electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
 
    Front Page  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
go to the radio page Live at electro-music.com radio 1 Please visit the chat
poster
 Forum index » Instruments and Equipment » Modular Synthesis
What makes a synth a "modular"?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 2 of 3 [56 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

seraph wrote:
Kassen wrote:

The more I think about these questions the less clear it becomes to me what exactly a modular synth is and what I want from it.

I hope all you want is a nice sounding synth. being it modular or not Exclamation frankly I do not see the point as mosc stated:
Quote:
is there much need to quibble over terms?


Hmmmm. Yes and no. I want to express myself which often means defining how the sound is generated. When trying to express emotions I will often try to build some analogy to a situation within a system. This means that how modules relate to eachother and in what way data flows between them is often as important to me as the final sound. From time to time this will result in some sounds I´m not even sure I like as a sound but that need to be there for other reasons; just "a nice sounding synth" isn´t good enough. I admit that this wouldn´t need to be modular at all but since we now have a new section on modular synthesis I thought it´d be nice to explore and discuss what modular synthesis is and how we relate to it.

I don´t see that as "quibeling" at all but if it is seen as such I will imediately stop it and debate these matters elsewhere. Frankly I don´t see what Mosc and you are so scared off; I ask what people see as "modular synthesis" and before I have even advanced a sugestion or disagreed with anybody I get accused of "quibeling". I do not think this is justified; I was polite and respectfull, I was clearly on topic and I was spending my time trying to get a discussion started in a fledgeling forum which I felt would go to benefit all of the community. To me this is a interesting topic, I respect that it´s not to you, that you are of a school of thought who just wants "a nice sounding synth" and who in addition to wanting one for himself hopes others do so too. Nice sounds are not enough by themselves for everybody. I think it´s unbecoming for a editor to start complaining when it turns out that some people have desires that reach further then their own, respectable as your desireres may be.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

seraph wrote:
Kassen wrote:

I know, I have it installed on three computers here. I don´t use it much, mind you, I just want it to be there.

you are right, its user interface just stinks Wink


Csound doesn´t asume the user to be human.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
seraph
Editor
Editor


Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12398
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen wrote:
I was polite and respectfull.

Kassen
nobody is accusing you of anything and you, being the moderator here, are perfectly correct about asking: What makes a synth a "modular"?
btw according to Merriam Webster to quibble means:
Quote:
to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words

peace Very Happy

_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube

Quote:
Don't die with your music still in you - Wayne Dyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seraph
Editor
Editor


Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12398
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen wrote:
you are of a school of thought who just wants "a nice sounding synth" and who in addition to wanting one for himself hopes others do so too. Nice sounds are not enough by themselves for everybody.

why don't we start a thread called: " What makes a sound a "nice sound" Question
Cool

_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube

Quote:
Don't die with your music still in you - Wayne Dyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seraph
Editor
Editor


Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12398
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen wrote:
I think it´s unbecoming for a editor to start complaining when it turns out that some people have desires that reach further then their own, respectable as your desireres may be.

I wasn't complaining, actually I tend to stay away from this kind of threads but I posted a reply here so now I have to keep replying Rolling Eyes I was just expressing my feelings about this matter. For me this topic is over Exclamation Very Happy

_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube

Quote:
Don't die with your music still in you - Wayne Dyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

seraph wrote:
Kassen wrote:
I was polite and respectfull.

Kassen
nobody is accusing you of anything and you, being the moderator here, are perfectly correct about asking: What makes a synth a "modular"?
btw according to Merriam Webster to quibble means:
Quote:
to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words

peace Very Happy


Yes, I looked up a dictionary definition too and this is partially why I was feeling a little slighted. I don´t think I´m arguing about words at all, I don´t think any of this is trivial either. It´s not "what do we call a modular" that I´m asking, I´m talking about a modular *is*. Frankly I´m still lost as to how the whole idea of quibeling ever entered the whole discussion at all!

I´m not the moderator here that I know off. I volunteer if there is one needed but currently I don´t think I even have editorial privilidges to this section; if I had I would´ve tried to downsize what I thought was a rather large image. Jan should be editor here at least, perhaps amongst others.

Anyway, this gave me the idea that Mosc was speaking partially as a moderator, completely losing me in the process because if this thread isn´t apropriate for this section then we might as well axe the whole section altogether, I think....

