MOTM

I noticed the evil D company is releasing these modules at Namm. What makes
these 2 specific designs unique ?
Cheers
Jim

Doug Pearson wrote:

> On Wed Nov 22, 2000 7:02am, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
> >While we are on the subject, while waiting for my next MOTM
> >module to arrive, I ahve been keeping busy with some DIY stuff
> >for the fun of it. I guess messing with a joystick has finally made its
> >way up the ladder to next.
>
> Granted, everyone uses their modular in different ways, but for me,
> joysticks are absolutely *the* essential controller for a modular.
> Whenever I play out with my MOTM, the Wiard dual joystick controller goes
> with it (and conveniently takes up the extra 2U in the popup mixer case).
>
> >However, I keep wondering whether
> >to to have the joystick panel mounted or on the end of a cord.
>
> All four of the joysticks in my modular system(s) are panel mounted, and
> I've never felt uncomfortable using them, nor felt the need to have them
> elsewhere.  After all, all four hundred (well, not *quite* that many ...
> only two or three) of the knobs on my modular systems are panel mounted,
> and a joystick is just a means of (effectively) being able to turn two
> knobs with one hand.
>
> >Honestly, the joystick on the end of a cord seems a bit of a waste
> >to me (or for me). I use a Kenton pro2000 for MIDI to CV. I
> >can assign the joystick on my keyboard to generate CVs. So, I
> >have the remote joystick., Put, from a "how used and usefulness"
> >point of view, I woudl appreciate hearing what others have to say
> >about the on panel vs. on the end of a cord thing.
>
> Like I said, I've had nothing but great experiences using four
> panel-mounted joysticks and have never felt the need to have one elsewhere.
>  I could see how it might be cool for a singer/frontman character to have a
> joystick on a long extension cord running back to the modular so he can
> make wild electronic noises while shaking his booty for the women rushing
> the stage ... (but that would have to be up to him - any band that would
> have me as frontman would be demonstrating extremely poor taste and
> judgement).
>
> All four joysticks are "free-floating", and I can't say I've ever felt the
> need for one to "snap back" to a fixed location, but I have often
> experienced situations where I would be *really disappointed* if the
> joystick was always snapping back ... (so I'd have no problem with that
> "feature" as long as it could be disabled since I'd probably never use it).
>  I frequently want the 'sticks to stay in place while my hands are busy
> twisting knobs or re-plugging patch cords.
>
> >------
> >TW: Fixed Voltage Source/volume pedal interface - This could be a
> >panel with some 0-10v CV outs and an interface for a volume pedal.
> >---
> >LH: This is something else I have been interested in. One of my thoughts
> >was that a joystick panel could have have a pedal input jack that would
> >"take over" one of the joystick axis voltages when plugged in. You
> >could have two pedal inputs. You could use both agt once, or just one
> >and have one axis of control remaining on the joystick. Does that
> >sound appealing as a "add on" feature to joystick panel?
>
> I like the pedal interface idea.  It would be nice to be able to plug in a
> passive volume pedal, and get a range of attenuated CV from it.  A pedal
> interface should also include inputs for footswitches that would output a
> gate/trigger when the footswitch is pressed ... ideally, this could also be
> used as an S-trig -> V-trig converter (since a footswitch puts out a
> "short" when depressed).  I can't think of any use for a pedal to "take
> over" an existing joystick axis, though.  I'd greatly prefer separate
> joystick and pedal modules, or a module with BOTH 2 joystick CV outs (one
> for each axis) AND a pedal CV output.
>
>         -Doug
>          ceres@...
>          ceres[at]sirius.com
>

The wasp vcf is a multimode filter that uses a CMOS inverters as buffers for
each filter stage. That's a perverted thing to do and it sounds great!!!
Very warm and crunchy.

The EMS filter is a similar design to moogs ladder vcf, but it uses diodes
in the ladder instead of transistors.  Has it's own sound, rather than
sounding like another moog knock off.  I wonder if dopefur will get away
with it, since EMS is still in business.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: weld@... [mailto:weld@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:12 PM
To: motm@egroups.com
Subject: [motm] Wasp and EMS Filters


I noticed the evil D company is releasing these modules at Namm. What makes
these 2 specific designs unique ?
Cheers
Jim

Doug Pearson wrote:

