MOTM

The only fault I currently see with Mike's scheme is you still have to "know" 
what the jacks are. If the font is too large for placement over the jack, then 
maybe a text box (like the comments). Other than that, I think they are 
perfectly useable.

Does the program write to PDF directly or are you "cheating"?

Paul S.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> The only fault I currently see with Mike's scheme is you still have to "know"
> what the jacks are. If the font is too large for placement over the jack, then
> maybe a text box (like the comments). Other than that, I think they are
> perfectly useable.

I'm starting to think that labels would be nice. Maybe I can get away with 
abriviated labels?

> Does the program write to PDF directly or are you "cheating"?

It outputs PDF directly, as well as Visio XML for PC export. The native 
file format is XML and is human readable. It is unfortunately OSX only, 
but I suspect I can create a Visio and Illustrator template too.

--mikes

I think that it would be appropriate for this project to have 2 diagrams for patches: both a 
"schematic" and a "motm implementation" -- kind of like a schemo + layout.

The schematics could be generalized, and of interest to non-motm-ers as well. This part 
helps you understand how the signal flow works. Then, the motm diagram would show a 
specific patch on a motm system.

Potentially, one or the other diagram could be trivial, and not included. But it makes sense if 
this patch book is going to be instructional, and not a simple cookbook.

I have been doing these many-oscillator FM patches with lots of feedback paths that once 
patched are incomprehensible. Seeing a diagram of one of these patches would just make my 
brain go into shut-down. If you illustrate mults, that further obfuscates the signal flow.  But 
the schematic version gives a very clear image of the feedback networks and how it affects 
the timbre.

So I think both are essential.

rreprobate writes:
>>I think that it would be appropriate for this project to have 2 diagrams
for patches: both a "schematic" and a "motm implementation" -- kind of like
a schemo + layout.<<

This is what Roland's synth book set does.  One shows the patch using their
modules.  Just like the patch sheets I've drawn up and used, they look like
the silkscreens form the actual modules.  The other shows a simple block
diagram which is just square boxes that say VCO or LPF for example, with
lines and arrows connecting them.  If need be, I can scan a typical page and
upload it if it would help.

data2action writes:
>>apologies to paul & the group for a hotheaded response...<<

No problem.  I'm not sure why the definition of music causes problems for
some.  Hopefully Paul S. won't mind if I just quote the dictionary so we're
all on the same page from now on and also to clarify what I was expecting
from those interested in contributing to a CD of synth music.  From
Webster's, "an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in
significant forms through the organized elements of rhythm, melody, harmony,
and dynamics."

Mike Estee writes:
>>Something like the IEEE symbol language for logic diagramming would be
swell. For example:
http://www.standardics.philips.com/products/hc/pdf/74hc238.pdf<<

Not sure if this is quite right.  Just think of a computer program flowchart
and you'll probably be closer.  Another source just hit me.  The Doepfer
modular manual.  It does exactly what Roland does (boxes and arrows).  If
you have either of those sources, it's all right there.  There would be no
knob settings or anything in the block diagram.  Afterall, that would be
different for different synths.

-Elhardt