Wiardgroup

Sigh. Once more into the breech...

> Lights have a purpose, just as knobs and switches have a purpose.  If
> the idea of LEDs is to entertain moreso than inform, then what you
> have is a toy or mere stage dressing.  Why not go all the way and add
> spinning disks, glowing red dials, Jacob's ladders and other gewgaws?

Please see my previous post, which included a passing mention of uses 
for the oscillator (and other) LEDs, and also a brief mention of the 
role of human factors and ergonomics in synthesizers. It (human 
factors) is a subject with which I have a more than passing 
familiarity, and I'd be glad to elaborate on the importance of things 
like visible system status, etc if needed. Yes, the LEDs have a purpose 
and yes they're useful in a variety of circumstances. If I didn't think 
so I'd be the first to say it. If they're not useful to you, that's ok. 
Not everyone wants that kind of feedback from their instrument. But 
either you didn't read my comment on that or you don't believe me 
(either of which is of course your prerogative).

> Maybe it's just me, but I think signal generation and processing
> equipment that aspires to be professional should look the part.  As
> such, it should be characterized by a functional and *dignified*
> exterior.

I'd say the Wiard "looks the part", and I suspect so would plenty of 
others who have used it or seen one. "Dignified" is also a very 
subjective term. To me, the color scheme of a Focusrite ISA console or 
module isn't terribly "dignified" in the sense that it's not nearly as 
muted as typical studio gear. But it certainly looks professional. 
Actually, the Wiard is the first item that most people notice when they 
see my studio. I don't think I've ever had anyone see it and say, "wow, 
what an undignified and superfluous panel design that is - must be 
terribly difficult to get anything done with all those graphics in your 
face". Suit yourself, but I don't see the point of knocking a different 
design based for the most part on its being unconventional. Everyone is 
entitled to an opinion, but unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be 
trying to justify why your opinion is "right".

And then there was...

> Ah, but it is!  It is probably the best metric for evaluating a
> modular synthesizer.  It's like an analogy I recently used on TGS
> about painting.  Anybody--even a monkey--can create abstract art.
> There is no skill involved

And also...

> How well do Wiard oscillators track?  How good are the filters for
> creating formants?  These kind of criteria cannot be ascertained from
> random squawks and banal, numbingly repetitive sequencer riffs.

These are certainly legitimate questions, but It sort of seems like 
you're saying that all music falls into two categories: classical, 
which is legitimate and the only "true" yardstick by which to measure 
an electronic instrument, and "banal, numbingly repetitive sequencer 
riffs", which represents all other electronic music and is an 
illegitimate art form, not to mention being useless in judging the 
capabilities of an electronic instrument.

No offense intended, but I can't tell if this is ignorance or arrogance 
talking. There's plenty of excellent synthesizer music out there that 
is not classical in nature, and not "banal, numbingly", etc. If you 
aren't aware of any then you truly need to get out more. Classical may 
be -one- good way to measure the capabilities of an instrument, but 
you're flat out nuts if you think it's the only valid means. I think 
that a lot of folks on this list are probably intimately familiar with 
both genres, but I wouldn't expect them to make such an outrageous (and 
indefensible) assertion.

Mike