Organised  Soundhttp://journals.cambridge.org/OSO

Additional  services  for  Organised  Sound:

Email  alerts:  Click  here

Subscriptions:  Click  here

Commercial  reprints:  Click  here

Terms  of  use  :  Click  here

Repurposing  the  Past:  The  Phantastron  and  appropriating  history  as  a  DIYapproach

Lorin  Edwin  Parker

Organised  Sound  /  Volume  18  /  Special  Issue  03  /  December  2013,  pp  292  -­  298

DOI:  10.1017/S1355771813000265,  Published  online:  12  November  2013

Link  to  this  article:  http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1355771813000265

How  to  cite  this  article:Lorin  Edwin  Parker  (2013).  Repurposing  the  Past:  The  Phantastron  and  appropriating  history  as  a  DIY  approach.  Organised

Sound,  18,  pp  292-­298  doi:10.1017/S1355771813000265

Request  Permissions  :  Click  here

Downloaded  from  http://journals.cambridge.org/OSO,  IP  address:  130.216.158.78  on  24  Jun  2014

Repurposing the Past: The Phantastron andappropriating history as a DIY approach

LORIN EDWIN PARKER

Electronic Media Division, College-Conservatory of Music, 4200 Mary Emery Hall, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,OH 45221-0003, USAE-mail: lorin.parker@uc.edu

Historical models may often provide some of the greatestinspiration for the creation of new technologies. A DIYapproach appropriating older paradigms in technology isdiscussed, with special attention paid to how old concepts canbecome relevant within a modern context. The author’selectronic instrument, the Phantastron, is introduced as anexample of this DIY approach. The Phantastron’s creationis detailed in practice and methods such as repurposing,redesigning, hacking and circuit bending upon a historicaldesign are described. A wider angle is then cast upon theconcept of repurposing older technologies, and the works ofother artists and DIY makers are considered. The conceptthat antiquated technology is in the common domain andready to be utilised in the synthesis of new ideas is discussed.Finally, a generalised DIY approach to integrating historicalideas into new creations is posited.

1. SYNTHESISING A NEW DIY APPROACH

By founding DIY methods for the creation of electronicinstruments upon historical precedent and research,truly unique instruments can be created which breakaway from contemporary norms. These instrumentsexist in a parallel time line; they are contemporarycreations, but born of methods that are firmly rooted inthe past. They are not historical replicas, but newdevelopments upon technological ideas and idioms ofan earlier era. The resulting instrument, created in thisstyle, embodies many of the qualities of historicalinstruments, but is designed for the world of today andideally suited to contemporary performance practice.As an illustration of this concept, the author presentshis historically inspired instrument, the Phantastron.

The Phantastron is a DIY vacuum tube instrumentthat produces a broad variety of complex timbres andpitches. It is essentially a vacuum tube oscillator andwave shaper that generates a waveform that is unlikethose produced by modern solid-state oscillators.The Phantastron produces an array of sounds whichcan sound somewhat similar to the ondes martenot orthe Trautonium. Due to its vacuum tube topology,though, it sounds different from a solid-state analoguesynthesiser.

Unlike early twentieth-century vacuum tubeinstruments, the Phantastron utilises voltage control

of its pitch like a modern analogue synthesiser. It canbe manipulated by any controller capable of producinga control voltage or by a MIDI-to-control-voltageconverter. This allows the instrument to be manipulatedby musical keyboards, ribbon controllers, experimentaland alternative controllers, and sequencers. In perform-ance, the player has the flexibility to control the soundof the instrument by many different methods, whichallows great freedom for the performer to choose howto interact with the instrument.

1.1. Creating the Phantastron

I first conceived of an instrument like the Phantastronwhile shopping at a surplus electronics dealer in LosAngeles with my colleague Nicolas Collins. Collinsfound a dusty old book from 1956, Analog ComputerTechniques by Clarence L. Johnson, and persuadedme to buy it for my research into analogue soundcreation. This book contained many examples of themanipulations of voltage and current to performmathematical operations, but it also illustrated thatone could use the technology of the 1950s tomanipulate voltage in complex and interesting ways.After scanning the book I recalled an article I hadread by Eric Barbour which detailed how he usedvacuum tubes to build vacuum tube synthesisers withvoltage control (Barbour 2000). By combiningJohnson’s and Barbour’s concepts, I realised that itwas possible, using vacuum tubes, to create a voltage-controllable instrument with a unique and complexwaveform. At this point I also realised that researchfrom vintage books and sources could provide a methodto create such an instrument.

