SCHMIDT Analog Synth

[Waterfall-K]

Το SCHMIDT synth ειναι ενα project που αρχισε πριν αρκετα χρονια. Το πρωτοτυπο εκανε την εμφανιση του στην Musikmesse του 2011. Βλεποντας πριν λιγο ενα βιντεο απο την τελευταια ΝΑΜΜ ειπα να φτιαξω ενα ποστ γι αυτο το mega-synth, να ποσταρω μερικες φωτος καθως και μια συνεντευξη του δημιουργου του Stefan Schmidt στο GreatSynthesizers.com στις 10/9/2012.

 

Υπαρχει ακομα ενα ποστ γι αυτο το synth εδω στο ΝΟΙΖ απο το 2011, για οσους θελουν να το (ξανα)διαβασουν:

http://www.noiz.gr/index.php?topic=185372.0

 

 

Stefan Schmidt – Creator Of The SCHMIDT Synthesizer

 

Sensational new releases in the segment of analogue synthesizers were for a long time very scarce. However, in recent years their number has been steadily increasing. We see this as an encouraging development.

SCHMIDT must be considered one of the most remarkable developments in contemporary synthesizers. This is cause enough to begin our interview series with none other than its developer, Stefan Schmidt.

 

You first introduced the SCHMIDT to the broader public at the Musikmesse in Frankfurt in 2011. What has been going on with you since then?

The fair was definitely a great achievement for me, even just making it that far after approximately 8 long years of development. Incidentally, the unit was never planned on this scale, above all, just as little as was the very long development time.

The project grew steadily and by the end I did have my doubts about ever being able to finish it.

That the “SCHMIDT” was so well received at the fair, and was even spoken of here and there as a highlight, was something I never expected to this extent. A success, even if it has so far not become a financial success.

 

How do you actually come up with the idea of building an instrument like the SCHMIDT?

Well, the roots of this go back quite far. One of my last projects at MAM, approximately 9 years ago, was a replica of the Moog Taurus I. Once the prototype was aurally barely distinguishable from the original in various blindfold tests, we introduced it at the fair.

It was – in order to be able to offer it at the lowest possible cost – initially a pure Expander version (so without pedals). If there had been sufficient demand, I would have followed up with the pedal version. At least, that was what was planned.

 

 

From Taurus to SCHMIDT is a remarkable journey. How did these “deviations” arise from your original idea?

The Taurus project was a complete flop, and believe me, nothing to smile about for us back then. The interest in our Taurus expander was so infinitesimally small that a continuation of the project could not even be thought of. Added to this was the fact that sales at MAM had gone through the floor, so only a real bestseller could have saved us.

 

I must say that I was sick to the back teeth of the music business by then. Although it’s kind of fun, the headache of whether and how you can make money, sort of ruins the fun.

 

Consequently, I resigned from MAM and went looking for a job. Alongside this, I continued working on the Taurus expander as a hobby (this kept it fun!) which meant adding more and more features but also removing Taurus-specific features. It had in fact come to my attention that another manufacturer with the appropriate label was also working on a Taurus – making it a topic that would be exhausted in the near future. Although the SCHMIDT developed from the Taurus, it no longer has anything in common with it.

 

As it was only a hobby project, criteria such as usability, sound variety – as far as it was feasible with the existing analogue electronics – and sound quality were in the foreground. I had no intention of turning it into a marketable product.

 

After about 3-4 years, the monophonic version was ready, with a provisional operating unit, but without any casing.  From the beginning I conceived of the electronics on the basis of a number of stackable voice cards (maximum eight), as I already had a duophonic version planned.

 

The technical requirements for polyphony were fulfilled in principle, and the subsequent expenditure for the operating unit, software and casing would have been disproportionately high with regard to a monophonic version. These considerations and the fact that I have always admired the old analogue “battleships” such as Jupiter 8, Matrix 12 etc., but was never able to afford them, but now had the opportunity to realise such a “battleship” myself, cast such a spell on me that I quit my job to dedicate myself exclusively to what had become a polyphonic synthesizer.

 

I underestimated the time still required, particularly for the casing, and the planned two years turned into four.  As my funds were also depleted quicker than expected, the implementation of a very cost-intensive prototype would not have been possible without the financial support of the company EMC. Equally, as a distributor of analogue devices, EMC led the creation of the design, which turned out well.

 

 

Did you never intend to capitalize on it?

Definitely not. I think the marketing opportunities for large analogue projects have generally become very seldom and they depend on many factors, which cannot be calculated or estimated.  The option of making a business out of it always exists in principle, but to want to plan it is very difficult.

 

What factors do you think are the most critical?

The decisive factor in my opinion is the development of the components market. The rapid development in the digital sector offers plenty of potential for both innovation as well as the ability to continuously reduce the selling prices.

 

The development of the analogue sector is rather the reverse of this. The price trend is upwards. New components that bring hope of innovation are few.  And mere imitation (“cloning”) is becoming more and more difficult because parts are being discontinued. The days of analogue “synthesizer chips” – as a prerequisite for the realization of analogue polyphonic synthesizers – are a thing of the past; discrete solutions are, at least for major projects, cost-and time-intensive.

 

Little or no innovation in the analogue field is not much of a purchase incentive. To stimulate this, manufacturers are forced to reduce prices by whatever means possible or to use other solutions to achieve a “must have” effect. Many manufacturers are very creative in this respect and also deliver good products. The intrinsic qualities of a product were originally of a musical nature, but they have become less decisive to sales success; marketing plays a much bigger part in its success or failure.

 

No comment.

All this brings a further factor with it that cannot be ignored – analogue legends are based on antiquated technology, but in terms of their sophistication, they are still the be-all and end-all. The ‘new’ analogues can’t hold a candle to them – how could they? These legends ultimately come from a time when it was still the intention of the developer to build a musical instrument and not a “cash cow”. This is also reflected in the sound, and the term “legendary sound” is by no means just a cliché!

 

This of course complicates the marketing opportunities for the ‘new’ analogues. They not only have modern sound generators as competitors – “price” is the key word here – but also the ‘old’ analogues because of their good image. “Cloning” is nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on this image.  It works all the better, the more one drives this image artificially high by means of marketing techniques. Innovation falls by the wayside and is perhaps not even desired.

 

To take the wind out of the sails of my admittedly very critical view I would like to finally note that analogue sound generators have their place and they should also keep this place in the future.  They earn the label “musical instrument” particularly so because due to their errors, tolerances, lack of precision they are distinguished by a high degree of naturalness. Digital sound generators can sound as good as they like and be as inexpensive as they like, they are and will remain mere computers.

 

 

You were discussing previously the problems developers of analogue circuit design can meet. How was it for you e.g. with regard to the availability of components?

In the SCHMIDT I don’t use any “old” synthesizer chips; all the circuits are realized with discrete components that are still available. Of course, envelopes and LFOs are based on a software basis. Modern controller technology or, as the case may be, converter technology has now advanced so far that these purely analogue solutions are absolutely equal. For the sake of the performance and owing to the high number of modulators several autonomous control units are in operation in the SCHMIDT.

 

The risk of obsolete components exists of course for the SCHMIDT as well. A discontinuation does not necessarily mean that the project is over, as there are often still large stocks remaining on the components market – even several years after discontinuation. The procurement of obsolete parts can still be a problem, as the prices increase dramatically from one moment to the next. This is a risk not to be underestimated for products that are tightly calculated or for large numbers of units. In the case of the SCHMIDT, however, I don’t see this danger.

 

Can you please give us a detailed overview of what the SCHMIDT will have on board in the final version?

The fair prototype is functionally already the final version, aside from some modifications to the casing and the software, which still has to be completed.

 

* 8 voices with multimode and single outputs

* Access to all parameters of controls

 

Per Voice:

* 4 analogue oscillators

* 5 analogue filters:

* 2 Moog lowpass ladder filters with high pass, band-pass extension

* 2 dual multimode filters, distortion

* 1 12dB lowpass filter

* Separate modulators (envelopes, LFOs) for filters and oscillators

* Stereo panning

* Separate master envelope

* Filter crossfading function

* Controllers: joystick, aftertouch, mod wheel, routable to all parameters

 

Let us begin with the oscillators. As they are four in number they have quite a bit on offer. How would you characterise them?

The 4 oscillators differ mainly in their waveforms.

 

* Osc1: saw, square, pulse, noise, 4-Pulse, ring modulator

* Osc2: saw, square, pulse, noise, ring modulator

* Osc3: saw, square, pulse, sync + suboscillator

* Osc4: multiple ring modulator, “metallic noise”

 

Triangle or sine-like spectra can be generated with a filter (of which there are plenty).

 

 

Can you please explain the “metallic noise” in more detail?

It is produced by a chain of several ring modulators with differently-tuned oscillators. This produces a noise similar to random noise, but has in contrast to white noise also clearly audible harmonic components, practically a “pitch”.

I called it “metallic noise” because in this way metallic percussion instruments such as cymbals, hi hats, etc. can be generated in the analogue domain.

 

In the case of the oscillators, can you tell us what digital is about them and in which other instruments this technology was also used?

That’s a very good question, which I would like to answer in more detail.

