GS: Since the day of the announcement and until the release of SOLARIS some time has past by. Could you please tell us a bit about the reasons?

John Bown: Yes, there are 2 main reasons we have had quite a few delays – a lack of money at critical times, and the lack of the right persons who could work on the project (which you might say is also tied to the first reason). Since we started the project in October 2006, I would say approximately half of those 5 years represent absolutely nothing being done on Solaris – complete ‘dead’ time, with no coding, no engineering, absolutely no work at all being done.

Even so, I should have known that we were introducing the Solaris too early, at Frankfurt Messe 2007, but I optimistically thought things could be done within a year or so!

For example … the first delay was a ‘person problem’ – I had hired a guy from Finland who I thought was a great fit for the Solaris – he had a good understanding how to make great emulations of analog circuits, had done some excellent ‘proof of concept’ work, was very smart, and a nice guy as well. He worked for 6 months, getting the prototype to work just in time to show the Solaris at Messe 2007. After the debut, we never heard from him again (even to this day)! I was quite worried, as I had no idea what had happened to him, but we eventually found out through some friends of friends that he was still alive and basically OK. No explanation as to why he stopped communicating, however.

Following that, I had the first delay of 6 months of down time, with nothing happening while Sonic Core searched for another DSP coder. Eventually, we were very fortunate to have the original DSP coder from the old Creamware company come onboard to do the project.

GS: We titled our review „John Bowen Solaris – a life’s work“, do you agree with that?

John Bowen: Sure, that is a perfect way to describe it!

GS: What was your motivation to develop a synthesizer like the SOLARIS and what were the main challenges?

John Bowen: Well, since I started in 1973 with Bob Moog, my primary use and enjoyment working with synthesizers was very much related to being able to directly use parameters with knobs and sliders, etc., and in all the instrument designs I have been involved with, I have been trying to make sure things are clear and relatively easy to use. As synths became more complex, it was a challenge to handle all of the information available, and so you try to find ways to address this.

With the Prophet 3000, I used a soft key/graphics display approach, using nested menus, where pressing one button would take you ‘down a level’ to a new position in the logic tree, and a new set of soft key labels would appear, etc., with each successive sot key selection taking you further down in levels. This didn’t go very deep in the P-3000, but when I started in on the Wavestation, I used the same approach for the UI (User Interface), and took this to an extreme, having a possible 5 or 6 levels to dive into!

Even though I felt it was fairly logically laid out, it was tedious on the Wavestation to go down into the layers of soft key menus, than exit out, then back down another direction, etc., and this was one of the things in my mind when I designed the Solaris for adaptation into hardware. By using multiple displays, and arranging them in logical blocks similar to the way we had things laid out in the old analog synths (left to right), I hoped to make the Solaris easier and faster to get around.

The main challenge with this approach was that, to avoid a lot of paging through sub-menus, I needed to be able to show a lot of parameters at once, so I sought out the longest displays we could find at the time, without going to a custom design path (which would have cost much, much more). Ideally there would be room for 8 parameters across – but the accepted optimal human use factor for knobs is about 3 cm from center to center, and the longest available text display at the time only allowed a spacing of 5 knobs. (Even at 2.5 cm spacing, which we use for the center graphics display, I would only have 6 knobs below these text displays we used. The vote for the graphics display spacing was to keep all 5 knobs within the edge boundaries of the display itself, but it’s not as comfortable to use as the 3 cm spacing.)

With the restriction of having to put a maximum of 5 parameters per screen page, I had to rework my plug-in layout (which had 8 parameters across the oscillator section) to fit in the hardware version, which meant more pages to get through. I still wanted to avoid a lot of paging, so I came up with the plan to have variable parameters on both the upper and lower lines of the display (which are 2 x 40 character displays), reducing the paging, but requiring the user to operate up/down cursor buttons to move the active cursor between upper to lower lines. This is how the first prototype of the Solaris worked, and while it did, indeed, reduce the number of pages needed, it was extremely frustrating to use! I was continually adjusting the wrong parameter, because I had forgotten to move the active cursor line first.

