Wiardgroup

Hi there,

I read somewhere that the Blacet VCO was actually developed in 
conjunction with Wiard on some level... so I was curious if the 
Blacet VCO shared any sonic characteristics with the VCO from 
the 300 series...

here's grant's definitive explaination, pasted from analogue heaven:

> The Blacet VCO was designed with some tips from Grant and a contributor
> to Electronotes (Terry?). The basic core is pretty much the classic
> sawtooth engine with some further temp comp based on the original EMU
> modular. Some original stuff includes the VC octave switching and
> calibration circuit and the VC waveform.

Terry Michael (formerly Terry Mikulic) when he was a teenager, contributed a
significant number of the core circuits published in Electronotes magazine
(something like 50%, including the first state variable VCF using OTAs EN#33
Pg. 5, and EN#34 Pg. 16,17).

In particular, Terry perfected and published the "classic sawtooth engine".
While sawtooth reset designs had been published by Michael Suchoff (EN#49
Pg. 11) and Paul Titchener (EN#57 Pg. 8), Terry's design (EN#62 Pg. 14 Feb.
1976) is the most widely copied.

This design was picked up from Electronotes magazine by the engineers at
Moog Music Inc. and others. The design forms the basis for the VCOs used in
the Micromoog, Source, Prodigy and the other small Moog synths.

No money or acknowledgment was ever paid Terry for the design. It was not
legally required, since by publishing the design (at 22) he placed it in the
public domain.

Terry continued to improve the design over the next 25 years, and I
connected John Blacet with Terry Michael's updated and improved sawtooth
engine. This design is technically superior to the VCOs used in the Moogs
and all other copies of Terry's older design.

Unfortunately, John apparently did not realize that Terry is the originator
of the "classic sawtooth engine" and the other VCOs he studied were copies
of Terry's "first" design.

LUCKILY, in spite of the confusion, John Blacet kept the important parts of
Terry's new design and they appear in the Blacet VCO!

To summarize:

The Blacet VCO is the only commercial version of Terry Michaels "improved
sawtooth engine" (remember the old inferior version sold something like
50,000 copies).

The Blacet VCO is the ONLY version of the "sawtooth engine" officially
licensed from the originator of the design.

Best Regards,

Grant Richter
Wiard Synthesizer



--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "eblake_smith" <hoggfatt@h...> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> I read somewhere that the Blacet VCO was actually developed in 
> conjunction with Wiard on some level... so I was curious if the 
> Blacet VCO shared any sonic characteristics with the VCO from 
> the 300 series...

Hello to everyone in this group,

today I got my first Wiard 300 modules ever (a used Mixolator and  of course
a used Joystick controller)! REALLY beautiful work Grant Richter has done
with these modules!!!

Impressed by these modules I am now looking for other 300 modules like the
Classic VCO, Sequantizer, Super Omni Filter, Borg Filter, Woggle Bug, Dual
Envelator and Waveform City!

If there is anybody in this group who wishes to sell/needs money/wants to
trade other gear...please contact me: frank.hettlich@gmx.net .

-- 
Frank Hettlich Schulung und Consulting
Wartburgstr. 18
D-49124 Georgsmarienhuette
Tel. +49-5401-59443
Mob. +49-173-2702264

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Hettlich" 
<Frank.Hettlich@g...> wrote:
> Hello to everyone in this group,
> 
> today I got my first Wiard 300 modules ever (a used Mixolator and  
of course
> a used Joystick controller)! REALLY beautiful work Grant Richter 
has done
> with these modules!!!

Glad you enjoy them :-) You're the first one to *use* them, by the 
way. Good luck for the next ones!

Sebastian


> Impressed by these modules I am now looking for other 300 modules 
like the
> Classic VCO, Sequantizer, Super Omni Filter, Borg Filter, Woggle 
Bug, Dual
> Envelator and Waveform City!
> 
> If there is anybody in this group who wishes to sell/needs 
money/wants to

> trade other gear...please contact me: frank.hettlich@g... .
> 
> -- 
> Frank Hettlich Schulung und Consulting
> Wartburgstr. 18
> D-49124 Georgsmarienhuette
> Tel. +49-5401-59443
> Mob. +49-173-2702264

Grant wrote (by way of "supisuzoi") 

>Terry Michael (formerly Terry Mikulic)<

!!

I remember that guy.  Wonder why he changed his name?


>While sawtooth reset designs had been published by Michael Suchoff 
(EN#49 Pg. 11) and Paul Titchener (EN#57 Pg. 8), Terry's design 
(EN#62 Pg. 14 Feb. 1976) is the most widely copied.<

!!!

Paul Titchner was my old boss.  One reason I got hired by the DSP 
company he co-founded is that he actually remembered that 
dumb "Slinky Spring Reverb" article I wrote (at age 16?).  I was an 
early Electronotes subscriber and treasure it to this day, though I 
don't know where I put them.  :-)

johnm (who doesn't care much for Wiard systems but loves the "vibe" 
of Wiard owners. :-)  )

"supisuzoi" wrote:


>Terry Michael (formerly Terry Mikulic) when he was a teenager, 
contributed a significant number of the core circuits published in 
Electronotes magazine<

I always wondered what happened to Terry Mikulic!  Now I know he 
didn't go away; he just morphed.  :-)  Wonder why the name change?

