Printable View
SoQuote:
Originally Posted by laserist
Sounds to me like your expecting the controls to move around randomly. That would be a great adventure.... What does this slider do right now?.... Oh look, it does this, and I have no idea what I am doing, I am just pushing buttons like a monkey.
I like the suggestion of the patch cords. Early on I commented that the layout seemed to combine the directness of a hardwired instrument with the compactness of a modular one. I'd said that a bit of signal flow path topolgy gained at a glance might help people, but going the other way might make more sense. If people have a few sockets to change the default flow (a bit like patching 'normalled' patch bay sockets), then they'll have more scope for control, and because they patched the route themselves, they're likely to know what it is.
Edit: All that talk of jet black.. I missed the Hitch-hiker allusion, all I could think of was the Stranglers. :)
No, but when you do something really dramatic like adopting a patch approach, mildly dramatic like taking a one channel device and adding fixed rotation to support multiple channels, or just deciding to change to a dual concentric pot for one reason or another you might begin to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnar
Random? Sure that's it, I'm just standing in the dark turning controls at random.
Whatever gets you through the night.
Cool, I am starting to see this through your eyes. Your actually working in a similar fashion to the experimental noise crowd I know and do shows for. Your control surface is your art, so I am digging your concept of "in the experience" creative process. Your ideal control surface is a never finished work in progress. Batch bays, banks of controls available to be patched to whatever, building blocks and an unpatched empty slate for your experimental pleasure.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserist
Thinking about this more, I think that's what I am looking for... Beyond Universe helps you create custom surfaces, yet not intended for live on the fly....
Off to discuss ideas with my synth builder mate....
Slight correction: The console is the instrument - the fusion of the environment, lasers, and music is the Art.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnar
There's a thread that hits on some of this here
My first real intro to Jon - keep in mind it had been 25 years since I touched a 6B at that moment in time.
for what it's worth the Chopper and Color Mod gains have dual concentric pots in the photo of the console that weren't that way in my day, the sensyn became raster gain, the motor speed cluster functionality moved, the spiral rate doubled up so you could do coarse/fine or ten turn control, the shutter became push on/push off with two switches rather than one, and the adig box disappeared. In place of the adig box there were several options over the years that split out variations on various themes...
This console looks very nice :)
How would it be for one shipped to Palma de Mallorca (Spain) and how can the payment be arranged?
Best Regards,
Pere
Here's another modular synthesist interested in an interface ILDA/Eurorack. I'm going to try with a simple correction amp and that should do the trick. Synth outputs from most modules are already DC-coupled, anyway. We have quadrature osc's, LFO's, VCA's, clipping amps... the only thing I can't guess is how rotations and geometric corrections are being performed in an analogue console. There are so many interesting modules that could create interesting shapes! I have programmed a XY visualizer in Processing to watch the sound of my synths and they are definitely worth watching, the most interesting part being the AD artifacts at higher frequencies, though. The image below is an example of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnar
Attachment 40879
Best regards!
Pere
Good Morning, DZ! Finally got around to registering for this forum. I'll try to answer some of The Doctor's questions about why I designed the original P-4 front panel the way I did. This place looks like it could be a serious time sink. Wheee!
I designed the front panel of the P-4 after playing the only popular analog synth you didn't mention, Doc: Alan R. Pearlman's Odyssey. I still have one in the studio.
Here's a bit about flow. I put image generation at the lower left, using rotary pots for frequency and slide pots for amplitude (and carrying this philosophy throughout the panel). The P-4 has two VCQOs, the Z-5 has three. To the immediate right of image generation is the VCA, which can be adjusted in amplitude for X and Y, separately or ganged, with a three position switch at the top to select direct voltage control from a pot or either of two LFOs, which are to the right of the VCA knobs. NB: Above each image generation slidepot is a switch/pot to modulate the VCQO frequency using either of the two LFOs. You can make an image zoom in and out in time to the music and also synch a morph from one lissajous pattern to another with the bounce.
I'll stop there. I just typed all that from memory without looking and for anyone who's played an ARP Odyssey, the many different ways of generating, rotating and modulating an image will be immediately apparent. It doesn't take long for someone to learn to run a P-4 by Braille.