After working with this system for a while, I knew I had to change it….which meant a simpler approach that put the parameter labels on the top line, with the values directly below them on the bottom line – but this definitely increased the number of pages one would have to go through. Changing this also left me with a number of extra buttons for each display, which we eventually removed (from the Main/Mod control). However, I retained the division of these Main/Mod parameters sets, even though it made less sense with the change.

With the new system, I had some trouble as well, and found that it worked best for me to be able to keep one hand on the Up/Down paging cursors, rather than constantly moving between them and the Main/Mod buttons, so additional functionality was added. For some it made sense to use the Up/Down cursors exclusively, either in a continuous direction (called Wrap mode, where pressing Up or Down repeatedly gets you to ‘loop’ around all of the pages), or my preference, to stop when you had paged through all available parameters (with Wrap set off). The original idea of having the ability to move between Main pages and Mod pages was still a valid one if there was a need to toggle back and forth between, say, Main page 1 and Mod page 3 (to adjust Pulse width mod and initial position), so I had them keep that from the older design, and called it Split mode.

In the end, there is still more paging than I would have wished, but the ability to add or update parameters without having to resort to some creative button pushing (Hold X while pressing Y to get a new filter type, for example) was also a guiding principle for me, and I think we have achieved a decent compromise in this regard, providing a  way to navigate hundreds of parameters in the Solaris design, but still being flexible to address future updates. (Having said all that, the extra cost of multiple displays, plus the added labor on assembly, probably means I would not do another product with multiple screens!).

GS: SOLARIS comes with Minimoog Oscillators, Wavetables, Oberheim, CEM- and SSM-Filters. How satisfied are you with the sonic quality?

John Bowen: I’m very happy with the results. Our DSP engineer worked very diligently at making all the models as accurate as possible, but also wanting to avoid any aliasing in the upper frequency range. The Minimoog and CEM models are very accurate, and the wavetable implementation is done in the original way, so as to produce a good bit of ‘digital dirt’ in the indexing.

Some of the coloration you hear in older analog models is due to imperfections or variations in the circuits, and since these change from unit to unit (just compare several different Minimoogs or Prophet 5s), it’s not easy to represent an ‘exact’ model of these – rather, you need a subset of variables that can be added in, and at times, not have a perfect or absolute model. This is something we discussed at length, but did not get to implement in the first OS. You also have the problem of subjectivity – that is, something sounds good to one person, but not to another. How do you model that?!

In the end, I think most people will be very happy with the sonic quality provided, because my initial goal of high fidelity and quality was definitely achieved! What I’d like to add in the future is more ways to subtly modify the models to have some of the imperfections as well, even thought that might mean occasional aliasing problems, for example.

GS: Do you think that DSPs can replace Hardware completely one day?

John Bowen: Ummmmm ……. I would say …… probably. You’d want a fairly sophisticated set of algorithms for that.

GS: Are there any things you would have liked to include into the SOLARIS but are not there at the moment?

John Bowen: There are a number of things on my specification list that we didn’t get into the first round of the OS, such as:

• Phase Modulation Oscillator (for correct DX-7 style ‘FM’)
• User wavetables
• MultiTimbre Mode
• DSP allocation optimisation (varies the DSP load based on what objects are On or Off, such as Oscillators, allowing for more polyphony)
• MultiMode Osc 2 – a bit ‘grungier’ version of MM1
• Reverb
• Multisample block object (allowing for more than one sample per oscillator)

… and numerous other small ‘tweaks’. Hopefully, we can address these next year as we get past the initial production phase.

GS: will you add the “randomize” function we talked about at Musikmesse?

John Bowen: Yes, we had a couple of discussions as to how to easily implement this. One simple idea was to use the LFOs when set to S&H and 0 for the Rate, with retrigger, then every key pressed would generate a random output.

There’s also the possibility to add to the Mod Source list, but this becomes more of a extra work to add it that way, but you would have something like KeyRand or something as a Mod source. Although….it would be nice to have some control over this randomness, wouldn’t it…so, maybe a new function with some parameter ranges.

GS: What is your favourite feature of SOLARIS and who do you think are the main customer, sound developers?

John Bowen: Favorite feature? Hmmm….maybe the fact that we can run modulations at audio rates and route any signal we want, not worrying about feedback loops causing problems. In digital VSTi systems, this has been a problem because of the processing power needed (although there are a few plugins now that are doing this). Adding in the output of the Filter/VCA into its own input provides for some nice ‘organic’ effects, for example.