>While sawtooth reset designs had been published by Michael Suchoff 
(EN#49 Pg. 11) and Paul Titchener (EN#57 Pg. 8),<

I actually ended up working for Paul Titchener, though I had never 
met him previously. I found out during the interview for a DSP 
company he co-founded that he was into electronic music and was an 
Electronotes contributer. He actually remembered an article I wrote 
in Electronotes 20 years earlier! Nailed the job for me.  :-)

BTW, the DSP design software Paul created has been used to design 
many a digital audio product. Brilliant guy!

johnm

In case you guys are wondering why there are two similar posts by me, 
it's because the first one was sent a while back, but never appeared. 
Wasn't sure if I hit the wrong button or something, so I re-wrote it 
and sent it again.  Now it looks like they have both appeared!

Sorry for the redundancy.  How are your 300's?  :-}


johnm

> johnm (who doesn't care much for Wiard systems but loves the 
"vibe" 
> of Wiard owners. :-)  )

Mike Murphy and I were discussing the enormous difference in 
perspective between the so called "East Coast" and "West 
Coast" schools of design. Mike pointed out a few things I never 
even thought about.

It all boils down to the question: Is a musical instrument more 
than just a machine?

The "East Coast" school would say that all art originates from the 
performer alone. The underlying asumption is that music has 
been defined, and that specific tools designed for it's efficient 
production. Thus a musical instrument is just a tool and the 
more familiar and regular the interface, the more it will facilitate 
the artist in achieving a pre-planned goal. Innovative design (i.e. 
not ADSR envelopes) is discouraged because a new user 
interface does not aid the artist in achieving the "goal". Since it is 
a machine, it's functions can be defined and comparisons made 
to determine the "best" machine. Machinery decreases in value 
as time goes by and it is replaced with "better" machinery.

In general we could call this approach "reproductive" as it is 
most concerned with accurately reproducing the exact nuance 
the artist desires.

The "West Coast" school would say that art originates from the 
artist interacting synergistically with the enviorment. The 
underlying asumption is that music can NOT be defined, so that 
instruments need to be designed using an artistic "process" in 
addition to engineering "method".  Innovative design is actually 
required as exploring the capabilites of the instrument and 
interacting with it are integral to the composing process. Since 
the instrument is not a machine, each design is unique and you 
can not compare them or determine the "best" one (unless you 
believe a trumpet is inherently superior to a trombone). Musical 
instruments increase in value as time goes by because they can 
not be replaced with anything else.

In general we could call this approach "generative" as it is most 
concerned with discovering new nuances for the artist to desire.

And it is a mixture of both approaches that I think most people 
have. Both are really required, you need to be able to accurately 
reproduce music to preserve it, and you need to generate new 
ideas so that the artform remains vital.

I guess Doepfer would be considered the "east coast" school...
 
Several Doepfer systems have been up for auction on Ebay in the last few days, none reaching their rather low reserve prices...of course the fact that there are "tons" of their systems out there (in relative terms) helps to keep used prices down as well. I believe Grant wrote in a previous email that there are less than 400 Wiard 300 series modules in existence.
 
Cheers,
 
Rob  (who is a proud Wiard owner, also interested in Doepfer, especially some of the new "Buchla-esque" modules coming out)

grantrichter2001 <grichter@asapnet.net> wrote:
> johnm (who doesn't care much for Wiard systems but loves the 
"vibe" 
> of Wiard owners. :-) )

Mike Murphy and I were discussing the enormous difference in 
perspective between the so called "East Coast" and "West 
Coast" schools of design. Mike pointed out a few things I never 
even thought about.

It all boils down to the question: Is a musical instrument more 
than just a machine?

The "East Coast" school would say that all art originates from the 
performer alone. The underlying asumption is that music has 
been defined, and that specific tools designed for it's efficient 
production. Thus a musical instrument is just a tool and the 
more familiar and regular the interface, the more it will facilitate 
the artist in achieving a pre-planned goal. Innovative design (i.e. 
not ADSR envelopes) is discouraged because a new user 
interface does not aid the artist in achieving the "goal". Since it is 
a machine, it's functions can be defined and comparisons made 
to determine the "best" machine. Machinery decreases in value 
as time goes by and it is replaced with "better" machinery.

In general we could call this approach "reproductive" as it is 
most concerned with accurately reproducing the exact nuance 
the artist desires.

The "West Coast" school would say that art originates from the 
artist interacting synergistically with the enviorment. The 
underlying asumption is that music can NOT be defined, so that 
instruments need to be designed using an artistic "process" in 
addition to engineering "method". Innovative design is actually 
required as exploring the capabilites of the instrument and 
interacting with it are integral to the composing process. Since 
the instrument is not a machine, each design is unique and you 
can not compare them or determine the "best" one (unless you 
believe a trumpet is inherently superior to a trombone). Musical 
instruments increase in value as time goes by because they can 
not be replaced with anything else.

