Wiardgroup

i think for me it's the feeling i get from the music and my experience with digital has been disappointing but listening to all the soundclips of the noisering from the old wiard page makes me gasp in terror and glee at the grit, etc. it brings my way. i think a big part of that though is the massive amount of analog most modules carry making it hard for digital to be nothing more than a nice sidekick to the sound. correct me if i'm wrong but those are the feelings i've felt recently.

(that's the funny thing about konkuro... all you have to do is invoke
his name)
;'>
(puts on fake red plastic devil horns)
};'>

Hi Kwote
--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "kwote uno" wrote:
>
> So basically all digital aspects are used purely for control on your
modules
> and in no way affect the analog purity of the sound?

i think that the popularity of the waveform city/mini-wave and the
noise ring would disqualify Wiard from a high 'purity' ranking within
the discipline of analog eugenics*** because both designs cheerfully
report for duty in both the Audio and Digital range.
As for the description of the envelooper-
Grant has clearly biased it's design toward sub-audio CV
applications. But i believe that it could easily be clocked at audio
rates (at least up into the bass range) thus yielding a signal with a
provenance of highly suspect purity.
C'est la guerre! (+ badly executed gallic shrug)
Professor Richter's idea bucket draws often from Buchla's well and
one of the things i like most about that school of design was a
willingness to chase good ideas wherever they ran , with no regard for
the arbitrary border between 'analog' and 'digital' territory. ...
even within the same audio waveform !(vis-a-vis the MARF)

thus i confess to a fondness for impurity

(i wonder if there's a sentic gesture for 'impurity' ...other than the
trombone , of course)
};'>

(takes off cheesy devil horns , sits back down, and tries to be good)

-doc

*** and what about the common square wave???
is it not suspiciously 'digital'?