As for “who is the main customer“ – obviously, like many instrument designers, I started out to produce something that fulfills my own interests, so as a sound designer, that would definitely be my first type of customer….but really, it could be anyone who enjoys and places a high value on quality and an uncompromising approach in what they’d like to do.

GS: What are your future plans John, do you have any other synthesizer or any other developments in your mind?

John Bowen: Always! But you don’t expect I can tell you about any of that, do you? :-)

GS: What are your general thoughts about developments on the synthesizer market?

John Bowen: There has always been the search to have a keyboard produce ‘real instrument’ sounds. You can take a look at the organs used in the Renaissance period, and find names that infer certain instrument timbres….up to when the first Chamberlins (and then Mellotrons) were created, and this has remained to be the mainstay of all commerical keyboard development. Whether you should be calling these instruments ‘synthesizers’, or the more popular term now, ‘romplers’, there is still the interest to have realistic instrument sounds at your fingertips, and this is where the bulk of the money comes, from customer sales and demand. Products like the Solaris are in what we call the boutique synthesizer market, and so are for a more specialized customer. Until now, the real innovation in the boutique market has been by all of the Modular synth companies – and the selection is actually growing, more now than ever before!

There’s a very active community out there that is interested in exploring sound design and manipulation, which I find very exciting. Certainly if you check out a lot of the ‘dubstep’ sounds that are quite popular now, you hear some pretty radical or non-traditional results.

GS: As we have seen on Facebook, you are still making music and obviously enjoy it, so how does your home studio look like and what kind of music do you like to listen and play?

John Bowen: What you must be talking about on Facebook is the 70′s band in which I play bass. Bass is my main instrument, and I’m happiest doing just that. With keyboards, you have so much more to carry! (And I don’t like running the keyboards through the house PA system, so you really need a decent setup.) Plus you have to be concerned with a lot more issues, whereas bass is pure and simple, with a minimum of fuss!

The music we play is not what I’d call my favorite, since I really was more into jazz fusion and funk….but I had stopped playing bass completely by 1980, switching to keyboards, because I knew I was going to need that skill for the synthesizer world. After 25 years, however, I have picked up the bass again, and this time the music isn’t so complex, but I will have to say I am getting a lot of satisfaction seeing the joy and smiles on people’s faces as they sing along with all of these really popular songs we play, so now it’s a different kind of enjoyment to play. Before it was much more self-centered.

Regarding a home studio – I don’t have one. When I was doing plugins for Scope, I would just have the Scope system in my computer, and work on presets as I developed the plugins, and enjoying playing the sounds ‘in the moment’, never really recording things.

Of course, sometimes I needed to have some audio examples, so I would just pick a single sound and play it live, and record that as a demo. I don’t have a DAW or use any sequencer – I haven’t done that since my days at Sequential Circuits, when I needed to do presentations. Back then it was either the Commodore C-64 product we made, or the Studio 440 once that was available. So, I have to confess I am really unaware of all the things most people are doing now to create music, since I prefer to just play live. It seems there is much less keyboard playing now, as it is more about arranging loops and assembling pieces, and orchestrating things, a different kind of approach. Obviously, quite valid, though. More about data manipulation skills, in a way.

GS: SOLARIS is not produced in the States, it is produced and assembled in Europe. This means that you are spending quite a lot of time in airports and on planes?

John Bowen: Yes. Well, I don’t mind the travelling – I love being in Germany (home of my grandmother), and occasional visits to other European countries. Last year I made 6 trips to Siegburg, staying 2-3 weeks each time. I really feel at home when I’m there, so I’m quite happy to have this chance to mix business with pleasure!

GS: After all the developments, many of which you were part of, what are your three favourite synthesizers?

John Bowen: The Prophet 5, of course, the Wavestation, and, well, I have to say, the Solaris :-)

GS: All the best John, and thank you very much for the interview.

John Bowen: Thank you for asking to have me here!

________________________________________________________________

Link to our comprehensive SOLARIS Review.

