--- In SergeModular@y..., "Bill Felton" <bfelton@m...> wrote:
specs.
Add the last couple i/o connections that Serge skips. (I don't like
the stock rise/both/fall switch on the USG
Make new modules of Serge quality with has high specs and
with as much CV.
Offer new kinds of wave and voltage processors.
Make it easy to produce all kinds of quadrature from LFOs
synced to a tempo
People are making "new" synths but they rarely go beyond 20
year old ideas. All through the 70s synths kept getting better and
more feature filled. There are only a handfull of exceptions.
over.
I'd say that proves my point at least in part! Why not someone
else doing it to something else. Or something new from the
ground up?
but that was a while back, one would think that someone would
have caught up. Maybe Grant or Paul S. or John Blacet might
someday, but not yet.
that track
a resonant filter bank with indy outs
moving the individual poles on filters
better tools for working with multiple formants
counters
more binary operations
patch storage :-)
I'm sure all of us could think of some.
Its not that things have to get improved its more a puzzlement.
Now that analog synths have been back several years and there
is a little competition, how come so many companies just spend
time looking for more old designs to copy? The final
> Well, you know, I'm fascinated by the recurringSell individual modules in a wide range and of serge quality
> theme (and not just in Serge-land) of "you'd think
> someone would manage to make a system that
> decidedly outdoes Serge in a bunch of ways".
> What kinds of things do people think would fill
> the bill on this?
specs.
Add the last couple i/o connections that Serge skips. (I don't like
the stock rise/both/fall switch on the USG
Make new modules of Serge quality with has high specs and
with as much CV.
Offer new kinds of wave and voltage processors.
Make it easy to produce all kinds of quadrature from LFOs
synced to a tempo
People are making "new" synths but they rarely go beyond 20
year old ideas. All through the 70s synths kept getting better and
more feature filled. There are only a handfull of exceptions.
>Or is it just a vague feelingAs we just talked about, Rex improved the specs when he took
> that "since this stuff (Serge, or whatever is under
> comment at the time) is old, something newer must
> perforce be better/offer improvements"?
over.
I'd say that proves my point at least in part! Why not someone
else doing it to something else. Or something new from the
ground up?
but that was a while back, one would think that someone would
have caught up. Maybe Grant or Paul S. or John Blacet might
someday, but not yet.
> I'd sure be happy, or at least vastly interested,really tight VC delay with feedback to do waveguide type things
> to hear thoughts as to what would 'vasty improve'
> the land of modular, or even analog, synthesis,
that track
a resonant filter bank with indy outs
moving the individual poles on filters
better tools for working with multiple formants
counters
more binary operations
patch storage :-)
I'm sure all of us could think of some.
Its not that things have to get improved its more a puzzlement.
Now that analog synths have been back several years and there
is a little competition, how come so many companies just spend
time looking for more old designs to copy? The final