> On Wed Nov 22, 2000 7:02am, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
> >While we are on the subject, while waiting for my next MOTM
> >module to arrive, I ahve been keeping busy with some DIY stuff
> >for the fun of it. I guess messing with a joystick has finally made its
> >way up the ladder to next.
>
> Granted, everyone uses their modular in different ways, but for me,
> joysticks are absolutely *the* essential controller for a modular.
> Whenever I play out with my MOTM, the Wiard dual joystick controller goes
> with it (and conveniently takes up the extra 2U in the popup mixer case).
>
> >However, I keep wondering whether
> >to to have the joystick panel mounted or on the end of a cord.
>
> All four of the joysticks in my modular system(s) are panel mounted, and
> I've never felt uncomfortable using them, nor felt the need to have them
> elsewhere.  After all, all four hundred (well, not *quite* that many ...
> only two or three) of the knobs on my modular systems are panel mounted,
> and a joystick is just a means of (effectively) being able to turn two
> knobs with one hand.
>
> >Honestly, the joystick on the end of a cord seems a bit of a waste
> >to me (or for me). I use a Kenton pro2000 for MIDI to CV. I
> >can assign the joystick on my keyboard to generate CVs. So, I
> >have the remote joystick., Put, from a "how used and usefulness"
> >point of view, I woudl appreciate hearing what others have to say
> >about the on panel vs. on the end of a cord thing.
>
> Like I said, I've had nothing but great experiences using four
> panel-mounted joysticks and have never felt the need to have one
elsewhere.
>  I could see how it might be cool for a singer/frontman character to have
a
> joystick on a long extension cord running back to the modular so he can
> make wild electronic noises while shaking his booty for the women rushing
> the stage ... (but that would have to be up to him - any band that would
> have me as frontman would be demonstrating extremely poor taste and
> judgement).
>
> All four joysticks are "free-floating", and I can't say I've ever felt the
> need for one to "snap back" to a fixed location, but I have often
> experienced situations where I would be *really disappointed* if the
> joystick was always snapping back ... (so I'd have no problem with that
> "feature" as long as it could be disabled since I'd probably never use
it).
>  I frequently want the 'sticks to stay in place while my hands are busy
> twisting knobs or re-plugging patch cords.
>
> >------
> >TW: Fixed Voltage Source/volume pedal interface - This could be a
> >panel with some 0-10v CV outs and an interface for a volume pedal.
> >---
> >LH: This is something else I have been interested in. One of my thoughts
> >was that a joystick panel could have have a pedal input jack that would
> >"take over" one of the joystick axis voltages when plugged in. You
> >could have two pedal inputs. You could use both agt once, or just one
> >and have one axis of control remaining on the joystick. Does that
> >sound appealing as a "add on" feature to joystick panel?
>
> I like the pedal interface idea.  It would be nice to be able to plug in a
> passive volume pedal, and get a range of attenuated CV from it.  A pedal
> interface should also include inputs for footswitches that would output a
> gate/trigger when the footswitch is pressed ... ideally, this could also
be

> used as an S-trig -> V-trig converter (since a footswitch puts out a
> "short" when depressed).  I can't think of any use for a pedal to "take
> over" an existing joystick axis, though.  I'd greatly prefer separate
> joystick and pedal modules, or a module with BOTH 2 joystick CV outs (one
> for each axis) AND a pedal CV output.
>
>         -Doug
>          ceres@...
>          ceres[at]sirius.com
>

I meant sonically actually  : )
were they trademarked or registered somehow ?
Jim

Paul Schreiber wrote:

> > I noticed the evil D company is releasing these modules at Namm. What
> makes
> > these 2 specific designs unique ?
>
> Maybe the fact they stole them from JH's designs at www.synthfool.com
> without permission or
> compensation??
>
> Paul S.
>

> I noticed the evil D company is releasing these modules at Namm. What
makes
> these 2 specific designs unique ?

Maybe the fact they stole them from JH's designs at www.synthfool.com
without permission or
compensation??

Paul S.

Speaking of which....  I believe the Wasp was designed by the guy who 
designed the Oxford OSCar.  For anyone who hasn't played with an OSCar, it 
was a VERY cool piece, and is now too pricey to bother with for most of us.  
Great sounds though.  Digital step oscillators as I remember, but analog 
everything else.

Ivan

Paul White, who now works for Akai.
heres a interesting wasp site with some samples
http://www.soundlaboratory.de/waspedp.html
I had  Oscar in the 80's , nice synth! I can do about 90% of it on my Nordlead
now.
Jim

ivancu@... wrote:

> Speaking of which....  I believe the Wasp was designed by the guy who
> designed the Oxford OSCar.  For anyone who hasn't played with an OSCar, it
> was a VERY cool piece, and is now too pricey to bother with for most of us.
> Great sounds though.  Digital step oscillators as I remember, but analog
> everything else.
>
> Ivan
>

In a message dated 00-11-22 16:21:10 EST, you write:

<< 
 > Maybe the fact they stole them from JH's designs at www.synthfool.com
 > without permission or
 > compensation??
 >
 > Paul S.
 > >>



i gather that there is some hard evidence of this?  certainly, the design`s 
of these filters have been around for a long time and i never see anyone else 
who produces one so calumnized.  lets see, i open up a vcs3 and check the 
vcf, update the design with modern ic`s, release said item to the market. 
now, am i stealing from jh ?
this sort of namecalling demeans all the parties involved unless there are 
facts.
if motm designs an updated "sem" filter and releases it, will  synth maker x 
be able to say the same thing about motm ? will oberheim get royalties from 
motm ? does anyone but me see the absurdity of all this?
best,
dave v.

