So does this mean rotation is included as a function of this module? I was a little unclear on that.
You can program a rotation angle with this module, but to do spinning/angle based cycling you need an angle generator (Polar to Cartesian circuit or quadrature oscillator) that will be in a set #2 module. If you have something that generates sin/cos/-sin (like a quadrature oscillator such as DWO-3) you could patch up a spinning transform.
ART-3 is more for the stretch/warp/crush/squeeze/rotate-out-of-axis weird deformations AND the simple “I want this shape to be at this spot on the screen, and I want it to be this big” type transforms. It is the raw maths in one step. Good for sequenced morphs, etc. This module is part of a concept called “Marionette” I was working on for a while, in that it puts control over several parameters under a single transform, or “puppet string.”
The set #2 module is tentatively Linear & Rotary Motion Generator. It combines an affine transform with a polar-to-cartesian circuit and phase modulator to introduce continuous spinning and scrolling.
Also don’t forget, Chromagnon has a full rotator with two spinning Polar-To-Cartesian circuits inside!
I’m also curious if y’all have any price point in mind for the DIY options?
We price everything based on costs. Since we moved to discrete circuits and similar stackups, most of that cost is in the form factor (which is why all of these modules cost the same.) So the DIY offerings will be the cost of the SMT assemblies, which is all of the SMT assembly and circuitry. I expect this to favor system builders with some DIY skills that end up with a 15%-35% discount on the overall system purchase, in return for doing the thruhole and final assembly/calibration themselves.
Thruhole options of these modules are possible, we’d just probably want to look at a different form factor for that. They are each triple PCB stacks packed with SMT right now. So that means variants that are much larger HP sizes, extremely deep edge card style modules, or a different approach.
DIY is very important to me, so it will be an ongoing conversation. For our sake, it is important that we are focused on “one way of doing this at LZX, the Gen3 way” right now and for the near future. It’s taken a ton of work to consolidate all the circuitry into a common approach, so we need to seal that in, before considering something else.
I like the new names, I personally prefer functionally descriptive names to quirky ones (though I don’t mind the quirky ones and they don’t get in the way once I know what the module does). I get the point about the abbreviations taking an extra mental step to translate. The best for me would be a basic functional name that doesn’t need to describe everything about it: Keyer, Ramp Transform, Wideband Osc, Encoder, etc are enough when the jack and knob labels tell the rest of the story. They’re also distinct enough to convey a personality, which the abbreviations don’t really do for me.
Yes. We would have shipped in August already, but we’re investigating a potential issue that has required a new board rev to investigate, so that meant some waiting (so we hopped on Chromagnon). TBC2 and Chromagnon are both loitering right near the finish line. We have to nail this, both in firmware and hardware, so we’re being extra cautious. Hopefully our pending stock of TBC2 shipments will not require further hardware work and we’ll be able to ship shortly after finishing our testing and firmware. In the worst case scenario, it will drag out a couple more months, but still ship this year.
I’m a big fan of the expedition series naming and design language.
The point of series3 being building blocks, I totally get it. And the acronym names enforce that idea.
Something simple like what some people already mentioned would make things clearer thigh, mostly for newcomers.
Out, mix, trans or transform, etc. These name also convey the idea of little Lego blocks IMHO.
The good thing about this community is how engaged we are. I know lzx is a private company and not a democracy for us to decide on names or release dates, but why not to take advantage of all the creative people here in the forum?
Maybe some good names show up, maybe not, lzx can use them or stick to their vision, which is of course more than fine.
No, these are Animation (LFO) ranges. DWO-3 is intended to be a dual utility oscillator, it has two entirely separate and identical VCOs with ramp, tri, quadrature and clock outputs.
You can use ART-3 and DSG-3 as waveshaping and modulation expanders, or 2D mixers if you want a “complex VCO” type of workflow. By putting the core VCO and shapers on separate modules, the relationship between the two is part of the patch – which can be very powerful in the video synth context. So DWO-3 is a potential “engine” you can use to “drive” the other two synthesis focused modules.
DWO-3’s main sexy feature is that you get two full featured video oscillator cores in 12HP! And they are equally useful for patterns as well as motion, so this allows you to adjust the ratio of usage on a patch by patch basis. In other words, a patch could be animation heavy or texture heavy, and use the same modules to get to both places.
Oh definitely! We’ve had a focus group of users we’ve been iterating with, on this too. So it hasn’t been an isolated conversation. Names have been very hard, with this set, in general. I think the solution we have for now is that there are no names on the panel, just an ID. If we add a name, we can still keep the ID as a model number. I think it’s more the lack of a descriptive word for the module that’s making it difficult, and that is more of a product identity issue. So I’ll have to think on that a bit, and appreciate the feedback.
We also plan to be a lot more responsive about offering alternate panel options or user customization resources in general, with Gen3.
This is where I had been leaning most heavily too. The problem is that they’re not specific enough to disambiguate whether you are talking about a module, or whether you are describing something else.
For example, “patch to your output encoder” means something different from “patch to your Encoder”. So then we could add a model number, but now we’ve inherited a mouthful: “patch to your ESG-3 Encoder”. It’s a lot to say.
So while I agree with this sentiment, it’s been a puzzle.
I think about the Visionary series (which Gen3 is inspired by), where the names had the opposite effect. The full names were printed on the panels, but everyone abbreviates them to acronyms because they’re so long. Gen3 abbreviates for you!
Yes, there are two filter modules slated – one for triple channel processing and one focused on more detailed outline extraction – so an RGB filter and an outliner.