In general we could call this approach "generative" as it is most 
concerned with discovering new nuances for the artist to desire.

And it is a mixture of both approaches that I think most people 
have. Both are really required, you need to be able to accurately 
reproduce music to preserve it, and you need to generate new 
ideas so that the artform remains vital.






Yahoo! Groups Links

It is rather confused. People are issuing designs that they did 
not develop. So you end up with these strange hybrids.

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, Rob <r1tual@y...> wrote:
> I guess Doepfer would be considered the "east coast" school...
>  
> Several Doepfer systems have been up for auction on Ebay in 
the last few days, none reaching their rather low reserve 
prices...of course the fact that there are "tons" of their systems 
out there (in relative terms) helps to keep used prices down as 
well. I believe Grant wrote in a previous email that there are less 
than 400 Wiard 300 series modules in existence.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Rob  (who is a proud Wiard owner, also interested in Doepfer, 
especially some of the new "Buchla-esque" modules coming 
out)
> 
> grantrichter2001 <grichter@a...> wrote:
> > johnm (who doesn't care much for Wiard systems but loves 
the 
> "vibe" 
> > of Wiard owners. :-) )
> 
> Mike Murphy and I were discussing the enormous difference in 
> perspective between the so called "East Coast" and "West 
> Coast" schools of design. Mike pointed out a few things I never 
> even thought about.
> 
> It all boils down to the question: Is a musical instrument more 
> than just a machine?
> 
> The "East Coast" school would say that all art originates from 
the 
> performer alone. The underlying asumption is that music has 
> been defined, and that specific tools designed for it's efficient 
> production. Thus a musical instrument is just a tool and the 
> more familiar and regular the interface, the more it will facilitate 
> the artist in achieving a pre-planned goal. Innovative design 
(i.e. 
> not ADSR envelopes) is discouraged because a new user 
> interface does not aid the artist in achieving the "goal". Since it 
is 
> a machine, it's functions can be defined and comparisons 
made 
> to determine the "best" machine. Machinery decreases in value 
> as time goes by and it is replaced with "better" machinery.
> 
> In general we could call this approach "reproductive" as it is 
> most concerned with accurately reproducing the exact nuance 
> the artist desires.
> 
> The "West Coast" school would say that art originates from the 
> artist interacting synergistically with the enviorment. The 
> underlying asumption is that music can NOT be defined, so 
that 
> instruments need to be designed using an artistic "process" in 
> addition to engineering "method". Innovative design is actually 
> required as exploring the capabilites of the instrument and 
> interacting with it are integral to the composing process. Since 
> the instrument is not a machine, each design is unique and 
you 
> can not compare them or determine the "best" one (unless you 
> believe a trumpet is inherently superior to a trombone). Musical 
> instruments increase in value as time goes by because they 
can 
> not be replaced with anything else.
> 
> In general we could call this approach "generative" as it is 
most 
> concerned with discovering new nuances for the artist to 
desire.

> 
> And it is a mixture of both approaches that I think most people 
> have. Both are really required, you need to be able to accurately 
> reproduce music to preserve it, and you need to generate new 
> ideas so that the artform remains vital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links

>(who is a proud Wiard owner, also interested in Doepfer, 
> especially some of the new "Buchla-esque" modules coming 
> out)

There is nothing wrong with doing a "cover" of a module, it's like 
a band doing a "cover" of a song.

But I can not stress enough the importance of supporting 
designers who are dedicated to doing original designs.

Cover bands are typically not given the respect that is given to 
those who write and perform entirely their own material.

The same should be true of synthesizer companies. Those of us 
whose standards are too high to allow us to copy other designs, 
are more deserving of your support and respect than those who 
take the MUCH safer path of covering the "Golden Oldies".

Imagine if every time someone thinks "Let's make Scooby Do 
into a movie!" their self respect would kick in and they would 
think instead "I'm going to make a new movie thart is better than 
any cartoon!".

Now imagine if every time someone thinks "I'm going to stick a 
transistor ladder filter behind my faceplate" their self respect 
would kick in and they would think instead "I'm going to make a 
new filter that's more musical than any other filter!".

Oh, what a wonderful world it could be!

Grant wrote:

>The "West Coast" school would say that art originates from the
artist interacting synergistically with the enviorment. The
underlying asumption is that music can NOT be defined, so that
instruments need to be designed using an artistic "process" in
addition to engineering "method". Innovative design is actually
required as exploring the capabilites of the instrument and
interacting with it are integral to the composing process.<


But isn't that kind of like designing a kitchen tool, then leaving it 
up to chefs to come up with a use for it?  Form follows function, to 
borrow a hackneyed Bauhaus saw.

Also keep in mind that any "East Coast" synth can be patched to 
produce "West Coast" music. It's harder to go the other way, though.

