MOTM

Ivan Wrote:

> I would think that future digital MOTM products should be unique; 
> there are already DX-7's in a box, for example (I've got a a couple of 
> them inside my Kenton PlugStation).
>
> Personally I'm still looking forward to the MOTM Bi-Phase.  There 
> isn't anything quite like that currently on the market.

I agree with both of these things, though if I know Paul S's like I 
think I do, his "DX-7 on a chip" reference probably was meant more as 
an "imagine what we can do" than "I'd actually like to put a DX7 on a 
chip".

I've got an 816 rack and a line on 2 more if anybody wants 'em. We 
don't need to re-invent -that- wheel.

And I too am looking forward to a VC Bi-Phase!

e

I used to have a TX816, but programjming it was a bitch.  I probably 
would have kept it if it would have had knobs.  I even toyed with 
the idea of building a huge panel with knobs to control all the 
parameters.  

What I'm suggesting is not a DX7 on a chip.  What I'm suggesting is 
a single voice DX7 spread across 8 or 10 modules, with the ability 
to patch into any point in the algorithm with a control or audio 
frequency signal, and the ability to patch (as sort of an insert) in 
filters and other processors into the chain.  Imagine running that 
hard, sterile DX7 sound through a 440 or a 420, not just at the 
output, but at any point in the process.  Imagine being able to lag 
process the frequency control of some operators, but not others in 
the same patch.

Now maybe the same thing would be better realized by building fully 
analog oscillators capable of through zero FM, and DX7 style 
envelope generators.  But since the DX7 voices are DCOs and DEGs 
anyway, using a digital implementation would seem to be the way to 
go.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "paulhaneberg" <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> 
> I used to have a TX816, but programjming it was a bitch.  I probably 
> would have kept it if it would have had knobs.  I even toyed with 
> the idea of building a huge panel with knobs to control all the 
> parameters.  

something like this?
http://www.synrise.de/guests/lorenz/coll/jellinghDX.html

    Michael.

I did this, and I even did it before the Jellinghaus device was offered.  
I sold when I was done with college, though.  No idea what happened to it.  
I only have one of the spare operator panels left:

http://www.oldcrows.net/~oldcrow/synth/crow/DXPatchMaster.jpg
http://www.oldcrows.net/~oldcrow/synth/crow/DXPatchMaster2.jpg

  This thing was built into a "DJ desk" that was rescued from the
scrapheap.  I wish I still had it just for the sentimental value, but as a
poor college student in 1986 I needed the money.  I have to use a measly
DX-1 as a programmer now. ;)

Crow
/**/

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, paulhaneberg wrote:

> I used to have a TX816, but programming it was a bitch.  I probably 
> would have kept it if it would have had knobs.  I even toyed with 
> the idea of building a huge panel with knobs to control all the 
> parameters.

> What I'm suggesting is not a DX7 on a chip.  What I'm suggesting is
> a single voice DX7 spread across 8 or 10 modules, with the ability

Gotcha. Actually I was talking about Schreiber's original post that 
just said "DX7 on a chip". Sorry for the confusion. Though I like this 
idea a lot, too.

816's plus Galaxy+ on a PM9600,
Eric

What sounds interesting to me is modular FM. The DX-7 algorithm could 
be replaced by a patchbay of jacks. This way, operator 4 could be 
processed through a Wavewarper before modulating operator 1. Each input 
would have its own pitch control and CV (with LED frequency display), 
as well as level CV.

Hey, I just designed a $600 module. Perhaps I should back off a bit. I 
actually like the Additive module idea better, since much of this FM 
and AM can already be done on MOTM with 300s and Wavewarpers.

On Feb 11, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Eric Frampton wrote:

> Ivan Wrote:
>
>  > I would think that future digital MOTM products should be unique;
>  > there are already DX-7's in a box, for example (I've got a a couple 
> of
>  > them inside my Kenton PlugStation).
>  >
>  > Personally I'm still looking forward to the MOTM Bi-Phase.  There
>  > isn't anything quite like that currently on the market.
>
>  I agree with both of these things, though if I know Paul S's like I
>  think I do, his "DX-7 on a chip" reference probably was meant more as
>  an "imagine what we can do" than "I'd actually like to put a DX7 on a
>  chip".
>
>  I've got an 816 rack and a line on 2 more if anybody wants 'em. We
>  don't need to re-invent -that- wheel.
>
>  And I too am looking forward to a VC Bi-Phase!
>
>  e
>
>
>

I've been hearing a lot of talk about people wanting modular DX-7 clones.