Sensational new releases in the segment of analogue synthesizers were for a long time very scarce. However, in recent years their number has been steadily increasing. We see this as an encouraging development. SCHMIDT must be considered one of the most remarkable developments in contemporary synthesizers. This is cause enough to begin our interview series with none other than its developer, Stefan Schmidt.

GS: You first introduced the SCHMIDT to the broader public at the Musikmesse in Frankfurt in 2011. What has been going on with you since then?

Stefan Schmidt The fair was definitely a great achievement for me, even just making it that far after approximately 8 long years of development.

Incidentally, the unit was never planned on this scale, above all, just as little as was the very long development time. The project grew steadily and by the end I did have my doubts about ever being able to finish it. That the “SCHMIDT” was so well received at the fair, and was even spoken of here and there as a highlight, was something I never expected to this extent. A success, even if it has so far not become a financial success.

GS: How do you actually come up with the idea of building an instrument like the SCHMIDT?

Stefan Schmidt Well, the roots of this go back quite far. One of my last projects at MAM, approximately 9 years ago, was a replica of the Moog Taurus I. Once the prototype was aurally barely distinguishable from the original in various blindfold tests, we introduced it at the fair. It was – in order to be able to offer it at the lowest possible cost – initially a pure Expander version (so without pedals). If there had been sufficient demand, I would have followed up with the pedal version. At least, that was what was planned.

GS: From Taurus to SCHMIDT is a remarkable journey. How did these “deviations” arise from your original idea?

Stefan Schmidt: The Taurus project was a complete flop, and believe me, nothing to smile about for us back then. The interest in our Taurus expander was so infinitesimally small that a continuation of the project could not even be thought of. Added to this was the fact that sales at MAM had gone through the floor, so only a real bestseller could have saved us.

I must say that I was sick to the back teeth of the music business by then. Although it’s kind of fun, the headache of whether and how you can make money, sort of ruins the fun.

Consequently, I resigned from MAM and went looking for a job. Alongside this, I continued working on the Taurus expander as a hobby (this kept it fun!) which meant adding more and more features but also removing Taurus-specific features. It had in fact come to my attention that another manufacturer with the appropriate label was also working on a Taurus – making it a topic that would be exhausted in the near future. Although the SCHMIDT developed from the Taurus, it no longer has anything in common with it.

As it was only a hobby project, criteria such as usability, sound variety – as far as it was feasible with the existing analogue electronics – and sound quality were in the foreground. I had no intention of turning it into a marketable product.

After about 3-4 years, the monophonic version was ready, with a provisional operating unit, but without any casing.  From the beginning I conceived of the electronics on the basis of a number of stackable voice cards (maximum eight), as I already had a duophonic version planned.

The technical requirements for polyphony were fulfilled in principle, and the subsequent expenditure for the operating unit, software and casing would have been disproportionately high with regard to a monophonic version. These considerations and the fact that I have always admired the old analogue “battleships” such as Jupiter 8, Matrix 12 etc., but was never able to afford them, but now had the opportunity to realise such a “battleship” myself, cast such a spell on me that I quit my job to dedicate myself exclusively to what had become a polyphonic synthesizer.

I underestimated the time still required, particularly for the casing, and the planned two years turned into four.  As my funds were also depleted quicker than expected, the implementation of a very cost-intensive prototype would not have been possible without the financial support of the company EMC. Equally, as a distributor of analogue devices, EMC led the creation of the design, which turned out well.

GS: Did you never intend to capitalize on it?

Stefan Schmidt: Definitely not. I think the marketing opportunities for large analogue projects have generally become very seldom and they depend on many factors, which cannot be calculated or estimated.  The option of making a business out of it always exists in principle, but to want to plan it is very difficult.

GS: What factors do you think are the most critical?

Stefan Schmidt: The decisive factor in my opinion is the development of the components market. The rapid development in the digital sector offers plenty of potential for both innovation as well as the ability to continuously reduce the selling prices.

The development of the analogue sector is rather the reverse of this. The price trend is upwards. New components that bring hope of innovation are few.  And mere imitation (“cloning”) is becoming more and more difficult because parts are being discontinued. The days of analogue “synthesizer chips” – as a prerequisite for the realization of analogue polyphonic synthesizers – are a thing of the past; discrete solutions are, at least for major projects, cost-and time-intensive.

