TherAsynth - New product under development - What do YOU want?

I believe in not doing things that anger people at me later, so before I comment on this I have to make the disclosure that I am working with several friends on a new line of theremins and related instruments which we wanted to debut this spring, but I have a feeling it's going to slide into summer. Our instruments are targeted at the "people who want a theremin but don't want to spend enough to buy a Moog" niche market, so I for one don't consider us competition for the TherAsynth if it's priced anything like described. My remarks are made in this light.

[b]1.) Two ACTIVE "antennas"[/b]
The quotes around "antennas" scare me. What are you actually sensing? I'd be very uncomfortable buying an instrument that senses proximity using something like infrared, since all the infrared "theremins" have been very low end and cheap.

[b]QUESTION: A switch to swap sensors (left<-right)? or does pitch on the right / level on the left suit everyone ? (I will offer a left-handed version if anyone wants this - but is an extra switch a good idea, or would it be a bother?)[/b]

Any feature adds cost. You have to decide whether you want to raise the prices for everyone to accommodate it or lower your profits to accommodate it or make it a custom option that costs extra or make it a custom option that doesn't cost extra. If you don't mind doing the custom work, I would offer it as a custom option, but I'd definitely offer a lefty solution. We are offering a different lefty solution altogether, but nonetheless offering one.

[b]Anyone have any ideas about whether a 10ms (100 times a second) update might cause a problem?[/b]

Speaking as a computer programmer who often does user interface work, my experience is that people generally perceive anything that happens more than 3 times per second (every 333ms) as "constant". I think 10ms should be fine.

[b]Would YOU be more inclined to buy the TherAsynth if it had a real hetrodyning sound source than an analogue synthesised Theremin output?[/b]

Me? Not especially. But, I think the market would. My perception of theremin buyers is that they're mostly looking for that classic theremin sound, nothing complicated.

My group is planning to offer instruments that (simultaneously) output sound, control voltage, and MIDI (not certain on the MIDI yet but it's a strong possibility). We'll likely do the sound in a very basic way, on the basis that we're trying to produce a cheap instrument and our customers can buy something else (maybe from us) if they want different sound. Or they can use the CV output with an analog synth.

[b]The sensors outputs are voltages linearly proportional to distance. These voltages (and other signals) will be taken to an expander socket at the back of the instrument.[/b]

Keep in mind that if the voltages you output don't correspond to the input voltages of one or more of the major synth manufacturers, it'll be useless for controlling an external synth. We're planning to make our instruments' output compatible with Moog CV input.

[b]I feel that the market is utterly cluttered with "Theremins" which make noises, but are grim (or impossible) to play musically - Unless I can produce the most musically playable Theremin related instrument ever seen, I will be displeased with myself -
Having said that - There is a full analogue synthesiser in this instrument - so it will certainly be possible to produce "effects" ;)[/b]

I'm glad to hear your strong interest in playability. We also are most concerned with playability. Once we have a working prototype we plan to do whatever it takes to make it very linear before we consider moving on to a production design. I sincerely hope that we (you and I) will be bringing at least two very playable new models of theremin to market.

[b]I have another question for you all - I intend to house this unit in a high quality case.. But I also want to keep costs down -

Hi Tom,

“so I for one don't consider us competition for the TherAsynth if it's priced anything like described. My remarks are made in this light.”

Thanks for your openness – Cards on the table – we may well end up being “competitors” .. or we may work together .. or anything might happen – I have been looking at a simplified lower cost version without having a full analogue synth, but instead having my HF VCO and conventional heterodyning, and being therebye able to exploit the advantages of my sensor for its superior range and linearity.

But – Also.. I could sell little SMD boards containing my sensor, which could be mounted into “competitors” instruments.. There is enough “competition” out there to keep any manufacturer or potential manufacturer “on their toes” !

One thing does bother me a bit though – You are inviting manufacturers to contribute their product details to your “manufacturers list and comparison chart” – If you are in fact planning to become a Theremin manufacturer, does this not open the door to accusation of conflict of interest?

“1.) Two ACTIVE "antennas"
The quotes around "antennas" scare me. What are you actually sensing?”

The sensors are CAPACITIVE and CAPACITIVE ONLY! - The capacitive plate could be connected to a conventional antenna – indeed, my first experiments did this – but I felt that the ability to focus the sensing field better suited the aims of my design.. I can easily produce Theremins or TherAsynth with conventional antennas..

Reason for quotes over “antennas” ? - Quite simply, I think the term “antenna” is wrong – and leads to wrong “pseudo science” ideas about how Theremins work – Theremins use capacitance, not “radio waves” and it is the capacitive circuit formed by the player and the sensor / instrument ground, which changes the pitch / amplitude.

