Anyone else agree that the Fingerboard should get it’s own post that at least describes what it’s for and how it works? Seeing as most people don’t seem to comprehend its brilliance until they see it in motion via videos and read an elaborate description.
I think it deserves some more attention.

Oh, by the way.. Dave Smith.. any connection to the Evolver Synth guru…?

What separates a modular Buchla from its contemparary software counterparts is: touch. Buchlas cried out to be touched and explored - it some ways it was like having sex- a wonderfully evolving and engaging experience. Today’s software analogies are missing touch. We can patch but we can’t control our patches in intuitive ways. I keep my eyes open for inspiring control suraces (that sounds so sterile) but no one seems to get it. Personally, I’m sick of all the boring single dimensional unimaginative controllers out there. You know, the problem is reflected in the the name: controllers. Like good sex, it’s not about control, it’s about touch and response and all the subtleties that implies. A Buchla, with all its beautiful knobs, switches and “Touch-Controlled Voltage Sources was meant to be touched everywhere which led to a very global and interactive experience… their just aren’t ANY current software systems that can compare to my first true love! Oh well, you know what they say about the first one! I guess I beter stop looking and musically adjust to th current realities!

Steve Horelick

The fundamental reason I got the 200e, though, was for its interface. It was all instigated several years ago when I first began collaborating with Jordan Rudess on our Space Jam free electronic improvisation project. I was using software instruments exclusively then, especially Arturia’s Moog Modular V (a wonderful instrument, by the way), and really enjoying the simplicity of system consisting of just a PowerBook and a keyboard. But when we first started playing together, with Jordan playing just a pair of MiniMoogs, I came to miss the immediacy and intimacy of directly working with the knobs in realtime.

Jordan would never use presets (one of the MiniMoogs is an original Model D, which doesn’t have presets anyway, of course) but just start with the Minis in an open state, and continuously improvise with the sounds as well as the notes. It’s really hard to do that with software, especially something like Moog Modular V - you need to start with some kind of preset, so you don’t spend the first 10 minutes of your performance dragging patchcords around with a mouse and assigning keyboard controllers to knobs. From there, most of the interaction is through the mouse and maybe some continuous controllers. It just felt so limited compared to the freedom Jordan had in spontaneous sonic creation.

But the MiniMoog is also limited - it’s monophonic, and the signal paths are mostly fixed. After playing a couple of times with Jordan, I realized that I really wanted something with polyphony and the flexibility of true modular synthesis (I learned synthesis on Moog modular systems, and never forgot that experience.) The 200e is the only patchable modular synthesizer with true polyphony and patch memory - something we would have killed for in the old days.

So my interest in the system isn’t so much the cachet or cool factor (although it’s pretty cool) but the fact that while I’m just starting to learn the 200e, it already feel like an ideal live performance system for me.

But I agree absolutely — and seeing how some people plunk money on fairly disposable workstations, I don’t think even the Buchla is that far out. I would love to see a Buchla product in a lower price range, but only so that some of these designs were more accessible to a larger audience.

I’m curious, Richard, what your thoughts are in comparison to what my colleague Jim Aikin had to say in his review for Keyboard:
200e Audition, Keyboard 11/05

I think it’s actually fair of Jim to make the Max/MSP - Reaktor comparison, because those tools are a kind of spiritual successor to pioneering modulars like Buchla’s. I know I approach patching software (and programming with code, for that matter) differently having had the experience of using the original Buchla modulars. So, in a way, it’s a compliment — and just as you can’t have illusions about the relative extensibility and flexibility of software, you certainly can’t replace the feeling of using patch cords.

Also of interest: history guru Mark Vail had a good write-up of the original 200 series in the same issue:
Buchla Series 200

The Continuum is in a different class altogether as a controller; it’s really an instrument to me. Having had friends who cellists and whatnot, it’s an unbelievable bargain.

I think the Continuum is actually quite reasonably priced, considering the incredible mechanical labor involved in putting them together. Even the half-size unit has over 100 tiny spring-mounted magnetic steel sensor rods under the playing surface, each of which has to be installed and calibrated individually.

i want one.