Matt Thibideau Live @ Mutek 2009

Matt putting his obsolete components to work for the 2009 Mutek Festival...

Modular

I got into modular synthesizers because I wanted to bypass the computer for music creation and sequencing and get hands on control of everything. I quickly realized that if I was to buy the modules pre-built I would never be able to afford a decent sized set-up, so I did a lot of reading and jumped head first into building them. The song Modular came to be when I invited Matt over to check out the build progress of my modular synth and, of course, to play around with it. The song was done in one take "live" using only the modular synth for all sequencing and sound sources and with a little help from a Roland Jupiter 4. Each sound was recorded to it's own track in Pro-tools and later mixed and mastered at Matts studio. I used an assortment of modules ranging from an 808 style step (trigger) sequencer to a clone of a Moog 904a filter, along with some modules you can't buy on the market premade including Tellun's Neural Agonizer VC spring reverb and a heavily modded MOTM 440 filter that allows for 16 different filter types, very similar to the Oberheim Expander filter.

Dave

SH

SH is composed using a Roland SH-5, SH-101 and an Emu Emax II sampler. For this song, I really wanted to try to keep things somewhat simple and true to our project. I find that being in a studio with so many options can almost be a little overwhelming at times and these options can distract composers from completing their original intended ideas. All of the sounds (including drums) in this track are created by using various combinations of both SH synths sampled into the Emax II. Both SH-5 and 101 played parts directly in the recording as well. For some sounds, I ran parts of the sounds through FX before I sampled them. I really liked the results I was getting by processing the SH101 through effects, then through the SH5. Since both SH synths are monophonic, this made playing chords a bit limiting. I wanted to avoid using the sampler to transpose my notes for me so instead, I tuned the oscilators of each synth and sequenced the notes to create various chords so I could sample each chord on a different key and play them back that way. I found that this method kept the synth samples sounding a bit more true to their original source.

Six

The Polysix is a great synthesizer. It has a very easy to use interface and for such a seemingly simple synthesizer, it can output a very rich, full and warm sound. Years ago, after hearing Polysix, I knew I had to get one. When Matt reluctantly decided to sell his Polysix, I didn't hesitate for a second to buy it from him. Soon enough Matt acquired himself another Polysix. We have both used the Polysix in a lot of our music over the years. The Polysix was released in 1981 and MIDI did not really become the standard until a year later. With no MIDI we were forced to play the Polysix live or trigger it's arpeggiator with another device. Not that this was a bad thing but, it did make it's uses somewhat limiting. There are a few MIDI retrofits available for the Polysix (some better than others) however, most cost as much as a Polysix itself. There is also a DIY MIDI retrofit but, attempting to build one was a bit beyond my electronics skills. I found this website online and the gent who runs the site built us 2 for a very reasonable price and shipped them to me. We then ask our friend Dave to help us install them. Once installed, it gave the Polysix a much wider range of possibilities. We both agreed that we should write a track that was entirely based on Polysix sounds. The result is this track.

-Scott

High Fidelity

Key Maps : Dave Smith

Dave Smith is a brilliant engineer who helped develop many fundamentals of analog/digital synthesis and MIDI. He has designed some of the coolest sounding synthesizers to date and he continues to bring state of the art concepts the the electronic music world.

For this song we used only synthesizers that Dave Smith had a part in the design of:

Prophet 5, Prophet 2002, Prophet08, TOM an 2 Evolvers.

For the mix, each synth was programmed with it's own sound and the Prophet 2002 sampler was used for most of the percussion sounds and some additional synth sounds (all samples were created with the other Dave Smith based synths). The Prophet 2002 is a great sounding sampler. At it's lowest sampling rate it has a cool, grainy quality and it has a very rich resonant analog filter. However, our previous experience with the Prophet 2002 was limited, and since the sampler has only 512k of memory and can only hold a maximum of 16 sounds at one time, even with the user manual in hand, our experience was a lengthy, educational process. Once the sounds were created, they needed to be mapped properly across the keyboard. The process is actually pretty easy but, being such an early design... it's not the most intuitive sampler out there so, it took some time to figure out. However, it did help us choose a song name.

Carriers

Carriers was composed entirely using old FM based synthesizers.

FM synthesis is a complex sound creation method that has so many variables that you can make new sounds forever.... If you have the patience to learn it.

It has been around since the early 70's and still makes it's way into music today. The DX7 and DX100 made their way into so many popular and underground songs of the 80's.

The sounds were very bright and "Bell- Like". It sounded like a polar opposite to analog synthesizers. The two actually compliment each other.