I have seen numbers of silly articles expounding inductance and magnetic fields as the ‘true’ mechanism of the better Theremins – The only difference between a capacitive sensor based on a 555, and one based on a LC oscillator, is the law (capacitance change -> frequency) these follow.. RC circuits produce a far less ‘linear’ musical interval than the LC oscillator. Variations in the law can be implemented a bit by changing the ‘input’ inductance from the antenna – and by some clever feedback within the oscillator design.. but the limitations on linearity come down to the laws of physics..

I started out trying to produce a LC oscillator using gyrator circuits (hoping to get rid of ‘real’ inductors) but ended up realizing that even a good LC oscillator, with every trick thrown at it, cannot provide a linear musical interval over the entire sensing range.. So I disposed of the conventional method, and concentrated on a sensor to provide a linear voltage output proportional to distance – this voltage is then taken to (an) exponential converter(s) to give musical pitch output which is linear with distance.. This has proved to be the right direction, as nothing else on the market comes even close to what this can do in terms of range and controllability..

And, with the HFVCO, I can make a conventional Theremin which has this linear relationship.

Whether competitors or partners – I wish you the best with your venture!

Best regards, Fred.

"Keep in mind that if the voltages you output don't correspond to the input voltages of one or more of the major synth manufacturers, it'll be useless for controlling an external synth"

My sensors output 0V to 10V linearly proportional to distance - Taken directly to another system, this would give 1V/Octave.. However, attenuating this voltage (putting it through a potentiometer / buffer) allows the range to be trimmed. My synthesis section operates at 1V/octave..

Theremins are not like other controllers where the pitch / voltage relationship is fixed.. A keyboard, for example, must output a 'standard' voltage range, as there is a fixed relationship between keys (unless one wants some something other than ETS) - The Theremin is microtonal - so the absolute voltage output for a given distance change is unimportant - it simply sets the 'span' between notes / octaves.. and this relationship is a direct function of the sensitivity.

If the CV is derived from converting the audio output frequency to a voltage (as is done on the Moog Pro) then the relationship is critical - As the instrument/s using this CV must be in tune with the Theremins output frequency..

The frequency -> CV method is far inferior to my system - for one thing, at LEAST a 1/2 cycle of audio must be processed before the CV can be updated - so, for a 50Hz signal there is AT LEAST a 10ms latency.. In practice, several cycles are needed (unless one is using a fast processor or DSP for the conversion)and there are real noticable latencies.

By starting with a CV output from the sensor, everything 'clicks' into place.. Any attenuation of this CV (to scale the range covered by the sensing field) is simultaneously output to the Theremins internal sound generators AND to any external equipment. As all are tracking at 1V/Octave, they all stay in tune.. If, however, one wanted to drive some external system not operating on 1V/Octave, a simple opamp with appropriate gain, or an additional potential devider, is all that would be required.

[b]Thanks for your openness – Cards on the table – we may well end up being “competitors” .. or we may work together .. or anything might happen[/b]

Quite true. And if I like your product and you decide you'd like to work with me and my partners, we could easily consider marketing your product here for you. Regardless, I encourage you to keep in touch. You'll find you can email me from the contact page on my web site.

[b]One thing does bother me a bit though – You are inviting manufacturers to contribute their product details to your “manufacturers list and comparison chart” – If you are in fact planning to become a Theremin manufacturer, does this not open the door to accusation of conflict of interest?[/b]

First, I will point out that I've been privately informing a number of theremin manufacturers about my involvement with this new theremin brand. Those who have participated in helping me with the comparison chart have done so with this knowledge. And, my policy is to report information as specified by the manufacturers unless I have some specific knowledge to make me believe they lied, which is not the case with any listed manufacturer to date. Also, in discussion with manufacturers, I have tried to be helpful toward them, and have been unafraid to suggest to them features that I think might help their sales.

Second, I will mention that the way I've set things up, I will be the last of the three business partners (presently - we may add more) to get any money from my new brand, if ever. I am also presently happily employed, so I'm not worrying about making a buck on theremins. If anything, I expect to (at least initially) lose money on the endeavor, because I will be the one shelling out all the startup money for the new brand. So, I don't have a big financial motive. My goals are to help a friend by providing him with stable and respectable employment, and to bring a quality instrument to market.

Third, I will point out that my web site provides listings, not reviews (I am in the process of rewriting them to change the tone of the descriptions to make more clear that I am trying to describe the instruments, not recommend for or against them), and that the comparison chart is designed to try to provide quantifiable, verifiable information. Unfortunately some of the information presently listed is subjective (particularly about linearity and playability), but I'm trying to replace it with objectively measurable information. This is part of my present desire to create a standard test for theremin linearity, which I've discussed on levnet.