Little or no innovation in the analogue field is not much of a purchase incentive. To stimulate this, manufacturers are forced to reduce prices by whatever means possible or to use other solutions to achieve a “must have” effect. Many manufacturers are very creative in this respect and also deliver good products. The intrinsic qualities of a product were originally of a musical nature, but they have become less decisive to sales success; marketing plays a much bigger part in its success or failure.

GS: No comment.

Stefan Schmidt: All this brings a further factor with it that cannot be ignored – analogue legends are based on antiquated technology, but in terms of their sophistication, they are still the be-all and end-all. The ‘new’ analogues can’t hold a candle to them – how could they? These legends ultimately come from a time when it was still the intention of the developer to build a musical instrument and not a “cash cow”. This is also reflected in the sound, and the term “legendary sound” is by no means just a cliché!

This of course complicates the marketing opportunities for the ‘new’ analogues. They not only have modern sound generators as competitors – “price” is the key word here – but also the ‘old’ analogues because of their good image. “Cloning” is nothing more than an attempt to capitalize on this image.  It works all the better, the more one drives this image artificially high by means of marketing techniques. Innovation falls by the wayside and is perhaps not even desired.

To take the wind out of the sails of my admittedly very critical view I would like to finally note that analogue sound generators have their place and they should also keep this place in the future.  They earn the label “musical instrument” particularly so because due to their errors, tolerances, lack of precision they are distinguished by a high degree of naturalness. Digital sound generators can sound as good as they like and be as inexpensive as they like, they are and will remain mere computers.

GS: You were discussing previously the problems developers of analogue circuit design can meet. How was it for you e.g. with regard to the availability of components?

Stefan Schmidt: In the SCHMIDT I don’t use any “old” synthesizer chips; all the circuits are realized with discrete components that are still available. Of course, envelopes and LFOs are based on a software basis. Modern controller technology or, as the case may be, converter technology has now advanced so far that these purely analogue solutions are absolutely equal. For the sake of the performance and owing to the high number of modulators several autonomous control units are in operation in the SCHMIDT.

The risk of obsolete components exists of course for the SCHMIDT as well. A discontinuation does not necessarily mean that the project is over, as there are often still large stocks remaining on the components market – even several years after discontinuation. The procurement of obsolete parts can still be a problem, as the prices increase dramatically from one moment to the next. This is a risk not to be underestimated for products that are tightly calculated or for large numbers of units. In the case of the SCHMIDT, however, I don’t see this danger.

GS: Can you please give us a detailed overview of what the SCHMIDT will have on board in the final version?

Stefan Schmidt: The fair prototype is functionally already the final version, aside from some modifications to the casing and the software, which still has to be completed.

• 8 voices with multimode and single outputs
• Access to all parameters of controls

Per Voice:

• 4 analogue oscillators
• 5 analogue filters:
• 2 Moog lowpass ladder filters with high pass, band-pass extension
• 2 dual multimode filters, distortion
• 1 12dB lowpass filter
• Separate modulators (envelopes, LFOs) for filters and oscillators
• Stereo panning
• Separate master envelope
• Filter crossfading function
• Controllers: joystick, aftertouch, mod wheel, routable to all parameters

GS: Let us begin with the oscillators. As they are four in number they have quite a bit on offer. How would you characterise them?

Stefan Schmidt: The 4 oscillators differ mainly in their waveforms

• Osc1: saw, square, pulse, noise, 4-Pulse, ring modulator
• Osc2: saw, square, pulse, noise, ring modulator
• Osc3: saw, square, pulse, sync + suboscillator
• Osc4: multiple ring modulator, “metallic noise”

Triangle or sine-like spectra can be generated with a filter (of which there are plenty).

GS: Can you please explain the “metallic noise” in more detail?

Stefan Schmidt: It is produced by a chain of several ring modulators with differently-tuned oscillators. This produces a noise similar to random noise, but has in contrast to white noise also clearly audible harmonic components, practically a “pitch”. I called it “metallic noise” because in this way metallic percussion instruments such as cymbals, hi hats, etc. can be generated in the analogue domain.

GS: In the case of the oscillators, can you tell us what digital is about them and in which other instruments this technology was also used?

