WAEVE82 First Play

 New wavetable synth from AE modular

Thanks to Carsten

Vidirol: Kickstarter VST demo (hands on)

....

Kickstarter link:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/synth-bt/vidirol-control-roland-edirol-video-mixers

ARP 2500 - 1042 module

 This is one of ARPs 2500 "lost modules"

I've never seen one of these ... even as a picture.

I don't know if any were even produced.

Please let me know if you have any info .

I have a AM Synths AM1042.

It's probably the closest I'll ever get to one of these.

There are 3 circuits using the ARP 4019 VCA circuit

in each case.

The ARP 4019 is a classic discrete transistor voltage-controlled amplifier (VCA) sub-module originally used in the ARP 2600 .

+ ARP 2600 - VCA

VCA  (4010 & 4019)

The circuits have AC & DC inputs

They are classic VCAs

Plug the audio into the AC input & the CV into the DC input.

The DC inputs are better suited for CV signals.

If you just use the 3 AC inputs (for audio) it's a good amplifier

Each circuit has a black slide switch for VCA mode (linear or expo).

So which do I choose??

Linear VCA modes provide a 1:1, natural response ideal for mixing and modulation, while exponential modes produce a "snappier," faster response suited for percussive audio, aligning with how human ears perceive volume. 

Linear is generally best for CV modulation, whereas exponential is preferred for sculpting amplitude envelopes to sound more natural.

Human ears hear logarithmically, so exponential VCA responses often sound more "linear" in volume to our ears, whereas linear VCAs can sound abrupt.

Mixing Methods: If using a linear envelope, an exponential VCA creates a natural-sounding curve. Conversely, if using an exponential envelope, a linear VCA is sufficient.

------------------------------------------

Exponential VCAs (The "Audio/Percussion" Standard)Response: 

Follows an exponential curve; slow initial response, faster later on.Best For: Audio amplitude (VCA as a volume envelope).Characteristics: "Snappier," faster, and more "natural" sounding for percussive or fast amplitude envelopes.Use Case: Percussion sounds, or creating smoother decays if the envelope itself isn't already exponential.

Linear VCAs (The "Modulation" Standard)Response: 

CV input directly maps to audio gain (e.g., 5V = 50% amplitude).Best For: Modulation, controlling other CV signals (FM, PWM), and precision mixing.Characteristics: Easier to predict and manage; sounds more gradual.Use Case: If you need subtle, precise control over modulation depth

Moog Labyrinth - initial thoughts

The Moog Labyrinth is a unique parallel generative analog synthesizer and idea machine, blending East Coast (Moog) and West Coast (Buchla-esque) synthesis with two intertwining, evolving 8-step generative sequencers that create polymetric melodies and textures. 

It features decay-only envelopes, a state-variable filter, wavefolding, and parallel signal paths, designed to add unique soundscapes, rhythm, or color to a studio setup, either standalone or within a Eurorack system.  

There are two sequencers, and two sound paths letting you layer sounds.

The wavefolder is a Buchla thing. The filter is very East Coast Moog.

The 2 pole State-Variable Filter is interesting. I think its a new Moog design that blends between low-pass and band-pass, without self-oscillation. 

The sound sources involve two VCOs ... the top produces a sine wave (the main audio).

the lower VCO is mainly for modulation and produces a triangle wave.... its tunes to a lower frequency than the upper oscillator. 

(Its a interesting choice of waveforms ... there are no saw, square or pulse waves on this synth).

This vco  (FM) cross modulation is a common Buchla idea. The 158 for example used a saw-sine waveform

The audio signal passes through a mixer & noise source.

There are level (LVL) controls for each VCO & noise.

The noise has a tone control

There is also a ring-mod level control which controls the loudness

of the ring-modulated product of the two oscillators.

After the mixer, the signal passes to a filter and a wavefolder.

This can be both (parallel) or either.

The Buchla inspired voltage controlled wavefolder (VCW) is a diode-transistor circuit.

It has two parts: VCW Fold & Bias.

VCW sets the amount of wavefolding.

"Normally, when the gain of an input signal exceeds the headroom of a circuit, the tops and bottoms of the waveform are clipped off, causing distortion (such as in the Labyrinth MIXER). A wavefolder, however, folds the sections of the signal exceeding the floor/ceiling back in on the signal itself, creating new harmonics in the process"

(official manual)

The bias applies a DC voltage offset (achieving asymmetrical folding) to the signal entering the wave folder to emphasize even or odd harmonics.

The wavefolder an be modulated by EG1, SEQ1 & BIAS

These are the patches that came with the synth. A great way to start exploring.

