SergeModular

> Maybe you could look at it this way: a 2600 is a quickly configurable yet
> modular instrument if you need it. A Wiard or CMS system has less presets
> but still allows rather rapid programming. Most modulars form the next
> stage: no presets, standardized functionality (like ADSR envelopes). A

Serge

> is slower. Things are much more broken up, what with several different
> independent modules for binary and complex waveshaping, slew processing

etc.

> An analog computer is even "slower": a basic VCO wants to be patched up as
> well as other functions which may be harder to understand from a common
> musician's view but may essentially be no more complex than a VCO which

one

> is used to buying as a readymade module.

Can I work under the assumption that an analog computer is no different from
a digital computer, inasmuch as you are provided with a certain number of
elements, which are capable of certain types of processes, and how you wire
them up ("program," for want of a better term) determines the net result?

In looking at the GP-6 (and a GP-8, I think it was, that went on eBay a
while back) I notice that while many elements are provided, their uses
aren't as obvious as a modular, with which we are all familiar. We all know
what a VCO does, but maybe not why it does it. It would seem that the GP-10S
is capable of _being_ a VCO, as long as you know the why. It's also capable
of being many other things, as long as you know the processes that are
involved in creating those things. That being the case, I would think
something like this could only be good, as long as you took the time to
learn what was possible.

-Chris Randall