Stefan Schmidt: That’s a very good question, which I would like to answer in more detail.

It’s probably already got around that my oscillators are DCOs. That this fact would rekindle debate is, of course, what I expected. If this is to be conducted it should take place on a factual level.

At the time, DCOs were developed to address a marginal weakness of classic analogue VCOs – their poor tuning stability. A variant that exists is to synchronize a VCO using a digital oscillator (which is stable as it is quartz-based). The waveform is generated by the VCO as before (i.e. purely analogue) with the difference that the frequency of the digital oscillator is “forced”.  Typical “DCO’s” that work on this principle are, for example, the Juno 6/60, Matrix 1000 or the Matrix 6.

To avoid misunderstandings: the technically correct term for this variant would actually be TCVCO “timer controlled VCO”. The term DCO, “Digital Controlled Oscillator” as a generic term also includes variants that are implemented pure digitally, a fact that has certainly contributed to the bad reputation of DCOs.

For my oscillators I have adopted the version “TCVCO”, but further developed – especially with a very finely adjustable fine-tuning – and also given each oscillator a separate control unit.  So all the oscillators run autonomously, i.e. they are not coupled.  In contrast to pure VCO there is no danger of “catching”.

GS: Can you please explain that to us in a little more detail?

Stefan Schmidt: This is what we call it when two oscillators are slightly detuned and influence one another so that they vibrate at the same frequency. The reason for this is usually bad circuit board design and is annoying, as it means that low beat frequencies are not possible. I would like to add one thing with regard to DCO vs. VCO: both have advantages as well as disadvantages. It would be unfair, in my opinion, however, to sweep the following major difference under the rug: DCOs are principally stable and reliable – virtually without restriction until the end of their lives. You can precisely program very fine detuning, and also reproduce it accurately. With a VCO that is not possible. If the tuning instability exceeds acceptable levels, the sound quality often suffers heavily. That is also a large annoyance now as in the past, of which you can read in the relevant forums over and over again.

The sound quality of an analogue synthesizer depends of course also on many other factors in addition to the oscillators, such as the type and number of filters, the modulation sources, the overall concept and its complexity and numerous other factors. Ultimately, the only decisive factor is how it sounds, how this is technically feasible, be it digital, analogue or virtual analogue, I really do not care.

GS: After the oscillators we turn to the mixer, which also offers a number of features, but is displaced from the filter section. Can you tell us something about this?

Stefan Schmidt: The filter section is undoubtedly the most powerful component, and is, so to speak, the heart of the SCHMIDT.

It consists of two identical groups, with each group consisting of a Moog ladder filter and a dual multimode filter. Dual means two parallel connected single filters with different selectable filter types: lowpass, highpass and bandpass. Here I was inspired by the great sounding filter structure of the Matrix 12.

The two Moog filters/dual multimoders can be optionally connected in parallel or serially. All the filters have separate modulation sources (ENVs +LFOs) and are additionally modulated by an oscillator. Another feature is the additional bandpass and highpass modes offered by the Moog filters.

The two filter groups can be mixed with an additional 5th filter at the output (lowpass, without modulation). In this way, the output signal can be refreshed with powerful bass frequencies, if the group filter is being specially used for bandpass or highpass filtering.

GS: If I remember correctly, in this way you have direct access to every parameter. It is also worth considering that the individual blocks are hard-wired, which contributes amongst others to the impressive number of envelopes and LFOs, etc. What else does the SCHMIDT offer that is never or seldom found in other systems?

Stefan Schmidt: Functionally, I know of no detail that could not be realized just as well with a suitably-equipped modular system. This is because the sound generation is based on simple basic components.

However: the concept of hard wiring and the “complete editability” in my opinion allows for a much faster and more intuitive approach to sound creation – which is also associated with a higher fun factor. Above all, this is thanks to the modulation concept of the SCHMIDT (many separate modulation sources), something that is rarely found in this form in other synthesizers. These are typically based on a modulation matrix, which admittedly provides added more possibilities, but is often very complex and then turns out to be quite hard work.

As an example I would cite the volume control of the SCHMIDT. The filter section, which consists of four filters, is connected together in 2 groups at the output. Their volume mix can then be either manually controlled, by velocity, or by a separate crossfade function – this is easily and quickly editable. Behind the mix there is of course a master ADSR.