Although Johnson’s Analog Computer Techniquesprovided the germ of an idea, it did not illustratepractical circuits I could use in the creation of aninstrument. At this point, I began to seek out elec-tronics books from the 1940s and 1950s to find moreinspiration and reference material. Samuel Seely’s1958 book Electron-Tube Circuits eventually providedme with the detailed explanation of a circuit thatcould be adapted for use in an electronic musicalinstrument. In particular, Seely’s chapter on ‘Heavily

Organised Sound 18(3): 292–298 & Cambridge University Press, 2013. doi:10.1017/S1355771813000265

Biased Relaxation Circuits’ illustrated circuits thatcreated many waveforms that could be sonicallyinteresting (Seely 1958: 452–504).The Phantastron instrument is named for its

primary sound-generating and shaping circuit, thephantastron circuit. This circuit was developed by theBritish and utilised in radar applications duringWorld War II (Seely 1958: 472). The circuit is a Millerintegrator built around a single pentode vacuumtube. The pentode takes a sharp pulse as its input,integrates it between its grids, and outputs a morelinear ramp-shaped pulse, which can be used in radarapplications. The circuit was given its flamboyantname by Frederic Calland Williams, a researcher atthe Telecommunications Research Establishmentwhere it was developed (Napper 2000). It is assumed,from its name, that Williams felt that the circuit wasin some way ‘fantastic’.Prior to the creation of the Phantastron instrument,

it was unprecedented to use the phantastron circuitto create audio. Audio waveforms are synthesised atmuch lower frequencies than the pulses used in radarapplications, and the phantastron circuit requiredadaptation and retuning to run at audio frequency.For audio application, it was necessary to changemany of the component values within the classic radarcircuit, causing it to oscillate at audible frequencies.Figure 1 shows the phantastron circuit used in the

Phantastron instrument and the associated compo-nent values. The circuit generates a unique pulse oroscillation through the Miller feedback created byC1, a capacitor connecting the anode of the tube withthe grid. When a triggering pulse is applied to thesuppressor through the pulse input, the anode beginsconducting. As the anode conducts, it drops in volt-age and transfers its charge to the grid through C1.This, in turn, causes a gradual rise in the voltageof the grid resulting in a linear drop of the anodevoltage. Initially, the anode voltage drops suddenly,but the effect of the rising grid then slows the drop toa linear ramp down as the grid rises proportionally.This linear ramp down in the waveform is clearly seenin Figure 2 just after the initial drop from the wave’speak point. The ramp down is termed the ‘Millerrundown’ and its length is determined largely by C1 andthe resistance of R4 and R5, which hold the grid at alower voltage than the anode and the screen (RoyalAir Force 1962). Increasing C1 results in a longer Millerrundown time and lengthens the period of the wave-form. Once the grid voltage has risen sufficiently to cutoff the flow of current between the anode and cathode,conduction stops and the wave drops precipitously toits lowest point. When this happens, C1 can rechargeand the anode and grid can return to their startingpoint to start another cycle. This recharge period is seenin Figure 2, where the wave rises in two distinct,exponential arcs back to the peak point.

To retune the phantastron for musical and audioapplications, the Miller rundown period wasincreased by enlarging C1. This lengthened the periodof the waveform and brought the frequency ofoscillation down into the audio range. Choosing alarge resistor for R4 also contributed to a longerperiod by keeping the grid voltage low. In order toallow the performer to tune the frequency of oscil-lation somewhat with the turn of a knob, the logtaper potentiometer R5 was added. When R5 isturned to a greater resistance, the cycle lengthincreases and the frequency drops. With C1 at 0.01microfarads and R4 at 470 kiloohms, the phantastron

Figure 1. The phantastron circuit used within the Phantastroninstrument.

Figure 2. A typical waveform generated by the Phantastroninstrument.

Repurposing the Past 293

circuit used in the instrument oscillates at about200Hz when no synchronising input pulse train ispresent to change the frequency.