In carriers we focussed on using the Yamaha SY77, TG77 and TX-802 as our main sound sources.

repair - call it coincidence : wolfgang palm

For the technical side of this song, we choose to use Waldorf and PPG synths. Our drum kit was created with the Waldorf Blofeld which has been one of the newest additions to the Repair studio. It a pretty interesting little synth that can make a large array of sounds. All other synth sounds and bass sounds were created with Waldorf Microwave and PPG wave 2.2. These synths are known for their bizarrely evolving waveforms and warm filters.

The PPG and Waldorf synths have quite an interesting history. To this day their Wavetable synth engine is uniquely distinct and copied by many synth companies and plug ins. My fascination with Waldorf and PPG started in 1989. After seeing the PPG wave in keyboard magazine and seeing Depeche Mode use them on stage I wanted one. However finding one for cheap was difficult and they were rare machines. Finally, Waldorf released their Microwave rackmount. That was when i knew I had to have it. It was less than 1000 bucks so it was affordable. So I wrote waldorf and they sent me a stack of brochures. Included in those brochures was the Wave synthesizer.... A dream machine. To this day I still want one... A few years later when I was in college, I mustered up the cash to buy the microwave and still have it to this day. It continues to make interesting sounds that are warm, full and punchy sounding. Always a happy addition to any track.

Mark

Waldorf Microwave

Sequential Circuits Prophet-5

PPG Wave 2.2

Korg Polysix

Yamaha SY77

Oberheim OBX

Computer World

From the first moment I was approached about participating in this project I was very interested. Over the years the use of a computer in my music making process has become more frequent and I have found it to be both a blessing and a hindrance.

My early music creation experience started off in my teens. I would sit in my mom's basement, experimenting with tape machines, home keyboards, random instruments, microphones, toys, lo-fi effects that I had cobbled together, etc… Eventually I bought a sampler and a Mac plus and over time I added additional pieces to my studio.

Back then; the computer was not really the pivotal focal point of music creation as it is today. Mainly due to memory and processing limitations, most PC's were mainly limited to the realm of MIDI (which uses far less data than audio) in regards to music creation. Now however, since the introduction of digital audio editing, when it comes to electronic music (or any type of music really), the PC (which is a powerful multitasking device but, not a machine specifically designed for music creation) is heavily relied on. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as the PC is a great machine for various music purposes (editing, synthesis, effects processing, mastering, etc...) however, it is also very accessible to nearly everyone (also, not entirely a bad thing but, can take away from it's overall uniqueness).

I think what often gets overlooked with computer music creation is that the PC itself is essentially a single sound source. Though it is possible to use many different tools to create sounds "in the box" and use various instruments with a PC, in my opinion, in the end, the composer is still relying on a single source and often relying on a PC’s mix engine and can often be subconsciously geared to editing and composing their music to a certain type of format out of habit.

In many ways a musical composition is like a mathematical equation. All the factors of the equation are like all of the various sound sources and processes used to create or equal the final output. The more sound sources you use, the more dynamic your overall sound can be. Limiting compositions to a PC for all music creation can often (but not always) end up sounding like it was generated by a PC and the original intent of the composition can be lost in this process due to things like mix engine and summing bus limitations built into many software applications. Asking a single device like a PC to process and calculate all of the factors involved can often make it more unreliable and can cause various undesired effects (i.e. audio/EQ frequency degradation, digital parameter stepping, unexpected crashes, etc...). A computer only has so much resources and the more you ask it to do in one area can often take away resources which should be prioritized to others. There are ways to enhance the output of a computer but this takes dedication, focus, and often-additional time and financial investment. At this point I often find myself being more of a computer technician, rather than a musician.

Many PC based musicians shy away from using hardware (more often old/vintage hardware) due to the cost, maintenance, space, etc... which (depending on the individual) are valid reasons. However, in my opinion, many older pieces of music hardware have such a unique charm and sound that cannot truly be replicated by a PC, mainly because these machines use components that are entirely dedicated to it's own form of sound synthesis. By default, using hardware devices like these provides unique elements that can add whole other layers and elements to the sounds (often good, sometimes not so good). I find that the use of different types of synthesis from various unique sounding devices offers a much wider spectrum of sound dynamics that most combinations of software often fail to emulate. It also gives the creator a more hands on approach to making these sounds and often forces them to consider how these sounds are created and how they are being used in each composition, beyond the scope of software editing and processing. This is something that I believe must be compared and experienced first hand in order to grasp the real differences between these methods of making electronic music.

Of course all of the opinions I have expressed here are subjective and somewhat arguable, however, they do come from several years of personal experience. Our goal with this project is not to discredit PC musicians in any way because; we too frequently use computers in our music making process. We are also well aware that computers can generate certain types of sounds that hardware cannot always recreate. We are fans of other musicians who compose music entirely with computers and... The bottom line is, a good song is a good song, no matter what sources were used to create it. Our real goal is to create something unique and cool using rare music technology which we have invested a lot of time to master over the years, to show respect to the individuals who originated and developed the instruments that we cherish and most importantly to demonstrate the value and understanding of these instruments to electronic music listeners who will appreciate our sound.

