Wiardgroup

Hi everybody,  I'm new this group but I do own a Wiard.  I use it it live while playing a guitar!  This is the only modular 
that I have.  I don't understand why anybody would want a Wiard to look like something else.  Its connections are 
designed to be compatable with other modules.  Its not a MOTM, a Blacet or anything else, Its a Wiard.  Personally, I 
like the blue, I like the celtic pattern, and I especially like the fact that it doesn't look like a Heart Moniter!!!  I have 
never had a problem seeing it on stage even with the light off.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember seeing any 
Moog,Buchla,Aries,etc modules that looked the same or that were the same shape.   At least most of the newer formats 
<including the Wiard> are rack mountable!  If Grant and the aliens can come up with another Wiard product line which 
is easier and/or cheaper to produce in addition to the 300 series I'm all for it!! But I'd like to see the 300 series still be 
around.  The Celtic pattern on my system seems to ward off evil even better then garlic!
							Rick

--- In wiardgroup@y..., "Rick hake" <nigil@a...> wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,  I'm new this group but I do own a Wiard.  I use it it 
live while playing a guitar! 

Hi Rick, welcome.
Grant remarked to me that he got no feedback about from his 
customers about how they used the wiard (much less if they LIKED it) 
I'm gald to see folks coming out of the woodwork and just dropping a 
note here in the group. I think that this will dispel some of the 
vacuum Grant feels.  

> This is the only modular 
> that I have.  I don't understand why anybody would want a Wiard to 
look like something else.  Its connections are 
> designed to be compatable with other modules.  

quite right, and I'm glad that folks realize this. 
(please forgive me for waxing loquacious on this but your post raises 
an issue that I think needs some exposure) 
I'm old, and in the "good/bad old days" (before LSI/DSP & MIDI) many 
of the top contenders (Arp, Moog, etc) had some actual electrical 
incompatibilities (i.e. "switch" triggers vs pulse triggers) that 
required some circuit knowledge to reconcile. Mercifully, nowadays 
most everone employs a basic set of (1v/octave, pulse trigger and a 
few others) nominal standards. Believe me, compared to the '70's we 
inhabit the elysian fields now! I think , however, that some new 
modular users are understandably confused and overly cautious about 
panel-jack types. They are concerned that they might damage their gear 
by connecting , for examble, a 1/8" output to a 1/4" input or a 1/8" 
CV point to a banana jack. The confusion is exacerbated by partisans 
who tout the superiority of one type of connector over another. (Which 
IMHO is at best, silly and at worst deliberately misleading.) This is 
unfortunate because the risk of damaging a modern commercially 
designed modular by connecting it to another companies gear is 
vitually null. Even in the old days the worst of it was that the 
connection didn't work. Nobody "got hurt!"
    I use gear from nearly every era from 9 manufacturers plus lots of 
homebrew gadgets in my modular rig. Everything in this tower of 
Babel runs from common DC power rails and every one is connectable to 
every other one. The New kids" (MOTM, Blacet, ST , Wiard, Doepfer, 
ModCan, Analogue Solutions and Synthesizer.com) are all electrically 
compatible right out-of-the box. A Radio Shack adapter cable is all 
that is necessary to resolve any of the shielded jack differences.    
(whew) (somebody had an axe to grind) 


>Its not a MOTM, a 
Blacet or anything else, Its a Wiard.  Personally, I 
> like the blue, I like the celtic pattern, and I especially like the 
>fact that it doesn't look like a Heart Moniter!!!  
>I have 
> never had a problem seeing it on stage even with the light off.  
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember seeing any 
> Moog,Buchla,Aries,etc modules that looked the same or that were the 
same shape.   At least most of the newer formats 
> <including the Wiard> are rack mountable!  If Grant and the aliens 
can come up with another Wiard product line which 
> is easier and/or cheaper to produce in addition to the 300 series 
I'm all for it!! But I'd like to see the 300 series still be 
> around.  The Celtic pattern on my system seems to ward off evil even 
better then garlic!
>

 
Grant experimented with reduced feature models (the 1200 series) i 
have a couple of them, but the venture didn't pull it's weight in 
terms of business as I understand it. Compared with what modulars USED 
to cost. All this stuff is cheap now(!!!) Consider that an ARP 2600 
cost around $2600 in 1972 dollars! (tht'a at least $5000 adjusted for 
todays costs)  A full six-module rack of 300-series wiard has 
signitcantly more features for just a bit more money in 2001 dollars. 
It's all perspective. A hunderd bucks is too much money if you don't 
have it, but I saved for 3 years to get my first 2600 so things seem 
like ridiculous bargains to me now.
 Sorry for soapboxing this post to death but you raised some 
significant issues.. nice work on the first time in!!!
   good luck and cheerio,
-doc




							Rick

Since some folks took a previous comment in an unexpected way....