The phantastron circuit used in the instrumentalso uses a different value of R3. In the classicradar circuit, this cathode resistor is a higher value,which keeps the circuit in monostable operation.A monostable phantastron does not oscillate freely.Instead, it returns to a resting state after generatingeach pulse. It was experimentally determined thatthe phantastron circuit sounds better when config-ured in astable operation, wherein the phantastronimmediately starts generating another pulse after ithas completed a cycle. With R3 at 10 kiloohms, thephantastron oscillates freely in an astable mode ofoperation. Despite the fact that the astable phantas-tron oscillates on its own, it will still synchronise itsown pulses to incoming pulses presented at the sup-pressor. Thus, the phantastron circuit used in theinstrument will synchronise its frequency to anotherwaveform fed to it through the pulse input. Thisfacility allows the Phantastron instrument to havevoltage-controlled frequency via another circuit thatconverts control voltages into pulses.

As a result of retuning the circuit, the pulses generatedvary from their radar counterparts. The wave generatedat the anode, as a whole, is less linear and more expo-nential in shape than the waves shown in radar texts.Also, waveform shape varies slightly depending uponfrequency, the shape of the input pulse and which gridof the pentode vacuum tube is being used for output(output can be obtained from the anode, the screen orthe grid). However, most waveforms produced by thePhantastron instrument exhibit sharp pulses connectedby exponential ramps similar to those shown in Figure2. Although these waveforms are notably less linear thanthose produced by the classic radar circuit, they add agreat deal of sonic interest to the instrument as theshapes generate many rich harmonics.

After the fundamental circuit was retuned, much ofthe tone and operation of the Phantastron instrumentwas perfected during the prototyping phase. Toprototype the instrument, rather than calculating anddrafting the circuits strictly according to texts andresearch, I chose to take a much more DIY approach.I built the circuits by constructing the basic circuitand then hacking or circuit bending it until it pro-duced interesting sonic results. I replaced and addedcomponents experimentally to shape the circuitsinto what I wanted. To make the instrument moreadjustable, I also experimented with replacing var-ious fixed resistors with potentiometers that couldprovide knobs to control facets of the instrument.This process was slow going and unpredictable, andresulted in more failures than successes, but allowedthe instrument to develop uniquely and organically.Although the finalised instrument still contains a

circuit with the phantastron circuit topology, theexperimental method of construction changed thenuance of its operation greatly from the textbookcircuit. At this point, the Phantastron instrument’swaveforms are rather unlike the more linear wave-forms of the phantastron circuit illustrated in Seely’stext (Seely 1958: 473).

Through adapting the phantastron circuit to audiofrequency and adjusting its components I also dis-covered that the circuit was reactive at its input tomuch more than simple pulses and oscillators. I dis-covered that the circuit I built would shape almostany stable audio input. Furthermore, the circuit wouldmatch its output pitch to the pitch of the input audio.While prototyping, I was able to sing into a high-impedance microphone plugged into the Phantastronand the instrument would match pitch perfectly withthe singing while reshaping the audio into its char-acteristic pulses. I capitalised on this feature by addingan audio or ‘sync’ input to the Phantastron.

To add stability to the instrument and providevoltage control of the frequency, a gas thyratrontube oscillator was added in front of the Phantastron’sactual phantastron circuit. This feeds the phantastroncircuit with the steady, controllable pulses that are tobe shaped into more complex waves. The circuitwas influenced by ‘an improved trautonium circuitarrangement’ illustrated and described in S.K. Lewer’s1948 monograph Electronic Musical Instruments (Lewer1948: 27). Eric Barbour’s synthesis article then providedinsight on how to adapt this circuit to make it voltagecontrollable (Barbour 2000). The final oscillator, alsoprototyped in the manner of the phantastron circuit,adds its own colour to the instrument and, perhaps,increases its resemblance to the Trautonium.

It is important to note that the vacuum tubes used inthe Phantastron are not currently manufactured.During design and prototyping I had to choose vintagevacuum tubes that are cheap and plentiful on thesurplus market. Eventually, I settled on the commonand cheap 2D21 thyratron tube and the 6SJ7 pentode.The availability of parts was especially important sinceI was considering selling the instrument as a DIY kit.

The final prototype and later instruments wereconstructed in the style of 1950s circuits upon turretboards using point-to-point wiring. I chose thismethod of construction over modern printed circuit-board construction for a number of reasons. Firstly,I believed that there would be a small chance thatpoint-to-point construction could affect the overallsound of the instrument and reduce the possibility of‘cross talk’ common to circuit boards. Indeed, withvacuum tube circuits powered at 901 volts, there is agreater potential for such hot signals to cross wireson the circuit board and create unwanted noise.Secondly, turret-board construction results in a largercircuit layout and makes the construction convenient

294 Lorin Edwin Parker

when using large vacuum tubes. Finally, I felt thatconstructing the instrument in a historical mannerwould add aesthetic appeal by making the instrumentappear more like an artefact than a brand new device.