>Since the instrument is not a machine, each design is unique and you 
can not compare them or determine the "best" one (unless you
believe a trumpet is inherently superior to a trombone).<

Oh, but I can compare them--and have!  As you well know.  :-)

>Musical instruments increase in value as time goes by because they 
cannot be replaced with anything else.<

With this I must disagree.  Moogs *decreased* in value drastically 
after the DX-7 was introduced--to zero in some cases.  That's because 
the DX was seen not only as a replacement, but as an improvement. And 
Wendy hasn't exactly gone back to her modular.

johnm (with Buchla record playing in background)

--- Rob <r1tual@yahoo.com> schrieb: > I guess Doepfer would be
considered the "east coast" school...

yes, in the past. but that has changed during the
last years. now i would say that doepfer sits between
east- and west-coast approach, especially since there
is a lot of interaction going on with users and the
manufacturer. now there are some really unique modules
in the doepfer range, which are unavailable in any
other system.

i personally cannot rely on a single manufacturer,
thats why my system has modules from many different
manufacturers.

best wishes

ingo





=====
http://www.dron.de
http://www.selfoscillate.de


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________
Bestellen Sie Y! DSL und erhalten Sie die AVM "FritzBox SL" für 0€.
Sie sparen 119€ und bekommen 2 Monate Grundgebührbefreiung.
http://de.adsl.yahoo.com

> 
> But isn't that kind of like designing a kitchen tool, then leaving it 
> up to chefs to come up with a use for it?  Form follows function, 
to 
> borrow a hackneyed Bauhaus saw.

Yes, that is the history of innovative synthesizer design. To quote 
a hackneyed cyberpunk saw "The street finds it's own use for 
things".

The waa pedal was designed for trumpet players to replace that 
toilet plunger mute they use. The original designer didn't try it 
with a guitar.

The TB-303 flopped as a bass guitar replacement, it found new 
life as a lead instrument.

Form can only follow function, if the function can be defined.
I suggest that the future will be full of surprises.

> 
> Also keep in mind that any "East Coast" synth can be patched 
to 
> produce "West Coast" music. It's harder to go the other way, 
though.
> 

Previously, yes. But the new generation of hybrid instruments 
support both methods. The Wiard is an excellent keyboard 
instrument, when used that way (precise 1 volt per octave 
tracking).

> Oh, but I can compare them--and have!  As you well know.  :-)
> 

Yes, but is it dignified to do so?  ;^)

>Musical instruments increase in value as time goes by 
because they 
> cannot be replaced with anything else.<
> 
> With this I must disagree.  Moogs *decreased* in value 
drastically 
> after the DX-7 was introduced--to zero in some cases.  That's 
because 
> the DX was seen not only as a replacement, but as an 
improvement. 

That is because the instruments were originally sold as 
machinery.

The Universities and others sold off their Buchla modules to buy 
TX-816s. Then two years latter, called the buyers back in a panic 
and wanted to get the Buchlas back. To quote "a TX-816 isn't a 
replacement for a Buchla, we can't get the sounds we want, we 
need them back!!!!!".

It was that experience, and the experience of all those people 
who sold their Mini-Moogs to buy DX-7s, then missed the filter 
knob, that caused the used instrument market inflation that led to 
the illusion of a new instrument market place.

Rex and Dieter were seduced by this illusion, which further 
strengthened the illusion, and them Paul and Bruce and I were 
sucked into the illusion, others followed.

But there was never a real marketplace. All we did was fracture a 
tiny group of enthusiasts into even tinier groups squabbling over 
plastic potentiometers and connector types.

--- grantrichter2001 <grichter@asapnet.net> schrieb: > >(who is a proud
Wiard owner, also interested in Doepfer, 
> > especially some of the new "Buchla-esque" modules coming 
> > out)
> 
> There is nothing wrong with doing a "cover" of a module, it's like 
> a band doing a "cover" of a song.
> 
> But I can not stress enough the importance of supporting 
> designers who are dedicated to doing original designs.
> 
> Cover bands are typically not given the respect that is given to 
> those who write and perform entirely their own material.
> 
> The same should be true of synthesizer companies. Those of us 
> whose standards are too high to allow us to copy other designs, 
> are more deserving of your support and respect than those who 
> take the MUCH safer path of covering the "Golden Oldies".
> 
> Imagine if every time someone thinks "Let's make Scooby Do 
> into a movie!" their self respect would kick in and they would 
> think instead "I'm going to make a new movie thart is better than 
> any cartoon!".
> 
> Now imagine if every time someone thinks "I'm going to stick a 
> transistor ladder filter behind my faceplate" their self respect 
> would kick in and they would think instead "I'm going to make a 
> new filter that's more musical than any other filter!".
> 
> Oh, what a wonderful world it could be!

hello grant,

yes, i see that point and i agree. but i also see the point
that many original designs are unavailable now, because
the original manufacturers had gone. also you cannot re-invent
everything, especially when the old design was great. in the
past it was often the case that customers requested an re-issue
of a certain module and AFTER that the manufacturer said
"ok, i'll sell this module, if everybody wants it".
so the customers decided that in the first place.

best wishes

ingo




=====
http://www.dron.de
http://www.selfoscillate.de


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________
Bestellen Sie Y! DSL und erhalten Sie die AVM "FritzBox SL" für 0€.
Sie sparen 119€ und bekommen 2 Monate Grundgebührbefreiung.
http://de.adsl.yahoo.com

grantrichter2001 wrote:


> There is nothing wrong with doing a "cover" of a module, it's like
> a band doing a "cover" of a song.
> 
> But I can not stress enough the importance of supporting
> designers who are dedicated to doing original designs.