I think the problem many people have, until they get their hands on the device, is that the flow isn't readily apparent because there are so many more ways to make it flow than there would have been if I'd copied a MiniMoog.
Welcome to Photonlexicon, Ash!
You're gonna love it here!
Funny you mention that...in another thread about the Z-5, I mentioned the ARP 2600 as a cool direction to take for the front panel/industrial design aesthetic *retardoQuote:
Originally Posted by AshMcFadden
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...859#post267859
Oh, yeah, this place looks like something that will keep me from productive work for hours on end!
The ARP 2600 was a fun machine. David Pearlman's genius with the Odyssey was in re-creating all those possible patchcord connections - like having an LFO modulate both frequency and amplitude, for instance - and eliminating the patchcords. With the P-4, there are lots of either/or choices and many either/or/both choices. You can "paint yourself into a corner", with several ways to drive your image into a useless clip, if you use them all at once.
I'm going to have to transcribe the P-4 Users' Manual here when I get back to Ireland where I left the original copy, along with the original P-4, Serial Number 001, built in 1982 and which is still working just fine, thank you.
Ash! Welcome to PhotonLexicon!!
I just managed to finish wiring up a panel and even put together a time lapse video of. Had the camera set to take a photo every 10 seconds. Ended up taking just over 13 hours to wire the panel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lvqr7Qxs-w
David, you're a rockstar! I need to not go to your channel when I am at work! Do you have any galleries set up with any of your own abstracts yet? I mean, with all your free time, I would expect it :p. I am also curious to see what some of the Pangolin created abstracts will look like when washing them through the z-5 to add that analog touch to them. Also, any possibility of including up to 4x ilda outs for multi-head projectors? Not that it would be that hard to build a 4 way splitter.
Great work. I really need to get to SELEM.
David,
What a video! It's going to be great seeing the Z-5 come to life. Amazing project - thanks for all you are doing to make this happen!
Ash,
Welcome to the forum - it will be nice to hear your feedback on this too!
Greg
I apologize for jumping off thread here. First, let me take my hat off to DZ for his superior effort. As a old analog dog from the '80's I can appreciate this effort.
I've built my share of analog generators, including a couple of Mandalla Zero consoles when I worked for Lasermedia back in the '80's.
Now for my question. I have been tearing my hair out trying to find a complete data sheet for the Burr Brown 4214 multiplier. Every thing I find on the web is missing the crucial diagrams. I did find one copy that had the pinouts, but I need to see the rest of the sheet.
ANY help here will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Jay
I have to add that a clean workbench is the sign of a sick mind LOL!
Hah! What a hoot this thread was... :p
First - DZ.. Hats-off, Chief.. bitchin-controller, and - as-always - incredible-werk... :cool: Look-forward to seein it in-action / playin around on it, someday.. I'll put a ballot in my S'LEM '14 hope-chest, and we'll see what happens.. :)
re:
..who do ya think gave 'im the keys to the 'docs-vault'? :) Actually, depending on which 'board' is was for JM, there, he may-have already had them.. memorized. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Hehehe, this gave me a good-chuckle, Adam.. :) Generally-speaking, when you can not only build-up / wire-up - and then PLAY one of these puppies..Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
http://www.photonlexicon.com/forums/...1&d=1262965839
..to the point you not only have people in (literal..) tears from the beauty of the performance, but.. coming-back... for more.. with friends.. :p ..well, you automatically get a pair of 'elite-laser-dude' wings... :)
...What gives him a 'free pass' is that, a) in-fact, he *did* earn his stripes, not 'buy them', like even I - with 21-years 'pro' experience more or less did (..comparatively-speaking..).. And this 'has-been' is - currently - putting *paying-asses* in seats, week after week.. with 'content' that's 30-40 years old.. and people are lovin-it. Why? In-part, sure - because of the 'brand' / their fond-memory-set from when they 'saw it as a teen' / advertising-buzz, etc. BUT.. that does-not 'account' for all the patrons - who were not even *conceived* yet, 'back in the day' - that give the guy's performances standing-ovations, and... bring thier 20-30-something GF / BF back, the next week / mo. etc.. I sure hope *I* can be such a 'has-been' someday.. :p