This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me.  When you're in 
the analog world, you can patch together a fairly complex FM patch using 
analog oscillators, but anything past a few 'operators' worth of 
emulating a digital FM synth will result in a lot of mush. VCOs just 
seem to act flaky when you push them like this.  Maybe this isn't the 
case with beasts like the MOTM-300, but as far as I know, trying to do 
analog FM past the level of complexity you get with maybe 3 chained VCOs 
doesn't work predictably like digital FM does.  So, if my understanding 
of the limits of using analog data to accomplish FM is correct, you'd 
need to be sending *digital* data from operator module to operator 
module.  Sure, you could send digital data out over the same patch cords 
you use, the cables don't care if they're  carrying S/PDIF or +-5 Volts 
analog audio.  But this means you can't patch through your other analog 
modules.

Perhaps this would work using digital oscillators sending out and taking 
in analog signal, but this means that each module is going to need a set 
of DACs and ADCs, and it's going to need to figure out exactly what the 
signal coming in is, for example convert the audio-version of the sine 
wave it 'hears' to a mathematically perfect sine wave?  Maybe this 
wouldn't be neccesary, but it does seem that it would be to me.

As far as I can tell, getting 'real' DX-7 emulation via modules would 
require digital modules with digital inputs and outputs, which would 
preclude any passing of operators through things like the wavewarper.

-Geoff

Jeff Laity wrote:

> What sounds interesting to me is modular FM. The DX-7 algorithm could 
> be replaced by a patchbay of jacks. This way, operator 4 could be 
> processed through a Wavewarper before modulating operator 1. Each 
> input would have its own pitch control and CV (with LED frequency 
> display), as well as level CV.
>
> Hey, I just designed a $600 module. Perhaps I should back off a bit. I 
> actually like the Additive module idea better, since much of this FM 
> and AM can already be done on MOTM with 300s and Wavewarpers.
>
> On Feb 11, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Eric Frampton wrote:
>
>     Ivan Wrote:
>
>     > I would think that future digital MOTM products should be unique;
>     > there are already DX-7's in a box, for example (I've got a a
>     couple of
>     > them inside my Kenton PlugStation).
>     >
>     > Personally I'm still looking forward to the MOTM Bi-Phase.  There
>     > isn't anything quite like that currently on the market.
>
>     I agree with both of these things, though if I know Paul S's like I
>     think I do, his "DX-7 on a chip" reference probably was meant more as
>     an "imagine what we can do" than "I'd actually like to put a DX7 on a
>     chip".
>
>     I've got an 816 rack and a line on 2 more if anybody wants 'em. We
>     don't need to re-invent -that- wheel.
>
>     And I too am looking forward to a VC Bi-Phase!
>
>     e
>
>
>

Right – Paul is talking about making a digital module, not analog. My 
design would require a lot of AD/DA conversions, though, so it may not 
be practical. A more inexpensive system would be similar to Yamaha FM 
synths which select an algorithm from a list.

On Feb 12, 2005, at 11:43 PM, Overand wrote:

>
>  As far as I can tell, getting 'real' DX-7 emulation via modules would
>  require digital modules with digital inputs and outputs...
>

The point I was trying to make, and one I think that everyone agrees 
on, is that new modules should not simply duplicate easily-available 
technology. There's not really a point of DX-7 in a module, since 
they're easy to find, but there might be something to modular FM 
– though modular additive sounds more interesting to me. Or non-modular 
even, if Synthtech ever strayed from the MOTM modular and moved into a 
traditional synth or module.

On Feb 13, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Jeff Laity wrote:

> Right – Paul is talking about making a digital module, not analog. My 
> design would require a lot of AD/DA conversions, though, so it may not 
> be practical. A more inexpensive system would be similar to Yamaha FM 
> synths which select an algorithm from a list.
>
> On Feb 12, 2005, at 11:43 PM, Overand wrote:
>
>>
>>  As far as I can tell, getting 'real' DX-7 emulation via modules would
>>  require digital modules with digital inputs and outputs...
>>