There is also a huge difference between a company that will, uh, rip a 
design and use it without permission "because they can", and somebody 
that will do a "tribute" module with the blessings of the original 
designer/company, perhaps making small improvements on it as well...

The Cynthia "Synthacon" filter, for example, was done with Nyle 
Steiner's permission and suggested design tweaks. It's even got his name 
on the faceplate.

However, there's some "copy" modules out there that have the original 
designers more than a little upset at the sheer audacity of someone 
copying their stuff almost exactly, and having never asked permission or 
anything to do so. I know, I've spoken to a few of them.

Ethics count, and some seem to have less than others...

'nuff said.

Hat's off to Grant and others forging in new directions for us. Our 
sonic pallets can only benefit!!


-- 
Les Mizzell
--------------------------------------------------
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse
--------------------------------------------------

I often refer to Doepfer as a "Middlecoast" synthesizer.  Modcan also 
has middlecoast aspects.

Grant wrote:

>The same should be true of synthesizer companies. Those of us
whose standards are too high to allow us to copy other designs,
are more deserving of your support and respect than those who
take the MUCH safer path of covering the "Golden Oldies".<

Ah, but there is a reason those oldies are golden. They work well and 
we all know how to apply them. Let's face it: a filter is a filter is 
a filter--at least in theory. Indeed, the best analog filter would be 
a digital filter, as only in that realm can you achieve *absolute* 
cutoff. And that is, after all, what a filter is supposed to do.

New instruments that are truly new are rare as hen's teeth. How many 
new instruments have popped up in the symphony orchestra?

New instruments also tend to be novelties with limited musical 
usefulness. They are mostly about visual entertainment. Consider the 
theremin--it is poorly designed as a musical instrument, but has a 
lot of visual appeal. Hence it hasn't enjoyed much in the way of 
popularity (and rightly so, I daresay). Or consider the instruments 
of the Blue Man Group. Entertaining? You bet! For an evening. Outside 
of that venue, they don't exist, nor are likely ever to. And leave us 
not forget the Harry Partch (sp?) instruments. They have been around 
for decades, yet have never left their academic confines. 

Buchla is much the same way. It is valuable mostly because it is 
rare, not because it is unique. If Buchlas were as common as Moogs, 
they would fetch far lower prices today. But they weren't as common 
as Moogs because they were limited to one kind of music and simply 
would never sell like a Moog. New? Yes. Unique? Yes. Useful? Only 
within the confines of atonal experimentalism.

If I were dictator of the World of Wiard (which I command you all to 
proclaim me anyway!) I'd add some more modules to make the system 
more "middlecoast". That way it would find the wide market that 
Buchla never did. That is, pending you WANT a wide market. :-)

johnm

(why can't you guys do this when things are slow at work?) 
(oh what the hell...)

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> 
> But isn't that kind of like designing a kitchen tool, then leaving
it 
> up to chefs to come up with a use for it?  

Yes it is. 
That is correct.
To expolit the analogy further, it's like making a sculpture with
sharp edges, refrigerated compartments in odd and asymmetrical sizes,
open flames, hooks, and motorized whirlygigs sticking out every which
way - then putting it in a public place and trusting folks who are
hungry to feed themselves with no regard for whether they call
themselves chefs or not.
It sure looks like deliberate, wholesome, Wisconsin-populist-style
anarchy to me.

to quote Austin, Bergman, Procter & Ossman: 
"Gimme TWO!"
-doc

> But they weren't as common
> as Moogs because they were limited to one kind of music and simply
> would never sell like a Moog. New? Yes. Unique? Yes. Useful? Only
> within the confines of atonal experimentalism.

Those are some of the strangest comments.
Buchla limited to one kind of music?
Buchla only useful within the confines of atonal experimentalism?
I'm using mine everyday for tv soundtrack work.
As you probably realise, tv music scores vary wildly from project to
project.
CW

> strengthened the illusion, and them Paul and Bruce
> and I were 
> sucked into the illusion, others followed.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. The
illusion of some 'huge' market? Not me: I started MOTM
only to get a "decent" stereo out of the deal. My goal
was to generate about $15K of profit over a *3 year*
period. This can be referred to as the 'business
side'.

The 'non-business' side was simple: modular synths
changed my life. I was a chemistry geek in high school
(had several awards, etc) and on my way to becoming a
PhD chemist when I heard S.O.B. and then ELP and the
final straw was the first "Synergy" LP. Goner :(

Contrary to popular perception, I am very fiscally
conservative: I didn't have the 'guts' to sink say
$30,000 in parts and software/PCs/website/etc to form
the (evil) business side of things. I had *no
intention* to go past the 'get me a Mark Levinson/B&W
system' phase. It sort of snowballed (shrug).