..and b).. Don't you realize that, sure - Laserium became a 'world-reknowned Brand' / commercial-Co. of "Professionals", but.. dude - Laserium is like the *mecca* of 'diy'ers...One of the greatest-denizens of 'experimenters' / innovators / out-of-box thinkers in the history of our 'craft', Pro or 'Am'... If there was *ever* a Co. that encouraged / fostered the 'hobbiest / DIY-mentality', it would be the place where 'laserist' was forged into-such.. I'm pretty-sure he 'gets it'.. :)
..Point-being, I really-don't see any 'dissing' on Laserist's part for either DZ's fine-werk / 'hobbiests', in-general, nor 'Doc's POV, but.. he's quite-well 'earned his chops', and, ya know.. mastering-playing something that looks like 1/2 the cockpit of an MD-88.. :p ..and getting people to cheer with 40-year-old tunes.. and then pay again, to see it, well.. One tends to see simpler-things with 'minimal-amounts of whipped-cream'. :)
I respectfully-suggest that his 'earning' of yer respect would only be a flight to STL and one Saturday-evening away. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Hats-off, again, to yer craftsmanship, DZ.. :cool: Just badass seein' such great-passion for the 'fuller-aspects' of this art-form (like Lumia-Lust, Abstracts-Enamoration, and Beam-Table-Buffs ;) still staying-strong, and even growing.. Especially amidst the tide of what so-many, today, call 'shows', when, in reality, they're more like just 'one-effect' / aspect of-them.. imho.. :)
j
No one was questioning his experience, Jon. It was his ass-hat attitude that was in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsli_jon
Stop right there. No one gets a free pass if they are an asshole. No one. I don't give two shits if he invented the Laserium brand. Talking down to the new crop of laserists is the worst sort of elitism, and it is at odds with the very principles that this website was founded under. You, of all people, should understand that.Quote:
What gives him a 'free pass' is that <SNIP>
Contrast his previous condescending posts with what Ash wrote above, and you'll see why I was pissed. Ash gets it. Laserist, not so much. Rather that having me fly to St Louis, why not convince him to fly to SELEM next summer? (For that matter, when are you going to attend? You always said you would do it someday...)
Also, what's with the grave-dig? This issue was mostly settled 2 months ago. Why dig it up now?
Adam
Nice division of labour. :) That's the kind of indication I meant, something built into the function that brains will grasp and not forget. I don't know the Oddysey (other than ARP, and thanks, I now know what ARP actually means! Better late than never, I guess). Anyway, the flow sounds good, start from left with source, then core modification, finally external, with modifiers brought in as control lines, vertically. No doubt that might break down if the system gets complex enough, but it has worked well for electronic block diagrams, and I think most of the books on synthesisers I saw used diagrams also based on this scheme. The MiniMoog was a deliberate oversimplification I think, to aim at rapid reconfiguring of basic sounds, but other ideas exist. I don't know how much complexity will ever be demanded by a laser scan modulator, but if it gets wild enough, there are always patch matrices, like in the Synthi A and such. Those are very compact, as well as potentially very complex. The nice thing about that method is it forms a hybrid of digital and analog signal addressing that brains have little trouble recognising, so long as the matrix is actually visible at all times. Although psychologists might caution using subgroups of five because few people think directly in subgroup counts greater than seven, hence the standard breakdown of phone numbers, bank codes, etc... Even a (5+5+5+5+5)*(5+5+5+5+5) matrix can be small, yet contain more options than most people will ever want to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by AshMcFadden
EDIT:
Glorocks, Burr-Brown got taken over I think, maybe by Analog Devices or Texas Instruments. Whoever it is, you might get a full data sheet if you find out, and ask direct. I doubt they throw stuff like that away, and it might be in your interest to let them know that someone is still interested in that IC.
I suspect Jon simply took some time off for the holidays and being Jon entertained himself on PL while everybody else was asleep...Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Doc- I appreciate your suggestion. BB was eaten by TI, who continued to make the 4214 for a few more years. I've gone over TI's website several times and All I can find is the Dsheet without the diagrams. I'll try calling, who knows.
