>
>> Another question... why is it that people ascribe a certain sound to
> modern modulars Why a certain sound to vintage

I would suggest that the individual sound of vintage synths was a
function of their circuit design, especially the filter design, but
since many manufacturers copied one another's designs, you might
expect them to sound identical. You have to look at the selection of
components, not just materials (such as "germanium") but the
tolerances of the components and their effects on the overall circuit
behaviour and stability.
Things like the proximity of power supplies or transformers in the
synth design and relative smoothness of the power supply can also
influence things I should think.

The handmade aspect is also a factor, both then and now, but you
would expect more stability in today's synths. Having said that,
stability is not always what you want. I just had a couple of hours
using a Mark II VCS3 and the unpredictability and general sloppiness
when plugging more pins into the matrix was a joy. The sound seemed
to have a life of its own! So these older synths (and some of the
newer ones too), are individual musical instruments with their own
idiosyncratic sounds. It's maybe not helpful to think of them as
manufactured/replicated items. Each VCS3 has its own character, just
like each cello or violin.

Today's manufacturers are giving us the tools to design our own
unique synths with so many filter types and many more modules
available than ever before. The drive to eliminate "imperfections" is
a factor here in that there is almost always a trade off.

Since the phonograph, companies have been selling equipment which is
less noisy - higher "fidelity".

All I'm saying is beware the hi-fi buff and his synth equivalent.
This is not a healthy obsession, and making the elimination of noise
and esoteric behaviour your god is the path to sterility.

(on the other hand, a pure sine wave is a useful theoretical tool :) )

Trevor Pinch's "Analog Days" is an interesting account of the
evolution of Moog and includes chapters on Arp and others too. Check
it out.

sean

>For all sine wave obsessed folks on this list here's some more for you
>to read
>
>< http://dubshot.blogspot.com/2008/10/basswatch-3-cult-of-sine-wave-enter.html > http://dubshot.blogspot.com/2008/10/basswatch-3-cult-of-sine-wave-enter.html
>
>especially the links to a sinewave shootout and an article by Bernie
>Hutchins under 'Digital vs. Analog'
>
>> Can someone give me an example of an application that requires a
>> perfect sine wave
>
>obsessively clean ring modulation if you really want to get rid of the
>harmonics just filter the damn wave. otherwise go digital
>
>> Another question... why is it that people ascribe a certain sound to
> > modern modulars Why a certain sound to vintage
>
>a very coloured and personal comment: why do audiophiles exist why are
>certain people convinced that the sound quality of their stereo improves
>if they use cable that costs 500 euro per meter
>
>I don't understand
>> why a modern modular can't sound exactly like a Buchla, or a Serge, or
>> a fluglehorn, or a pile driver. In theory, with the all of the sound
>> generating and conditioning elements of a modern modular in place, you
>> should be able to make any sound.
>
>don't forget that a certain circuit can have a certain unique quality.
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]