2. PRECEDENTS AND OTHER ARTISTSAPPROPRIATING VINTAGE TECHNOLOGY

The method and approach applied in creating thePhantastron are not unprecedented. There are manytechnological artists and DIY makers that haveapplied historical appropriations in their creation of anew object.In his 2004 installation Firebirds, Paul DeMarinis

creates a space inhabited by flames that are modu-lated to reproduce speech. The flames themselvesreplace the role of a loudspeaker and create all soundin the environment, speaking famous speeches byHitler, Mussolini and Stalin. DeMarinis drew uponan old technology developed in 1967 by militaryresearchers at United Technologies Corporation toturn the acetylene burning flames into sound trans-ducers (DeMarinis 2004). DeMarinis comments onhis exploration of a series of old, lost technologies tomodulate flames in his artist’s statement: ‘Thespeaking flames of Firebirds follow in this successionof orphaned technologies – devices that actually workbut failed to enter the dominant discourse’ (2004).Historical research and re-invention of old technol-ogies and designs are common in much of DeMarinis’installation art. In Firebirds and his other work, theold is re-invented and made new again as it is broughtinto a completely new context within the installation.Sound artist and author Nicolas Collins appro-

priates the venerable transistor radio and turns it intoa synthesiser through circuit bending in his demon-strations, performances and lectures. He writes aboutit in a chapter in his book Handmade ElectronicMusic: The Art of Hardware Hacking entitled ‘Layingof Hands: Transforming a Portable Radio into aSynthesizer by Making Your Skin Part of the Circuit’(Collins 2009: 73). Collins introduces the humanhand as a resistor to facilitate feedback in the radio’scircuits, causing oscillation at audio frequencies. Heshows that simply touching a circuit can transform amundane consumer technology into a new electronicinstrument. Much of Collins’ work demonstrates thatmethods of hacking and circuit bending old tech-nologies can render them into new instruments forthe performance of electronic music and performanceart. Collins has also done much to promote thelegitimacy of these DIY methods through publishinghis popular book and lecturing at colleges and com-munity workshops.British artist Daniel Wilson is largely known for

his ‘Miraculous Agitations’, in which he electro-magnetically vibrates assemblages of objects, which

evoke the historical experimentations of Nicola Teslaand other pioneers of electromagnetism (Wilson2012). However, in a new work in progress, he isgoing even further back in history to appropriateconcepts posited by Francis Bacon in the seventeenthcentury. On his webpage he writes about creatingdollhouse realisations of ‘sound houses’, a conceptproposed by Bacon in his 1627 work New Atlantis(Wilson 2013). In Bacon’s utopian vision, he describesedifices in which various natural and artificial soundsare created, resonated and explored (Bacon 1627).Wilson’s appropriation of material this antiquated forhis work is largely unprecedented for a contemporarysound artist, and raises the question of whether aBaconian ‘sound house’ can even be termed a tech-nology in the modern sense. Furthermore, Bacon’s‘sound houses’ were originally realised throughimagination alone, and only leave hints about theirconstruction unlike the schematics and detailed plansthat more modern technology has left behind.Regardless, Wilson’s ‘sound houses’ do represent anovel and interesting appropriation of a historicalidea and should prove interesting as they are realised.

Artists from South Korea associated with thecollective Balloon & Needle (Balloon & Needle 2013)are approaching historical appropriation throughhacking, circuit bending, and repurposing older tech-nologies. Balloon & Needle member Ryu Hankilcoordinates his assemblages of motors, contact micro-phones and tiny speakers from a repurposed Swisstypewriter (Meanwell 2011). Other group membersChoi Joonyong, Hong Chulki and Jin Sangtae usetechnology including discarded hard drives, obsoletePDAs, hacked CD players and turntables spinning avariety of materials other than vinyl records (Meanwell2011). Unlike DeMarinis and Wilson, the artists ofBalloon & Needle are not creating new elaborations ofolder technology, but repurposing discarded technolo-gical artefacts. Despite the fact that the technologiesused are hacked rather than redesigned does not detractfrom the novelty of their application. The sounds theartists coax out of their homemade instruments are newand unique, and represent entirely different applicationsof older technology.