These are just quick lo-fi recordings using my phone mic.

Instant techno drums

Myriads of Ivy

Polymetric Parallel voices

Roland PG1000 programmer - connections to use with D-50

Connecting the Roland D-50 with its PG1000 programmer can be a bit confusing.

These are my notes of how I'm using it with my DAW (Abelton)

The midi merge box I'm using is a simple   ... 3 in / 1 out box

It mixes MIDI from the DAW and PG100 & sends this info to the D-50.

There is one final connection from the D50 back to the programmer.

Here is a pick of the rear of the programmer:

The PG 1000 is a brilliant machine

For the record, here is the rear of the D50

Sir John Templeton

 Sir John Templeton’s famous investment quote is: "Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism, and die on euphoria". He further advised that maximum pessimism is the best time to buy, while maximum optimism (euphoria) is the best time to sell. 

• Meaning: This quote highlights the emotional cycle of market bubbles. "Euphoria" represents the final stage where greed peaks, investors ignore risks, and prices become unsustainable, usually resulting in a market crash.
• Alternative phrasing: He was also known to say, "The market is always born in despair, grows in doubt, matures in longing, and perishes in hope".

Templeton believed in contrarian investing—buying when others are fearful and selling when they are overly optimistic.

Property vs Shares - which is better over 30 years.

I was asked by a friend whether he would ever be able to buy a house to live in.

He is in his mid 20s and can't see any way out of the problem that is the expensive 

Australian housing market. 

Please keep in mind that this is in no way financial advice. I am not a financial planner.

These are just my ideas and opinions.

I suggested starting to build a deposit using shares or an ETF index fund and the conversation quickly turned to shares vs houses as an investment.

This is a common question often asked and the answer isn't clear or easy.

On face value, property seems the obvious method to build real long term wealth.

The percentages seem enormous and a house is tangible in a way that no list of numbers on a website can ever be.

But these comparisons are often not comparing apples with apples.

The raw price data just shows what a buyer paid for a property and what he sold it for on a particular day.

It often doesn't take into account taxes, rates, maintenance, inflation or transaction costs.

Most likely, the house originally purchased 30 years ago isn't the same house sold.

Most houses have a lifespan of 30 - 40 years. They need replacing or upgrading at least once in that period. Floors need fixing. Kitchens need updates. Plumbing, electrical, roofing needs will occur.

The average house costs 1million to build today & it's probably likely that one will spend the same amount just to maintain its value over a 30 year period.

Consider the example of a house purchased in 1996.

In 1996, the median house price in Sydney was approximately $200,000.

Over the next 30 years, if nothing was spent on it, by 2026 it's probably run-down 

and needs to be  rebuilt.

Say the owner spends 1million to rebuild and sells it for 2 Million.

On paper, the records will show that the property was purchased for 200K in 1996 and sold for 2M in 2026.

To calculate the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) — the average percentage return per year over 30 years.

The formula is:

$\text{CAGR}={\left(\frac{\text{Final Value}}{\text{Initial Value}}\right)}^{\frac{1}{n}}-1$

Now plug in your numbers:

• Initial value = 200,000
• Final value = 2,000,000
• Time = 30 years

So:

$$\text{CAGR}=(10{)}^{1\mathrm{/}30}-1$$

That works out to approximately:

≈ 7.97% per year

This looks good on paper, but the underlying costs are what raw house price data charts miss.

They never appear in the growth data that real estate agents use to argue that property beats shares.

Shares work very differently.

If you look at the returns for indices like the S&P 500, the Nasdaq or the ASX 200 those returns already include all the ongoing costs to run a business and keep it growing. They include the research & development, investments, building renovations, corporate fees, insurance and land tax , etc etc.

Dividends are only paid you you after the company has covered all it's costs.

These dividends can receive a further boost with franking credits (in Australia only).

So my quick answer to his question is: 

If you are a self motivated & disciplined saver, equities are the answer (by a country mile).

But, If you need to be forced to save, getting a mortgage is probably the best way to go since

the bank will force you to make the 3K-4K deposits per month (which is standard these days).

For example,

A $500,000 mortgage typically results in monthly repayments between $2,850 and $3,400+ at current Australian interest rates (approx. 5.5%–7%) over 30 years. Lower rates near 4% bring payments down to roughly $2,387, while higher rates significantly increase them.

Typical $500k Monthly Repayments (30 Years, Principal & Interest):

5.5% Interest Rate: Approx. $2,839 per month.

6.0% Interest Rate: Approx. $2,998 per month.

6.5% Interest Rate: Approx. $3,160 per month.