When I 'gently prodded' Grant, it was 1/2 tongue-in-cheek, 1/2 
serious. I am NOT proposing dropping ANY current panel/jack formant IN 
FAVOR of MOTM.

Rather, to offer his unique circuits in a MOTM format as well as his 
own existing standards.

What's so 'special' about MOTM form factor? NOT A THING! But, there 
are now 3, soon to be 5, modular manufacturers that offer the form 
factor.

Now, when I say 'form factor', I mean MAINLY the power supply 
connection and the outside panel dimensions. I DO NOT mean jacks, or 
even 'look and feel'. I mean it connects to the power harness without 
adapters, and fits into existing MOTM systems. Different knob? Sure! 
Color scheme? Whatever! 1/8" jacks? Fine.

Wiard and MOTM DO NOT COMPETE. By each of our own admissions, we agree 
to disagree. 

Paul S.

> Now, when I say 'form factor', I mean MAINLY the power supply 
> connection and the outside panel dimensions. I DO NOT mean jacks, or 
> even 'look and feel'. I mean it connects to the power harness without 
> adapters, and fits into existing MOTM systems. Different knob? Sure! 
> Color scheme? Whatever! 1/8" jacks? Fine.
> 

I agree that we would all greatly benefit from common power supply connections. 
+/-15V power seems to be very common these days from several manufacturers.  I'm
converting my Wiard to use MOTM/Blacet power connectors so I can combine stuff from
the different manufacturers into the same rack or two.  This gets rid of the
multiple wall-wart type power supplies and allows for a bigger and more stable power
source.  You can take advantage of the MOTM 900 power supply, 960 power distribution
board, Blacet PS500 power supply, PSCONN connector board, and connector kits as well
as DIY sources.

As far as the panels go, I'm not so concerned about the common form factor.  Part of
the charm of the Wiard is in its panels and lay out.  I don't think it would work as
well in the MOTM format.  I find that the constraints placed on designers from their
own module formats creates a diversity in design approaches that is very healthy and
provides different options for the customers. 

   Eric


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

Hello All,

The problems with modules is powering them.

One of the design goals of the Wiard mechanical format was to 
allow use of a single module without purchasing an expensive 
power supply and cabinet combination (remember, the only 
design example at the time was Doepfer). I also wanted people 
to be able to remove a module from the rack and haul it over to 
the console to use for track processing and take the power 
supply with it.

There is an advantage to locating the power supply transformer 
away from the modules. Aluminum is a poor magnetic shield, 
and magnetic fields from a local transformer could cause hum 
problems. Additionally, I can overnight a supply to anyone if they 
need one.

The little Elpac wallwarts fit these goals nicely, and are UL listed.

The disadvantages are that lot's of people hate wallwarts, and 
the supply is limited to 250 ma.

Paul Schrieber and John Blacet have fixed upon a 0.156" four pin 
connector. This is an excellent solution for modules in a 
common enclosure, I use John Blacets power distribution 
blocks inside my Frac-Rac enclosures.

I will produce a power cable to connect any Wiard module to the 
0.156" Blacet and MOTM standard. It is just a 0.156" connector 
on one end and a 5 pin DIN on the other and 24" long. You can 
plug it into either a single Wiard module or the power splitter 
harness.

The price is $10 and I can supply them immediately. That will 
bridge the gap between Paul and Johns distribution system and 
the current Wiard scheme.

--- In wiardgroup@y..., alt-mode <alt_mode@y...> wrote:
> > Now, when I say 'form factor', I mean MAINLY the power 
supply 
> > connection and the outside panel dimensions. I DO NOT 
mean jacks, or 
> > even 'look and feel'. I mean it connects to the power harness 
without 
> > adapters, and fits into existing MOTM systems. Different 
knob? Sure! 
> > Color scheme? Whatever! 1/8" jacks? Fine.
> > 
> 
> I agree that we would all greatly benefit from common power 
supply connections. 
> +/-15V power seems to be very common these days from 
several manufacturers.  I'm
> converting my Wiard to use MOTM/Blacet power connectors so 
I can combine stuff from
> the different manufacturers into the same rack or two.  This 
gets rid of the
> multiple wall-wart type power supplies and allows for a bigger 
and more stable power
> source.  You can take advantage of the MOTM 900 power 
supply, 960 power distribution
> board, Blacet PS500 power supply, PSCONN connector board, 
and connector kits as well
> as DIY sources.
> 
> As far as the panels go, I'm not so concerned about the 
common form factor.  Part of
> the charm of the Wiard is in its panels and lay out.  I don't think 
it would work as
> well in the MOTM format.  I find that the constraints placed on 
designers from their
> own module formats creates a diversity in design approaches 
that is very healthy and
> provides different options for the customers. 
> 
>    Eric
> 
> 
> 
__________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with 
Yahoo! Messenger
> http://im.yahoo.com

In answer to Grants' question - below if from the Yahoo "Terms of Service".

Basically, from what I read, Yahoo claims NO ownership, but has the right to
use any image/file uploaded in any way they seem fit for the PROMOTION of
the particular group it was uploaded to.

Or am I a total idiot.....


8. CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE SERVICE

Yahoo does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for
inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or
make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service,
you grant Yahoo the following world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive
license(s), as applicable:

With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on
publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Clubs and Yahoo! Groups, the license to
use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly
display such Content on the Service solely for the purposes of providing and
promoting the specific Yahoo! Club or Yahoo! Group to which such Content was
submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you
elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate
at the time you remove or Yahoo removes such Content from the Service.

With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make
available for inclusion on publicly accessible area of the Service other
than Yahoo! Clubs or Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute,
reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content
on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted
or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to
continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the
time you remove or Yahoo removes such Content from the Service.

With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you
submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the
Service other than Yahoo! Clubs or Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable
and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify,
adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such
Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other
works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

"Publicly accessible" areas of the Service are those areas of the Yahoo
network of properties that are intended by Yahoo to be available to the
general public. By way of example, publicly accessible areas of the Service
would include Yahoo! Message Boards and portions of Yahoo! Clubs and Yahoo!
Groups that are open to both members and visitors. However, publicly
accessible areas of the Service would not include portions of Yahoo! Clubs
and Yahoo! Groups that are limited to members, Yahoo services intended for
private communication such as Yahoo! Mail or Yahoo! Messenger, or areas off
of the Yahoo network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites
that are accessible through Yahoo! Webring but are not hosted or served by
Yahoo.


Les Mizzell
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
He say WHAT??????????????????????????
-------------------------------------
"You teach a child to read, and he or
her will be able to pass a literacy
test."
George Bush -Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

I don't see any problem there.

An interesting case is Raymond Scott. He kept his activites so 
secret, he secreted hiself right out of the historical record!

As artists, by definition, our output should be available to the 
public. This is risky from an ego point of view. Displaying your 
work can potentially make you the target of criticism or derision.

A columnist remarked that society has replaced "true danger", 
that is actual bodily threat, with "fake danger" which is the 
possibility of being embarassed. Many of us are trained to react 
to this "fake danger" as if it were real danger, and we experience 
the same physical reactions and vindictive rage as if we were 
actually physically attacked, rather than just embarassed.

The Arts are the gladitorial arena of this "fake" danger. Art forms 
which have the greatest chance of failure, hence embarassment, 
are considered to be the Highest forms. The Orchestra and 
Ballet are good examples. Since they have large numbers of 
people involved, who must work in tight cooperation, the chance 
of failure is enormous.

Artist who are risk takers, are those for whom the audience do 
not know if they should be embarassed or impressed. Glam 
rock is an example, the band can Rock but they dress like girls, 
how do I react? The audience rewards the artists who put 
themselves in "fake danger" for their amusement (if they 
succeed).

One thing is for certain, everyone finds art boring if there is no 
potential for failure. People leave clubs if the arist is "over 
reheased", since there is no possibility of failure, there is nothing 
to be interested in. For an Artist, risk taking is the only safe 
course.

Another delightful paradox of the human condition.