Anyway, if we agree that it´s apropriate to discuss what the nature of modular synthesis is and how we relate to it then I think all is back to being fine. I also think that now that we have the idea that it´s words I´m after instead of concepts that happen to have names then I think we can agree that the word "quibeling" was misplaced. The very word implies a disagreement about slight matters while I think we are dealing more with a open exploration of large matters.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
blue hell
Site Admin


Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 24075
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 277
G2 patch files: 320

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

So now we are quibbling about quibbling :-)

Some of my thoughts then, ah well I guess it has all been said already in the above ...

There seem to be two discussions going on, or three ... one about modularity, one about complexity and another one about musicallity.

For me what makes a synth modular is the freedom to explore, a modular synth should enable trying all the "what if"s that come up in my head. Not just for experimenting, in the end it's all about ways to express myself, in some way using sound.

A synth being modular is not enough for expression, a certain complexity or completeness is needed as well. One modular with 3 vco's a few filters etc will not do for me, no mattter how modular or patchable. But a very complete synth with a fixed signal routing will not do either.

The whole idea of having modules with normalized inputs and outputs only serves the purpose of being able to connect everything to everything ( except maybe outputs to outputs - something that would't have to be the case for a soft/virtual (like the G2 f.)i., but that's another subject)

Emulated modulars have a disadvantage in principle, as you can't patch out or into them, but as long as the systems you can make are big enough that's no big problem ( people's ideas about hpw big it should be will be different of course). The virtual's advantages are obvious as well, it can be portable and you don't have to go out for buying new modules and patch cables and so on.

The thing seems to be that various computer based sound systems are very open ended, but only within themeselves (although the Linux developments go into the right direction I think). A pure good old (or new) fashioned analog modular hardware synth is open ended in a broader sense, your whole studio is your synth, and the other way around I guess as well. But its pretty expensive, and not very portable.

So I guess modular for me is a synonym for being freely patchable and having unlimited complexity while still being able to sound good. But modular also means standardized inputs and outputs, to be able to conect as you wish, over device boundaries.

But in the end there are only more usefull and less usefull synths, I've got some of these 90ties or late 80ties ectenders, the one with a 2*16 2 knob interface, pretty much useless - and I've gor a Formant, pretty much useless as well, and some of these Clavia toys and these are usefull for me.

Jan.

:: who's going to write some modular communications software this weekend ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elektro80
Site Admin


Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen wrote:
This means that how modules relate to each other and in what way data flows between them is often as important to me as the final sound.


This is an interesting approach. As such it resembles some of the working methods for some "contemporary serious composers". Some even wite scores that look nice on papers .. containing geomtric shapes that looks inspiring and are conceptually important for the piece.

I don´t quite work that way.. or at least I don´t think I do. I am not doing anything fancy or really interesting apart from trying create the sounds I need. However, when I imagine sounds for a piece I basically also imagine instruments in the sense that I have very specific ideas about the playablility of the sounds.

I think this is an interesting subject.

_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

elektro80 wrote:

This is an interesting approach. As such it resembles some of the working methods for some "contemporary serious composers". Some even wite scores that look nice on papers .. containing geomtric shapes that looks inspiring and are conceptually important for the piece.


Well, I don´t do that all the time but it often guides elements of the process.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18195
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 211
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Back to the subject - more or less. We need to be careful distinguishing between what things are and what there names are.

Modular synthesis is pretty much what one does with modular synthesizers. Modular synthesizers are the original Buchla and Moog synths and those subsequent machines that followed in their footsteps. The name modular was appropriate at the time because these machines consisted of various modules that could be interconnected to make different sounds. Another name could have been chosen, maybe M-synths or something. I submit that our discussion here should not be focused on the word modular because the word has meanings beyond the scope of modular synthesizers.

One of the characteristics of these original modular synthesizers was that the modules were standardized. They had common power supply connections, physical sizes, a certain type of patch cords, certain signal levels, a standard control voltage concept, triggers and gates of certain voltages, etc.

Between different synths, there may or may not be standards. You can't put Buchla modules in a Moog (I know you can patch externally but in general, they were not made to interoperate). Certain standards for modular synthesizers have evolved (mostly from Moog). These are 1 V signal levels, 1 volt/per octave controls, V and S triggers etc. It is interesting that digital modular synths don't have these standards for the most part. You can't take a control parameter from one synth and use it in another (unless you go through MIDI). Anyhow, my point is that modular synthesizers don't have to be interoperable. Maybe that is good, but not necessary.

While one could argue that a modern studio is modular in that you can patch any piece of gear to any other, I wouldn't say studios are per se modular synthesizers. While you could patch a signal from a classical modular synthesizer into and out of a piece of external gear, I wouldn't say that this feature was a defining characteristic of modular synthesizers.