I did find a copy of BB's catalog in a university library in Arizona (two campuses actually).
I'm hoping to sweetalk the librarian into making a copy for me, or, failing that, maybe I can get an inter-library loan arranged.
If I am successful, I'll make copies available to any forum member who is interested.
The 4214 is still available, but it's pricey, $40-$60 each. Actually found a Chinese chip supplier who has a few hundred in stock.
Jay
On a more positive note... paid for my Z-5 this morning. :)
May the soldering Gods be with you David!
Possible success! I found 1986 copy of Burr Brown's catalog in the UA Tempe library, and am having it sent here via inter-library loan. Hopefully the 4214 was still in production in '86.
If anyone needs complete data sheets for the 4214, 4206, 4423, or other useful chips from BB, I will happily send .pdf copies.
J
Sounds good. I think I have come across other IC's whose data sheets seem to have less than I remember seeing in lost paper originals. One long-shot: If Maxim ever made a copy of this IC (very doubtful in this case) you might find some good data because they always seemed to be very thorough and forthcoming in their published data. Also, it may be that there is some application note that ended up keeping extra data that got shifted out of the main data sheet.
Well, as we all-know, these forums are rather 'low-bandwidth', so, I just simply suggest that a) he's anything but a 'has-been' (experience-dig? :) and while, no, he may not do lasers for Swedish Houses of Fat-Boy Oakenfold Mafia-Moby's :p nor competed in the 'lase-off' using the latest-build of Beyond Digisynth ;) he's *quite* qualified to discuss the advantages / disadvantages of controls designed for controller-based performance consoles, since.. 'that's how he rolled', week after week, for, what 30+ years, cumulatively?? b) We see - Or what may at least come-across-as - similar 'attitudes' - from time to time - from other-such of our 'Seasoned Elders', ie: Pat Bish, even Mixedgas, etc, and all I'm suggesting is that what may seem like 'elitism', may in fact just be that 'ol' Sea Dog' persona - ya know, like 'Quint' :) that can easily be mis-interpreted as 'snobbery' / elitism..Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
..Well, you cut Pat Bish (..whom I also practically worship.. :) slack, and we've seen him go 'Casey Jones' on a few 'n00bs' before... (..'course, that's cuz they deserved it.. :D ..but, point-being, I think he made it pretty-clear he was not diggin' on the peeps / DZ's efforts, etc.. I dunno, there's certainly no point in arguing this any longer...Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
http://avatars.documentingreality.co...ar185883_5.gif :) ..kinda pointless..
..Cuz a) he can't bring the 6B (controller-pic I posted..) and a CSL to S'LEM, whereas b) In St Louie, you can watch him perform spellbinding-shows, live.. all w/o a single label. ;) c) I think his day-gig likely precludes most-such even 'daycations'.. I know mine does, for me..Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
..You wanna take the load off my shoulders for that month so I can? :p I'd love to come-down, but.. Family / Werk, always-trumps.. nothing 'personal'.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Got sik, so.. had to 'sit this NYE-out', and ya, just haven't been on PL for months... Was nice bein home with the Fam, tho.. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
ciao ciao
j
PS - Sorry 'bout all the 'bar fights' in yer thread, DZ.. :o
Doc, I really need to do a show-and-tell with a JPG of the P-4 front panel. One of the things users enjoy, as soon as they discover it, is the ability to frequency-modulate and/or amplitude-modulate the same image. It adds some complexity to the flow chart, but is really easy to use, once you "get it". First easy example: The big three-lobed Lissajous pattern both zooms away and morphs into a small 5-pointed star - and back again into the big Lissajous, both synched to the beat of whichever of the two LFOs you selected. Follow the bass beat.
I show the Analog Devices AD534J (that's the analog multiplier I used in the P4) available from Digikey. Unfortunately, my notes are at least 25 years old. But that's my last-known source.
"You don't have time in a performance to look for much less read labels." Agreed, absolutely.
During a performance, you should be able to keep your eyes on the image and run the machinery by braille. I put a small glow-in-the dark stick-on dot on the VCA gain knob. It's like putting an indent in the C button on an accordion. Once you find Middle C, you can play piano and P-4 in total darkness.
