Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:06 am
The Sound of Modulars
This is what I would like a modular to sound like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rnIfw-49gA
When I listen to modulars I only occasionally hear something close to these sounds. There are a few reason why I find Subotnick's work different than most stuff I hear coming from modulars. First, Subotnick favored (perhaps exclusively) Buchlas. A Buchla was used for Sidewinder as well.
Another reason is that Buchla used what he called "ghost tracks" which were like CVs but recorded on tape (several channels). Not so different than MOTUs "Volta" but back before anything like that was possible.
A third reason is that his ghost tracks would use an envelope follow and frequency follower to shape the sounds. One of the reason I would love to see some sort of frequency follower on a fooger. He would even use things like his own vocalizations to shape synthetic sounds which gave a natural sound to them
The forth reason is that Buchla's use vactrols. Vactrols, much like human vocalizations, are based on something physical, in this case, the properties of the diode and photo cell in the vactrol. Vactrols can sing very well. If you have any kind of expression pedal input and are hady with a soldering iron, buy a photocell at radio shack, solder on end of a patch cord to the photocell, plug it in and then take a flashlight (as bright as possible), turn the lights down or off and you will find you have a new instrument
I bought some vactrrols for this reason and when I get a chance I am going to make my own vactrol gate. You don't always need modulars to do these things and to add something unique to sound.
On the M3
I guess I don't really agree that the M3 is thin. Perhaps you can get a sense from that or other Korgs because of their sample library. Lets face it, most of the digital synths that are produced these days are computers running samples. The basis of some of their advestising is which has the better piiano sound (like the M3 and the Motiff). The sample is going to sound like what was recorded along with some coloration from how it was recorded. Sometimes, this coloration can be signifant. Case and point, Spectrasonics Omnisphere which even makes a burning piano sound good.
I knew what I was getting with the M3 and what I wanted was a solid set of sounds to chose from and layter together but also shape without having my CPU suffer brain freeze (which happns a lot with my computer). Sometimes I wish I had a oscilliscope which goes flatline so I can no when I have to reboot. This is by the way one of the reasons I also want that Macbook.
Many instruments that may sound thin can be colored. Tube base EQ is one or pre-amping before sampling. The placement of mics is, I am sure, a big part of why Omnisphere also sounds good in much the same way that yes, you can make dance music with a coke bottle.
The reason Voyagers sound fat is that they are analogue. You can sample a Voyager with an M3, a Motiff, Native Instrument Kontakt or any other sampler and its going to sound like a Voyager. Why? Because you can sample it directly. Granted, there are some sampling issues, headroom, noise, ect., but the problem is that you only get the sounds that you sample.
Pink Floyd used the K2000 not because it has fat sawtooths but because they could sample all of their traditional sounds and also get new ones. They also were impressed that "On the Run" could be sequenced almost pefectly on a K2000. At a concert they just let one run and walked off the stage during "On the Run". What disappoints me is that from the Wall forward, the analogue sound of Pink Floyd really disappeared. To me, the best work of Rick Wright and indeed Pink Floyd comes from the days they were using a VCS3 or a Minimoog or even the Prophet 5.
KARMA
To be honest, I listen to the KARMA scenes that Korg has developed and I am not really that happy with them. I praise KARMA not because of theiir presets which are not that great, as is often the case with synths, but I praise KARMA for what it can do. There are really two levels to KARMA. The 1st level which used what are called GE or generated efffects and then the software that creates them.
KARMA is a great way to create sequences of notes in ways that are not easy to do on a keyboard such as simulating the strumming of a guitar using a ribbon controller. The manual for M3s KARMA implementation is a few hundred pages (actually part of the lenghy parameter manual). KARMA is not that complex but it has many options and ways of doing things.
KARMA MIDI can also be sent to MIDI devices like the M3 and the MIDI Murf. It does not take to long to see lots of possibltiies.