Now, the DX7 does have operators and an interconnection matrix, so one could call it modular. I would say that it is not in the tradition of the modular synthesizers. The possible interconnections are fixed. You can only use preperscribed routings. While the DX7 may have module of some sort, and while some of the modules are similar in function to those available on modular synthesizers, I would say it's not a modular synthesizer.

This is getting too long so I'll stop here... I'm sorry

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
neonleg



Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 12
Location: melbourne australia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Neonleg (and others!).

You are concentrating on freely routable CV and on the extend to which relevant parameters can send and receive it. I think that´s fine but isn´t it too limiting to "demand" CV instead of a more general concept of flowing information?

hi kassen & others, just to clarify, i have this simplistic view mainly because i think the sound generated by analog components is more pleasing to my ear than any digital sound generator. by flowing information i assume you mean some kind of digital data stream? csound? if so, its just my opinion that digital transfer of data limits the control of a certain synthesizer parameter to some quantised resolution which limits sonic possibility in a certain way. on the other hand, things can accomplished in the digital domain that would not be feasible in reality! so.. if it sounds good OK Smile
oh, sorry bout the oversize pic just thought some visual enhancement of this thread was in order.. it must be obvious by now that i dont know how to use a computer head banging monitor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Well, no, I didn´t speciffically mean Csound. I just wanted to stress the concept of one module being controlled by another which is in turn "told what to do" by a third. That could be done through CV or through one part of a program sending digital numbers to others or by MIDI or whatever; optical pulses for all I care....

I just wanted to be a little more general because stressing "real" CV would exclude digital systems like the Clavias. To me demanding CV seems a little forced and stresses the implementation over the principle. On the other hand; the quantising that is going on is a very real limitation, both conceptually and sonologically; I completely agree with you there but personally I don´t find those to force me to working exclusively analogue.

I do think Csound is a very interesting example here because the first ancestor; Music1 was made in ´57 while it was the next year that Moog presented CV to the world. As far as I know the Music series was modular in concept from the very beginning which would mean that you could argue that digital modular synthesis predates voltage controll (I´m sure you could find even earlier implementations of the same concept in relay-form in Scott´s lab).

Now, Seraph is quite right in that Csound´s interface is less then suitable for late-night jamsessions with good wine and impressed girls and I might counter that analogue systems aren´t too suitable for additive synthesis with oscilators rarely apearing in large enough numbers there but regardless of what system we prefer; the underlying idea could be seen as the same. Many, more recent, implementations try to strike a ballance between the power of Csound and the interface of the moog, ending up with systems like Arturia´s MoogModular and Max by Puckete and others (I can´t think of a example named after Scott, sadly). I think the two branches are growing closer together. I think there is a comon ground between all of these but from this discussion I´m starting to suspect that even people who are focussed modular synthesis often find most apeal in the factors that relate to this common ground in a sideways manner. I don´t think that´s bad or good, just that it´s interesting and that it´s something we can learn from and perhaps build on.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neonleg wrote:
it must be obvious by now that i dont know how to use a computer head banging monitor


It must be expensive to post from your mobile phone!
:¬p

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
neonleg



Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 12
Location: melbourne australia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I wanted to reply but couldn´t find a good smiley.

:¬p

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
neonleg



Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 12
Location: melbourne australia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

interesting discussion tho Kassen, very informative..
greetz [neonleg/analogback]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
blue hell
Site Admin


Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 24075
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 277
G2 patch files: 320

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neonleg wrote:
interesting discussion tho Kassen, very informative..
greetz [neonleg/analogback]


it made both of you change avatar .

not for worse.

It's i/o compatibilty - what makes a synth modular. Made up my mind, all clear now, & :-)

Jan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neonleg



Joined: Jul 10, 2005
Posts: 12
Location: melbourne australia

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

hehe.. a fresh start perhaps Very Happy
i agree with your conclusion Jan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Blue Hell wrote:
neonleg wrote:
interesting discussion tho Kassen, very informative..
greetz [neonleg/analogback]


it made both of you change avatar .



I thought it was time for a new one. The old one was kinda moody; somehow the colours didn´t work at that size.

Quote:

not for worse.


That gig was crazy.

Quote:

It's i/o compatibilty - what makes a synth modular. Made up my mind, all clear now, & Smile


I like this. It also fits with the idea of using a whole studio as a big modular and it seems very closely related to my concept of buildinmg patches structurally inspired on the topic of the piece.

