James_S wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:38 am
You don't think as a relative beginner having the data to show me what's going on with modulations etc would be useful?
Thank you for asking this!
No, I think far too many beginners are suffering from a need to 'see' instead of using their ears.
But more central to this exact question in this thread, I think you'd be *far* better off using one of the *many* alternatives to DATA for visualization and instead put your money towards actual* modules. Since you mentioned delay vs reverb, I'm suggesting that a delay will be more useful in that choice. And I believe in the end you'll be a better synthesist if you stave off this need to see, in favor of ear training.
How many different oscope style visualization tools can you get for a *free* download? One reply above mentioned zeroscope as a hardware visualization tool that takes less space and costs significantly less.
Getting back to my main point, do you want to train your eyes? Or your ears?
Do you actually *need* to see the modulations to use them effectively?
I've mentioned quite a few times how plugging a voltage into a VCO acts as an audio voltmeter. A scope is a two axis visual voltmeter. You can hear in the VCO what the modulations are doing. If you can't tell from that audio investigation, does it matter?
*It's not lost on me that DATA *is* a versatile module with much more on offer than just visualizations. It's also pretty expensive and uses up a fair bit of room in a beginner's case. Please understand I'm not saying DATA is a bad choice. But I AM saying that it -and others like it- have become potentially un-needed 'crutches' or training wheels which lead to a type of visual-'statistical' dependency that going without can cure. Another way to see it is that too many are already disposed to a 'screen-based' solution to their problems due to the conditioning of growing up in a digital-computer everything-has-a-screen world.
Think about the music -or other synth output- that inspires you, or inspired you to go modular in the first place. Was that made by people using scopes to 'understand' their tools? Or not?
It's also not lost on me how nice it is to see waveforms dancing on a screen. Love me some lissajous!<--Since the late 60s even. But in this case, at this time, I still think you'll ultimately get-go farther by putting off purchasing the DATA and using that money in other ways. Especially since you can *easily* get free visualization tools if the *real* need is for visualization of modulations.
Edit, added after reading more of your replies below this post i've responded to. Specifically the speed in understanding:
Is speed always a good goal? For understanding?
What is so wrong about about needing to figure it out? Taking the time to do so. Having some unanswered questions, some un-named
For a long time in the synth worlkd there was a discussion about the accuracy -or not- of osc WFs. Some saying that having perfectly accurate WFs meant you could introduce 'errors' and inconsistencies to duplicate what the 'lesser' WFs -like a moog 901, or a 2600's sine wave- were already
putting out. Eyes were over-ruling ears. Eyes give a 'name' to something that the ears don't need to care about. You can easily find yourself trying to create a picture instead of a sound
. Bercause we're existentially wired to place emphasis on what we see over what we hear.
And now with granular, FM ,TZ, and swarm-osc and wavebank oscs everywhere, it's even more important to L.I.S.T.E.N. than to see.
Have you ever tried to UN-see something? How successful were you? Don't stack the deck against yourself by seeing before you hear. By giving pictures to sounds instead of the other way round. Get a delay.