Zebra 2
Zebra is also an example of another synth that I think is underated. I also would challenge Access in saying that whatever the Virus can do Zebra can do and much more (I agree with that comment + more). I am not going to use Zebra instead of a Voyager but if you are talking anlalogue emulation, Zebra does very solid job. And power? Virus can't hold a candle to the kind of thngs that Zebra can do.
Back to the Voyager
So, when all is said and done, I guess the question is why do I want a
Voyager. I guess the same reason that I would not mind having a Gibson ES-335 or 135 perhaps one of these days. Its a great instrument. But there are other times I would use a Telecaster or a Strat. Each have their own sound. They also have a character to them. I find that the M3 has and so does Voyager. I can exploit that character in my music.
Does a modular have character? Not really. You can mix match modules right? In the end they are a bunch of tools thrown together. With some talent, perhaps they have conherence and form but I think it takes some great skill like a Morton Subotnicks to make them sing. The Voyager has a great voice but it does not have to be coaxed. That is why the Minimoog was so sucessfull. It sounded good out of the box like a fine guitar.
If I were to look for a vocalist for a band, I would favor natural raw talent with a few rough edges over a trained voice like an opera singer who may also be very high maintenance. In may ways I see modulars that way. They are high maintenance and I want to spend more time making music than figuring out the timing of triggers on modules.
Take the human voice. We use it everyday but its capable of such great range and in fact is a form of natural synthesizer. It has an oscillator, the voice box, the filters (mouth, tongue, teeth, ect), you can shape the envelope of the filters and volume. You can modulate it (many vocalists do to great effect). And yet, the basic set of presets if what we have by learning to speak and whatever singing we learn to do. But for those who want to dig into the programming of it, it can be so very beautiful.
So I guess what I am saying is looking beyond the presets and once again, technical specs and opera singers really don't impress me much but he pure and natural voice of an instrument like a Voyager I can use in my virtual band any time.
This is what I would like a modular to sound like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rnIfw-49gA
When I listen to modulars I only occasionally hear something close to these sounds. There are a few reason why I find Subotnick's work different than most stuff I hear coming from modulars. First, Subotnick favored (perhaps exclusively) Buchlas. A Buchla was used for Sidewinder as well.
Another reason is that Buchla used what he called "ghost tracks" which were like CVs but recorded on tape (several channels). Not so different than MOTUs "Volta" but back before anything like that was possible.
A third reason is that his ghost tracks would use an envelope follow and frequency follower to shape the sounds. One of the reason I would love to see some sort of frequency follower on a fooger. He would even use things like his own vocalizations to shape synthetic sounds which gave a natural sound to them
The forth reason is that Buchla's use vactrols. Vactrols, much like human vocalizations, are based on something physical, in this case, the properties of the diode and photo cell in the vactrol. Vactrols can sing very well. If you have any kind of expression pedal input and are hady with a soldering iron, buy a photocell at radio shack, solder on end of a patch cord to the photocell, plug it in and then take a flashlight (as bright as possible), turn the lights down or off and you will find you have a new instrument
I bought some vactrrols for this reason and when I get a chance I am going to make my own vactrol gate. You don't always need modulars to do these things and to add something unique to sound.
On the M3
I guess I don't really agree that the M3 is thin. Perhaps you can get a sense from that or other Korgs because of their sample library. Lets face it, most of the digital synths that are produced these days are computers running samples. The basis of some of their advestising is which has the better piiano sound (like the M3 and the Motiff). The sample is going to sound like what was recorded along with some coloration from how it was recorded. Sometimes, this coloration can be signifant. Case and point, Spectrasonics Omnisphere which even makes a burning piano sound good.
I knew what I was getting with the M3 and what I wanted was a solid set of sounds to chose from and layter together but also shape without having my CPU suffer brain freeze (which happns a lot with my computer). Sometimes I wish I had a oscilliscope which goes flatline so I can no when I have to reboot. This is by the way one of the reasons I also want that Macbook.
Many instruments that may sound thin can be colored. Tube base EQ is one or pre-amping before sampling. The placement of mics is, I am sure, a big part of why Omnisphere also sounds good in much the same way that yes, you can make dance music with a coke bottle.
