MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

General interest question about Buchla 200e
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge  
Author General interest question about Buchla 200e
auricle
Hi,

I know that a Buchla modular is a synth that many people (not all, I know) aspire to.

I only learned today that the synth is actually digital (well, I think the oscillators are anyway). So is it possible to connect modules from other manufacturers to the Buchla?
thermionicjunky
auricle wrote:
Hi,

I know that a Buchla modular is a synth that many people (not all, I know) aspire to.

I only learned today that the synth is actually digital (well, I think the oscillators are anyway). So is it possible to connect modules from other manufacturers to the Buchla?


All inputs and outputs are analog, regardless of whether or not there is an analog to digital conversion within the module. Digital signals are converted to analog before they leave the module.
auricle
thermionicjunky wrote:
auricle wrote:
Hi,

I know that a Buchla modular is a synth that many people (not all, I know) aspire to.

I only learned today that the synth is actually digital (well, I think the oscillators are anyway). So is it possible to connect modules from other manufacturers to the Buchla?


All inputs and outputs are analog, regardless of whether or not there is an analog to digital conversion within the module. Digital signals are converted to analog before they leave the module.


Ah, I see. Thanks smile
Cat-A-Tonic
The only problem (other than adapter plugs) with using a Buchla
with other modulars in the same patch is that Buchla still uses 1.2v/oct.,
whereas most modern modulars use 1v/oct., and a couple use Hz/volt right?

There are many modules from other manufacturers that also take
advantage of the strengths of digital technology at their cores.
People who refuse to have any digital in their 'analog modular'
are really missing out on alot of brilliant functions.
theglyph
I believe the 200e has DCO's which makes them anlaog oscillators with digital control inputs (as opposed to VC inputs).

Don't forget that Buchla uses banana for CV and 1/8" for audio which makes integration a bit trickier. A MakeNoise Format Jumbler could be used as an interface!
thermionicjunky
theglyph wrote:
I believe the 200e has DCO's which makes them anlaog oscillators with digital control inputs (as opposed to VC inputs).

Don't forget that Buchla uses banana for CV and 1/8" for audio which makes integration a bit trickier. A MakeNoise Format Jumbler could be used as an interface!


The current oscillators are digital with analog waveshaping. The 259e was completely digital. They all respond to CV.
theglyph
thermionicjunky wrote:
They all respond to CV.


Opps d'oh!

I was thinking of the the way the oscillator core is controlled. As I understand it VCO's charge the core's capacitor (which generates the electrical oscillations) using transistors while DCO's charge the core with digital pulses. The differentiating factor being that transistors are sensitive to heat resulting in oscillator drift (e.g. MiniMoog) while the digital input is generally stable (e.g. Prophet 5). Both VCO's and DCO's can be controlled by CV inputs. A pure digital oscillator has no capacitor considering that the core waveform is generated in the binary domain. A digital oscillator driven into an analog waveshaper does sound yummy Guinness ftw!

BTW, you reminded me of Jim Aikin's review of the 200e in which he didn't have too many good things to say about the 259e.

http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/buchla-200e/Nov-05/14870

But I'm still considering selling my kidney to get a Buchla!! That is if I can get enough $ for my kidney we're not worthy
thermionicjunky
theglyph wrote:
thermionicjunky wrote:
They all respond to CV.


Opps d'oh!

I was thinking of the the way the oscillator core is controlled. As I understand it VCO's charge the core's capacitor (which generates the electrical oscillations) using transistors while DCO's charge the core with digital pulses. The differentiating factor being that transistors are sensitive to heat resulting in oscillator drift (e.g. MiniMoog) while the digital input is generally stable (e.g. Prophet 5). Both VCO's and DCO's can be controlled by CV inputs. A pure digital oscillator has no capacitor considering that the core waveform is generated in the binary domain. A digital oscillator driven into an analog waveshaper does sound yummy Guinness ftw!

BTW, you reminded me of Jim Aikin's review of the 200e in which he didn't have too many good things to say about the 259e.

http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/buchla-200e/Nov-05/14870

But I'm still considering selling my kidney to get a Buchla!! That is if I can get enough $ for my kidney we're not worthy


It is funny how coveted the 259e is now. Although, I'm sure people weren't waiting around for another oscillator, considering all the talk of organ selling. At the time, it seems that a lot of people couldn't understand aliasing in an "analog" synthesizer. I'm going to pacify myself with something like the Plan B Model 30 and a DIY 291 filter and 292 LPG.
ndkent
As to the analog or digital thing, I'd say the best way of putting it is Don went digital in the areas he thought would work better and went analog in the areas he thought would work better. The signal path is all analog though some of that signal is digitally generated. You are using analog patch cords containing analog CV and audio but there is also a data bus sending instructions.

As to the 259e in specific Well the thing in my opinion is that it can be driven past a typical range of "normal" oscillator behavior without it stopping you. So I can see why it might be frustrating to just dial the knobs to the max and get something pretty nasty to some people or hear a wave with some artifacts in it at some settings. I think it's more interesting than anything like a bug or defect because there is a good range that doesn't exhibit any of that. The big point is it's very different and multi dimensional.

The unit itself is a main wavetable oscillator with a separate or unison controllable modulating osc. with simple waveforms. The modulating osc doesn't stop with FM but can also manipulate the "warp" and "morph" between a pair of wavetables. The wavetables aren't like Waldorf or ROMpler sample derived waves, they are akin to different transform functions from what I can tell. Sines are included for more traditional FM work and the ability to morph from denser harmonics to thin ones (that part relates to the older simpler Buchla VCOs that could modulate sine to square or sine to saw).

The current Buchla 261e oscs are quite different and lots more analog though not exclusively analog. They also have the modulating osc, but it's creating very different waves. The waves still have several dimensions of wave manipulation beyond just FM. The kinds of manipulated waveshapes are very different.

Ideally both are the way to go though that gets extra pricey and adds a bump to configuration if you want to go polyphonic ;-)

As a whole the 200e really it's own thing. You aren't going to come close to duplicating it easily. It's not going to be the end all modular especially if you have a Moog-centric viewpoint. It will do a bunch of things easily (think patch storage, portability, polyphony) that were very tough if at all possible to do with a physical modular.

I guess if you have an agenda to do x, y and z with a 200e you might be genuinely frustrated. It's not frustrating if you come to it with the desire to work with it and do something new you couldn't do before.
cbm
Nick is spot-on with the above post. The Buchla is a system that you have to meet halfway.

The 200e has a pretty wide palette, but there's not a huge overlap with the typical palette from "normal" analog synthesizers.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge  
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group