Synth-DIY Yahoo! Groups Archives

Thread

Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by kirkdegiorgio

I know this is the Serge list but further to the discussion previously on this list - has
anyone read the latest addition to the 200e FAQ section? If so could they pls translate for
me in Plain English ;-) thx...

(I 'think' its saying the control section is digital but the interface is analog, the audio path
is analog, except the Complex Oscillator which is a digital/analog hybrid... )?

KD

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by imabadbadkat96

That's pretty much what I got out of it too, but I'm also not
entirely sure.

Show quoted textHide quoted text

--- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, "kirkdegiorgio"
<kirk.degiorgio@b...> wrote:

> I know this is the Serge list but further to the discussion

previously on this list - has

> anyone read the latest addition to the 200e FAQ section? If so

could they pls translate for

> me in Plain English ;-) thx...
>
> (I 'think' its saying the control section is digital but the

interface is analog, the audio path

> is analog, except the Complex Oscillator which is a digital/analog

hybrid... )?

>
>
>
> KD

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by Peter Grenader

I'm pretty sure the Midi module is digital.

With only one pot setting the voltage levels for dual independent 24 step
sequencers, the DARF is surely micro p based and he's mentioning that the
fact page that the driver for the low pass gate is also digital - meaning
the circuitry turning on the vactrol LED in the analog low pass gate is done
via micro p.

imabadbadkat96 wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> That's pretty much what I got out of it too, but I'm also not
> entirely sure.
>
>
> --- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, "kirkdegiorgio"
> <kirk.degiorgio@b...> wrote:
>> I know this is the Serge list but further to the discussion
> previously on this list - has
>> anyone read the latest addition to the 200e FAQ section? If so
> could they pls translate for
>> me in Plain English ;-) thx...
>>
>> (I 'think' its saying the control section is digital but the
> interface is analog, the audio path
>> is analog, except the Complex Oscillator which is a digital/analog
> hybrid... )?
>>
>>
>>
>> KD
>
>
>
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by Chris Whitten

The FAQ mentions as reasons to go digital 1) the need for ultra stable
oscillators and 2) the need to reduce distortion.
I'd hazard a guess that both those ideals run contrary to the properties of
a nice sounding analogue synth.
Put another way, IMO the best sounding synths have exhibited beating
oscillators and all kinds of distortions and grainy circuits. That's what
gives them a rich and characterful body.
I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by darkstr1746@comcast.net

What?? you no likee the OB-Mx crappy sound? LOL. It is pretty gawd awful at alot of things isn't it?.... then on the other hand, for absolute martian rubbish........

john duval

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-------------- Original message --------------
I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!

Keep on Patchin'!

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by srmaietta

Well, to the synth geek community who analyze waveforms and argue
about which oscillator is fatter than another, Im sure that we're
going to hear about it. Probably negatives. Although maybe they
will be so awestruck at the time of finally hearing one of the things
thay'll be so in love with the idea of a new Buchla that it will (in
their love distorted ears) perfect and fat and Phat and etc. . .
Personally, I think the whole fatness of one osc vs another argument
totally 200% overblown. And lets remember that this is a brand new
instrument, not one designed with 1984 MIDI spec and components, so
it should deliver a 2004 sound. Purely digital 2004 va's sound damn
good, so this hybrid should be at least up to that level.

It seems that Don couldn't really care how the sound is made, and I
bet he never really did! He has always approached his instrument
design from the philosophy first, then user interface then tried to
make the guts do what his philosophy called for. Modern
microprocessors, advanced ADC/DAC implementations, and compact SMT
components have finally given Don flexible and powerful enough "guts"
to really let his ideas of what a synthesizer should be come to life.

Whos gonna be there at the AES in San Fran this October for the
unveiling? Email Buchla and get on the list!

~Steve

(posted the desert islander 2 panel..(SMserge4.jpg) to the files
section)

--- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, Chris Whitten <cw.chris@z...>
wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> The FAQ mentions as reasons to go digital 1) the need for ultra

stable

> oscillators and 2) the need to reduce distortion.
> I'd hazard a guess that both those ideals run contrary to the

properties of

> a nice sounding analogue synth.
> Put another way, IMO the best sounding synths have exhibited beating
> oscillators and all kinds of distortions and grainy circuits.

That's what

> gives them a rich and characterful body.
> I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by Peter Grenader

darkstr1746@... wrote:

What?? you no likee the OB-Mx crappy sound? LOL. It is pretty gawd awful at alot of things isn't it?.... then on the other hand, for absolute martian rubbish........

john duval

-------------- Original message --------------
I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!

Keep on Patchin'!

Keep on Patchin'!

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by srmaietta

absolute martian rubbish . . . lol

good one
~Stv

Show quoted textHide quoted text

--- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, darkstr1746@c... wrote:
> What?? you no likee the OB-Mx crappy sound? LOL. It is pretty gawd
awful at alot of things isn't it?.... then on the other hand, for
absolute martian rubbish........
> john duval
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!
>
>
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by Peter Grenader

Won't happen - the OBMX's audio path was entirely analog via CEM chips, not
DSP.

Now - the envelopes I believe were digital, but they were glorious.

darkstr1746@... wrote:

What?? you no likee the OB-Mx crappy sound? LOL. It is pretty gawd awful at
alot of things isn't it?.... then on the other hand, for absolute martian
rubbish........

john duval

-------------- Original message --------------
I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!

Keep on Patchin'!

Keep on Patchin'!

