Αγγελίες
- Μηνύματα
- 13,618
- Πόντοι
- 513
- Ιδιότητα
- Πλήκτρα
Το SCHMIDT synth ειναι ενα project που αρχισε πριν αρκετα χρονια. Το πρωτοτυπο εκανε την εμφανιση του στην Musikmesse του 2011. Βλεποντας πριν λιγο ενα βιντεο απο την τελευταια ΝΑΜΜ ειπα να φτιαξω ενα ποστ γι αυτο το mega-synth, να ποσταρω μερικες φωτος καθως και μια συνεντευξη του δημιουργου του Stefan Schmidt στο GreatSynthesizers.com στις 10/9/2012.
Υπαρχει ακομα ενα ποστ γι αυτο το synth εδω στο ΝΟΙΖ απο το 2011, για οσους θελουν να το (ξανα)διαβασουν:
http://www.noiz.gr/index.php?topic=185372.0
Sensational new releases in the segment of analogue synthesizers were for a long time very scarce. However, in recent years their number has been steadily increasing. We see this as an encouraging development.
SCHMIDT must be considered one of the most remarkable developments in contemporary synthesizers. This is cause enough to begin our interview series with none other than its developer, Stefan Schmidt.
You first introduced the SCHMIDT to the broader public at the Musikmesse in Frankfurt in 2011. What has been going on with you since then?
The fair was definitely a great achievement for me, even just making it that far after approximately 8 long years of development. Incidentally, the unit was never planned on this scale, above all, just as little as was the very long development time.
The project grew steadily and by the end I did have my doubts about ever being able to finish it.
That the “SCHMIDT” was so well received at the fair, and was even spoken of here and there as a highlight, was something I never expected to this extent. A success, even if it has so far not become a financial success.
How do you actually come up with the idea of building an instrument like the SCHMIDT?
Well, the roots of this go back quite far. One of my last projects at MAM, approximately 9 years ago, was a replica of the Moog Taurus I. Once the prototype was aurally barely distinguishable from the original in various blindfold tests, we introduced it at the fair.
It was – in order to be able to offer it at the lowest possible cost – initially a pure Expander version (so without pedals). If there had been sufficient demand, I would have followed up with the pedal version. At least, that was what was planned.
From Taurus to SCHMIDT is a remarkable journey. How did these “deviations” arise from your original idea?
The Taurus project was a complete flop, and believe me, nothing to smile about for us back then. The interest in our Taurus expander was so infinitesimally small that a continuation of the project could not even be thought of. Added to this was the fact that sales at MAM had gone through the floor, so only a real bestseller could have saved us.
I must say that I was sick to the back teeth of the music business by then. Although it’s kind of fun, the headache of whether and how you can make money, sort of ruins the fun.
Consequently, I resigned from MAM and went looking for a job. Alongside this, I continued working on the Taurus expander as a hobby (this kept it fun!) which meant adding more and more features but also removing Taurus-specific features. It had in fact come to my attention that another manufacturer with the appropriate label was also working on a Taurus – making it a topic that would be exhausted in the near future. Although the SCHMIDT developed from the Taurus, it no longer has anything in common with it.
As it was only a hobby project, criteria such as usability, sound variety – as far as it was feasible with the existing analogue electronics – and sound quality were in the foreground. I had no intention of turning it into a marketable product.
After about 3-4 years, the monophonic version was ready, with a provisional operating unit, but without any casing. From the beginning I conceived of the electronics on the basis of a number of stackable voice cards (maximum eight), as I already had a duophonic version planned.
The technical requirements for polyphony were fulfilled in principle, and the subsequent expenditure for the operating unit, software and casing would have been disproportionately high with regard to a monophonic version. These considerations and the fact that I have always admired the old analogue “battleships” such as Jupiter 8, Matrix 12 etc., but was never able to afford them, but now had the opportunity to realise such a “battleship” myself, cast such a spell on me that I quit my job to dedicate myself exclusively to what had become a polyphonic synthesizer.
