From: mrk@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com (Michael R. Kesti)
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth
Subject: Re: E-Mu vintage keys Proteus module
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:39:20 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvgspd.gvg.tek.com

In article <PEHE.93Jan19143438@galliumx.electrum.kth.se>
                               pehe@electrum.kth.se (Peder Hedlund) writes:

>In article <1jfbpkINNbm8@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com>
                               mrk@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com (Michael R. Kesti) writes:

>>                                      The idea is that, if one must have
>>more polyphony, one can obtain it by purchasing a second module.

>  The problem for us financially limited dudes is that we'll have to buy an
>equally expencive duplicate to a synth we already own. In wonderland there
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
>would be a module whith say 32 oscillators and a RAM where you just dump
>your sounds at a price of say 50% of the real synth (These creatures do exist
>in the world of samplers where you can buy an overflow module to your Akai
>S-1000, S1100).

I can't speak to the issue of how sampler overflow modules work, but the
reason that the manufacturers don't produce your hypothetical stripped down
modules at 50% of the price of fully functional ones is, of course, economic.

First, I doubt that any such module could truely be desgined and manufactured
at 50% less cost.  Let's take the case of an E-mu Proteus as an example.  All
that MIGHT be removed from the stripped down version is some of the user
interface bits.  All of the sound generation circuitry, power supply, and
the like must still be included.  What's more, I doubt that ALL of the user
interface could be removed, as one would still need to be able to deal with
configuration issues.

Second, I doubt that development of such a module would eventually pay off
for the manufacturer, as the number of units sold for such a device would
likely be some extremely small fraction of the fully featured unit.

>                An alternative would be to force the companies to include
                                            ^^^^^
>a heck of a lot of more oscilators in the first place. As far as I'm concerned
>you can never have to many of 'em.

I certainly agree that greater polyphony is always better, but just how do you
propose to force manufacturers to include more oscillators?  Remember that
the design of any product, and the extent of its feature set, is a delicate
balance between manufacturing costs, user needs and desires, and what the
market will bear in terms of what users will spend for those features.  If
you "legislate" a minimum feature set, you will likely see no such products
marketed, rather than the improved products you desire.

One must always consider the economics of the situation, unless one does live
in wonderland.

-- 
============================================================================
Michael Kesti  Grass Valley Group, Inc. | "And like, one and one don't make
    mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM              |  two, one and one make one."
    !tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd!mrk        |         - The Who, Bargain
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth