Admittedly, "complex oscillator" is a tricky phrase for beginners—other modules, such as VCOs and VCAs, seem to define themselves. And if you aren't familiar with the (Buchla-esque) complex oscillator concept, when you see threads like, "What's your favorite complex oscillator?" you might just assume, following the conventional English definition of "complex," that the phrase isn't a specialized term, but merely refers to any single oscillator with more-than-typical capabilities, such as a Rubicon2, a Generate, or a fancy digital oscillator.
But the definition of a complex oscillator as, essentially, two VCOs normal-ed for AM and FM in at least one direction, or a VCO with a dedicated audio-rate modulation oscillator*, is easily found in Patch 'n' Tweak, Perfect Circuit's online learning articles, and plenty other of perfectly cite-able sources. Having a set of common terms greatly aids a community in facilitating communication, maintaining a connection to historical practices, and guiding comparisons and recommendations (e.g, "Can you recommend a complex oscillator? What separates Instruo and Make Noise's complex oscillators? How have manufacturers added to the complex oscillator template?")
It's true we probably need a new term for fancy mono-oscillators—something like "neo-complex oscillator." But I've been accused of "gatekeeping" for (in a perfectly gentle tone) pointing out that a Mangrove, Ensemble Oscillator, or Odessa is not a complex oscillator. Isn't it perfectly possible to insist on the existence of a shared language without necessarily shoving beginners to the side?
*Reasonable people might disagree on whether the wave-folder is "part" of the complex oscillator or not. Make Noise, Instruo, and others have included folders in their complex oscillators, of course. But I've heard wave-folders explained so many times as "anti-filters"—adding harmonics to enrich harmonic content—that I consider the wave-shaper to be separate from the complex oscillator proper, just as the filter on a Moog is separate from the oscillator section. The folder is labeled "Timbre" on the original Buchla machines, I believe. But like I said, reasonable people could disagree on this aspect.
But the definition of a complex oscillator as, essentially, two VCOs normal-ed for AM and FM in at least one direction, or a VCO with a dedicated audio-rate modulation oscillator*, is easily found in Patch 'n' Tweak, Perfect Circuit's online learning articles, and plenty other of perfectly cite-able sources. Having a set of common terms greatly aids a community in facilitating communication, maintaining a connection to historical practices, and guiding comparisons and recommendations (e.g, "Can you recommend a complex oscillator? What separates Instruo and Make Noise's complex oscillators? How have manufacturers added to the complex oscillator template?")
It's true we probably need a new term for fancy mono-oscillators—something like "neo-complex oscillator." But I've been accused of "gatekeeping" for (in a perfectly gentle tone) pointing out that a Mangrove, Ensemble Oscillator, or Odessa is not a complex oscillator. Isn't it perfectly possible to insist on the existence of a shared language without necessarily shoving beginners to the side?
*Reasonable people might disagree on whether the wave-folder is "part" of the complex oscillator or not. Make Noise, Instruo, and others have included folders in their complex oscillators, of course. But I've heard wave-folders explained so many times as "anti-filters"—adding harmonics to enrich harmonic content—that I consider the wave-shaper to be separate from the complex oscillator proper, just as the filter on a Moog is separate from the oscillator section. The folder is labeled "Timbre" on the original Buchla machines, I believe. But like I said, reasonable people could disagree on this aspect.
Statistics: Posted by Heterodyning — Sun Jan 05, 2025 10:37 am — Replies 2 — Views 91