>... I wonder if dopefur will get away with it, since EMS is still in
business.

Well it all depends on whether the brand name is synonymous with the
product... This was a judges decision on the rights of Electrolux to
decribe their product as a 'hoover' in one of their newspaper adverts.
In the UK Sellotape and Durex have the same 'problem'.

So the moog ladder is probably OK, since that is what it is reffered to.
But EMS ladder may well be different, since it is not so well known.

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, England

Oakley Modular Synth and TB3030:
www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm
My music: www.mp3.com/taklamakan

>... I believe the Wasp was designed by the guy who designed the Oxford
OSCar.

And had a big hand in the Novation Supernova too. Chris Huggett. Adrian
Wagner was also involved in EDP.

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, England

Oakley Modular Synth and TB3030:
www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm
My music: www.mp3.com/taklamakan

> >... I believe the Wasp was designed by the guy who designed the Oxford
> OSCar.
>
> [...] Chris Huggett.

Right. And all credit for that design should go to Chris Huggett.

As for the D*pfer affair, and the "flow of information", D*pfer's
own Guestbook is quite revealing. And funny. Why ?

When D. announced his Wasp filter module, somebody informed
Chris Huggett, who was apparently flattered to see his old design
revived. No hint of any claims or negative feelings of Chris versus
D. - at least none I would have heard of. So who am I to complain.
Does he know it was me who valued and resurrected his filter in the
first place ? Probably not, and it's not important either.

The funny thing about that whole affair is a letter of D. himself in his
own forum, about his intention to contact Chris and ask for original
schematics. Which leads us to which conclusion about the previous
"flow of information" ? (;->). It's a nice confirmation for what many
suspected.

And it's revealing about the the "flow of information" for certain other
circuits which were not merely "resurrected". But that's a different
story, and - given my overall impression of D.'s Modular - a story not
very interesting for myself. Not in the long run at least.

Being cloned by D. is not flattering for *everybody*, that much is sure.
I wonder if Robin Wood or Ludwig Rehberg are flattered when they learn
that an A-100 module is marketed explicitely as "EMS-filter" (asuming
it is marketed as such).
I sincerely hope that it's not EMS' original design that has fallen in D.'s
hands - there's so many so called "EMS filter" schematics circulated
that there is still hope that he hasn't got the real thing.

Oh well - long mail.

Let's be happy that Paul S. is paying royalties for other people's designs.
It's always dangerous to point a finger at somebody's behaviour, but
it's safe to compare how different companies handle the interests of
circuit designers differently.

JH.

In a message dated 00-11-23 14:54:40 EST, you write:

<<  Which leads us to which conclusion about the previous
 "flow of information"  >>


jurgen,
i`m not in a position to know whether you are right or wrong but on the "flow 
of information" concept, well after the wasp was produced and had probably 
ceased production, there were articles in the e.m. publications about using 
the cmos inverters in unusual ways. two i recall are a vca published in 
"polyphony" magazine and one more about general use of the cmos inverters 
with an eye to filters from "electronotes" written by hal chamberlain ( i 
think. have to dig out the article to be sure ).  so, these ideas have been  
"in the air" since the mid-80`s. notwithstanding, if you designed the circuit 
used you should get credit and at least be paid for your design but if it is 
a "reverse engineering" job, a "clean room design" or just someone stumbling 
over something already done and forgotten about and resurrecting it, what 
then?  were i to design a vcf using cmos inverters, am i automatically taking 
advantage of you? ideas and implementations have to be carefully considered 
here and due respect given to all parties concerned. that is my sole concern 
here, not bashing anyone.
thanks for listening.....
best,
dave v.

Hi Dave,

I read your previous mail as well, and basically I agree to your opinion.
I chose the wording "flow of information" on purpose, because it's
quite neutral. This topic was discussed on synth-diy and on AH, it's all
in the archives. I stepped in on this list to soften things, not to incite
them.

