synth designers refused to create manuals for their gear. I learned
synthesis on Serge, Buchla, and EMS instruments, and manuals for these
weren't available in the studio where I studied. Although I found the
challenges rewarding, sometimes I wished there was at least something with
an explanation of some of the less-than-obvious features. Thank goodness for
the Strange book!

IMO, the musician who is new to the Wiard and modular synths could use some
help, especially if they're starting from scratch but want to get the most
out of the modules. For a person used to off-the-shelf instruments, a
modular is already a bit of a challenge. But at least the Wiard *has* a
manual.

> I think (and I believe the designers do as well) that there's plenty of
> room in the market for both systems to coexist in peace. Within the tiny
> niche market for analog modular synths, the expectations and needs of the
> users are diverse. Grant is following his intuition about what is
> interesting and useful to folks who like to use electron amusement
> parks...
> 
BTW, can you think of another magazine that has reviewed both the M*TM and
Wiard synths?