Eric Barbour’s synthesiser designs also draw fromhistorical precedent, but are completely novel inthemselves. He produces an entire line of commercialvacuum tube synthesiser modules for modularsynthesis under the brand name Metasonix. He alsodescribes some of his earlier DIY designs in his article‘Audio Synthesis Via Vacuum Tubes’, in which hediscusses the many inspirational historical instrumentsand precedents that may have inspired his owndesigns, including the Trautonium (1928), theNovachord (1939) and the Clavioline (1941) (Barbour2000). His current instruments are unique amongcommercial analogue synthesisers in that they create

Repurposing the Past 295

sounds that are inimitable by solid-state technologies.Also, they are completely compatible with the popular‘eurorack’ synthesisers. These new instruments incor-porating old technology exhibit the very importantcharacteristic of being completely interactive withcurrent technology and designs.

2.1. DIY subcultures reproducing older technologies

There are thriving DIY subcultures engaged in thebuilding and repurposing of older technologies. Inaudio, there is a strong community dedicated to buildingand experimenting with vacuum tube designs, especiallyguitar amplifiers. The AX84 Cooperative Tube GuitarAmp Project on the Internet is especially thriving, wheremembers share ideas and build vacuum tube guitaramplifiers (AX84 2013). The AX84 project is espe-cially notable because it seeks to make vintage-styledDIY amplifiers accessible to a large group of makers,and uses uniquely designed vacuum tube circuitsrather than verbatim reproductions of classic designs.Make Magazine also dedicates an entire section of itsissue 17 to ‘The Lost Knowledge’, in which DIYmakers of obsolete and old technology are featured.Within that issue articles give hobbyists instructionson building a Wimshurst influence machine and ateacup-sized Stirling engine, both technologies fromthe nineteenth century (Make 2009).

A large subculture of DIY creation has developedaround building analogue synthesisers from historicaldesigns and commercial kits. Many analogue syn-thesiser meet-up groups have sprung up around theUSA and the UK, where synthesiser hobbyists sharetheir instruments and ideas with each other. A multi-tude of discussion groups exist on the Internet,dedicated to synthesiser DIY builders, as well asmany sites with free schematics, lessons and theory. Anumber of synthesiser kit companies such as PAiAand Synthesis Technology (also known as MOTM)sell a variety of kits to the synthesiser DIY commu-nity. The author’s Phantastron kit has been embracedby this community and has sold to customers inNorth America, South America, Europe, Asia andAustralia. This subculture’s particular interest inexploring historical designs is also proven by thecontinued reprinting of Electronotes, a circularassembled by Bernie Hutchins in Ithaca, NY, begin-ning in 1972. Within the pages of Electronotes areillustrations, schematics and explanations of classicanalogue synthesiser designs (Electronotes 2013).Electronotes was one of the original sources forsynthesiser builders during the 1970s when analoguesynthesis was still a burgeoning technology. Today,synthesiser DIY builders reproduce many of the oldElectronotes designs from reprinted copies of thenewsletter. Likewise, many reengineered copies of

Moog, Buchla, ARP and Serge instruments continueto be built by resourceful individuals.

These subcultures of makers reproducing oldertechnologies believe that there is an intrinsic value inearly technology despite the fact that commercialtechnology has moved on. Builders of vacuum tubeguitar amplifiers enjoy the sound qualities, distortionand character of the amplifiers that they build. Theyalso find value in the experience of building anamplifier oneself that does not require as many parts assolid state amplifiers do, and is therefore more acces-sible and understandable to the novice builder. Somealso simply value the elegance of the older designs andthe aesthetics of vacuum tubes and vintage looks.Vintage synthesiser builders believe that their analoguesynthesisers possess admirable tone qualities that can-not be reproduced by digital instruments. They alsovalue the process of ‘patching’ analogue modulestogether to produce unique modulation and mixtures, amethod of operation that is not used commonly indigital instruments. Both amplifier and synthesiserbuilders also express themselves very creatively in thecreation of ornate cabinets, panels and visual embel-lishments for their often bulky creations.

