23 Jan
2003
23 Jan
'03
11:14 a.m.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 03:11:25 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
[subpatches]
But this is a failure, that was forced by the
hardware. As I wrote in my
first mail in this thread, I think it is inherently wrong to model software
after hardware. Imagine how a textprocessing software like Word would look,
if the developers would have tried to achieve the look and interface of a
typewriter?
That's true, but there is actually a lot of creative power in modular
synths that is lost by making the UI more "computery". Its very hard to
explain why, but the (mathematical) granularity of the modules has a
profound effect on the resulting sound.
I would make the same argument for subpatches, once you use them there is
an additional "cost" (psycologically or in effort terms) to patching
things in and out of the subpatch which inst a reflection of hte way
people work in hardware modulars, eg. "damn, I need another LFO, I'l just
take the inverted output form this one over here and stick it thrugh a
lag to make it a bit different".
Even building up hardware style modules out of pd wouldn't be the same
because of the little hacks that the DSP programmer would put in the
source of the modules to make them respond how he wanted.
Equally there are things that are easy and rewarding to do in pd and co.
that I would never attempt on a modular synth. and thats why we have JACK,
to be the meta-modular synth :)
- Steve