MOTM

I use a template that lists all the modules in my synth along with 
their jacks, switches, and knobs (a word processor doc that I print 
out). This lets me make very accurate annotations regarding knob 
settings (oscillator pitch at 4.25 vs. 4.3) and which jack is 
connected to which other jack. I also have a whole page where I can 
jot down notes. It's not the best method, but it works for me. The 
only thing I don't like is that it doesn't provide any visual, or 
conceptual, diagram of the patch (which you cover in options #1 and 
#2). What I'm doing is closest to your #4 option. Taking a picture 
with a camera doesn't work very well for a big synth with 100 patch 
cords. I gave up on that.

I had planned to create a synth/patch annotator for handheld 
computers that would generate a block diagram from a list of modules. 
An electronic version of my current template. But that's too much 
like my day job so I haven't gotten around to it yet. Maybe next year.

At 9:03 PM -0500 2003/03/22, Richard Brewster wrote:

>As I was hiking on the Applachian Trail for a couple hours today, of 
>all things I got thinking about how I could document patches on 
>my MOTM modular.
>
>1.  Hastily sketch out a block diagram with modules, inputs and 
>outputs connected by scribbly lines, with some notes as to whys and 
>wherefores, with some pot and switch settings.  (my present, awkward 
>method)
>
>2. Use Adobe Illustrator or some other drawing software to create 
>graphic templates of each module that can be dropped onto a drawing 
>and then connected with lines, plus comments.  The electronic 
>version of #1.  Too much work?
>
>3. Take a digital camera and just shoot a picture of the patch. 
>(Would it have good enough resolution?  Would you be able to tell 
>where all the patch cords go?)  Add notes and make it an HTML page 
>to view or print.
>
>4. Draw a matrix on paper with all the inputs on one axis and the 
>outputs on the other.  Place a mark where each connection occurs. 
>Make a list of all pot and switch settings.  Add comments.  An empty 
>matrix chart could be made up and printed out to draw on.  (Consider 
>the number of columns and rows; could it fit on one piece of paper, 
>etc.).  Could the matrix chart somehow show only the modules used in 
>a given patch, to save space?  Or would a standard chart that 
>included all the modules be easier to understand, because always the 
>same?
>
>I'm leaning toward #4, because being able to do the documentation 
>with a paper and pencil in front of the synthesizer has a lot of 
>advantages.  Sometimes low-tech is better.
>
>I imagine that the number of modules in your system could impact how 
>this would best be done.  My MOTM will have 32 modules in 52U of 
>space.
>
>Got any suggestions?  What have you all done?  Know of any good 
>information about this on the Internet?  (I have to check my 
>Electronotes collection, too.)
>
>-Richard Brewster
>

Richard Brewster writes:
>>As I was hiking on the Applachian Trail for a couple hours today, of all 
things I got thinking about how I could document patches on my MOTM modular.<<

I use the patchsheet modules in Windows Metafile Format and JPEG format that I 
created and posted publically a while back, and are/were on the Synthtech 
website. The WMF format should load in most draw programs like Illustrator. 
Then just rearrange/duplicate modules according to your system, delete unused 
modules, scale to page size, and then print out a batch of patchsheets of your 
synth. Then when you want to write down a patch, just draw in the patchcord 
connections and write in the knob values. It's clean, professional looking, and 
actually makes writing down patches kind of fun (if such a thing can be fun).  
I can fit my entire synth on one 8x11 sheet.

-Elhardt

Not meaning to be a name-dropper, but I asked Robert Rich about exactly this
topic once, and whether he was troubled by the lack of patch memory in a
modular synth. He said that it didn't trouble him at all, and "it helps keep
things fresh" (if I remember his words correctly).

I don't document my MOTM patches. I decided when I bought my MOTM that I
wouldn't worry about this. I build a patch with some specific application in
mind (or not); I take it apart again when it has served that purpose (or
not) and I need the machine for something else.

I have plenty of digital synthesizers with complete recall ability. I use
those if I really expect to use a timbre more than once.

--Adam

-- 
Adam Schabtach
adam@...
http://www.studionebula.com

That's an good point, Adam.  The need to document a patch depends on how you
use your synth.  I didn't mention before why I want to document my patches.

