200e

Hi all,

I am feeling pretty compelled towards this Buchla box -- if I bite I
think I can manage to obtain a mostly full 12-panel cabinet, and
without doubt 2 of the panels will be occupied by the arbitrary
function generator I hear such amazing things about.

I've read most of the posted messages, which have been helpful, but
have a general concern, which is:

--- alot of the 200e sounds I hear in files and videos online are very
'electronic' (chirpy, bleepy, machine-y, high-frequency-y...) but I am
inclined to make more 'natural' and 'organic' sounding noises. I had
some experience with a VCS3 many years back and was able to get sounds
of this latter type.

So the question is -- does the 200e have this capacity? Maybe I just
am asking folks to confirm, or not, that the 200e can produce pretty
much any sound if one works at it and therefore I shouldn't worry.

And if so --- any tips on modules that might be helpful in supporting
my sound goals, and/or what modules might I not need so much? Or might
it even be a matter of what happens to the sound once it leaves the
200e (EQ-ing, reverb, etc...) and to whatever degree that is the case,
then what recommendations does anyone have for further processing?

Sorry to throw all this out at once! 

thanks -- dimitrios

The vcs3 is organic by nature, unstable and to a certain degree
unpredictable given the patch you set up is complex enough. The 200e is
different, in  many respects. Buchla modulars 200 and after differs from
other modulars in that you do a lot of the timbre design directly on the
oscillator. Audio rate FM at high frequencies on the 200e is not as good as
in analog synths to be honest. But there are so many other things that are
superior with the 200e that i don't mind so much. For getting animated,
"living" sounds the 266e Source of uncertainty comes handy, this is how you
do organic sounds in the 200e. It is a great module, i have one, and i am
planning to get a second one. The ARF is great, it can be used in so many
ways, last night i used it for sequencing sound movement in quadraphonic
space at a concert. 227e is another favourite of mine.
Last year i performed in a mine. I played very loud and one section of the
piece was kind of like a bass drone, 261e's with timbre shifts controlled by
a slow ARF sequence some stages with lag, some stepped. That was a f-ing
physical experience that proved it can do decent bass sounds :)  But no
illusions. The 200e invites to "'electronic' (chirpy, bleepy, machine-y,
high-frequency-y...)" kind of sounds rather than smooth basslines. It is a
musical instrument not a swiss army knife.
For a 12-panel system i'd suggest:

261e x 2, 281e, 292e, 227e, 266e, 225e
Maybe buy this set first and get used to it, then you'll know better what
you need to complete with. The rest depends on what kind of stuff you'd like
to do with it. Why no 291e initially? While it is a great module, filters
are not essential on the 200e IMO since the 261e offers so many sonic
possibilities that the filters in the 292e often is quite enough.

good luck!
Johan



2008/2/11, cellabbee <da108@telus.net>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am feeling pretty compelled towards this Buchla box -- if I bite I
> think I can manage to obtain a mostly full 12-panel cabinet, and
> without doubt 2 of the panels will be occupied by the arbitrary
> function generator I hear such amazing things about.
>
> I've read most of the posted messages, which have been helpful, but
> have a general concern, which is:
>
> --- alot of the 200e sounds I hear in files and videos online are very
> 'electronic' (chirpy, bleepy, machine-y, high-frequency-y...) but I am
> inclined to make more 'natural' and 'organic' sounding noises. I had
> some experience with a VCS3 many years back and was able to get sounds
> of this latter type.
>
> So the question is -- does the 200e have this capacity? Maybe I just
> am asking folks to confirm, or not, that the 200e can produce pretty
> much any sound if one works at it and therefore I shouldn't worry.
>
> And if so --- any tips on modules that might be helpful in supporting
> my sound goals, and/or what modules might I not need so much? Or might
> it even be a matter of what happens to the sound once it leaves the
> 200e (EQ-ing, reverb, etc...) and to whatever degree that is the case,
> then what recommendations does anyone have for further processing?
>
> Sorry to throw all this out at once!
>
> thanks -- dimitrios
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm not sure I agree with everything Johan says, but he makes one good  
point - even if you can afford a full system, getting a minimal module  
set first, in a full-size cabinet, makes a lot of sense. It gives you  
the chance to learn the basics, and will definitely help you in  
deciding what modules you need for expansion. If you fill up your  
cabinet immediately, you may well find that you're led in a direction  
where you need more of a particular module, or less of another, but  
don't have room to expand. That means that you have to remove or sell  
modules to make space for new ones.