Ash, you're missing the point, just as Laserist did. DZ isn't building these consoles for people to install in Planetariums so they can run commercial shows night after night to a paying audience. While it's very sad, the fact remains that the days of analog laser shows in planetariums are long gone. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by AshMcFadden
The people in this thread who have ordered these units are mostly dedicated hobbyists who just want a cool piece of history to experiment with on their own time, and who have the budget to afford it. There is ONE person here who *might* use his console for commercial shows one day, but even that is highly unlikely.
That being said, there is still value in bringing this art form to the masses, even on the hobbyist level. But to get over the steep learning curve, having labels on the console would definitely help.
Sure, *you* didn't need them, because you designed the thing. And I do agree that once someone is in a production environment where they need to perform for a commercial audience night after night, that person absolutely must be intuitively familiar with all the controls, not the least because in a low-light environment of a planetarium they wouldn't be able to read the labels anyway. But that's not applicable to the people here in this thread.
To get someone started on this console, and to ease the learning curve so they can spend more time figuring out how to create cool patterns and less time learning which knob does what, a set of basic labels would be a huge plus. If someone really gets into the console and at one point decides to start performing shows commercially with it, those labels might become superfluous, but for now they are a welcomed addition.
Adam
The_Doctor said "Thinking about it, DZ's price is actually cheap" and I agree
The last P-4's I produced required six man-weeks' labour (this includes the serial, non-linear man-hour sum of one person keeping our shelves full of 44-pin PC cards, another occasionally building consoles as needed, etc.) and we sold them for $7,500.00.
Yeah, it's cheap. And better.
I was rather astounded that it was on a single board, but with the miniaturization that's occurred since I finalized the design and etched boards for the P-4, a LOT of shit has happened!
Where were you in 1982?
Serial Number 001 is still doing duty in Ireland and working perfectly, although I do like to dial it in on an oscilloscope once a year to correct for any drift that's occurred, usually due to being moved around. And whenever I move or ship it, the first thing I do is remove and replace all the cards. Blew up a power supply in 2001 by not following that procedure. That's the only real maintenance it's had since 1982, other than the replacement of an occasional pot (slider or rotary) due to overuse. I'm amazed I've had such good luck with 13 44-pin places for trouble to happen and DZ eliminates that worry from the get-go.
I think you missed my point, Adam. The P-4/Z5's elaborate labeling is quite sufficient to get a beginner going and after learning the console, anyone can play it by braille. You can have it BOTH ways.
My thoughts on flow occupy a few posts already so I'm surprised I have anything to add, but I do. :)
When I was a kid I was taken to see a working loom. Apart from the brilliance of thread colours, what impressed me most was the danger, the noise, and the form it took. It was a beast, several feet in all directions, rattling and with shuttles slamming back and forth so hard that if some idiot put a hand in the way they'd lose that hand. After the initial shock of first encounter settled down the thing that stayed with me long after I left it was the precision of speed, timing, the pattern of its flow.
It's no accident that early computers were literally based on loom technology. The legacy of loom thread routing still exists in digital routing, and autorouting, today. Practical needs for laser controllers will demand other things of routing and layout, but where such things are based on synthesisers it is natural that synthesiser topology will guide the form and flow of signals.
What I'm getting at is that this is easy to miss. I didn't notice the rotary vs slider assignment thing on my brief look at either the P-4 or Z5, and it wasn't till Ash pointed it out that I remembered having seen similar things on ARP synthesisers in pictures (I never did manage to get at a live one). My point is to set these forms firmly in a context that makes it easy to grasp how they work, the same way we do when confronted with a working loom. This goes way beyond labels. It's so vivid that labels aren't needed so much.
The reason this matters is that software allows us to detach from these realities and create any virtual world we can imagine. Given that we adapted and grew in a very physical world, this is clearly not a good idea. We risk losing control if we can't keep things real. We also risk losing the ability to grasp the significance, or any lack of it, in our creations.
I think we all like a good illusion, but in the end I think we're more impressed by how well something does what is possible, than how cleverly it appears to do the impossible. The real value of hardware controllers in the future is that good ones will guide the software so it remains under good user control. If this does not happen the choreography will be amazing but it may never dance in real time again.