Many of these older technologies possess intrinsicand unique qualities worth continuing alongsidecurrent technology following their own technologicaltrajectories. The Phantastron, homemade analoguemodular synthesisers, DIY tube amplifiers, ‘soundhouses’ and other DIY creations appropriated fromhistory not only exist as throwbacks, but can becomenew evolutions in their respective lineages. Theircreation not only contributes a commentary on con-temporary technology, but often becomes a living,breathing, growing part of contemporary technologyitself. The Phantastron, for instance, is the evolution ofan antiquated radar circuit into an electronic musicalinstrument that is unique and new. It also continues toevolve and grow through the ongoing contributions ofthe DIY community elaborating, evolving and buildingupon their own Phantastrons (either built as kits sup-plied by the author or from scratch). The DIY com-munity thus propels technological growth along otherdiverging corollaries, independent from the cutting edgeof commercial technology. Likewise, artists appro-priating history in their work also create divergent linesof technological growth and inspire further explorationby the larger DIY community.

Historical exploration in the arts is also discussedin great detail within the field of media archaeology, arelatively new branch of media studies. Mediaarchaeology examines past technologies to betterunderstand present media and technological culture.Media archaeology often examines creative workdealing with historical technologies and its implicationsto our contemporary culture. Jussi Parikka summariseshow media archaeology artwork is defined by its

296 Lorin Edwin Parker

meaning, ‘We know it deals with engaging with the pastand learning from the past media cultures in orderto understand present mediated, globalized networkculture through artworks executed in various media’(Parikka 2012: Chapter 7, Paragraph 5). AlthoughParikka advocates the use of historical technologies increative work he does not account for the phenomenonof old technology becoming a new, reborn paradigm inthe present. In fact, he goes on to say: ‘Media archae-ology is always in danger of veering towards excava-tions of curious instruments and odd gadgets just fortheir own sake and hence losing the wider politicalcontexts in which technology takes part in governingbodies, affording perceptions and building platformsfor social relations, work, entertainment and identity’(Parikka 2012: Chapter 7, Section 3, Paragraph 1).Thus, much of the work discussed here both fitswithin media archaeology for its value to culture andDIY culture. However, media archaeology does notaccount for the intrinsic value of an appropriatedtechnology when stripped of its social implications.Through the lens of media archaeology it is some-times difficult to see the relevance of appropriatedtechnologies such as the Phantastron or a DIY syn-thesiser as new branches of technological progress orvalid creative works because their social implicationsare not as obvious at first glance.The article ‘Zombie Media: Circuit Bending Media

Archaeology into an Art Method’ by Garnet Hertz andJussi Parikka expands media archaeology to includecircuit bending as relevant media archaeology artwork.Here, Hertz and Parikka suggest that circuit-bentobsolete commercial electronics become ‘zombiemedia’, carrying commentary on technological waste,planned obsolescence and black-box technology (Hertzand Parikka 2012). According to the authors, a circuit-bent object becomes a new technological divergencethat is neither dead nor alive, a ‘zombie media’. Theystate that ‘Zombie media is concerned with media thatis not only out of use, but resurrected to new uses,contexts and adaptations’ (Hertz and Parikka 2012:429). Thus, the expansion of media archaeology toinclude zombie media as relevant creative work opensup more room for the inclusion of a wider array of DIYprojects as well. Many historically appropriated DIYprojects, like circuit-bent works, are technologiesadapted to new uses, contexts and adaptations. How-ever, such DIY endeavours may deserve the status ofbeing fully alive; they carry on a new technologicallineage from an outgrowth of historical technology,rather than existing like the undead in a state oflimited interaction between life and death.Some DIY makers are resurrecting dead consumer

technologies into new creations that Hertz andParikka would term ‘zombie media’ through theintegration of microcontrollers for MIDI imple-mentation. Many makers have successfully integrated

MIDI implementation kits, like Highly Liquid’s ret-rofit kits, to add new, modern MIDI functionality toold and obsolete consumer electronics such as theCasio SK-1, the Atari 2600 and the Texas Instru-ments Speak and Spell (Highly Liquid 2013). Thistype of modification not only resurrects an obsoleteconsumer technology, like circuit bending does, butalso greatly enhances its functionality and introducesthe possibility of networked communication withcomputers and contemporary technologies. Thus, sucha DIY retrofit transforms a dead technology into muchmore than just a zombie; it becomes a new media withthe capability to interact with and influence othertechnology in a network-mediated dialogue. As a fur-ther benefit to the DIY community, Highly Liquid’sdesigns for MIDI implementation on the Atari 2600and the Speak and Spell have been made open sourcewith a Creative Commons licence. Thus, the DIYcommunity can easily develop and evolve these retrofitsinto even more advanced reincarnations.