That's what I had to do - I bought a fully-populated 18-space cabinet,  
and after a few weeks of experimentation, realized that I needed  
another oscillator. I had to lose a 256e, a very useful module, to  
make space. So, leaving some room to grow is a good idea.




> The vcs3 is organic by nature, unstable and to a certain degree
> unpredictable given the patch you set up is complex enough. The 200e  
> is
> different, in many respects. Buchla modulars 200 and after differs  
> from
> other modulars in that you do a lot of the timbre design directly on  
> the
> oscillator. Audio rate FM at high frequencies on the 200e is not as  
> good as
> in analog synths to be honest. But there are so many other things  
> that are
> superior with the 200e that i don't mind so much. For getting  
> animated,
> "living" sounds the 266e Source of uncertainty comes handy, this is  
> how you
> do organic sounds in the 200e. It is a great module, i have one, and  
> i am
> planning to get a second one. The ARF is great, it can be used in so  
> many
> ways, last night i used it for sequencing sound movement in  
> quadraphonic
> space at a concert. 227e is another favourite of mine.
> Last year i performed in a mine. I played very loud and one section  
> of the
> piece was kind of like a bass drone, 261e's with timbre shifts  
> controlled by
> a slow ARF sequence some stages with lag, some stepped. That was a f- 
> ing
> physical experience that proved it can do decent bass sounds :) But no
> illusions. The 200e invites to "'electronic' (chirpy, bleepy,  
> machine-y,
> high-frequency-y...)" kind of sounds rather than smooth basslines.  
> It is a
> musical instrument not a swiss army knife.
> For a 12-panel system i'd suggest:
>
> 261e x 2, 281e, 292e, 227e, 266e, 225e
> Maybe buy this set first and get used to it, then you'll know better  
> what
> you need to complete with. The rest depends on what kind of stuff  
> you'd like
> to do with it. Why no 291e initially? While it is a great module,  
> filters
> are not essential on the 200e IMO since the 261e offers so many sonic
> possibilities that the filters in the 292e often is quite enough.
>
> good luck!
> Johan
>
> 2008/2/11, cellabbee <da108@telus.net>:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am feeling pretty compelled towards this Buchla box -- if I bite I
> > think I can manage to obtain a mostly full 12-panel cabinet, and
> > without doubt 2 of the panels will be occupied by the arbitrary
> > function generator I hear such amazing things about.
> >
> > I've read most of the posted messages, which have been helpful, but
> > have a general concern, which is:
> >
> > --- alot of the 200e sounds I hear in files and videos online are  
> very
> > 'electronic' (chirpy, bleepy, machine-y, high-frequency-y...) but  
> I am
> > inclined to make more 'natural' and 'organic' sounding noises. I had
> > some experience with a VCS3 many years back and was able to get  
> sounds
> > of this latter type.
> >
> > So the question is -- does the 200e have this capacity? Maybe I just
> > am asking folks to confirm, or not, that the 200e can produce pretty
> > much any sound if one works at it and therefore I shouldn't worry.
> >
> > And if so --- any tips on modules that might be helpful in  
> supporting
> > my sound goals, and/or what modules might I not need so much? Or  
> might
> > it even be a matter of what happens to the sound once it leaves the
> > 200e (EQ-ing, reverb, etc...) and to whatever degree that is the  
> case,
> > then what recommendations does anyone have for further processing?
> >
> > Sorry to throw all this out at once!
> >
> > thanks -- dimitrios
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 




Richard Lainhart
http://www.otownmedia.com
http://www.downloadplatform.com/richard_lainhart
http://www.airglowmusic.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Are you from Greece Dimitrios?(judging from the name)
There is a person in Thessaloniki who owns some modules, and I am  
planning to see them too!