In the ideal world, I would be 'Moog-like' and have
other people run the business side while I get to play
in the lab. I actually ran a spreadsheet and this
requires like $256,000/yr in sales which is not
possible (well, for me at least).

> 
> But there was never a real marketplace. All we did
> was fracture a 
> tiny group of enthusiasts into even tinier groups
> squabbling over 
> plastic potentiometers and connector types.

This is the downside about the Internet: there is no
"lightning bolt from above" monitoring what is said.
There is no true way to convey irony, "just kidding",
or any other real emotion. Also, I *severly*
mis-judged the 'emotional content' of this tiny group.
For example, I was told once that they wouldn't buy
MOTM because "..you don't have the grace of musical
spirit." Hmmmmmm. OK.......

Also, it took me over 2 *years* to figure out that
Internet addicts like to "whack the hornet's nest", so
to speak. And trust me, no one has BEEN whacked more
than me (some deserved, mostly NOT). Then again, up to
a *point*, it's sort of fun to 'spar' a *bit* but some
folks seem to live for this sort of thing. Again, this
caought me by sursprise. Just a newbie, I guess.

There are always cross-opinions about electronics and
music. But look at the level of overall interest in
analog modulars over the last 5 years! This is a good
thing.

Look: it's not some sort of 'race; or 'contest'. Every
synth designer is quirky, proud, stubborn, protective,
and is basically a *parent* of their designs. No one
is going to ever catch Doepfer or PAiA in terms of
numbers. No one is going to have the mystique of Moog
or Buchla. Rather, each of us should be proud to "be
in the game", to rejoice in our creations. We are the
micro-brewers, selling the beer Budweiser spills in 1
hpour.



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

> I often refer to Doepfer as a "Middlecoast" synthesizer.  Modcan 
also 
> has middlecoast aspects.

Here in Milwaukee, we like to call it "Third Coast" since 
Milwaukee is on the coast of a very large body of water. Not the 
ocean of course, but it is FRESH water.

> Ah, but there is a reason those oldies are golden. They work 
well and 
> we all know how to apply them. Let's face it: a filter is a filter is 
> a filter--at least in theory. Indeed, the best analog filter would 
be 
> a digital filter, as only in that realm can you achieve *absolute* 
> cutoff. And that is, after all, what a filter is supposed to do.

That would be an engineering definition. Bernie Hutchins spent 
a good bit of time developing a filter with a variable cutoff. I seem 
to recall it was because of research on acoustic instruments?

> New instruments that are truly new are rare as hen's teeth. 
How many 
> new instruments have popped up in the symphony orchestra?

I believe that the only instruments invented in the 20th century 
were the saxophone, the steel drum and the electronic music 
synthesizer.

> New instruments also tend to be novelties with limited musical 
> usefulness. 

Not meaning to insult anyone, but part of "Switched on Bachs" 
success was from it's novelty value.

> not forget the Harry Partch (sp?) instruments. They have been 
around 
> for decades, yet have never left their academic confines. 
> 

Probably the only instrument that will be invented in the 21st 
century will be the "Electronium", or purpose built music 
synthesizer. The Partch instruments would be an acoutic version 
of an Electronium, as would the instruments of the Basset (sp?) 
brothers.

> Buchla is much the same way. It is valuable mostly because it 
is 
> rare, not because it is unique. If Buchlas were as common as 
Moogs, 
> they would fetch far lower prices today. But they weren't as 
common 
> as Moogs because they were limited to one kind of music and 
simply 
> would never sell like a Moog. New? Yes. Unique? Yes. Useful? 
Only 
> within the confines of atonal experimentalism.

I would argue that the Buchla represents the first steps toward 
the Electronium concept. It is not intended as a general purpose 
synthesizer for imitative synthesis. There are a lot of "missing" 
features that I am sure Don was aware of. He simply chose not 
to include them.

It seems impossible to include every possible feature in an 
instrument. The designer has to make some restrictive choices. 
It is these choices that make the instrument have a unique 
character.

> If I were dictator of the World of Wiard (which I command you all 
to 
> proclaim me anyway!) I'd add some more modules to make 
the system 
> more "middlecoast". That way it would find the wide market that 
> Buchla never did. That is, pending you WANT a wide market. :-)

The 300 series modules were intended to be a middle ground 
between an Arp 2600 and a Buchla Music Easel. In that, I believe 
I succeeded. The instrument includes both a 24dB per octave 
Butterworth filter (Arp 2600) and a 12 dB per octave Sallen-Key 
design (Buchla). It supports subtractive synthesis and non-linear 
waveshaping. I could go on, but the idea was to, speaking in 
broad classes, support the majority of sounds available from 
either historical instrument, while adding additional sound 
resources.

HI Paul,

Thank you for posting such a thoughtful and well worded 
message.

> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. The
> illusion of some 'huge' market? Not me: I started MOTM
> only to get a "decent" stereo out of the deal. My goal
> was to generate about $15K of profit over a *3 year*
> period. This can be referred to as the 'business
> side'.
> 

I should not have spoken for you. I at least had the illusion of a 
"sustainable" market place. That is a market place with a long 
term cash flow.