I have promised several manufacturers that when my new brand of theremins comes to market, it will be listed on my web site along side the other brands (with a note stating explicitly that I am biased about it), it will have its own separate web site for actual advertising and sales, and I will make no attempt to disparage any of the manufacturers or to make them look bad or to alter their listings to their detriment. (Indeed, I have recently altered some listings to make the instruments seem better, based on information provided by the manufacturers.) I also want to redesign the comparison chart so that the viewer can make the chart reorder itself and show/hide specific instruments and features to help them more quickly find what they want, but that project will have to wait until I have more time for it.

My partners in the theremin business and I are not interested in competing, as such; we are aiming for a price for the instrument that I hope will make it more pricey than any of the currently available inexpensive options, while at the same time being less pricey than the Moog Etherwave. (We may make a more expensive pro model at some future date, but this is nothing more than a vague thought at the moment.) I believe that this is an unserved price point, and that in filling it we won't likely be taking much if any business away from othe

I also have some other product being worked on simultaneously .. No more details will follow on these for now, but they are:
1.) The "Flewt" (www.Flewt.co.uk) - this is effectively a pitch-only theremin combined with a mouthpiece with a new (patent applications filed) method of detecting blowing - Blowing the mouthpiece controls amplitude + harmonics. The pitch sensor also incorperates a capacitive slider, and seperately determines position and distance. Several variants are being developed, the simplest is being negotiated with a large toy manufacturer for extremely large scale production of a low cost toy for manufacture in China.
2.) A 'keyboard' sensor strip with controller and aditional functions (particularly envelope generators), for interfacing to my TherAsynth or any 1V/Octave synthesiser. This 'keyboard' will have a horizontal capacitive slide sensor (a variant on what I have developed for the Flewt)and will be scaled to fit a standard keyboard - position (distance from the strip) will provide a voltage output, and position on the strip will provide a voltage output, and trigger and velocity outputs will be provided based on the time taken to cross preset distance thresholds.
The aim of this product is as the controller for lead monophonic synthesisers.

Pitch field size. I would personally want about a 50cm pitch field.

A fairly regular question on these forums from audio installation artists is "how do I get an enormous field that will fill the room I'm setting up my installation in?"

I've never had any dealings with the guy, but for a respected theremin sound-art installation Brit you might want to hunt down Ray Lee.

Linearity is not necessarily the holy grail. Lydia Kavina, for instance, uses a tVox tour which is not a linear instrument. Rather she adjusts the field dynamically whilst playing by stepping into the field to stretch out the high notes, or away from it to contract the low notes. Would this work with your sensors?

FredM, revisiting your statement about the fields being conical, and directional. Does this mean that if I'm playing in a croweded venue, that someone can just walk right up to the instrument from the side oposite the player, and not affect the instrument?

If so, this would really be an important advancement in the evolution of space controlled instruments.

Also, about octaves: Most theremins play between 5 and 6 octaves. I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but the B3 has a very small field which means the octaves are quite closely spaced. I'm used to playing in small fields like that, so setting the therAsynth to say, 5 or 6 octave ranging might still be quite playable. If there's a way to calibrate the instrument so that at least 5 or 6 octaves could be accessed within a 20, to 24 inch range, this would be great.

[i]QUESTION: What distance (sensing) range do people want? - Remember, this is a linear playing range, so the entire area can be played with linear control.[/i]

30cm (< 1ft. for those metrically challenged) is way too small for me and, I suspect, most other players. 60cm would give us a much more workable space in which to play. I agree with Thomas that 5-6 linearly spaced octaves would be sufficient.

FredM, A couple of other items on the wish list would be the ability to make the volume antenna very sensative so as to allow staccatas, while still being able to provide nice cracendo, and eminuendo control.

Switchable Pitch Preview through one earbud jack would be nice so as to be able to switch preview off at will when just practicing in private, and one might not need or desire preview going at that particular time.

To adress the cabinet housing issue you've asked us about, perhaps an ABS construct for the masses, and a limited number of high quality wood cabinets for esthetic or professional tastes would be in order. Perhaps on the ABS type, the control panel could be made of wood of some kind while the rest of the housing is made of ABS.

Thomas - if I have understood correctly, the playing fields are shaped roughly like the cone of light from a torch, extending from the sensor (antenna). It should be easy to produce a very clean, short attack or release by moving your hand in or out of the field at right angles to the direction that the sensor is pointing, whilst moving towards and away from the sensor for expression.

What I wonder is, what happens is your pitch hand wanders out of the side of the pitch cone?

I use a non-standard playing technique (to make non-standard music) which takes advantage of the fact that moving my hand parallel to the pitch rod does not change the pitch, so this is an important consideration for me.

(Briefly, I use trigonometry to precisely control velocity and acceleration u.s.w. whilst playing "free music" - music consisting not of notes of fixed pitch, but of phrases of varying pitch. For example, it is easier and more accurate to describe a circle in the air, moving the hand at a fixed speed and radius than it is to move the hand back and forth between two points whilst varying the speed of motion exactly sinusoidally.)