On Feb 11, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Richard Lainhart wrote:

> I'm not sure I agree with everything Johan says, but he makes one good
> point - even if you can afford a full system, getting a minimal module
> set first, in a full-size cabinet, makes a lot of sense. It gives you
> the chance to learn the basics, and will definitely help you in
> deciding what modules you need for expansion. If you fill up your
> cabinet immediately, you may well find that you're led in a direction
> where you need more of a particular module, or less of another, but
> don't have room to expand. That means that you have to remove or sell
> modules to make space for new ones.
>
> That's what I had to do - I bought a fully-populated 18-space cabinet,
> and after a few weeks of experimentation, realized that I needed
> another oscillator. I had to lose a 256e, a very useful module, to
> make space. So, leaving some room to grow is a good idea.
>
> > The vcs3 is organic by nature, unstable and to a certain degree
> > unpredictable given the patch you set up is complex enough. The 200e
> > is
> > different, in many respects. Buchla modulars 200 and after differs
> > from
> > other modulars in that you do a lot of the timbre design directly on
> > the
> > oscillator. Audio rate FM at high frequencies on the 200e is not as
> > good as
> > in analog synths to be honest. But there are so many other things
> > that are
> > superior with the 200e that i don't mind so much. For getting
> > animated,
> > "living" sounds the 266e Source of uncertainty comes handy, this is
> > how you
> > do organic sounds in the 200e. It is a great module, i have one, and
> > i am
> > planning to get a second one. The ARF is great, it can be used in so
> > many
> > ways, last night i used it for sequencing sound movement in
> > quadraphonic
> > space at a concert. 227e is another favourite of mine.
> > Last year i performed in a mine. I played very loud and one section
> > of the
> > piece was kind of like a bass drone, 261e's with timbre shifts
> > controlled by
> > a slow ARF sequence some stages with lag, some stepped. That was  
> a f-
> > ing
> > physical experience that proved it can do decent bass sounds :)  
> But no
> > illusions. The 200e invites to "'electronic' (chirpy, bleepy,
> > machine-y,
> > high-frequency-y...)" kind of sounds rather than smooth basslines.
> > It is a
> > musical instrument not a swiss army knife.
> > For a 12-panel system i'd suggest:
> >
> > 261e x 2, 281e, 292e, 227e, 266e, 225e
> > Maybe buy this set first and get used to it, then you'll know better
> > what
> > you need to complete with. The rest depends on what kind of stuff
> > you'd like
> > to do with it. Why no 291e initially? While it is a great module,
> > filters
> > are not essential on the 200e IMO since the 261e offers so many  
> sonic
> > possibilities that the filters in the 292e often is quite enough.
> >
> > good luck!
> > Johan
> >
> > 2008/2/11, cellabbee <da108@telus.net>:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am feeling pretty compelled towards this Buchla box -- if I  
> bite I
> > > think I can manage to obtain a mostly full 12-panel cabinet, and
> > > without doubt 2 of the panels will be occupied by the arbitrary
> > > function generator I hear such amazing things about.
> > >
> > > I've read most of the posted messages, which have been helpful,  
> but
> > > have a general concern, which is:
> > >
> > > --- alot of the 200e sounds I hear in files and videos online are
> > very
> > > 'electronic' (chirpy, bleepy, machine-y, high-frequency-y...) but
> > I am
> > > inclined to make more 'natural' and 'organic' sounding noises.  
> I had
> > > some experience with a VCS3 many years back and was able to get
> > sounds
> > > of this latter type.
> > >
> > > So the question is -- does the 200e have this capacity? Maybe I  
> just
> > > am asking folks to confirm, or not, that the 200e can produce  
> pretty
> > > much any sound if one works at it and therefore I shouldn't worry.
> > >
> > > And if so --- any tips on modules that might be helpful in
> > supporting
> > > my sound goals, and/or what modules might I not need so much? Or
> > might
> > > it even be a matter of what happens to the sound once it leaves  
> the
> > > 200e (EQ-ing, reverb, etc...) and to whatever degree that is the
> > case,
> > > then what recommendations does anyone have for further processing?
> > >
> > > Sorry to throw all this out at once!
> > >
> > > thanks -- dimitrios
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Lainhart
> http://www.otownmedia.com
> http://www.downloadplatform.com/richard_lainhart
> http://www.airglowmusic.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 

