WHAT'S NEXT?

Marvin et al,

Here's another Polyphony issue and once again I am amazed. How long have I been using your stuff and probing, asking questions, wondering what you'd do next, etc. I had begun to get the feeling you were going to "dead end" synthesizers as you had created virtually all necessary modules and adaptations. How many times has someone in OK expressed the sentiment "Well, we're really here for the experimenters...". And of course I saw Simonton going off the deep end into computers a few months back and I wondered where it would lead. What next, right? Being a musician, I was chiefly interested in live performance, and through your equipment, technical advice, and some of my own innovations I have never had to sacrifice performance in real time for portability, reliability, etc. Of course your stuff may take experimenting, adjustment, and calibration, but anyone too lazy to do that is going to be too lazy to play the synthesizer anyway. They'll have to opt and cop for "name brands" with labeled plastic overlays or a preset b---—d (organ, indeed).

Yet this issue shows me that in fact you guys are more alive than ever — your computer search is sending you not just to more attachments, but new available packaging resulting in more efficient PLAYING of synthesizers. Great! Obviously there is no end to what you can and will do for synthesists. Thank God someone is still trying to help us, not just taking our money.

Of course, I never doubted you for a minute.
John Deaton Victoria, TX.

BACK TO MUSIC, PLEASE!

Polyphony,

I was pleased with your magazine until you started putting computer and gate articles in. It would be alright if the articles involved a direct interface to synthesizers or something like that. Leave the other part of computing (teaching etc.) to the computer magazines. The "Blinky Light" project in November was cute, but what did it have to do with synthesizers? Speaking of November, why did I get that issue in January?

Respectfully,
Ja Souter Clovis, GA

ADDRESSES & SUBSCRIPTIONS

Friends!! (romans & countrymen even!) I have a few minor suggestions with regard to 'Polyphony'. I look forward to getting it whenever it does come, as it always seems to spark new and fresh ideas that send me running back to my 2720/R, just when the thing was getting to be a wee bit... dare I say it?... boring!!

However, since the July issue, two things have cropped up to nag me. One has to do with the articles that are sent to you. It would be a great help if on all 'how to' or 'try this' type stuff, you print the Full address of the writer!! Why? (you may ask?) Because sometimes people like me, who have just enough electronics know-how to get by, sometimes run into problems. For instance, the article by John Blacet and his Frequency divider. I constructed this circuit three (count 'em) times, and have yet to get it to work properly! I don't know if it's an error on my part, a printing error on your part, or a design error on his part! If I could only write him and perhaps ask for advice! Another example. Ken Winograds Random Tone Generator. His address was printed and luckily I wrote him. He points out that there were errors in the published version, and sent the corrections! (Great guy, this Kenny!) I'm sure it saved me a lot of headaches!

Item #2 is more on a personal 'hey you guys' level. Namely, that I'm not certain if I'm getting all the Polyphonies published! ? Before the July issue I received the #4-1976 issue. Then for six or seven months, nothing. Now the July issue. However I subscribed to Polyphony in Jan, 1977! (The 1976 issue was a courtesy issue I assume!) Have I or have I not missed an issue (or two). If so... why?! If not, aren't you a little behind?

Believe me, knowing the answer to this will help me sleep better nights. Who can stand being left out of all the PAIA latest ideas? Take what I have written into consideration okay! And perhaps even publish an answer in Polyphony. I'm sure there are others who have the same ideas as myself!

Till Then
Ron Jones

RESPONSE

Ron (and other Polyphony readers),

Your letter brings up a couple very valid questions. There is a specific reason we do not publish the full addresses of some of the people whose names are mentioned in Polyphony. Namely — respect for their privacy. Some people don't care to have their vital statistics publicly announced. For those that do, we have the Local Happenings column. At any rate, we will NOT print a readers full address unless he specifically asks us to.

With regard to problems you encounter when working on ideas or schematics printed in Polyphony, it is common courtesy for most magazines (including Polyphony) to aid their readers in successful completion of published projects. This means, if you are having problems, contact us here at the Polyphony offices. In most cases we will be able to answer your questions; if not, we will forward your query to the author in hopes that he may be able to help. To specifically answer your question concerning the Blacet Frequency Divider, I know the design and printing were OK for this circuit. We have built several or them around here, and I have heard from several readers who have built the circuit with very good results.

Now... concerning subscriptions; don't worry. Yes, we are running a bit behind, but the forecast and Farmer's Almanac say that we should be back on schedule by the first quarter of next year. Keep your fingers crossed, or better yet — send us your favorite patches, circuit modifications, computer programs, or anything you want to get off your chest. We'll print it, and the more material we have to select from — the faster we can put an issue together. At any rate, you won't lose any money from your subscription, because we consider a subscription to be for FOUR ISSUES. You won't be asked to renew until our computer says you have been mailed four issues. OK?

Marvin