7.0% Interest Rate: Approx. $3,327 per month

=====================================================

To further investigate this question we asked Chat GPT this question:

"compare a 500k deposit + 500K mortgage on a Australian home (monthly repayments between $2,850 and $3,400+ at current Australian interest rates (approx. 5.5%–7%) over 30 years) vs the same in Australian shares (500K initial investment + 3000 per month top up over 30 years)"

This was it's response:

• Property: $500k deposit + $500k mortgage
• Shares: $500k upfront + $3,000/month
• Time horizon: 30 years

I’ll walk through this cleanly and then give you the real-world conclusion.

---

📊 Key assumptions (based on real Australian data)

• Australian shares: ~9–10% p.a. long-term
• Property:
  • ~5–6% capital growth
  • ~7–9% total return incl. rent (before costs)

---

🏠 Scenario A — Property

Inputs

• $1M property
• $500k loan
• ~$3,000/month repayments
• 30 years

---

💰 Total cash invested

• Deposit: $500k
• Mortgage payments: ~$1.1M
  👉 Total out-of-pocket ≈ $1.6M

---

📈 Property value after 30 years

• 5% growth → $4.3M
• 6% growth → $5.7M
• 7% growth → $7.6M

---

🧾 Net wealth

Mortgage is fully paid off:

👉 Final wealth ≈ $4.3M – $7.6M

---

⚠️ Reality check 

Property returns are not clean:

• Stamp duty (~$40–50k)
• Maintenance (~1–2%/yr)
• Insurance, rates
• Selling costs

👉 These can reduce returns by 1–2% per year, which is massive over 30 years

---

📈 Scenario B — Shares

Inputs

• $500k upfront
• $3,000/month for 30 years
• Total invested = $1.58M (almost identical to property)

---

💰 Future value

At different return levels:

• 7% → $5.9M
• 8% → $7.5M
• 9% → $9.6M
• 10% → $12.4M
• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario	Property	Shares
Total invested	~$1.6M	~$1.58M
Leverage	Yes	No
Expected return	~6–8% net	~8–10%
Final wealth	$4.3M–$7.6M	$5.9M–$12.4M
Risk	Concentrated	Diversified
Liquidity	Low	High

......

**************************************************************

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*******************************************************************

Now lets add dividends vs rent to the equation.

This is the missing piece that makes the comparison more realistic.

Now we’ll include:

• 🏠 Rental income (property)
• 📈 Dividends (shares)

And compare total return.

---

🏠 Scenario A — Property (with rent)

Assumptions (typical Australia)

• Property value: $1M
• Rental yield: 3–4%
• Growth: 5–6% p.a.
• Costs: ~1.5–2% p.a. (maintenance, rates, insurance, vacancy)

---

💰 Rental income

• Gross rent: $30k–$40k/year
• Costs: ~$15k–$20k/year

👉 Net rent: ~$10k–$20k/year initially

Important:

• Rent grows over time (inflation + demand)
• By year 30 → could be ~$40k–$80k/year net

---

📈 Total return breakdown

Property total return ≈

• Capital growth: 5–6%
• Net rental yield: ~1–2% after costs

👉 Total ≈ 6–8% p.a.

---

💰 Final outcome (30 years)

• Property value: $4.3M – $5.7M (5–6%)
• Plus rental income accumulated (if reinvested): adds ~$0.5M–$1.5M

👉 Total effective wealth: ~$5M – $7M

---

📈 Scenario B — Shares (with dividends)

Assumptions (Australian market)

Using something like the S&P/ASX 200 Index:

• Dividend yield: ~4%
• Growth: ~5–6%
• Total return: ~9–10% p.a.

---

💰 Dividends

Year 1:

• $500k × 4% = $20k/year

Over time:

• Dividends grow with market (~5–6%)

By year 30:

• Annual dividends ≈ $150k–$300k/year

---

🔁 Reinvestment effect (this is huge)

If dividends are reinvested:

👉 They drive ~50%+ of total returns

---

💰 Final outcome (30 years)

With:

• $500k upfront
• $3k/month
• 9–10% return

👉 Portfolio value:

• $9M – $12M

Breakdown:

• Capital: ~$6M–$8M
• Dividends compounding: ~$3M–$4M

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Negative Gearing vs Franking Credits.

This is an after-tax comparison (franking credits vs negative gearing).

This is where the comparison gets real, because Australia’s tax system materially changes outcomes.

I’ll compare:

• 🏠 Property with negative gearing → later positive gearing
• 📈 Shares with dividends + franking credits

Using realistic Australian assumptions.