> In the ideal world, I would be 'Moog-like' and have
> other people run the business side while I get to play
> in the lab. I actually ran a spreadsheet and this
> requires like $256,000/yr in sales which is not
> possible (well, for me at least).
> 

I do not think it is possible for anyone at this time. Particularily 
with the investment in synthesizer modules done in thru hole 
technology. Forces in the electronic industry itself are putting 
great price penalties on "old" parts. The cost of Bakelite knobs 
went from $0.73ea to $1.56ea in ONE year!

> > 
> > But there was never a real marketplace. All we did
> > was fracture a 
> > tiny group of enthusiasts into even tinier groups
> > squabbling over 
> > plastic potentiometers and connector types.
> 
> This is the downside about the Internet: there is no
> "lightning bolt from above" monitoring what is said.
> There is no true way to convey irony, "just kidding",
> or any other real emotion. Also, I *severly*
> mis-judged the 'emotional content' of this tiny group.
> For example, I was told once that they wouldn't buy
> MOTM because "..you don't have the grace of musical
> spirit." Hmmmmmm. OK.......
> 
> Also, it took me over 2 *years* to figure out that
> Internet addicts like to "whack the hornet's nest", so
> to speak. And trust me, no one has BEEN whacked more
> than me (some deserved, mostly NOT). Then again, up to
> a *point*, it's sort of fun to 'spar' a *bit* but some
> folks seem to live for this sort of thing. Again, this
> caught me by sursprise. Just a newbie, I guess.

The other thing "some" people like to do is mis-quote us to each 
other. I was told you said some things, that in retrospect, I am 
sure you did NOT say, or that were quoted out of context.

In other words, certain individuals thought it would be a fun to set 
us against each other and watch the results. I am sorry I was 
naive enough to be taken in.

> Look: it's not some sort of 'race; or 'contest'. 

I guess that "Paul gives the competition the finger" thing was 
Rogers idea. I am sure it was intended humorously, but it 
bothered me at the time. Actually, it is a complement that Wiard 
could even be considered ABLE to compete with anybody.

It's all ancient history now.

> Every synth designer is quirky, proud, stubborn, protective,
> and is basically a *parent* of their designs. No one
> is going to ever catch Doepfer or PAiA in terms of
> numbers. No one is going to have the mystique of Moog
> or Buchla. Rather, each of us should be proud to "be
> in the game", to rejoice in our creations.

I have been searching for a metaphor that could explain the 
passion that people feel toward electronic music and 
synthesizers. It has to explain why people participate in 
something that doesn't really make any money, that requires 
hard work and sacrifice, and the only real reward is the pursuit of 
excellence itself. A hobby is usually more solitary, music 
requires an audience. The best metaphor I have found is that it 
is a sport.

That can at least explain the lifelong fascination, the passionate 
adherance, the willingness to sacrifice, and even the 
hooliganism.

> I believe that the only instruments invented in the 20th century
> were the saxophone, the steel drum and the electronic music
> synthesizer.

Daxophone?  Don't look like much, but it's one of the weirdest and 
amazingly expressive and versatile at the same time.

Plus, there are actually a few daxophone ensembles out there!

http://www.daxo.de/

Buy a CD by Hans Reiches and you'll see what I mean...


Sorry, had to throw that in there...

-- 
Les Mizzell
--------------------------------------------------
Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse
--------------------------------------------------

> I do not think it is possible for anyone at this time. Particularily
> with the investment in synthesizer modules done in thru hole
> technology. Forces in the electronic industry itself are putting
> great price penalties on "old" parts. The cost of Bakelite knobs
> went from $0.73ea to $1.56ea in ONE year!
You're right. Companies like Doepfer and Analogue Systems have revived the
monster modular, but at a price point even the bedroom musician can afford.
MOTM, Wiard, Modcan et al, have entered the marketplace and offered products
of equal quality (if not greater) than anything available in anologue
synthesis' heyday.
Products like Pro Tools and Logic Audio have brought high end, digital
recording to the masses. Now there is a clamour for someone to build an
analogue mixer to go with it, but no one can make something that matches the
old classics (Neve, API, Helios etc..) with a modern bent at a price
remotely affordable to anyone other than a few dozen 'super musicians'.
Therefore, it's a non starter.
CW

Here are important lessons I think both Grant & I have
learned (still learning?) from the last couple of
years.

1) there is nothing more rewarding than to have
somebody you know and respect (Gary Chang/Robert Rich)
not only *say* they like your modules, but actually
*use* them in a manner so that millions (Gary) and
thousands (Robert) of people are exposed to the glory.

2) there is nothing more disheartening than to have
total strangers post whatever comes into their heads
in public Internet groups about your stuff. Especially
if they don't *own* any.

3) there is nothing more depressing to discover the
Internet is, for a small group of people, their only
medium to have a 'voice' in the world. Sadly, they
have decided to pick THIS tiny little world.

