What choices does one have, or not have, for laying out an analog Boolean
logic gate module in this physical format?
The Boolean functions are always listed in this order: AND, OR,
eXclusive-OR. I have never seen them mentioned, drawn, etc in a different
order anywhere. If one doesn't know what these are about in a synthesizer
system, just think of it as a rule as there are rules in grammar.
Also integral to the use of these functions are two inverters - one to
reverse the initial condition (one input), one to swap the output.
So if Duncan wanted to create a unique Bool module, he had only one and a
half alternatives: put the inverters together in one place instead of one at
top/ one at bottom (wow!);
Or choose a module with two or three sections of generalized paths: each
having two ins, one out, plus a switch to select one of the three functions
plus two switches for the inversions.
Visually, the latter option is slightly harder to use, and doesn't fit into
the Modcan design; it would rather look like a Buchla module (many of those
had more switches than jacks, but that's another topic).
I'm curious to hear other ideas as to what a Bool module should look like?
But more importantly: why would someone want to make a Bool module unique?
When Moog and Buchla made their first VCOs, they differed significantly in
design, because they originated from different intentions. *Everybody* after
these two adapted the design philosophy of the Moog "option" and proceeded
from there. Fixed control scale and quantity of waveform outputs were
considered more desirable than unique and remarkably better sounding FM
behaviour, unlimited control scale versatility and onboard wavecrossfading,
and most everybody accepts this as given. It set a standard for music
synthesizers, to which the PCO and NTO accord essentially too, if the least.
For a Bool module in musical application, the choices are just narrower.
I have to agree that the DADSR and the Panner modules are a different
matter. But concerning the Davies knobs, the Bool, Pk/Thr and Polyfusion
designs and the red trigger jacks, there are serious alternatives to
considering these things a lack of creativity or even theft.
I don't think that that the Serge is going to loose its (often mystified)
uniqueness - which it took it near two decades, a long evolution process of
the underlying philosophy and manufacturing principles, and a broad revival
of Analog to acquire.
Regards
Sebastian Kuehnl
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
logic gate module in this physical format?
The Boolean functions are always listed in this order: AND, OR,
eXclusive-OR. I have never seen them mentioned, drawn, etc in a different
order anywhere. If one doesn't know what these are about in a synthesizer
system, just think of it as a rule as there are rules in grammar.
Also integral to the use of these functions are two inverters - one to
reverse the initial condition (one input), one to swap the output.
So if Duncan wanted to create a unique Bool module, he had only one and a
half alternatives: put the inverters together in one place instead of one at
top/ one at bottom (wow!);
Or choose a module with two or three sections of generalized paths: each
having two ins, one out, plus a switch to select one of the three functions
plus two switches for the inversions.
Visually, the latter option is slightly harder to use, and doesn't fit into
the Modcan design; it would rather look like a Buchla module (many of those
had more switches than jacks, but that's another topic).
I'm curious to hear other ideas as to what a Bool module should look like?
But more importantly: why would someone want to make a Bool module unique?
When Moog and Buchla made their first VCOs, they differed significantly in
design, because they originated from different intentions. *Everybody* after
these two adapted the design philosophy of the Moog "option" and proceeded
from there. Fixed control scale and quantity of waveform outputs were
considered more desirable than unique and remarkably better sounding FM
behaviour, unlimited control scale versatility and onboard wavecrossfading,
and most everybody accepts this as given. It set a standard for music
synthesizers, to which the PCO and NTO accord essentially too, if the least.
For a Bool module in musical application, the choices are just narrower.
I have to agree that the DADSR and the Panner modules are a different
matter. But concerning the Davies knobs, the Bool, Pk/Thr and Polyfusion
designs and the red trigger jacks, there are serious alternatives to
considering these things a lack of creativity or even theft.
I don't think that that the Serge is going to loose its (often mystified)
uniqueness - which it took it near two decades, a long evolution process of
the underlying philosophy and manufacturing principles, and a broad revival
of Analog to acquire.
Regards
Sebastian Kuehnl
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com