I may be overstating the case, but the allure of IT has made fools of governments, even engineers, so we should not assume we're smart enough to avoid this problem. We need to reality check it for ourselves, the same way we look for vehicles every time we cross a road. We need to make it a habit.
I don't have my notes from my test session with DZ, so I can't recall all the issues we came up with, but I do remember that one of the key problems was figuring out the flow of the "image" through the device as various sections added their little twist to the final picture. Looking at the faceplate, there's no quick way of knowing how things relate to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by AshMcFadden
I may have this wrong, but I seem to remember that it all started in the lower right with the LFO's, then moved to the lower left for the VCQO banks, then to the top left for rotation effects, then to the middle for final mixing before going out. Not sure where Orbit and Perspective fit into that map though. (Guessing after all the above, but just prior to output?) The fact that I'm guessing about this flow path (and that even if it's correct, it appears rather random as things are laid out on the board) highlights the heart of the issue.
Anyway, DZ was thinking about adding a dotted-line to show how some things were connected, but at the time he hadn't decided on the best way to do this. (We also talked about a user's manual that might be a better way to explain such things, but that's about as far as we got.)
Another issue was with the perspective controls themselves... I seem to remember a problem that cropped up if you had the "hold" switch selected in Orbit while you were adjusting Perspective controls. Why controls in orbit would have an effect on a separate area called perspective is another question, but it's something that the user would be wise to be alert for.
Again, this was several months ago, and all my notes went home with DZ so I'm going on memory here, which I fully admit may have gaps. I'm sure there were other items on the list that I've forgotten. However, I do remember that several times we had the console "locked", in that controls that were working previously suddenly stopped, and it took us a while to figure out why. (Usually followed by a "Duh... This switch needs to be in the other position!) This experience is where the idea of improving the labels came from.
Finally, consider this: generic terms like LFO, VCQO and VCA might mean a lot to an electrical engineer (particularly one who designed the console, or someone who used it nightly), but without more context it's just alphabet soup to most people. Small changes to the labels can make the unit far more approachable, particularly for someone who isn't planning on doing commercial work with it, without taking anything away from the operation or capabilities of the console.
Adam
If the terms are too new or unique, sure, but in this case there is good history for VCO, VCA, LFO, and they do relate directly not only to analog synthesisers but to the methods used, so they make sense. Most people accepted VCR, and DVD. :) That last one is actually risible, it literally means nothing to say 'Digital Versatile Disk'. So I'd say that VCO, VCA and LFO are solid, because just looking up what they mean once or twice gives a literal definition that makes practical sense. So long as acronyms don't go the way of 'DVD' and become meaningless jargon, they are great.Quote:
Originally Posted by buffo
Get some skins made up with a few different levels of complexity from 'Duh N00b' thru to 'Wizard of Oz' and you can peel off and transition from one to other as you develop your God-like persona ;) :p
OK, maybe I should have said that they make sense to electrical engineers AND people familiar with analog synth technology! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Doctor
But seriously, most people don't have a clue what they mean. Doc, you've got tons of experience in BOTH fields, so you're the outlier here.
You know, that's not a bad idea at all, Norty! *DZQuote:
Originally Posted by norty303
Adam
That could work too. >:) I think Korg synthesisers used something like it at one point, peelable sticky-backed panel tops for patching and stuff. This was on the early synths that replaced knobs with rows of buttons, because like software, rows of buttons make it too easy to lose sight of the internal reality. It's why the DX7 was notoriously hard to program. I got round that by quickly building a model of its innards in my mind, which is why the little diagrams on its deck help so much, that's what they're there for. I don't think the Z5 will need that though, not unless DZ starts building complex envelope generators or scaling. I can't imagine why that would happen either, except maybe in colour control.Quote:
Originally Posted by norty303
Adam, I didn't always. :) When I had my first oscillator it was bits given to me, and a plan made for me. I wanted a synth but for a few years had to get by with books about them, and figure out as best I could what the diagrams and acronyms meant to the sounds I heard in recorded music. Good acronyms are everywhere, on maps, transport, radios, etc. Signposts is all they are. The thing about good ones like VCO and all, is that they make the task of becoming familiar really easy. The danger is in thinking that we understand them when maybe we still don't. WHich is why I warn against the jargoneering of terms like DVD. But anythign that honours the reality of what it symbolises is great. In this case getting technical is the right way to go, because it's the fastest way to remove any barrier to access.
Actually, why not just a black skin with white panels and you can then notate it with a Sharpie as a sound engineer would the channel strip, or an LD would their lighting desk?
Change function or do a funny patch, wipe with solvent and add new note. Symbols, text or cartoon willies all abound, and are 'personal' to the user. I use some very obscure abbreviations on my desk.
when i first learned to type, there were labels on the keys. later, when i became proficient at touch typing, i stopped relying on them.
i left the labels on the keys. it didn't make me less of a man.
;)
And I'm pretty sure FisherPrice makes a guitar with lables too!Quote:
Originally Posted by swamidog
*ahem*Quote:
Originally Posted by laserist
Not exactly. When one is proficient, they no longer need them and some guitars, indeed, do not have fret markers but most guitars have "labels".
Attachment 41630
Why does this 'label' talk always degrade to this Mozart/Salieri nonsense? As if the Master never needs a guide, and can lord it over all the 'dilletantes' who do.
Want to know what the Right Stuff does, and how it does it. Those people really KNOW this, and they don't scorn it. Google for images using search 'cockpit controls' to see what I mean.
Almost every image is easily characterised as follows:
Controls are grouped in arrays whose sides rarely exceed 7 elements.
Liberal use of borders demarcating control sets or displays, and also colours are used to avoid distraction while at same time making it hard to end up looking at the wrong display or set of controls.
Extensive use of limited repetition and symmetry.
Make rotary or slide controls, or dials, have only as many 'detents' as required, because it's much clearer than making them all count to ten or some other arbitrary number.
Controls are placed such as to limit the amount of motion in hand or eye needed to reach a related control.
Where a sequence of setup moves is needed, especially with a checklist, there is usually a progression across a panel or two rather than random jumps between arbitrary locations.
THERE IS A REMARKABLE ABSENSE OF LABELS except for heavy use of acronyms, and many of those that do exist are visual rather than verbal.
So isn't it time people quit confusing a demand for labels with a suggestion that there is a need to think about the signal flow and the ordering of control groupings? Find an image of the Sequential Circuits Pro One (or Prophet Five) synthesiser. Its groupings are very basic, just rectangular borders with rounded corners. With those, it is easy to know where an ADSR envelope generator is, as opposed to an oscillator or filter control. It's dead simple, and without them finding a control on a darkened stage would be a bitch, for sure. And it's no accident that one of the most important GUI 'controls' is actually the 'static text' and the 'group box'. Even when people hate text labels they still code group boxes! I notice that DZ rightly doesn't scorn those either. It may be that a few more might help, or maybe rethinking layout according to the convention that places control lines vertically and main signal flow horizontally from left to right might help, or any number of other ideas, so long as they bear in mind successful conventions already used. Most of this stuff is based on the kinds of thinking that went into cockpit controls because of limited space and limited pilot movement. So instead of arguing about labels, why not cut to the chase, then look more deeply into this, because it's a lot more interesting that way.
Thanks for the compliments guys! And I appreciate reading the different perspectives on this. Fact is, there are a million ways an analog console can be built. With or without labels, patching, etc etc. In the past, I've played around with a couple different consoles, from the very complex to the very basic. Even built a few many years ago. When I saw the P-4, actually what I first saw was a console that had the guts of the P-4 with heavily modified home-grown panel (some folks saw this at SELEM). What I really liked about the P-4 is that it's relatively compact and very capable. And I very much appreciate the fact that Ash has allowed me to bring this product back. I feel that in time folks who use this console will be able to play it like an instrument, never having to even look at the console. And regarding the panel, I've also offered the board alone for folks who feel adventurous enough to wire up their own panel to be more complex or less complex than the Z-5 panel. I have to admit that I'm surprised there have been no takers on this. Well, except for one, there's a guy working on a bad-ass color mod circuit and I'm trying like hell to get him a board to make it work with his color mod circuit. I may end up just lending him my Z-5 for a while, but I need it at the moment to help with wiring up other panels. So much work and so little time!!
By the way, Z-5 number 2 shipped out today. Brad, I'll be ordering parts for your console this weekend and hope to have it finished in time for FLEM. I'm kinda looking forward to hooking my console and your console up in series and see what kind of abstracts 6 oscillators will create!
Ash, just curious, since you are in the states, any chance of you making a quick trip to Florida around March 1st?! We will be having a Florida Laser Enthusiast Meeting that weekend. Bascially, about a day and a half of laser shows and all sort of crazyness with quite a few hobbyist from around the South East. Even Bill Benner is suppose to be there.
i would for sure love to have one. if the funding ever falls into my lap, expect a call on the red phone.
c.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZ
I'm glad to see people's interest in this and it shipping.
At the risk of pissing people off, I submit the following....
I for one, appreciate the fact that there will be labels on the Z-5. I do not possess an engineering degree or working knowledge of synthesizers. Some basic instruction to get up and running is invaluable - as opposed to blindly turning an unmarked dial or moving a slider in hopes of remembering what I just did. Or why it did it. I would like to think that in time, I'd be able to operate it while looking at the image and do it by touch but, after years of typing, I am an individual that still needs to glance at a keyboard... or look for a mother of pearl dot on a fret board... and piano?? Forget it. I was a tuba player and instruments that require more than three fingers are something I sadly have never had an aptitude for. As much as I'd love to learn to play the sax... ain't happening. (I'm looking forward to a skin for the APC40 once they're no longer backordered too. (Yeah, I know...wimp. I hear ya.)
But for those who are truly that wigged out about this analog control box having labels I (again) submit the following:
1) Um... don't look down?
2) Reverse Norty's suggestion of white tape and a sharpie to some black electrical tape covering the labels. You DO have that laying around, no?
3) Don't BUY one for Christ sake.
Simple solutions for complicated people.
And I'm not too proud to take whatever text, manual, flowchart or other instruction DZ dreams up. It's a viable starting point to learning. Otherwise college bookstores wouldn't need to exist.
Rant over. (Sorry, it just seems like a silly argument.) Sure, I appreciate the fact that eventually one should be able to operate it without looking and, perhaps to be a "professional" it should be without question but, starting off? C'mon.
You got nothing to be ashamed of. :) My angle on this whole thing translates to tubas like this: Someone worked out all that tubing, the flow of air, the lengths, volumes, bends in tubing, and keys, and that just three of those keys will allow a full scale to be played. That was clever, but as any horn player knows (including some people like me who never played one but wished they had been around one long enough to at least try), it takes nothing away from the skill of the player because without those keys the number of competent players worldwide can be counted on the fingers of both hands. In short, I'm talking about the kind of thought that goes into designing any instrument. And as that is what DZ is clearly intending to do, he'll do ok. I imagine that when brass instruments originally got their three keys there were horn players screaming blue bloody murder about all the dilettantes now enabled to play a horn, but given all the extra good music that resulted, we're lucky their argument didn't win. And in really good hands a natural horn still sounds damn good too. Adolph Sax got a pasting from his critics too, but fortunately they ended up silenced by so many saxes outnumbering their cries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradfo69
The thing to take from all that, if nothing else, is that for a thing to be really simple, a lot of thought must go into it. This is true for music, physics, pretty much anything. Appearing simple, and actually being so, not the same thing at all. If it were, we'd all be thinking up stuff like E=mc2 every day, and we aren't.
EDIT: I can play a keyboard and an electric bass, but I can't play either without looking at times. As far as I know, most concert pianists spend a lot of time glancing at the keyboard too... I think there may be many buskers who can bellow out a tune without looking at their guitar once, but most bands I saw live would look at their instruments whenever things got tough to play. Kind of hard to play well if you're fighting against natural use of one of the vital senses in an effort to look cool. :) Stevie Wonder could pull it off, largely because he had no choice.
Where is the "like" button? Oh yeah, this isn't Facebook. Thanks Doc! :)