It would seem to me that a obvious next step would be composing duets between modular systems, taking this into account.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

neonleg wrote:
interesting discussion tho Kassen, very informative..
greetz [neonleg/analogback]


Thanks. I thought I´d throw in some trivia because magazine articles and so on tend to ignore the the digital branch of the early history. That´s understandable because it´s much less accessible and looks less romantic but it´s still quite important. Many fundamental concepts were developed there first, including FM and granular synthesis.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DrJustice



Joined: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 2114
Location: Morokulien
Audio files: 4

PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Kassen,

Quote:
Csound doesn´t assume the user to be human.

Neither does a Moog System 55, or a Jupiter 4 or a G2. Synths assume nothing Smile.
The operators will be human in any case.

It used to be perfectly clear that a "modular synthesizer" is one in which the functional modules can be rearranged/reconnected by the users (human or not). It was never understood as having anything to do with "modulation". There used to be no deeper mystery to the term and the concept.

Am I missing something completely?

DJ
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mosc
Site Admin


Joined: Jan 31, 2003
Posts: 18195
Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 211
G2 patch files: 60

PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

[quote="DrJustice"]Kassen,

Quote:
Csound doesn´t assume the user to be human.

Neither does a Moog System 55, or a Jupiter 4 or a G2. Synths assume nothing Smile.
The operators will be human in any case.
quote]

Csound and some other systems, like Keykit, are based on languages. You can give it a text file to make music. It is possible to write programs to write text files in the proper fomat that can be piped into Csound. True the ultimate source is probably a human hacker but it is through a computing (non-human) layer. In this way, Kassen makes sense.

_________________
--Howard
my music and other stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
DrJustice



Joined: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 2114
Location: Morokulien
Audio files: 4

PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Programming via a text file, a set of cables, a bank of pots and switches etc. is the same in the context that said programming must be instigated by humans (as you say). It is different in that a particular programming sequence has better repeatability with C-sound. Without human operators, not much interesting will emerge from either a system 55 or C-sound. In this respect C-sound is no less expectant of human input than the system 55. In fact I think that C-sound will need more human input than than a modular synth to be musically usable.

DJ
--
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

What I meant was that Csound's interface is very suitable to be controled from another program which in turn would be operated by a human. This paves the way for graphical interfaces, algorithmic composition and so on.

It's much easier to write a Perl (or whatever) script that will generate scores for Csound then it is to build a robot that will patch up a Moog. Csound is relatively unfriendly to human users but it's relatively friendly to other programing languages. This has advantages and disadvantages but saying it "stinks" is going a bit too far for me; for some aplications it'll be perfect.

It all depends on how you look at it; yes, in the end it will always be a human player; we rarely play a pot directly and instead choose a keyboard to translate between what we want and the voltage and similarly there could be other constructions inbetween the player and the sound. If we are dealing with some outlandish composition that demands a million of notes in a minute time then it makes sense to have something else generate those notes and send them to the synth and spend our time controling this "something". Csound is well equiped for such constructions every (as far as I know) element of Csound can be controlled from another program as well as it can be controled by a human if you would want to have a similar setup with a Moog or a G2 chances are you'll quickly exclaim that "the interface stinks".

Currently the G2 is moving in a similar direction; it will soon suport genetic algorithems to (re)program patches however; this was only possible with Clavia's support. Csound's patches (orchestras) are machine readable and writable and can be called from machines too which enables you to write your own genetic breeding algorithems if you want to without needing the aproval or support of somebody else. Now, DrJ is quite right in pointing out things like that will take ages of time and I can hear many people exclaim that they have no need for this at all but my point is that you *can* and you can because of how open the interface is. Many people don't need what Csound offers over the G2 or Reactor or even a Moog and that's fine but for some avandgarde composers who want to intergrate their synth within a larger framework open, programable, systems are a god-send and for that reason I think it's great that those systems exist.

That's all I'm saying, I hope this clarifies matters.

_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kassen
Janitor
Janitor


Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

In adition, there are other cases where text bassed interfaces have advantages. There has been some discussion about ghaotic mathematical functions in synthesis; strange atracktors and so on. Suppose you are looking online or in the library for texts on those and find a apealing function. In a graphical or hardware interface you will now need to translate that function to a set of cables and modules which may require considderable thought and efford. Text-based synths will generally accept mathematical expressions directly. In those cases a texts based interface may well be easier to deal with then a graphical one.
_________________
Kassen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Page 2 of 3 [56 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Instruments and Equipment » Modular Synthesis
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use