-Scott

Assembly Line

step1 - black spray paint old jewel cases from basement old cd pile.

step2 - break circuit boards into small, rough-hewn chunks

step 3 - when first coat of paint is dry, affix circuit boards with
contact plumbers glue

step 4 - finish with tremclad clear gloss coat to seal it up

21 limited editions!

Chrome Type II / High Bias

When Mark and I started our "Students" project, my computer was up on another floor of the house, so it was inconvienient to move it around when it was time to mix, so i plugged in the 4 track I had lying around. The more Mark and I used it, the more we loved what it did to our tracks, how the changes in level affected the Dolby noise reduction, how the sound of the kick drum changed with compression.

Since then I have picked up different cassette recorders to experiment with the different tonalities they impart on my mixes. These tracks were recorded to a Nakamichi cassette with Dolby C. I like this machine a lot. Matt and I did "High Bias" very quickly, we haven't worked together on a track in a long time and it flowed very well. "Chrome Type II" was completed by me alone in the same fashion, using 3 samples from Mike Huckaby's sample CD "My Life with the Wave".
You can really hear the Dolby clamp down on the Emu Emax chord's resonance, that was a mistake that i fell in love with.

This is the medium i listened to music on in my youth, and the sound of it brings back memories of sitting in the back seat of my parent's car, with the walkman on providing the soundtrack to a world flying by.

When using a computer to make music, your brain is split in two, you are seeing the waveforms as well as hearing them. I am convinced this affects how you hear the music and definitley how you structure your arrangements. Stepping back away from the computer has made me appreciate devoting all of my brain to the music, and on a good day, getting lost in it.

-jakob

Obsolete Compnent Track & Artist Listing

1. White by Mark Thibideau
2. Chrome Type II by Jakob Thiesen
3. SH by Scott Stanley
4. High Bias by Jakob Thiesen and Matt Thibideau
5. Carriers By Matt Thibideau and Scott Stanley
6. Modular by Dave Afonso and Matt Thibideau
7. Key Maps by Mark Thibideau and Scott Stanley
8. Six by Scott Stanley and Matt Thibideau
9. Discreet Voices by Coordinates
10. Call It Coincidence by Repair

Discreet Voices by Coordinates

The Oberheim OBX is the focal point of this piece.
For those of you unfamiliar with the OBX, It was released in 1979 as Oberheim's first fully programmable polyphonic synthesizer. It came in 4, 6, or 8 voice models. It has no midi, and all of the synth voices are set up beautifully on their own voice cards.
It has a massive and rich sound that even later oberheims can not reproduce.
It is a bit of a rare synthesizer to find these days, especially in working condition.

I focused on the sound of the massive pads and deep bass this thing can put out. It is also doing all of the drum sounds. It has been carefully multi tracked into Protools, and then mixed in an analog environment.

"White" by Mark Thibideau (Phase Distortion - Casio's Legacy)

"White" by Mark Thibideau.


For my track I used the Casio CZ-101 as the prime source of sound. There is a lot of personal history with me and this synth. It was one keyboard I had a fascination with since I was a kid. Our town's local music store (Tom's Music Centre) had one of these and it had a hefty price tag of 500 bucks. For the time it was cutting edge as it used a very unique technology called "Phase Distortion Synthesis". Basically the concept of it was very much like its Yamaha FM counterparts. I think at some point Yamaha and Casio battled over rights for the technology. However, this machine seemed to have a warmer sound and be slightly easier to program. At the time, it was the closest thing in our town to a real synth. I would spend hours in the music store playing with this keyboard. Although I've never owned one of these synths, there always seems to be one around my place. People lending it to me or just leaving it behind. Over the years I've gotten some pretty cool mileage out of this keyboard.
It has been really handy for this track. All sounds including drums were made on this synth recorded into protools like samples. Then I mixed the sounds out thru the ATB console.
I really did rely heavily on processing this thing through my evolver's filter in spots ( for swooshy sweeps), some massive Eventide H3000 processing and lexicon reverb.
They are also perfect for live sets as you can always tuck it under your arm and go. Gotta love the mini keys. The only downfall is the limited memory for saving your patches. There are also always the wonderful presets you can rely on like "trumpet" and "Brass Ens" ( you cant write over these!).
For those in need of a new and cheap synth that you will never want to get rid of... get one of these.

Mark

junkshop playground

The textural requirements of this music require many "voices", many flavours of sound, many working methods, etc.

The cumbersome workflow that comes along with using these "obsolete components" should be regarded as a virtue, efficiency is not a friend of music.

In the following blogs, we will post entries for each track on our label "Obsolete Component", which is a result of the working methods we refuse to abandon.

testing, 1, 2,3...

hello, first riveting post!