The Theremincello

Posted: 3/13/2013 9:28:49 PM

From: Eastleigh, Hampshire, U.K. ................................... Fred Mundell. ................................... Electronics Engineer. (Primarily Analogue) .. CV Synths 1974-1980 .. Theremin developer 2007 to present .. soon to be Developing / Trading as . ...................................

Joined: 12/7/2007

"Anyway, the player is already touching the pitch controller, why not require / let them touch the volume controller (like in a real cello)?" - Dewster

I could not agree with you more!

A few transducers (Piezo IMO is ideal - one can even get Piezo wire which is like screened cable, but has active piezo between screen and inner core, so you get signal from the cable if it is touched, twanged, rubbed or ant way 'excited') and a bow with a frictional surface (even a genuine cello / violin bow or anything / material which produves noise when rubbed against the piezo) and one could have several sensors to rub, and have these assigned to pitches or octaves or whatever..

And tap the sensors, bow the sensors, whatever you want..

To me, the idea of a non-tactile bow is ultra daft! - As I say, I dont play - I have owned a cheap violin and had a friend who played well, and tried to learn (I loved the sounds he got from his fiddle) but gave up - It was the way the bow could be moved, could control the dynamics / envelope, which made (IMO) the instrument... But oh, so extremely tactile! The idea of a non-tactile bow is, to me, about as useful as a pen without ink.





"The large group design process turns me off, but one-on-one with another developer or two with divergent skill sets has often been super rewarding." - Dewster

I have once worked with a large team when it was heaven - I think the reason it worked was because everyone know (and was happy with) their place in the team - All the consultants were specialist in their areas - there was no major overlap of roles (no one feeling challenged or undermined by anyone with similar competency) - Brain storming was about sharing alternitive views and ideas / perspectives, not about competing to get your idea selected... And there were the "gaffers" who were happy to just build what they were asked to (and input thier ideas or say when our ideas werent workable - but this was not what they liked doing - they liked constructing not thinking!)

"but one-on-one with another developer or two with divergent skill sets has often been super rewarding."

I once worked with another designer (my boss) where it was pure synergy (he was a brilliant analogue designer and I was a novice digital / MCU designer, back in the days when the Z80 had just appeared.. He knew nothing about digital, and my knowledge of analogue was dangerous - But together we developed synthesisers and medical equipment and storage ECG displays)

Those were my only two entirely positive jobs in my life - a total of 8 years out of nearly 40.

The most efficient company I worked for kept roles and responsibilities clearly marked - and (the most important factor IMO) took as much care selecting technicians as it did engineers - and paid them near engineer level.

Competent technicians who can take a schematic and build a neat prototype, can understand enough to undertake a lot of the testing, and accurately communicate back to the design team... IMO, these are by far the most important people in the electronics industry - they more than anyone else make the difference between getting a product to market quickly or having engineers tied up debugging prototypes.

You must be logged in to post a reply. Please log in or register for a new account.