Instead of patch cords, Moselle lets you define a module's input with an actual formula (much like Excel spreadsheets). Some formulas can be as simple as saying "Waveform = Sawtooth" or "Input = Oscillator1:Output" but other formulas can be many lines long, involving many other modules' outputs, MIDI controls, and so on.
My theory is that for very simple patches, graphical synths may be easier. But for more complicated things, formulas may be a lot easier to input, and later a lot easier to read and remember what you were doing. (Or, to read and learn from someone else's patch.)
SO: Do you have time to help me test this theory? Can you duplicate the following patch in the modular synth you know best? This includes:
1) "photo-realistic" types, where it looks like you're connection actual hardware with patch cords
2) "diagrammatic" types, where you draw some kind of mathematical or circuit or block diagram
3) text-based ones (like Moselle... any CSound gurus out there? any other such synthesizers?)
4) even hardware for that matter
Here's a quick video of the Escher Bend patch in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n2F72SUZZ8
- oscillator has harmonics: 1 2 4 8 10 12 16
- filter is 2-pole, with a cutoff 4 octaves above fundamental
- pitch bend is 12 semitones
- when you bend down an octave, the oscillator fades out and another identical one--but an octave higher--fades in. The result is that you end the bend with the tone you started
- and the opposite when you bend up an octave
- and hook up an oscilloscope showing all three oscillators plus the filter output, if your synth has an oscilloscope