--
Alexandros Papadopoulos
Mitropoulou 8th 54644
Thessaloniki, Greece
Phone: +30 2310 868706
Mobile: +30 6972747136





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Dimitrios!
It is a very powerful attraction!
I'm lucky enough to own a Synthi(27 years!) and a
small 8 panel 200e(292/291/281/266/261/259/250es)
for now about a year.
In that both seem to possess a very distinct musical
personality, and in my mind at least, one that seems
less inclined towards conventional tonality, I think
they sort of demand comparison.
Obviously, they are very different forms of life, and
that while a good technical analysis which wouldn't be
that difficult go through would reveal why the two
instruments sound very different, the fact that many
of the same folks who for whatever reason gravitate
towards one often are very attracted towards the
other. Suggesting maybe some broader musical
considerations at play, I think the key being a
certain aesthetic 
they seem to favor.
Back to organic, I would agree that both very much
seem alive.
It might be partly a function of the potential
complexity both enjoy.
The Synthi has 16 fm inputs for it's vcos, complex
routings are simple to achieve, it can distort an all
sorts of places, the controllable spring reverb, the
way the instruments responds to voltage, the
components used, etc.
The Buchla 200e I think provides its complexity by
uniting powerful digital synthesis capability with a
physical, analogue interaction.
Plus it is so well thought out, it is a very inviting
instrument, perhaps that interaction being the
ultimate source of it's personality.
Both are the products of wonderful musical minds(which
I think is the real reason they both seem alive.)
They both far exceed the sum of their parts.
I think if you love one, you'd equally love the other,
even though they sound very different.

--- cellabbee <da108@telus.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I am feeling pretty compelled towards this Buchla
> box -- > I had
> some experience with a VCS3 many years back and was
> able to get sounds
> of this latter type.
> 
> So the question is -- does the 200e have this
> capacity? 


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

wow... thanks so much guys for the comments and advice, they are  
very, very clarifying and helpful. this is a great group! I can't
thank you enuf.
now back to decision-making....

dimitrios



--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, don hassler <dlh30039@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dimitrios!
> It is a very powerful attraction!
> I'm lucky enough to own a Synthi(27 years!) and a
> small 8 panel 200e(292/291/281/266/261/259/250es)
> for now about a year.
> In that both seem to possess a very distinct musical
> personality, and in my mind at least, one that seems
> less inclined towards conventional tonality, I think
> they sort of demand comparison.
> Obviously, they are very different forms of life, and
> that while a good technical analysis which wouldn't be
> that difficult go through would reveal why the two
> instruments sound very different, the fact that many
> of the same folks who for whatever reason gravitate
> towards one often are very attracted towards the
> other. Suggesting maybe some broader musical
> considerations at play, I think the key being a
> certain aesthetic 
> they seem to favor.
> Back to organic, I would agree that both very much
> seem alive.
> It might be partly a function of the potential
> complexity both enjoy.
> The Synthi has 16 fm inputs for it's vcos, complex
> routings are simple to achieve, it can distort an all
> sorts of places, the controllable spring reverb, the
> way the instruments responds to voltage, the
> components used, etc.
> The Buchla 200e I think provides its complexity by
> uniting powerful digital synthesis capability with a
> physical, analogue interaction.
> Plus it is so well thought out, it is a very inviting
> instrument, perhaps that interaction being the
> ultimate source of it's personality.
> Both are the products of wonderful musical minds(which
> I think is the real reason they both seem alive.)
> They both far exceed the sum of their parts.
> I think if you love one, you'd equally love the other,
> even though they sound very different.
> 
> --- cellabbee <da108@...> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I am feeling pretty compelled towards this Buchla
> > box -- > I had
> > some experience with a VCS3 many years back and was
> > able to get sounds
> > of this latter type.
> > 
> > So the question is -- does the 200e have this
> > capacity? 
> 
> 
>      
____________________________________________________________________________________

> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

Hi,

I find my Buchla very unique for certain types/styles of sound.
After owning both 259e's and 261e's, I concluded that the digital 
aspect of sound generation in the neo-Buchla was not for me (i.e. the 
oscillators).
Therefore, I managed to obtain two 259's (from the early '70's), 
which I find richer and more robust in sound. The 261e sounds quite 
close to it, but it's thinner and tends to have the same pitch jitter 
of the 259e (yuck!!). Too bad, as I would love to have a system like 
Richard's (I just LOVE my Continuum!!), but I have only been able to 
find two 259's (anybody out there have two more to sell to me??).
I also love the 291e. What a rowdy, wild filter this is!! I only have 
one, but need a second one (anybody have one to sell???).
BTW, while a little off-topic: Cynthia Webster is planning a Buchla-
format version of her Zeroscillator. I'm sure this one would play 
well in the Buchla sandbox.


cuari7

 > I'm not sure I agree with everything Johan says, but he makes one 
good  
> point - even if you can afford a full system, getting a minimal 
module  
> set first, in a full-size cabinet, makes a lot of sense. It gives 
you  
> the chance to learn the basics, and will definitely help you in  
> deciding what modules you need for expansion. If you fill up your  
> cabinet immediately, you may well find that you're led in a 
direction  
> where you need more of a particular module, or less of another, 
but  
> don't have room to expand. That means that you have to remove or 
sell  
> modules to make space for new ones.
> 
> That's what I had to do - I bought a fully-populated 18-space 
cabinet,  

> and after a few weeks of experimentation, realized that I needed  
> another oscillator. I had to lose a 256e, a very useful module, to  
> make space. So, leaving some room to grow is a good idea.
> 
> 
>

cuari7 <cuari7@comcast.net> wrote:                               Therefore, I managed to obtain two 259's (from the early '70's), 

   
                                                 Recent Activity
                          
           1
       New Members
                                                                                  
                      Visit Your Group           
                                                                          Yahoo! News
  Odd News
  You won't believe
  it, but it's true
                  
                                            Ads on Yahoo!
  Learn more now.
  Reach customers
  searching for you.
                  
                                            Best of Y! Groups
  Check it out
  and nominate your
  group to be featured.
                  
           
        
      .
 
    
                    
 quite an achievement since the 259 was designed in the mid to late 70s ;)
 
 you must have sound that time travel frequency I've been looking for.
 

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>  quite an achievement since the 259 was designed in the mid to late 
70s ;)
>  
>  you must have sound that time travel frequency I've been looking for.
>  


Really?
For some reason I thought it had come out about the same time as the 
other 200 modules. I guess it was the 258 that was from the early 70's.
Oh, well, I stand corrected.
As for my time-travel pods..... I stopped using them after a bunch of 
obnoxious muscle-heads kept coming in looking for Sarah Connor.