4) We all dream of having a 'real' company, where
there are say 4 assemblers, a materials/purchasing
manager, a R&D tech, and then us. Orders roll in like
rainstorms in Texas summers. Not only that, we don't
piss off *anybody*, we have 100% customer
satisfaction. In fact, customers NEVER say a bad word,
offer to pay in advance, and NEVER complain about
delivery dates :) We pay so well even the employees
love us more than the customers. We have to put Keith
Emerson on hold to take Wendy's call.

I think there was a little 'digging in the heels' on
all sides. But I agree: ancient history. Me, I'm
raising prices July 1st, got to a longer lead-time
schedule, and farming out over 75% of the work. My son
enters middle school in the fall, and we are taking up
golf and rec league basketball. Maybe a little bowling
thrown in for good measure.

And everyone stop squabbling over painting versus
sculpture :(




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Paul wrote:

>there is nothing more disheartening than to have
total strangers post whatever comes into their heads
in public Internet groups about your stuff. Especially
if they don't *own* any.<

I wouldn't lose sleep over it.  What you should be concerned about, 
however, is negative reviews from users/owners.  But even that has 
value, if it results in positive change.

Also keep in mind that non-owners/users may not be able to give an 
accurate report of operation, but they most certainly can discuss 
design *philosophy*. Frankly, I'd like to see MORE such discussion. 
There is only so much one can say about patches (yawn) and gear 
(everybody loves theirs. What of that?). I love to hear about why 
people make the choices they do, designers and buyers alike.

Speaking of which, Wiard modules in MOTM format might be something 
to explore...

>We all dream of having a 'real' company, where
there are say 4 assemblers, a materials/purchasing
manager, a R&D tech, and then us. Orders roll in like
rainstorms in Texas summers.<

But enough of dotcom!  :-)

johnm

--- In wiardgroup@yahoogroups.com, Paul Schreiber 
<syntht@y...> wrote:
> Here are important lessons I think both Grant & I have
> learned (still learning?) from the last couple of
> years.
> 
> 1) there is nothing more rewarding than to have
> somebody you know and respect (Gary Chang/Robert Rich)
> not only *say* they like your modules, but actually
> *use* them in a manner so that millions (Gary) and
> thousands (Robert) of people are exposed to the glory.

I absolutely agree. Several A6 owners have done soundtracks 
and other significant work and it's quite gratifying.

> 2) there is nothing more disheartening than to have
> total strangers post whatever comes into their heads
> in public Internet groups about your stuff. Especially
> if they don't *own* any.

Especially those appear to be anonymous posters who, when 
questioned as to their serial number, say that "it's not in front of 
me right now" , even after a day or two. The A6 seems to suffer 
from this sort of thing for some reason. But as seen on the 
SonicState "reviews" board, who needs to own something to 
post an anonymous opinion? Me, I've been around the block with 
modulars a bit; it would be nice for everyone to come from the 
same background of experience and accomplishment when 
posting (and posting and posting).

> 3) there is nothing more depressing to discover the
> Internet is, for a small group of people, their only
> medium to have a 'voice' in the world. Sadly, they
> have decided to pick THIS tiny little world.

Agreed! Where else can I find your stuff? I've mixed records and 
a film, programmed factory patches, etc. The internet is just a 
nice, localized place to hang out. And to be called a "blarger" by 
those who don't even do what they're criticizing. Unfair and cruel, 
I agree. People should branch out and do more than one thing, 
and leave commentary to those who have actually done those 
things, such as working on electronic instruments, sound 
design, etc. 

> 4) We all dream of having a 'real' company, where
> there are say 4 assemblers, a materials/purchasing
> manager, a R&D tech, and then us. Orders roll in like
> rainstorms in Texas summers. Not only that, we don't
> piss off *anybody*, we have 100% customer
> satisfaction. In fact, customers NEVER say a bad word,
> offer to pay in advance, and NEVER complain about
> delivery dates :) We pay so well even the employees
> love us more than the customers. We have to put Keith
> Emerson on hold to take Wendy's call.
> 
> I think there was a little 'digging in the heels' on
> all sides. But I agree: ancient history. Me, I'm
> raising prices July 1st, got to a longer lead-time
> schedule, and farming out over 75% of the work. My son
> enters middle school in the fall, and we are taking up
> golf and rec league basketball. Maybe a little bowling
> thrown in for good measure.
> 
> And everyone stop squabbling over painting versus
> sculpture :(

Some people like to argue endlessly instead of building.

Easier, and agreed, ancient history. Congrats on having a 
company and doing the work. Thanks for the ego reduction, I 
needed (need) it.

-Mike

> In fact, customers NEVER say a bad word,
>> offer to pay in advance, and NEVER complain about
>> delivery dates

Yeah, I agree with EVERYTHING except that last part.
I've paid in advance, but waited lengthy periods without the modules I
wanted/needed for certain projects.
That's not directed at you Paul, but a general comment about the small
company modular scene. From what I've seen on these Yahoo groups and the Gas
Station, 99% of customers are understanding about long lead times.
Any company that is taking upwards of a year to deliver pre-paid modules
should be more apologetic IMO. Again, just a general comment.