It’s probably already got around that my oscillators are DCOs. That this fact would rekindle debate is, of course, what I expected. If this is to be conducted it should take place on a factual level.

 

At the time, DCOs were developed to address a marginal weakness of classic analogue VCOs – their poor tuning stability. A variant that exists is to synchronize a VCO using a digital oscillator (which is stable as it is quartz-based). The waveform is generated by the VCO as before (i.e. purely analogue) with the difference that the frequency of the digital oscillator is “forced”.  Typical “DCO’s” that work on this principle are, for example, the Juno 6/60, Matrix 1000 or the Matrix 6.

 

To avoid misunderstandings: the technically correct term for this variant would actually be TCVCO “timer controlled VCO”. The term DCO, “Digital Controlled Oscillator” as a generic term also includes variants that are implemented pure digitally, a fact that has certainly contributed to the bad reputation of DCOs.

 

For my oscillators I have adopted the version “TCVCO”, but further developed – especially with a very finely adjustable fine-tuning – and also given each oscillator a separate control unit.  So all the oscillators run autonomously, i.e. they are not coupled.  In contrast to pure VCO there is no danger of “catching”.

 

Can you please explain that to us in a little more detail?

This is what we call it when two oscillators are slightly detuned and influence one another so that they vibrate at the same frequency. The reason for this is usually bad circuit board design and is annoying, as it means that low beat frequencies are not possible. I would like to add one thing with regard to DCO vs. VCO: both have advantages as well as disadvantages.

 

It would be unfair, in my opinion, however, to sweep the following major difference under the rug: DCOs are principally stable and reliable – virtually without restriction until the end of their lives. You can precisely program very fine detuning, and also reproduce it accurately. With a VCO that is not possible. If the tuning instability exceeds acceptable levels, the sound quality often suffers heavily. That is also a large annoyance now as in the past, of which you can read in the relevant forums over and over again.

 

The sound quality of an analogue synthesizer depends of course also on many other factors in addition to the oscillators, such as the type and number of filters, the modulation sources, the overall concept and its complexity and numerous other factors. Ultimately, the only decisive factor is how it sounds, how this is technically feasible, be it digital, analogue or virtual analogue, I really do not care.

 

After the oscillators we turn to the mixer, which also offers a number of features, but is displaced from the filter section. Can you tell us something about this?

The filter section is undoubtedly the most powerful component, and is, so to speak, the heart of the SCHMIDT.

It consists of two identical groups, with each group consisting of a Moog ladder filter and a dual multimode filter. Dual means two parallel connected single filters with different selectable filter types: lowpass, highpass and bandpass. Here I was inspired by the great sounding filter structure of the Matrix 12.

 

The two Moog filters/dual multimoders can be optionally connected in parallel or serially. All the filters have separate modulation sources (ENVs +LFOs) and are additionally modulated by an oscillator. Another feature is the additional bandpass and highpass modes offered by the Moog filters.

 

The two filter groups can be mixed with an additional 5th filter at the output (lowpass, without modulation). In this way, the output signal can be refreshed with powerful bass frequencies, if the group filter is being specially used for bandpass or highpass filtering.

 

SCHMIDT - one of the early board designs

[Waterfall-K]

If I remember correctly, in this way you have direct access to every parameter. It is also worth considering that the individual blocks are hard-wired, which contributes amongst others to the impressive number of envelopes and LFOs, etc. What else does the SCHMIDT offer that is never or seldom found in other systems?

Functionally, I know of no detail that could not be realized just as well with a suitably-equipped modular system. This is because the sound generation is based on simple basic components.

 

However: the concept of hard wiring and the “complete editability” in my opinion allows for a much faster and more intuitive approach to sound creation – which is also associated with a higher fun factor. Above all, this is thanks to the modulation concept of the SCHMIDT (many separate modulation sources), something that is rarely found in this form in other synthesizers. These are typically based on a modulation matrix, which admittedly provides added more possibilities, but is often very complex and then turns out to be quite hard work.

 

As an example I would cite the volume control of the SCHMIDT. The filter section, which consists of four filters, is connected together in 2 groups at the output. Their volume mix can then be either manually controlled, by velocity, or by a separate crossfade function – this is easily and quickly editable. Behind the mix there is of course a master ADSR.

 

Alternatively, I could have added an own volume ADSR to each filter or a complex scanner module instead. However, this would make a significant editing effort necessary.

 

Having heard all this, the question arises whether there is anything that you wanted to include in the SCHMIDT, but could not implement due to technical or other reasons?