Alternatively, I could have added an own volume ADSR to each filter or a complex scanner module instead. However, this would make a significant editing effort necessary.

GS: Having heard all this, the question arises whether there is anything that you wanted to include in the SCHMIDT, but could not implement due to technical or other reasons?

Stefan Schmidt: Sure. If the “old reliable” or advanced synthesizer chips had been in adequate supply at a competitive price, I would have preferred them to any discrete solution – not for monophonic synthesizers necessarily but for polyphonic instruments as the key to facilitating an acceptable price. As examples I would like to mention precision-VCO CEM3340 or the CEM 3372 (multimode filter!).

Even though there are plenty of very good effect instruments, I had furthermore planned a high-quality analogue effects section. A system based on a bucket-brigade delay including chorus + flanger. I could not realize this due to a lack of time, as this too, in accordance with the sound production, would have become colossal in size.

In addition, there are plenty of other excellent modules, especially in the analogue field, such as waveshaper, distortion, other filter types, complex modulations, etc. If I had wanted to implement all of this, then my “battleship” would still be in the dry dock and would perhaps never be seaworthy (laughs).

GS: What synthesizers do you find interesting and why? What are your favourite instruments?

Stefan Schmidt: During the analogue era, my favourite instruments were the Oberheim Matrix 12 and the Roland Jupiter 8 because of their sound possibilities (and the Roland Jupiter 8 was also my top favourite because of the way it looked). In general anything new has inspired me, because if it offers new sound possibilities, such as the Yamaha DX7, in particular the sampler and “rompler”.

Over time, synthesizer technology has developed so rapidly that modern synthesizers all sound excellent to me personally, and above all there are top devices for the most diverse uses and music genres. Incidentally: I am not a professional musician and could definitely be wrong there.

GS: When did you actually start with the development and do you know how much time you’ve invested in this project?

Stefan Schmidt: I started about 8 years ago. How much time I have effectively invested I can’t say, because I took a few breaks during this time and also had side jobs.

GS: That speaks for itself and I don’t think that I only speak for myself when I say we wish you every success with the SCHMIDT. To believe a project to such an extent and not to give up, that demands respect. But there must have been times that were anything but easy for you – how are you getting on with the SCHMIDT now?

Stefan Schmidt: Thank you for wishing me success.

As you correctly guessed, there were stages that were not easy and there would have been reason enough to stop the project. With this project I’ve certainly also realized a small dream, but question of how I’m supposed to my living and whether or not the synthesizer can ever contribute to that is really hanging over my head like the sword of Damocles.

The question of the future of the SCHMIDT (or to be more precise, the SCHMIDTs) is still unclear. There are enough reasons to both leave it as a prototype, as well as to attempt a short production run. I think everyone can assume that this is primarily due to financial reasons.

I am currently in the process of carefully considering this. As I mentioned earlier, I had vastly underestimated the time required for the development, and a short production run would add a large financial outlay to this. Apart from this, the market for such highly-priced equipment is extremely “slim”.

A short production run – a very very short production run – would be great.

GS: What is the status quo? And of course the questions that will concern many people – can you say anything about the price, the number of SCHMIDTS built, when the first will be ready and how or from whom you can order the SCHMIDT – directly from you?

Stefan Schmidt: At the fair I gave no information on the possible purchase price, so I was very surprised when I was told that this should be approximately €25,000.I am currently calculating a very short production run. But it is still too early to be able to give accurate information on price and quantity, and therefore ask for your understanding.

Of course – as everyone would expect – financing will be a crucial question. At this time it is not really clarified. So forgive me if I can’t make any further answers to your questions. I don’t want to make any promises that I can’t keep in the end!

But back to the status quo. I’m making a few needed changes to the casing. The unit will be thoroughly tested and the software has still to be completed. The functionality and operational concept will correspond to the prototype, nothing will be changed there!

GS: An instrument that has swallowed up so much development time and is handmade in Germany will have a certain price and will therefore probably only be accessible to a select circle of interested parties. In any case, we wish you much success and we would be happy if you kept us up to date.

Many thanks for the interview.

ADDENDUM – Musikmesse Frankfurt 2012