Wiardgroup

Okay,

> There is such a thing as overkill.  When you think about it, every
> knob and every switch on a synth could have an associated LED.  But
> how useful would that really be?  (BTW, I'm not sure which comment
> you were referring to.  If you can point me to it, I will read it.)

I agree completely that visual feedback must have boundaries and 
limitations, lest it become overwhelming. And in my previous post 
(which I'll forward to you later) I specifically stated that I felt the 
oscillator LEDs were of limited value in situations where the osc is 
running at high frequencies. But since it's a multi-function device, 
applicable to a number of different situations and users, there is more 
than one use case that applies. For some of these use cases the set of 
three LEDs makes perfect sense. I can understand why you might not see 
this without spending some decent time with the instrument. The Wiard 
has a number of features to which my initial reaction was "uh?". Once I 
understood the purpose, the reaction was more along the lines of 
"aha!". I had a similar experience with Serge - a lot of density in 
that system, too - but as with both Serge and Wiard, once you get a 
handle on what it can do, you start to see the beauty of the design.

>> 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".<
>
> You have never had ME in your studio.  :-)

Yes, well at the rate we're going here that's not too likely to happen, 
now is it? :-) Mike P's gonna have to vouch for you real good if you're 
ever going to see -my- Wiard up close.

> entitled to an opinion, but unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be
> trying to justify why your opinion is "right".<
>
> Well, of course.  I don't try to justify stances I believe to be in
> error.

My intended point there was that one cannot "prove" the subjective.

> Arrogance, most likely.  Modular synthesis is a subject on which I'm
> easily qualified to render valid opinions.

That's fine, welcome to the club. You'll find that this list has plenty 
of people who are so qualified, and perhaps more experienced where 
certain topics are concerned. One thing to consider is the concept of 
the dollar-vote. The Wiard is not an inexpensive instrument, yet there 
are a lot of people here who use one happily and feel their money 
well-spent. Perhaps there's something to say for "the proof is in the 
pudding", so to speak?

>
>> There's plenty of excellent synthesizer music out there that
> is not classical in nature, and not "banal, numbingly", etc.<
>
> Yes.  I've a shelf full of such recordings, but they are real
> compositions, not "run the sequencer for 15 minutes" dreck that's
> knocked out three-to-an-evening.
>

I think you missed my point there as well. Obviously there's good 
electronic music and bad - but your comments appeared to be suggesting 
that classical was the only valid measurement, and that by extension 
all "other" electronic music is simply artistically invalid squeaks and 
squaks. It's simply not the case, and it's a fairly silly assertion - 
if that's what you meant.

Mike