I underestimated the time still required, particularly for the casing, and the planned two years turned into four. As my funds were also depleted quicker than expected, the implementation of a very cost-intensive prototype would not have been possible without the financial support of the company EMC. Equally, as a distributor of analogue devices, EMC led the creation of the design, which turned out well.
Did you never intend to capitalize on it?
Definitely not. I think the marketing opportunities for large analogue projects have generally become very seldom and they depend on many factors, which cannot be calculated or estimated. The option of making a business out of it always exists in principle, but to want to plan it is very difficult.
What factors do you think are the most critical?
The decisive factor in my opinion is the development of the components market. The rapid development in the digital sector offers plenty of potential for both innovation as well as the ability to continuously reduce the selling prices.
The development of the analogue sector is rather the reverse of this. The price trend is upwards. New components that bring hope of innovation are few. And mere imitation (“cloning”) is becoming more and more difficult because parts are being discontinued. The days of analogue “synthesizer chips” – as a prerequisite for the realization of analogue polyphonic synthesizers – are a thing of the past; discrete solutions are, at least for major projects, cost-and time-intensive.
Little or no innovation in the analogue field is not much of a purchase incentive. To stimulate this, manufacturers are forced to reduce prices by whatever means possible or to use other solutions to achieve a “must have” effect. Many manufacturers are very creative in this respect and also deliver good products. The intrinsic qualities of a product were originally of a musical nature, but they have become less decisive to sales success; marketing plays a much bigger part in its success or failure.
No comment.
All this brings a further factor with it that cannot be ignored – analogue legends are based on antiquated technology, but in terms of their sophistication, they are still the be-all and end-all. The ‘new’ analogues can’t hold a candle to them – how could they? These legends ultimately come from a time when it was still the intention of the developer to build a musical instrument and not a “cash cow”. This is also reflected in the sound, and the term “legendary sound” is by no means just a cliché!
This of course complicates the marketing opportunities for the ‘new’ analogues. They not only have modern sound generators as competitors – “price” is the key word here – but also the ‘old’ analogues because of their good image. “Cloning” is nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on this image. It works all the better, the more one drives this image artificially high by means of marketing techniques. Innovation falls by the wayside and is perhaps not even desired.
To take the wind out of the sails of my admittedly very critical view I would like to finally note that analogue sound generators have their place and they should also keep this place in the future. They earn the label “musical instrument” particularly so because due to their errors, tolerances, lack of precision they are distinguished by a high degree of naturalness. Digital sound generators can sound as good as they like and be as inexpensive as they like, they are and will remain mere computers.
You were discussing previously the problems developers of analogue circuit design can meet. How was it for you e.g. with regard to the availability of components?
In the SCHMIDT I don’t use any “old” synthesizer chips; all the circuits are realized with discrete components that are still available. Of course, envelopes and LFOs are based on a software basis. Modern controller technology or, as the case may be, converter technology has now advanced so far that these purely analogue solutions are absolutely equal. For the sake of the performance and owing to the high number of modulators several autonomous control units are in operation in the SCHMIDT.
The risk of obsolete components exists of course for the SCHMIDT as well. A discontinuation does not necessarily mean that the project is over, as there are often still large stocks remaining on the components market – even several years after discontinuation. The procurement of obsolete parts can still be a problem, as the prices increase dramatically from one moment to the next. This is a risk not to be underestimated for products that are tightly calculated or for large numbers of units. In the case of the SCHMIDT, however, I don’t see this danger.
Can you please give us a detailed overview of what the SCHMIDT will have on board in the final version?
The fair prototype is functionally already the final version, aside from some modifications to the casing and the software, which still has to be completed.
* 8 voices with multimode and single outputs
* Access to all parameters of controls
Per Voice:
* 4 analogue oscillators
* 5 analogue filters:
* 2 Moog lowpass ladder filters with high pass, band-pass extension
* 2 dual multimode filters, distortion
* 1 12dB lowpass filter
* Separate modulators (envelopes, LFOs) for filters and oscillators
* Stereo panning
* Separate master envelope
* Filter crossfading function
* Controllers: joystick, aftertouch, mod wheel, routable to all parameters
Let us begin with the oscillators. As they are four in number they have quite a bit on offer. How would you characterise them?