Australia is rare in the world as it rewards share owners with franking credits.

Franking credits are tax offsets attached to dividends from Australian companies that have already paid tax on their profits, preventing double taxation. They allow shareholders to receive a credit for tax paid by the company, which can offset personal tax liabilities or result in a cash refund if the credits exceed the tax owed.

---

Key tax concepts 

Shares → Franking credits

Using something like the S&P/ASX 200 Index:

• Dividends are often fully franked
• Company already paid 30% tax
• You get a tax credit for that
• Result: higher effective income, especially if your tax rate <30%

---

Property → Negative gearing

• Early years: losses (interest > rent)
• Loss reduces your taxable income → tax refund
• Later: becomes positively geared → taxable income

Negative gearing is an investment strategy, common in Australia, where the costs of owning an asset (such as mortgage interest, maintenance, and rates) exceed the income it generates (like rent). This creates a net loss, which investors can deduct from their other income—such as salary—to pay less income tax. It is often used with the goal of capital growth.

---

🏠 PROPERTY — After-tax reality

Early years (negative gearing phase)

Typical:

• Rent: ~$30k
• Costs + interest: ~$40k–$45k
  👉 Loss: ~$10k–$15k

If you're on a 37% tax rate:

👉 Tax refund: $3.7k–$5.5k/year

✔️ Helps cash flow
❌ But you're still losing money overall

---

Later years (positive gearing)

Once rent rises and loan shrinks:

• Rent: ~$60k–$80k
• Costs: ~$20k
  👉 Profit: ~$40k–$60k

Tax:

• At 37% → $15k–$22k tax/year

---

Capital gains tax (CGT)

If investment property:

• 50% CGT discount after 12 months

Example:

• Gain: $4M
• Taxable: $2M
• Tax ≈ $740k (at 37%)

---

🧾 Property after-tax summary

• Tax benefits early: moderate
• Tax drag later: significant
• Big CGT bill at the end

👉 Net effect:

Tax reduces returns by ~1–2% per year over long term

---

📈 SHARES — After-tax reality

Dividends + franking

Example:

• Dividend yield: 4%
• Fully franked

On $500k:

• Cash dividend: $20k
• Franking credit: ~$8.6k
• Grossed-up income: ~$28.6k

---

Tax impact

If tax rate = 37%:

• Tax on $28.6k = ~$10.6k
• Minus franking credit ($8.6k)

👉 Tax payable: ~$2k only

---

If tax rate <30%:

👉 You actually get a refund

---

Capital gains (shares)

• Same 50% CGT discount
• BUT:
  • You control when to sell
  • Can spread gains across years

👉 Much more tax flexibility than property

---

🧾 Shares after-tax summary

• Dividends: tax-efficient
• Franking credits: huge advantage
• CGT: controllable

👉 Net effect:

Tax drag closer to 0.5–1% per year

---

⚖️ AFTER-TAX COMPARISON

Factor	Property	Shares
Early tax benefit	✅ Negative gearing	❌ None needed
Ongoing tax	❌ High (rent taxed)	✅ Reduced via franking
CGT flexibility	❌ Low (sell all at once)	✅ High (sell gradually)
Tax efficiency	❌ Moderate	✅ High
Net return after tax	~5–6%	~7–9%

---

🧠 The big insight

👉 Negative gearing is often overrated

It:

• Reduces losses
• But doesn’t create profit

You’re still:

Spending $1 to get ~$0.37 back

---

👉 Franking credits are underrated

They:

• Boost income significantly
• Reduce or eliminate tax
• Compound over time

---

🏁 Final conclusion

Shares are significantly more tax-efficient and typically deliver higher net returns than a leveraged investment property (esp when adding in franking credits).

---

⚠️ One exception (very important)

If the property is the home you live in

• ❌ No negative gearing
• ✅ No capital gains tax EVER

👉 That is a massive advantage

In that case:

Property can outperform shares purely due to CGT exemption

And you can't place a price on the stability to one's life when you know you can't be kicked out if the landlord doesn't like you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Final Take Home Thoughts:

If you go the shares path you have the option to save at any rate you like . You can enjoy your life a bit more that those with a mortgage, so your final figure will probably be less (if you are saving less per month than someone who has the bank breathing down their neck).... 

But then life is meant to be enjoyed , esp when you are young.

The lack of leverage is a blessing and a curse. It reduces the upside & also the downside.

I don't like debt so I think of it more as a plus.

But, 

If you are the sort of person who likes to go shopping every time you get a pay rise then get a mortgage.

The bank will be your savings enforcer.