Moog Music Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:12 pm**

....and only for the small cost of $200,000.99, you too can own the "BinaModular"!

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:13 pm**

It seems to me that virtual patching is best realized in software. Why go to the effort and expense of creating new alternate physical patching paradigms? The modular market is about people wanting the original paradigm.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:41 pm**

museslave wrote:It seems to me that virtual patching is best realized in software. Why go to the effort and expense of creating new alternate physical patching paradigms? The modular market is about people wanting the original paradigm.

Not according to Buchla. If I had the knowledge and resources (read: money and brains), I would be experimenting on digital controls for patching a compact and portable modular synth. I think Kevin's idea is great! Mine is just a product of my imagination.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:43 pm**

muksys wrote:
Voltor07 wrote:What about an interface that used different shapes and sizes in blocks? Kinda like that Teac thing that Bob demonstrated once. Then expand on that concept and make new routings by stacking the various blocks? There are a lot of possibilities with such an interface.
kinda like the reactable

Precisely!

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:45 pm**

Goom wrote:Extra points if the routings could fade at selectable rates, so that a morphing effect could be had.

This! Controlled fading from one routing to another. Now, you got something that patchcords can't do.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:54 pm**

Sir Nose wrote:
Goom wrote:Extra points if the routings could fade at selectable rates, so that a morphing effect could be had.
This! Controlled fading from one routing to another. Now, you got something that patchcords can't do.

You could do that using my idea, as well! Sliding one shape away from the stationary one while sliding another shape towards the stationary one.

Posted: **Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:10 pm**

I don't like it one bit : )

I'm grumpy and a traditionalist (if not a new traditionalist).

For the same reason that I don't like Moon's trigger module (the one with the led's and push buttons) ; I don't like the virtual patching.

I want to be able to see wires from here to there, not have to worry about something behind the scenes or one of 99 of something that is a virtual patch. As the other guys said, best left to software and virtual synths.

(everybody entitled to their own opinion right? this is mine)

m.c.grumpy mc.skillskin

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:03 am**

Yeah there's something great about analog, besides the sound, the turning of a knob, and especially making a patch. I know it's silly, but it's almost like a sexual satisfaction of plugging in a patch cord. However, digital patching is a good idea for those wishing to explore the boundaries.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:18 am**

unfiltered37 wrote:Yeah there's something great about analog, besides the sound, the turning of a knob, and especially making a patch. I know it's silly, but it's almost like a sexual satisfaction of plugging in a patch cord. However, digital patching is a good idea for those wishing to explore the boundaries.

Exactly. And if you are truly interested in the concept of synthesis, you realize quickly that physical analog synthesis has limitations in functionality, size, and scope that are remedied quickly by software.

Of course, some of us recognize the aural, physical, and psychological joy of the premise of building something from physical modules that we choose to patch and set.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:33 am**

museslave wrote: Exactly. And if you are truly interested in the concept of synthesis, you realize quickly that physical analog synthesis has limitations in functionality, size, and scope that are remedied quickly by software.

Of course, some of us recognize the aural, physical, and psychological joy of the premise of building something from physical modules that we choose to patch and set.

With an integrated anaog synth featuring digital controls, you have limitless possibilities. With digital synths, you lose the sound but gain infinite possibilities.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:38 am**

There have been many a time I was a patchcord too few and wished I could send control voltages wirelessly.

I think there are some pseudoscientists out there still trying to follow in Tesla's mad footsteps.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:58 am**

museslave wrote:
unfiltered37 wrote:Yeah there's something great about analog, besides the sound, the turning of a knob, and especially making a patch. I know it's silly, but it's almost like a sexual satisfaction of plugging in a patch cord. However, digital patching is a good idea for those wishing to explore the boundaries.
Exactly. And if you are truly interested in the concept of synthesis, you realize quickly that physical analog synthesis has limitations in functionality, size, and scope that are remedied quickly by software.

Of course, some of us recognize the aural, physical, and psychological joy of the premise of building something from physical modules that we choose to patch and set.

Yes, and if have built something yourself you appreciate it so much more, and that can have quite an effect on how you use it. Music and how your mind and body process it is a feedback system, the more you appreciate the instrument, the more emotion you put into playing, and the more feeling you put into it, the more it makes you enjoy it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:42 am**

EricK wrote:There have been many a time I was a patchcord too few and wished I could send control voltages wirelessly.

I think there are some pseudoscientists out there still trying to follow in Tesla's mad footsteps.

You CAN send control voltages wirelessly. You need a Tesla coil and a 1/4" jack hooked to one hell of a step down transformer.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:36 am**

Goom wrote:Something that would be cool with a system like this would be sequenced/clocked routing. Can you imagine having a patch that would be able to switch a filter's input from a saw to square to a ring mod signal? All under a variable clocked rate control. The possibilities there are very interesting. Extra points if the routings could fade at selectable rates, so that a morphing effect could be had.

That sort of thing is doable with the SSL 1520 Segwencer module.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:13 pm**

Just Me wrote:
Goom wrote:Something that would be cool with a system like this would be sequenced/clocked routing. Can you imagine having a patch that would be able to switch a filter's input from a saw to square to a ring mod signal? All under a variable clocked rate control. The possibilities there are very interesting. Extra points if the routings could fade at selectable rates, so that a morphing effect could be had.
That sort of thing is doable with the SSL 1520 Segwencer module.

Whoa... Nice module! I've heard of it, but I didn't know that it had this capability.

Moog Music Forum

Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords?

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords

Re: Would people like a modular if it didn't have patchcords