Etherwave Pro??

The problem with associating yourself exclusively with a particular manufacturer and becoming their official spokesperson (I have done this in the past with other instruments) is that you are then limited in regard to what you can say about their products. Unless you are being paid A LOT of money to do it, you are better to remain independent and impartial.

Once I had completed my HOW TO DVD, Moog Music wanted me to place it with them for retailing but I refused.

In retrospect, trying to use a first generation Etherwave Pro for the DVD would have been a disaster. The instrument had not been perfected and still had some improvements that needed to be made in its design. It was foolish of me even to have suggested that I use a theremin I had never played as a teaching tool. If I had attempted to use the E'Pro as it existed at that time, I would have ended up junking the entire project and returning the instrument.

The second generation E'Pro had a number of electronic and cosmetic improvements made to it at the factory but unfortunately, as we all know, the instrument has since been discontinued. There is no money in high-end theremin manufacturing.

The average European and American theremin consumer is white, male, between 16 and 30 years old, with little disposable income. Curiously, the oriental demographic (I'm thinking specifically of Japan) seems to be quite different. The bulk of the worldwide market for theremins seems to be quite happy with instruments that I consider toys.

[i]"FredM, So, I guess all of what I was looking at were ICs, and not memory or processor based chips then. Still, those things alone would make the EPro difficult to say the least to reproduce." - Thomas [/i]

Hi Thomas,

Not a problem - I did not know how you came to the conclusion you did - and because of your connections with Moog I wrongly assumed that the information regarding the E-Pro had come from them.. I am glad that this was not the case..

With regard to the idea of cloning an E-Pro, and the validity thereof.. There are things the E-Pro has that no other Theremin currently has, and which people want. Is it worth ‘cloning’ the instrument? – I personally don’t think so.. because I have my own ideas, and because I want my Theremin to be better than the E-Pro.. However .. I probably only take this view because I am in the last “half mile” of a marathon which has taken 3 years of massive effort.. If I had started with knowledge of the E-Pro ‘modus operandi’ I may well have chosen the ‘cloning’ route.. The avoidance of digital heterodyning put me on a path to much more complex schemes which have taken years of development.

But for someone who wants to make an instrument equivalent to the E-Pro, and bring this to market, I do not think there would be too many problems* .. It would certainly be cheaper (particularly in terms of development costs) , simpler, and quicker than taking the route I did.. And certainly, for a ‘hobbyist’ with a lot of experience / knowledge/ equipment, “cloning” an E-Pro from the basic ideas given in Basics of Epro (http://www.thereminworld.com/forum.asp?cmd=p&T=4547&F=3) and its following thread would be a great project – but a lot of work.

*The major 'problem' with cloning an E-pro relates to the wide range of skills required.. The oscillator designs are critical for stability, and this, I think, is going to be the most difficult area to perfect (particularly for production - for a one-off, a constructor could spend weeks perfecting the front end on a 'select-on-test' basis, and get it 'good enough' - but it is an entirely different matter when production is the goal).. There are many good digital designers, and (not quite so many) good analogue designers, and (even less) designers able to master the 'RF' stuff .. But few designers / developers with mastery of all the disciplines required to develop an E-Pro clone for production.. One would probably need a couple of designers with overlapping skills to do the job well, particularly if the goal was production rather than a one-off.


Would it be worth doing from a commercial perspective? – Probably not! Anyone capable of cloning an E-Pro and optimizing it for production (reducing component count by using programmable logic or ASICs for example) could probably make more money just working as a designer/developer, without the risks and hassle. In the time it took to bring the clone to market, they are likely to earn more money than they would make from sales of the ‘clone’.. This was brought home to me in discussions with the designer of another highly prized Theremin which is no longer being made.. Even having a Theremin nearly ready to roll, and a crowd of purchasers ready to part with their money, the ‘crowd’ is likely to be too small for production to be risk-free or make commercial sense.


So it is only fools like me (and others with manic disorders or OCD! - or who, like me, have health issues which make 'conventional' employment difficult ) who are likely to pursue the “high end” Theremin idea – just like those who build tube Theremins or other exotica.. there is no ‘sanity’ (and certainly no business sanity) in doing this stuff.. My meetings (as few as possible!) with my banker, going over my “business plan” are like something from a Monty Python sketch.. I can now see what they have seen – but keep going anyway, because I’m mad! (oh.. I only manage to keep my 'business advisers' from gi

[i]"Bob died in August of 2005 and was gone for more than two years. But guess what folks....as some of you have already felt, he's baaaaaaack........." - Coalport [/i]

Sorry - I dont wish to pick any kind of fight, or burst anyones "airship".. but I find the above upsettingly disrespectful.