I once had a heated discussion with D. about his offer to buy used synths
to exploit them for CEM3340's (which were ultra rare back then), and
I tried to convince him that he need not rely on a chip that's desperately
needed for repair of Obie's and Prophets. (This was befor Paul located
a bunch of these chips.) I told D. that there is a very active synth-diy
community, including people who are capable and willing to design
a discrete VCO for him, to save these 3340s he was IMO wasting in his
A-100. It was clear that I was not available for such job, but I knew
that some list members would be willing to work for D.
It was a heated debate, and it was settled not by agreement, but by the
lucky incident that a large number of 3340's was found.

Some time later several people pointed out to me that D. announced
several modules which strangely resembled circuits from my web
site. Descriptions and graphics would be so close to mine that there
wasn't even an attempt to conceal their source of inspiration. A possible
conclusion was that D. would have indeed taken a tour around the
web of synth-diy, finding an easy harvest.

My reaction was to avoid making conclusions and accusations,
but to invite people to take a look at the respective web sites and draw
their own conclusions. Which is my policy still. And in practice,
I had to write more emails to calm people down than the opposite.
I mean, I appreciated getting supportive letters, but at times I suspect
it became a fad for everyone to say "D. ripped me off". Sometimes
regarding circuits that came directly from some data book.

I have said it repeatedly: I have no claims. Obviously not for circuits
that are EDP's designs, or Serge's concepts. And even in cases where
the design or concept is mine, I have not made any claim. If I wanted that,
I would have been a fool not to patent it. But that was never my  intention.
I have, and others have, published circuits for free personal use on the
growing community of people who were building synths as a hobby.
There was a wonderful non-commercial innocence, with the companies
of old not being in business, or not interested in their analogue heritage
anymore, and an altruistic sharing of resources, both dug from the archives
and (more rarely so) new developments.
Blame it on D.'s alleged action, or blame it on our reaction, this innocence
is lost. And sometimes you see me mourning that. And that's all there is,
from my side. You know, there is two worlds, the business world where
you take what you can get, with patents being weapons, and an unprotected
finding being a trophy to wear with pride - and there is another world
where sharing information is a give and take, and where not quoting
one's sources in considered unethical. Maybe we're just too idealistic.

But I think that MOTM shows that commercial success and giving
credit / paying royalties *can* be combined. In the end it "pays off"
for both parties.

JH.


> jurgen,
> i`m not in a position to know whether you are right or wrong but on the
"flow
> of information" concept, well after the wasp was produced and had probably
> ceased production, there were articles in the e.m. publications about
using
> the cmos inverters in unusual ways. two i recall are a vca published in
> "polyphony" magazine and one more about general use of the cmos inverters
> with an eye to filters from "electronotes" written by hal chamberlain ( i
> think. have to dig out the article to be sure ).  so, these ideas have
been
> "in the air" since the mid-80`s. notwithstanding, if you designed the
circuit
> used you should get credit and at least be paid for your design but if it
is
> a "reverse engineering" job, a "clean room design" or just someone
stumbling
> over something already done and forgotten about and resurrecting it, what
> then?  were i to design a vcf using cmos inverters, am i automatically
taking
> advantage of you? ideas and implementations have to be carefully
considered
> here and due respect given to all parties concerned. that is my sole
concern

> here, not bashing anyone.
> thanks for listening.....
> best,
> dave v.
>
>
>
>
>
>

FWIW, I think the issue here isn't who designed the original filter
25-30 years ago, but rather taking the efforts that someone did to
recapture the essence of the filter years later and turning it into a
commerical device without a single nod to the efforts of the one who
provided the resurrected design.

  The closest analogy I think of is in securing rights to a broadcast
radio frequency (FM stereo, et al), one has to do surveying and
calculations on where to locate the transmitter and antenna and submit
these to the FCC.  *However*, since these are publicly filed with the FCC
for a period of time in which if someone else wants to try for a station
license in the same region, they don't have to do their own research, but
can simply take the already-filed engineering that a rival did and use it
themselves without any requirement to acknowledge the rival's work.  This
_sucks_.

  I can relate to the filter issue given that a close friend's family got
into a years-long skirmish with another interested party on opening a
radio station in the region.  The rival filed using my friend's
engineering on the *last day* before the midnight deadline.  @$$h0les.
(The real dork in the whole fiasco was the idiot at the FCC who wouldn't
rule either way.  My friend eventually gave up after almost 6 years).

  For Juergen's part, I'm just glad the discrete 2040 filter got done in a
manner that suited him before someone else took it for free.

Crow

/**/

In a message dated 00-11-24 05:01:32 EST, you write:

<< 
 Hi Dave,
 
 I read your previous mail as well, and basically I agree to your opinion. >>


jurgen,
thank you for the information. 
best,
dave v.