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-27 by darkstr1746@comcast.net

Ya know, i never was able to find out about the envelopes. Digital or Analogue. But your absolutely right when you say they are glorious. Probably one of the only reasons why i still hang on to my 10 voice. Those envelopes with the modulation matrix still keep me grinning and laughing for hours when all i want to hear is Martian rubbish. LOL

kind regards

john duval

Show quoted textHide quoted text

-------------- Original message --------------
Won't happen - the OBMX's audio path was entirely analog via CEM chips, not
DSP.

Now - the envelopes I believe were digital, but they were glorious.

darkstr1746@... wrote:

What?? you no likee the OB-Mx crappy sound? LOL. It is pretty gawd awful at
alot of things isn't it?.... then on the other hand, for absolute martian
rubbish........

john duval

-------------- Original message --------------
I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!

Keep on Patchin'!

Keep on Patchin'!

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Keep on Patchin'!

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-28 by Peter Grenader

Well, I must concede - while I too loved the envelopes and the mod matrix, I really didn't care for its sound and I sold my 6 voice within eight or so weeks. One thing that I really did like though was running the 'moog' filter into oscillation while keeping the VCOs fed into it. Interesting cross modulation thing occurs.

- P

darkstr1746@... wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

Ya know, i never was able to find out about the envelopes. Digital or Analogue. But your absolutely right when you say they are glorious. Probably one of the only reasons why i still hang on to my 10 voice. Those envelopes with the modulation matrix still keep me grinning and laughing for hours when all i want to hear is Martian rubbish. LOL

kind regards

john duval

-------------- Original message --------------
Won't happen - the OBMX's audio path was entirely analog via CEM chips, not
DSP.

Now - the envelopes I believe were digital, but they were glorious.

darkstr1746@... wrote:

What?? you no likee the OB-Mx crappy sound? LOL. It is pretty gawd awful at
alot of things isn't it?.... then on the other hand, for absolute martian
rubbish........

john duval

-------------- Original message --------------
I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!

Keep on Patchin'!

Keep on Patchin'!

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Keep on Patchin'!

Keep on Patchin'!

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-28 by Scott E.

Steve,

I could not have said this better myself. It is great that Don Buchla is
releasing a synthesizer based upon classic designs with updated
functionality in his new modular. But why should he be constrained to
the past? At that time, there was *only* pure analog. As much as I love
the sound of the original 200, it has already been done. To think that
some 23 year later that a new "200" should not be released with the most
current technologies is beyond comprehension.

Look at the instrument for what it is, what it does and what it sounds
like (when we all get the chance). As the saying goes, "You can never go
home.". There would be no point, IMO, of reissuing exactly what he did
over 20 years ago.

Scott E.
--------------------------------------------------------
srmaietta wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text

> Well, to the synth geek community who analyze waveforms and argue
> about which oscillator is fatter than another, Im sure that we're
> going to hear about it. Probably negatives. Although maybe they
> will be so awestruck at the time of finally hearing one of the things
> thay'll be so in love with the idea of a new Buchla that it will (in
> their love distorted ears) perfect and fat and Phat and etc. . .
> Personally, I think the whole fatness of one osc vs another argument
> totally 200% overblown. And lets remember that this is a brand new
> instrument, not one designed with 1984 MIDI spec and components, so
> it should deliver a 2004 sound. Purely digital 2004 va's sound damn
> good, so this hybrid should be at least up to that level.
>
> It seems that Don couldn't really care how the sound is made, and I
> bet he never really did! He has always approached his instrument
> design from the philosophy first, then user interface then tried to
> make the guts do what his philosophy called for. Modern
> microprocessors, advanced ADC/DAC implementations, and compact SMT
> components have finally given Don flexible and powerful enough "guts"
> to really let his ideas of what a synthesizer should be come to life.
>
> Whos gonna be there at the AES in San Fran this October for the
> unveiling? Email Buchla and get on the list!
>
> ~Steve
>
> (posted the desert islander 2 panel..(SMserge4.jpg) to the files
> section)
>
>
>
>
> --- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, Chris Whitten <cw.chris@z...>
> wrote:
> > The FAQ mentions as reasons to go digital 1) the need for ultra
> stable
> > oscillators and 2) the need to reduce distortion.
> > I'd hazard a guess that both those ideals run contrary to the
> properties of
> > a nice sounding analogue synth.
> > Put another way, IMO the best sounding synths have exhibited beating
> > oscillators and all kinds of distortions and grainy circuits.
> That's what
> > gives them a rich and characterful body.
> > I hope the 200e isn't going to be a 'modular' OBMX!
>
>
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129i45bcf/M=273541.4247512.5496808.2248467/D=grplch/S=1705032144:HM/EXP=1096413020/A=2061551/R=0/SIG=11sr5b9n1/*http://launch.yahoo.com/artist/videos.asp?artistID=1001301>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SergeModular/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Re: Buchla 200e Updated FAQ

2004-09-28 by Chris Whitten

> Look at the instrument for what it is, what it does and what it sounds
> like (when we all get the chance). As the saying goes, "You can never go
> home.". There would be no point, IMO, of reissuing exactly what he did
> over 20 years ago.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you for one moment.
However, it's ALL about the sound.
The most interesting instruments to me (especially in synthesis) have been
the ones without perfectly clean oscillators, super clean signal paths
etc...
I'm happy for the 200e to contain all the latest technology, providing it
sounds good. We'll see.
The evidence so far (to my ears at least) is that a lot of modern synthesis
(including VA) lacks depth of tone and a character of it's own. The
exception would be the Nord Lead.
That's why I went back to the pioneering instruments of the early 70's in
the first place.
CW