Sure. If the “old reliable” or advanced synthesizer chips had been in adequate supply at a competitive price, I would have preferred them to any discrete solution – not for monophonic synthesizers necessarily but for polyphonic instruments as the key to facilitating an acceptable price. As examples I would like to mention precision-VCO CEM3340 or the CEM 3372 (multimode filter!).

 

Even though there are plenty of very good effect instruments, I had furthermore planned a high-quality analogue effects section. A system based on a bucket-brigade delay including chorus + flanger. I could not realize this due to a lack of time, as this too, in accordance with the sound production, would have become colossal in size.

 

In addition, there are plenty of other excellent modules, especially in the analogue field, such as waveshaper, distortion, other filter types, complex modulations, etc. If I had wanted to implement all of this, then my “battleship” would still be in the dry dock and would perhaps never be seaworthy (laughs).

 

What synthesizers do you find interesting and why? What are your favourite instruments?

During the analogue era, my favourite instruments were the Oberheim Matrix 12 and the Roland Jupiter 8 because of their sound possibilities (and the Roland Jupiter 8 was also my top favourite because of the way it looked). In general anything new has inspired me, because if it offers new sound possibilities, such as the Yamaha DX7, in particular the sampler and “rompler”.

 

Over time, synthesizer technology has developed so rapidly that modern synthesizers all sound excellent to me personally, and above all there are top devices for the most diverse uses and music genres. Incidentally: I am not a professional musician and could definitely be wrong there.

 

When did you actually start with the development and do you know how much time you’ve invested in this project?

I started about 8 years ago. How much time I have effectively invested I can’t say, because I took a few breaks during this time and also had side jobs.

 

That speaks for itself and I don’t think that I only speak for myself when I say we wish you every success with the SCHMIDT. To believe a project to such an extent and not to give up, that demands respect. But there must have been times that were anything but easy for you – how are you getting on with the SCHMIDT now?

Thank you for wishing me success.

As you correctly guessed, there were stages that were not easy and there would have been reason enough to stop the project. With this project I’ve certainly also realized a small dream, but question of how I’m supposed to my living and whether or not the synthesizer can ever contribute to that is really hanging over my head like the sword of Damocles.

 

The question of the future of the SCHMIDT (or to be more precise, the SCHMIDTs) is still unclear. There are enough reasons to both leave it as a prototype, as well as to attempt a short production run. I think everyone can assume that this is primarily due to financial reasons.

 

I am currently in the process of carefully considering this. As I mentioned earlier, I had vastly underestimated the time required for the development, and a short production run would add a large financial outlay to this. Apart from this, the market for such highly-priced equipment is extremely “slim”.

 

A short production run – a very very short production run – would be great.

 

What is the status quo? And of course the questions that will concern many people – can you say anything about the price, the number of SCHMIDTS built, when the first will be ready and how or from whom you can order the SCHMIDT – directly from you?

At the fair I gave no information on the possible purchase price, so I was very surprised when I was told that this should be approximately €25,000. I am currently calculating a very short production run. But it is still too early to be able to give accurate information on price and quantity, and therefore ask for your understanding.

 

Of course – as everyone would expect – financing will be a crucial question. At this time it is not really clarified. So forgive me if I can’t make any further answers to your questions. I don’t want to make any promises that I can’t keep in the end!

 

But back to the status quo. I’m making a few needed changes to the casing. The unit will be thoroughly tested and the software has still to be completed. The functionality and operational concept will correspond to the prototype, nothing will be changed there!

 

An instrument that has swallowed up so much development time and is handmade in Germany will have a certain price and will therefore probably only be accessible to a select circle of interested parties. In any case, we wish you much success and we would be happy if you kept us up to date.

Many thanks for the interview.

 

SCHMIDT Edit Section

 

SCHMIDT Mix + VCA

 

SCHMIDT Oscillator 1 + Oscillator 2

 

SCHMIDT Oscillator 3 + Oscillator 4

 

SCHMIDT VCF 1 + Dual Filter 1

 

SCHMIDT VCF 2 + Dual Filter 2

 

 

Peter M. Mahr

http://greatsynthesizers.com

10/9/2012

[ThePilgrim]

Τρομερό, αλλά μετά είδα την τιμή.......25000??  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

[Waterfall-K]

Τρομερό, αλλά μετά είδα την τιμή.......25000??  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Ε και? Δεν εχεις 25.000 ευρω? Ελα τωρα....

[ThePilgrim]

ΧΑΧΑΧΑΧΑΧΑ

[neeq]

Να βαλουμε ολοι μαζι λεφτα παιδια, να παρουμε ανταλλακτικα ;D

 

Βλέποντας το interface, καταλαβαίνεις οτι μπορεις να φτιάξεις πολυ πρωτοτυπους και ενδιαφέροντες ήχους.