The 4 oscillators differ mainly in their waveforms.
* Osc1: saw, square, pulse, noise, 4-Pulse, ring modulator
* Osc2: saw, square, pulse, noise, ring modulator
* Osc3: saw, square, pulse, sync + suboscillator
* Osc4: multiple ring modulator, “metallic noise”
Triangle or sine-like spectra can be generated with a filter (of which there are plenty).
Can you please explain the “metallic noise” in more detail?
It is produced by a chain of several ring modulators with differently-tuned oscillators. This produces a noise similar to random noise, but has in contrast to white noise also clearly audible harmonic components, practically a “pitch”.
I called it “metallic noise” because in this way metallic percussion instruments such as cymbals, hi hats, etc. can be generated in the analogue domain.
In the case of the oscillators, can you tell us what digital is about them and in which other instruments this technology was also used?
That’s a very good question, which I would like to answer in more detail.
It’s probably already got around that my oscillators are DCOs. That this fact would rekindle debate is, of course, what I expected. If this is to be conducted it should take place on a factual level.
At the time, DCOs were developed to address a marginal weakness of classic analogue VCOs – their poor tuning stability. A variant that exists is to synchronize a VCO using a digital oscillator (which is stable as it is quartz-based). The waveform is generated by the VCO as before (i.e. purely analogue) with the difference that the frequency of the digital oscillator is “forced”. Typical “DCO’s” that work on this principle are, for example, the Juno 6/60, Matrix 1000 or the Matrix 6.
To avoid misunderstandings: the technically correct term for this variant would actually be TCVCO “timer controlled VCO”. The term DCO, “Digital Controlled Oscillator” as a generic term also includes variants that are implemented pure digitally, a fact that has certainly contributed to the bad reputation of DCOs.
For my oscillators I have adopted the version “TCVCO”, but further developed – especially with a very finely adjustable fine-tuning – and also given each oscillator a separate control unit. So all the oscillators run autonomously, i.e. they are not coupled. In contrast to pure VCO there is no danger of “catching”.
Can you please explain that to us in a little more detail?
This is what we call it when two oscillators are slightly detuned and influence one another so that they vibrate at the same frequency. The reason for this is usually bad circuit board design and is annoying, as it means that low beat frequencies are not possible. I would like to add one thing with regard to DCO vs. VCO: both have advantages as well as disadvantages.
It would be unfair, in my opinion, however, to sweep the following major difference under the rug: DCOs are principally stable and reliable – virtually without restriction until the end of their lives. You can precisely program very fine detuning, and also reproduce it accurately. With a VCO that is not possible. If the tuning instability exceeds acceptable levels, the sound quality often suffers heavily. That is also a large annoyance now as in the past, of which you can read in the relevant forums over and over again.
The sound quality of an analogue synthesizer depends of course also on many other factors in addition to the oscillators, such as the type and number of filters, the modulation sources, the overall concept and its complexity and numerous other factors. Ultimately, the only decisive factor is how it sounds, how this is technically feasible, be it digital, analogue or virtual analogue, I really do not care.
After the oscillators we turn to the mixer, which also offers a number of features, but is displaced from the filter section. Can you tell us something about this?
The filter section is undoubtedly the most powerful component, and is, so to speak, the heart of the SCHMIDT.
It consists of two identical groups, with each group consisting of a Moog ladder filter and a dual multimode filter. Dual means two parallel connected single filters with different selectable filter types: lowpass, highpass and bandpass. Here I was inspired by the great sounding filter structure of the Matrix 12.
The two Moog filters/dual multimoders can be optionally connected in parallel or serially. All the filters have separate modulation sources (ENVs +LFOs) and are additionally modulated by an oscillator. Another feature is the additional bandpass and highpass modes offered by the Moog filters.
The two filter groups can be mixed with an additional 5th filter at the output (lowpass, without modulation). In this way, the output signal can be refreshed with powerful bass frequencies, if the group filter is being specially used for bandpass or highpass filtering.
SCHMIDT - one of the early board designs
