Meine Gedanken zur Matrix
Die von mir favorisierte Matrix wird 8x8 sein. Es sollten ausserdem 8 Schalter integriert sein, die unter AC als Phase und unter DC als Invertierer fungieren.
Die Bedienung der Matrix erfolgt ausschliesslich über MIDI und nicht vom Modul aus. So kann das Modul klein bleiben, die Kosten werden erheblich gesenkt und es gibt keine Verschleissteile!
Meine Entscheidung für 8x8 (statt 16x16) fiel, weil eine 16x16 Matrix 4x so gross ist wie eine 8x8 Matrix und bereits zwei 8x8 den meisten Anforderungen meiner Praxis gerecht werden dürften. Sowohl die Controller-Hardware-Einbindung als auch die MIDI-Handhabung ist bei 8x8 (64 Pads) wesentlich unkomplizierter als bei 16x16 (256 Pads). Trotzdem ist eine 16x16 Matrix nicht vom Tisch.
Zum Improvisieren ist eine 16x16 Matrix vielleicht auch intellektuell zu anspruchsvoll, man müsste zu viel gucken und denken - wofür bekanntlich beim Musizieren keine Zeit ist.
Zuerst hatte ich gar nicht bemerkt, wer mir da diese schier unglaubliche Offenheit entgegenbringt und mit mir dieses Modul so vertieft diskutiert - es war Graham Hinton (Hinton Instruments), wirklich eine Ikone der Synthesizer-Geschichte.
Hierher werde ich den jeweils aktuellen Beitrag von Graham Hinton kopieren:
Graham Hinton:
Sun Mar 06, 2011
Development is underway. I have designed two systems, one is based on the existing SwitchMix 8x8 pcbs and so will be about the same size and depth, the other is expandable to 16x16 in a 3U frame. When Jochen has the 8x8 type working with his software we will say more.
32x32 is going to be huge and expensive. I have built 128x16 with VCAs integrated on the inputs and outputs before (The Real World Automated Send Matrix) and it was two rack cabinets and £50k. I also designed the AMEK MICE which provided 64 channel MIDI muting for some AMEK and TAC consoles with remote controlled switches already built in, so the real cost was hidden in the mixer. Not to mention the cost of all the cabling.
I would question if you really want 32x32 because as matrices get larger the redundancy increases more so. You might get better value by having two smaller matrices or non-square ones with a few common rows and columns as the cost is proportional to the number of switchpoints. That was a technique used by the BBC Radiophonic Workshop in their Hypercard controlled project which was never really finished before they were closed down. There is an article describing it in the Feb '89 Sound on Sound called "MIDI Futures at the BBC", it does not appear to be online, but you might find it at a library. I'm sure that Mark Wilson would agree with me that after building it he then knew how not to do it, which is a luxury you have when you are spending other peoples' money. It went the way of Hypercard and that is a lesson to be learned: an object like this is a long term investment and it should not be based on short term flavour of the month computer software that will vanish with the next OS upgrade.
I don't see any point in making comparisons with other failed products or projects apart from using them as an example of atrocious ergonomics. Computer control is providing the necessary protocol for full control by an external computer, not putting a PIC in a box. Neither does putting a crosspoint chip in a box constitute a summing matrix. If an object like this does not work well and as expected it is worse than not having one and a waste of money. It is also very easy to get totally distracted by the control system and forget about the quality and accuracy of the signals being controlled. Obviously I'm only saying that because I haven't forgotten them and will be publishing a full specification.