It is because I may never do any recording at all.  It may be that if anyone
besides myself is ever to hear my compositions (if that is even the right
word), they will have to hear them live.  My approach is exporatory.  What I
seek to capture and document is the patches and general methods I discover
to create sounds I find interesting.  I don't have specific ideas starting
out, but only general ones about what might be interesting.  I don't
consider this lack of specific ideas to be a problem.  Once I find something
interesting, I hope to record the patch with some jotted notes about it, so
that at some point I could get near again to that general result.  I am
fully aware that getting back to a very specific result is sometimes
impossible, given the nature of the dependencies on all the variables of pot
settings, chance timings and so forth.  And that that is exactly why
recording is so important to many synthesists.  But it is not my objective.
I expect that each time I go back to a patch it will be a little different,
and that is okay.  It will be fresh.  It's actually what I want.  I am not
trying to "realize" an idea by composing, or to be capable of reproducing
anything with precision.  I am more interested in exploring what the
synthesizer can do and playing with that.  I would be doing that in a
performance, too.  This is the same approach I followed twenty years ago.  I
could ramble on about my influences, but it wouldn't be hard to guess that
one of them is John Cage.  It was his mode of performance that most
impressed me when I had the good fortune to see him perform live.

-Richard Brewster

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Schabtach" <adam@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] How do you document your patches?


> Not meaning to be a name-dropper, but I asked Robert Rich about exactly
this
> topic once, and whether he was troubled by the lack of patch memory in a
> modular synth. He said that it didn't trouble him at all, and "it helps
keep
> things fresh" (if I remember his words correctly).
>
> I don't document my MOTM patches. I decided when I bought my MOTM that I
> wouldn't worry about this. I build a patch with some specific application
in

> mind (or not); I take it apart again when it has served that purpose (or
> not) and I need the machine for something else.
>
> I have plenty of digital synthesizers with complete recall ability. I use
> those if I really expect to use a timbre more than once.
>
> --Adam
>
> --
> Adam Schabtach
> adam@...
> http://www.studionebula.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I'd like to see that.  Can anyone post a link?

-Richard

> I use the patchsheet modules in Windows Metafile Format and JPEG format
that I
> created and posted publically a while back, and are/were on the Synthtech
> website. The WMF format should load in most draw programs like
Illustrator.
> Then just rearrange/duplicate modules according to your system, delete
unused
> modules, scale to page size, and then print out a batch of patchsheets of
your
> synth. Then when you want to write down a patch, just draw in the
patchcord
> connections and write in the knob values. It's clean, professional
looking, and
> actually makes writing down patches kind of fun (if such a thing can be
fun).

> I can fit my entire synth on one 8x11 sheet.
>
> -Elhardt
>

> My approach is exporatory.  What I
> seek to capture and document is the patches and general methods I discover
> to create sounds I find interesting.

Well, that certainly makes sense. I may have a tendency to under-document
what I do. If I find a new method on the MOTM--some specific configuration
of filters or whatever--I'm more likely to just tell myself "I'll remember
this" than I am to write it down. I'm not saying that this is a good thing,
but it's just my nature. It's not uncommon for my girlfriend to poke her
head into my studio and ask "are you recording this?" to which I almost
inevitably answer "uh, no..."

> I don't have specific ideas starting
> out, but only general ones about what might be interesting.  I don't
> consider this lack of specific ideas to be a problem.

Oh, that's definitely not a problem.

> I expect that each time I go back to a patch it will be a little different,
> and that is okay.  It will be fresh.  It's actually what I want.  I am not
> trying to "realize" an idea by composing, or to be capable of reproducing
> anything with precision.  I am more interested in exploring what the
> synthesizer can do and playing with that.

I think you and I actually agree fundamentally, but you are just more
organized than I. :-)

> I
> could ramble on about my influences, but it wouldn't be hard to guess that
> one of them is John Cage.  It was his mode of performance that most
> impressed me when I had the good fortune to see him perform live.

Cage was an interesting fellow. Sadly I never had the opportunity to see him
perform, but I have read some of his writings.

I used to be obsessive about the patches in my MIDI synths. I'd make sure
that they were backed up in some sort of patch-librarian software, for fear
that I'd either accidentally delete them or that the backup batteries in my
synths would fail.

Years later, I've seen more computers fail than backup batteries fail, and
I've lost more patches because of bugs in SoundDiver than any other reason.

I look at the MOTM as an exercise in not being obsessive about backing up my
patches. However, I do rather like the idea of using a digital camera to
photograph patches...

--Adam