Z-5 Analog Abstract Generator

[AshMcFadden]

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.

[AshMcFadden]

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.

[AshMcFadden]

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.

[The_Doctor]

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.

[buffo]

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.

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.

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

[The_Doctor]

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.

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.

[norty303]

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

[buffo]

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

OK, maybe I should have said that they make sense to electrical engineers AND people familiar with analog synth technology!

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.

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

You know, that's not a bad idea at all, Norty!

Adam

[The_Doctor]

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

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.

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.

[norty303]

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.