[sdiy] Moogey jitter

[Colin f]

> 1) Whilst I agree that it's helpfull to know how things that 
> have been work, 
> I don't beleive it's essential for making 'progress' or 
> promoting 'new' 
> ideas.

If you can't objectively define a 'good' sound, then how are you going to
design it into a new device ?
That of course assumes that there is any such thing as objective 'good'.

> 2) Analogue, why do people stick with it like a mad thing, 

Because it's simple to understand.
FM synthesis offers a much wider range of sounds, but there's no point
having a wider range of possiblity if actually realising any of those
possiblities is a painful exercise in mental contortion.

> people still seem to want 'old' 
> and less of the 
> 'new'.

Musicians and audience alike are, and always have been conservative.
Didn't you take up bass guitar ? Or was that a different Paul Maddox ? ;-)
There's not much new in bass guitar technology, but that doesn't mean that
it's no longer creatively useful.

People listen to music because they connect with it emotionally.
Cultural context is very important, possibly more so than the actual music.
Completely knew sounds will confound the listener.
There has to be balance between the familiar and the new, which sort of
enforces musical evolution rather than revolution.

> For what its worth, I don't beleive emulation of old 
> technology and methods 
> is a good thing for DSP.

It's nothing more than a cost saving exercise.
Or a marketing exercise - not specifically a synth product, but this sort of
thing makes me barf:
http://www.digitech.com/products/HendrixPedal/Hendrix.htm
Like, Jimi's technique had nothing to do with it - you just have to convolve
the master tapes and superimpose it on a $50 korean strat copy...
Misuse of DSP in that way should be a capital offence.

> Personally, I don't mind how a pleasing synth tone is 
> generated, as long as 
> it's pleasing.

And you didn't have to sweat blood to get it...
 
> Maybe I'm just odd?

For sure ;-)

Cheers,
Colin f