 

Αλλά σιγουρα δεν ειναι όργανο για live. Aκομα και αν καταφέρεις να το κουβαλήσεις αθικτο, τόσα κουμπια, ειναι απαγορευτικα για χρήση on stage.

 

Και ίσως κάποιες ο πλουραλισμος αυτος των επιλογών, να τρώει έδαφος απο τη δημιουργικότητα.

 

Προφανώς όμως το οργανο αυτο δεν προορίζεται για ερασιτέχνη χομπίστα.

[Waterfall-K]

Και μετα βριζω την Moog για τις τιμες που εχει. ::)

Ο Mr Stefan Schmidt ξεπερασε ακομα και την Moog. Αν ειναι δυνατον να βγει αυτο το synth σε παραγωγη με τετοια τιμη και να το αγορασει καποιος. Καλα, το οτι θα βρεθουν 10-20 πυροβολημενοι πλουσιοι που θα το αγορασουν δεν υπαρχει αμφιβολια. :P

Αλλα σκεψου ποια και ποσα synths αγοραζεις με 25.000 ευρω.

Ισα με....7.5 Moog Voyager ;D ;D

 

Edit:

Η τιμη του ειναι πιο πανω ακομα κι απο το περιβοητο Fairlight CMI-30A

http://alturl.com/pw28d

[ThePilgrim]

 

Αλλα σκεψου ποια και ποσα synths αγοραζεις με 25.000 ευρω.

Ισα με....7.5 Moog Voyager ;D ;D

 

http://alturl.com/pw28d

 

Χτυπάς ένα prophet '12, ένα studiologic sledge και μερικά πετάλια της electro harmonix και είσαι κομπλέ

 

 

Η τιμη του ειναι πιο πανω ακομα κι απο το περιβοητο Fairlight CMI-30A

http://alturl.com/pw28d

 

 

Αυτό πρώτη φορά το βλέπω  :o

[Costas Siachamis]

Μεγαθήριο.

Δεν είναι για τον μεμονωμένο μουσικό. Εκτός και εάν δεν του καίγεται καρφί για τα οικονομικά του και έχει να ξοδεύει.

Είναι όμως ένα ''must have'' για επαγγελματικά στούντιο με δισκογραφικές παραγωγές και post production.

Kαι σίγουρα σε αυτά θα πωλήσει.

 

Βέβαια το R&D έχει το δικό του κόστος, πώς να το κάνουμε.

 

 

[Waterfall-K]

Αλλά σιγουρα δεν ειναι όργανο για live. Aκομα και αν καταφέρεις να το κουβαλήσεις αθικτο, τόσα κουμπια, ειναι απαγορευτικα για χρήση on stage.

Eλα βρε Neeq που δεν κανει για live. Ισα ισα που επειδη εχει τοσα κουμπια ειναι ιδανικo για live "πειραγμα". Το βαρος του νομιζω ειναι καπου 30 κιλα. Σιγα τωρα, εδω αλλοι κουβαλανε ακομα vintage Β3 στη σκηνη συν το Leslie(s). Μονο το Β3 ζυγιζει 190 κιλα. Στα 70s κουβαλαγαν το "κουμπι" της αρκουδας, ενα SCHMIDT δεν ειναι κατι το extreme να το κουβαλησεις στο live.

 

Να, παρε δυο παλαβους παρακατω, ο ενας (Keith Emerson) κουβαλαει ακομα και σημερα ενα Moog modular και φυσικα ενα Hammond, ο αλλος δε (Geoff Downes) εχει μπει στο βιβλιο Guinness για τα περισσοτερα πληκτρα επι σκηνης, νομιζω 28 synths/keyboards ειχε κουβαλησει καποτε σε ενα live... ;D ;D

 

 

 

To κουβαλημα ενος SCHMIDT δεν ειναι προβλημα, τα λεφτα για την αγορα του ειναι το προβλημα... :P

 

Χτυπάς ένα prophet '12, ένα studiologic sledge και μερικά πετάλια της electro harmonix και είσαι κομπλέ

Μονο?? Εδω μιλαμε για 25.000. Τα Prophet 12 και Sledge δεν κανουν μαζι παραπανω απο 3200 ευρω. Αντε βαλε και μερικα πεταλια απο Electro Harmonix, θα φτασεις τα 4000?

Τα υπολοιπα 21000 τι θα τα κανς? 8)

 

Αυτό πρώτη φορά το βλέπω

Πρωτη φορα βλεπεις ενα Fairlight ή πρωτη φορα βλεπεις το συγκεκριμενο anniversary edition?