;-P

cuari7 <cuari7@comcast.net> wrote:        
Really?
For some reason I thought it had come out about the same time as the 
other 200 modules. I guess it was the 258 that was from the early 70's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I was just bustin your chops,  however the 259 schemos are dated 1977 I believe... revisions in 1978... I wouldnt be suprised if development started in late 76.. hard to say exactly.. I guess the earliest schemo date is the best point of refernece.
  I generally seperate the 200 into 3 main "eras"  
  1) Davis Black knob  - (217, 258, 226, 280, 246 etc) 1970 -1973 (15 volt)
2) Rogan AR knob - CMOS heavy modules (281/208/227/248/218/219 etc) from 1974-76 (15 or 10 volt)
3) Rogan RB knob - later blue knob modules (266, 259, 296, 292C, 221)  1977-83 (10 volt)
  last series was designed around interfacing with the 300 series computers... I would think thats why the shift to 10 volts.. 0-9 is easier to input into patch then getting all complex with hex... which they did anyway
  
 


        Recent Activity
    
      1
  New Members

Visit Your Group 
      Yahoo! News
  Kevin Sites
  Get coverage of
  world crises.

    Ads on Yahoo!
  Learn more now.
  Reach customers
  searching for you.

    Special K Group
  on Yahoo! Groups
  Join the challenge
  and lose weight.



  .

 
                         

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hey, just wanted to let anyone know that after considering the input from group members 
and reflecting deeply about it, I did decide to get a 200e. Sent the order/money in so now 
just have to wait. Modules I went with are:

261e waveform
266e uncertainty
291e filter
281e function generator
292e quad dynamics manager
250e arbitrary
227e interface

re. my concerns about the sound of 261e, Cyndustries just started taking orders for their 
Zeroscillator in Buchla format (calling it ZOe) so I figured I"d try one and also have one 
261e, and I feel good about this

also, since I don't use MIDI or perform live, I can do without presets or matrix patching 
(for now, anyway) and so was able to order a pretty heavy duty music box with just 8 
modules.

thanks again for the info and especially to a few who sent me PM's. 

I'll report back in when I've got the instrument and tried it out,

dimitrios






--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "cuari7" <cuari7@...> wrote:

>
>                    
> >  quite an achievement since the 259 was designed in the mid to late 
> 70s ;)
> >  
> >  you must have sound that time travel frequency I've been looking for.
> >  
> 
> 
> Really?
> For some reason I thought it had come out about the same time as the 
> other 200 modules. I guess it was the 258 that was from the early 70's.
> Oh, well, I stand corrected.
> As for my time-travel pods..... I stopped using them after a bunch of 
> obnoxious muscle-heads kept coming in looking for Sarah Connor.
> 
> ;-P
>

congratulations!

you will love it

the waiting is the hardest part

but it's worth it

jo
--- cellabbee <da108@telus.net> wrote:

> hey, just wanted to let anyone know that after
> considering the input from group members 
> and reflecting deeply about it, I did decide to get
> a 200e. Sent the order/money in so now 
> just have to wait. Modules I went with are:
> 
> 261e waveform
> 266e uncertainty
> 291e filter
> 281e function generator
> 292e quad dynamics manager
> 250e arbitrary
> 227e interface
> 
> re. my concerns about the sound of 261e, Cyndustries
> just started taking orders for their 
> Zeroscillator in Buchla format (calling it ZOe) so I
> figured I"d try one and also have one 
> 261e, and I feel good about this
> 
> also, since I don't use MIDI or perform live, I can
> do without presets or matrix patching 
> (for now, anyway) and so was able to order a pretty
> heavy duty music box with just 8 
> modules.
> 
> thanks again for the info and especially to a few
> who sent me PM's. 
> 
> I'll report back in when I've got the instrument and
> tried it out,
> 
> dimitrios
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "cuari7" <cuari7@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >                    
> > >  quite an achievement since the 259 was designed
> in the mid to late 
> > 70s ;)
> > >  
> > >  you must have sound that time travel frequency
> I've been looking for.
> > >  
> > 
> > 
> > Really?
> > For some reason I thought it had come out about
> the same time as the 
> > other 200 modules. I guess it was the 258 that was
> from the early 70's.
> > Oh, well, I stand corrected.
> > As for my time-travel pods..... I stopped using
> them after a bunch of 
> > obnoxious muscle-heads kept coming in looking for
> Sarah Connor.
> > 
> > ;-P
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs