On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 10:24 +0100, gordonjcp@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> Ever wonder why your DX21 has only got eight "algorithms" by which the
> operators may be combined? *That's* why.
That's a reasoning just from your point of view, but not the real
reasoning.
Btw. the DX21 provides 4 operators.
But the flagship is the DX7, with 6 operators and 32 algorithms, usually
feedback is given to 1 operator only, but 2 algorithms provide a grouped
feedback and there are various ways how operators modulate other
operators. The reason why it's different for the DX21 are cost concerns.
Programming the DX7 for most users was to complicated, because there
isn't a usable user interface, just a very small display and a few
switches, quasi the Unity of synthesizer user interfaces. A modular DX7
or better DX2014 with cables and potentiometers and programming it would
become enjoyable, but the synth would become much too expensive.
Analogies or comparisons don't work. There are reasons why completely
contrary designs could be as good as the other. There isn't a theory of
everything for functionality of design.
There are no knobs on a piano, but using a piano for me would be much
more complicated, because a "normal" piano can't be connected to a
sequencer, so playing it for a guitarist like me is hard to do. Why
doesn't a piano provide a neck as a guitar does? I now could make some
reasoning from a guitarist's point of view and ignore the fact that a
piano and a guitar are just different tools for musicians.
Regards,
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Oct 2 20:15:01 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 02 2014 - 20:15:02 EEST