Dr. Bob Moog is gone - certainly from this 'mortal plane' to (depending on ones religeous or other perspective) some other 'plane' or to personal oblivion.[i] (I am strongly inclined to believing the latter)[/i]

The only way that Bob "exists" in this world (IMHO) is in the memory of those who loved him, knew him, or who learned from him - and in his instruments to the degree that he created or inspired them. (and perhaps in the "inner Bob" which some people refer to - this, IMHO, being an extension of remembering Bob, and acknowleging his influence on our thoughts)

There will never and can never be another Bob Moog in this time and space. There may be (will be) people who will advance the fields he pioneered.. but [b]they will NEVER be Bob[/b]..

[i]Perhaps on some (nearly) parallel dimension, Bob is alive and developing Theremins.. Or perhaps when this universe has ended and billions of "repeat performances" of the cosmic cycle have occurred, a universe will exist where such a 'parallel dimension' occurs - who knows.[/i]

One thing I am quite sure of is that, [b]when a person dies, they dont come back[/b].. [i](or at least not in this universes time frame - and even if re-incarnation was "truth", not as the person who died)[/i] [b]And Nobody else can ever replace them.[/b]

I know the posting was a "LOL" - light-hearted and not serious - and I hope that my reaction to it does not upset anyone.

Fred.

Fred, the only person who seems to be upset is you!

A number of people have said in the past year or so that they have felt the late Bob Moog's presence while working on some piece of electronics or theremin related equipment.

I think perhaps what they mean is that they are in some way personally inspired by what the late Dr. Moog represented, and that this experience is in some way helpful and important to them.

All this railing on about religion, reincarnation, parallel dimensions, and outrage at the suggestion that somehow there could be "another Bob" have nothing to do with anything that I or anyone else has said.

You have created a little can of worms for yourself, opened it, and then proceeded to fulminate over it!

Peter,
I dont want to argue about this, I know your posting was not intended to provoke - Alas though, when I feel something (particularly if it bugs me) I act on my feelings - this is often a foolish thing to do, I know - but it is me.

[i]"Fred, the only person who seems to be upset is you!"[/i]

That may be - but I did find the posting distasteful, and let you know this in as gentle a way as I could.

[i]"A number of people have said in the past year or so that they have felt the late Bob Moog's presence while working on some piece of electronics or theremin related equipment."[/i]

I know that feeling - but it is not, IMHO, the same as Bob being "baaaaaaack.."

[i]"I think perhaps what they mean is that they are in some way personally inspired by what the late Dr. Moog represented, and that this experience is in some way helpful and important to them."[/i]

I think that too.

[i]"All this railing on about religion, reincarnation, parallel dimensions, and outrage at the suggestion that somehow there could be "another Bob" have nothing to do with anything that I or anyone else has said."[/i]

I disagree - If Bob was "baaaaaaack" then there would need to be some mechanism by which his "return" was possible - I merely covered the hypothetical posibilities, in order to be able to state "when a person dies, they dont come back" "And Nobody else can ever replace them" without risk of this statement being challenged by argument on any of those topics.. Again, this is just me - I try to look for possible "flaws" in anything I post, and (often needlessly) try to pre-empt these.

[i]"You have created a little can of worms for yourself, opened it, and then proceeded to fulminate over it!"[/i]

I am not fumulating, and if any "little can of worms" was "created" and opened, it was not done so by me.

I just felt that The Late Dr Bob Moog deserves more respect than was given by that posting - I am however sure that disrespect was not your intention.. And perhaps it is only me who felt upset by the posting, in which case I must be "wrong" and I appologise for stirring things again.

Fred.


[b] In reply to the following posting: [/b]

1.) I was wrong to express my feelings - probably no one would even have noticed the comments if I had not drawn attention to them.

2.) I thought it was a star ship, not an air ship.. so I did miss that reference.

3.) I take everything seriously.

4.) I think it is a different matter when cranks make claims of communication with long-dead celebrities (Einstien, Newton etc) compared to similar claims made regarding the recently deceased who have living friends and relatives.. I think the former is comparatively insignificant, but the latter may be insensitive.

Fred,

Whatever I may, or may not, have meant raises an interesting question.

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that I was claiming to be channeling (after the fashion of disconcerting number of modern day New Age mediums) Newton or Einstein. Why would this be a cause for someone to take offense or to find the claim provocative?

The only thing such a statement ought to do, is affirm in the mind of anyone who reads it, the fact that I am crazy!

A claim of this sort would have nothing whatsoever to do with Sir Isaac or with Albert. It would have to do only with me and my rather pitiful delusions.

Frankly, I think that my own or anyone else's "inner Bob" is simply a symbolic (amd somewhat poetic) acknowledgement of our remembrance of a very great man who has meant a lot to many of us in our pursuit of music.

Perhaps the pop culture references to "he's baaaaack...." (POLTERGEIST), and the air ship sinking into the swamp (STAR WARS) escaped you.

Your observation that "If Bob was "baaaaaaack" then there would need to be some mechanism by which his "return" was possible...." etc. etc. would seem to indicate that you are taking this whole thing a good deal more seriously than anyone intended.

Fred, as one obsessive/compulsive to another, ya gotta lighten up! The only thing that is going to save you is a sense of humor.