The reason Voyagers sound fat is that they are analogue. You can sample a Voyager with an M3, a Motiff, Native Instrument Kontakt or any other sampler and its going to sound like a Voyager. Why? Because you can sample it directly. Granted, there are some sampling issues, headroom, noise, ect., but the problem is that you only get the sounds that you sample.
Pink Floyd used the K2000 not because it has fat sawtooths but because they could sample all of their traditional sounds and also get new ones. They also were impressed that "On the Run" could be sequenced almost pefectly on a K2000. At a concert they just let one run and walked off the stage during "On the Run". What disappoints me is that from the Wall forward, the analogue sound of Pink Floyd really disappeared. To me, the best work of Rick Wright and indeed Pink Floyd comes from the days they were using a VCS3 or a Minimoog or even the Prophet 5.
KARMA
To be honest, I listen to the KARMA scenes that Korg has developed and I am not really that happy with them. I praise KARMA not because of theiir presets which are not that great, as is often the case with synths, but I praise KARMA for what it can do. There are really two levels to KARMA. The 1st level which used what are called GE or generated efffects and then the software that creates them.
KARMA is a great way to create sequences of notes in ways that are not easy to do on a keyboard such as simulating the strumming of a guitar using a ribbon controller. The manual for M3s KARMA implementation is a few hundred pages (actually part of the lenghy parameter manual). KARMA is not that complex but it has many options and ways of doing things.
KARMA MIDI can also be sent to MIDI devices like the M3 and the MIDI Murf. It does not take to long to see lots of possibltiies.
Zebra 2
Zebra is also an example of another synth that I think is underated. I also would challenge Access in saying that whatever the Virus can do Zebra can do and much more (I agree with that comment + more). I am not going to use Zebra instead of a Voyager but if you are talking anlalogue emulation, Zebra does very solid job. And power? Virus can't hold a candle to the kind of thngs that Zebra can do.
Back to the Voyager
So, when all is said and done, I guess the question is why do I want a
Voyager. I guess the same reason that I would not mind having a Gibson ES-335 or 135 perhaps one of these days. Its a great instrument. But there are other times I would use a Telecaster or a Strat. Each have their own sound. They also have a character to them. I find that the M3 has and so does Voyager. I can exploit that character in my music.
Does a modular have character? Not really. You can mix match modules right? In the end they are a bunch of tools thrown together. With some talent, perhaps they have conherence and form but I think it takes some great skill like a Morton Subotnicks to make them sing. The Voyager has a great voice but it does not have to be coaxed. That is why the Minimoog was so sucessfull. It sounded good out of the box like a fine guitar.
If I were to look for a vocalist for a band, I would favor natural raw talent with a few rough edges over a trained voice like an opera singer who may also be very high maintenance. In may ways I see modulars that way. They are high maintenance and I want to spend more time making music than figuring out the timing of triggers on modules.
Take the human voice. We use it everyday but its capable of such great range and in fact is a form of natural synthesizer. It has an oscillator, the voice box, the filters (mouth, tongue, teeth, ect), you can shape the envelope of the filters and volume. You can modulate it (many vocalists do to great effect). And yet, the basic set of presets if what we have by learning to speak and whatever singing we learn to do. But for those who want to dig into the programming of it, it can be so very beautiful.
So I guess what I am saying is looking beyond the presets and once again, technical specs and opera singers really don't impress me much but he pure and natural voice of an instrument like a Voyager I can use in my virtual band any time.
Not really. But it has a trucated graphite body to add considerable sustain. Low action is also important (at least to me and others). Action is the height from the string to the fret. Low action makes the instrument easier to play and cuts down on those filnger blisters.
I'd love to hear it when you finally get around to doing it. I've actually been thinking about getting the CP-251 and VX-351 to better integrate my Voyager into my modular. Right now I can control the Voyager but can't send CV from the Voyager to the Modular.