Builders of older technologies benefit greatly fromthe availability of a wealth of open source material.Many of the classic designs they emulate are detailedin books, magazines and manuals that are freefrom copyright. Thus, sources of information on olddesigns, methods, service manuals and schematics canbe found on websites such as www.archive.org. Opensource information is a powerful catalyst in the DIYmovement at large and enables makers of suchdevices to complete their projects successfully. Alarge quantity of the open source material availableto DIY makers is historical in nature.

These builders of seemingly obsolete technologyfind an innate value in older technologies, regardlessof whether they are building reproductions or varia-tions upon the original. To many, the older technol-ogy represents a more durable object, conceivedbefore the concept and practice of planned obsoles-cence. These technologies are sturdy and hard wearing,and can be fixed indefinitely, unlike the delicate com-mercial technology of today. Also, older technologydoes not possess miniaturised components or requireautomated construction techniques; these devices wereoften meant to be assembled by hand.

It is important to note that the DIY culture ofbuilding electronics also has a historical precedent. Inthe 1950s and 1960s especially, it was common forhobbyists to build their own electronics. This was theera of the Heathkit, when electronics enthusiasts builttheir own oscilloscopes, stereos, amateur radioequipment and many other projects. Indeed, maga-zines such as Popular Electronics and Radio andTelevision News were dedicated, at that time, toproviding plans for electronic projects and knowledgeabout the home assembly of electronics. These ori-ginal sources of instructions, designs and informationserve as references for the DIY community today.

Repurposing the Past 297

Unfortunately, the DIY culture of the past dieddown during the 1980s as technology became moreminiature, complex and difficult for the hobbyist toreproduce. Also, in the West, the introduction ofmore foreign-made technology made the cost ofbuilding one’s own technology more expensive thanpurchasing new devices. Interestingly, in SouthKorea, where some of the new consumer technologywas beginning to be produced, the emerging con-sumer electronics boom of the 1980s planted the seedfor the generation of DIY artists such as the membersof Balloon & Needle (Meanwell 2011).

However, in the USA, miniaturisation and a shiftto foreign manufacturing led to the decline of theelectronics hobbyist of the 1950s and 1960s. Heath-kits began to incorporate preassembled components,and magazines such as Popular Mechanics shiftedtheir focus away from projects towards articles onconsumer technology. During this era, the concept ofplanned obsolescence was also being widely intro-duced. However, at the same time electronics as ahobby was diminishing, the rise of the present DIYculture began. A new breed of DIY culture showedup in the form of hackers, builders and makers whowanted to maintain propriety over their technology.Standing in opposition to planned obsolescence,these makers were interested in creating novel devicesnot available from commercial manufacturers.

2.2. Old becomes new

As seen with the Phantastron, current methods andapproaches to DIY can be used to transform oldconcepts into new creations. The greatest value inexploring older avenues of DIY culture and infor-mation lies not in the re-creation of archaic technol-ogy, but in the integration of these ideas into currentparadigms. Despite the fact that commercial technologymay have left many designs behind, rendering themobsolete in the marketplace, these models are notnecessarily dead ends. Rather, like Paul DeMarinis, wecan look upon these obsolete technologies as orphanswaiting to be adopted into a modern context.

Our technological past is accessible to anyone. Anabundance of information exists in the form of his-torical designs, many of them open source, to provideinspiration to the DIY community at large. However,to appropriate this knowledge properly it is necessaryto create a variation on the original theory that isunique and brings it into a contemporary framework.Many DIY makers perform this appropriationthrough hacking, circuit bending, modifying andother means in order to re-contextualise the tech-nology into a new work. This modification is animportant part of the DIY process and is especiallycrucial when the builder does not want simply tore-create an object.

There are myriad possibilities for hybridising digi-tal technology with antique concepts in electronics.Other newer approaches in DIY culture, such ascommunity DIY and the application of micro-controllers, could also provide very creative resultswhen combined with historical models. These pro-jects could develop in an open source environment,without conflicting with commercial interests. Theycould also interface with contemporary electronics toexpand the scope and capability of current technol-ogies. The synthesis of old and new modalities createsnovel possibilities for artistic expression, and theingenuity of the DIY community can realise thisunique fusion of past and present.

REFERENCES

AX84. 2013. AX84 Cooperative Tube Guitar Amp Project.http://www.ax84.com.

Bacon, F. 1627. New Atlantis. Reprint, Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1915.

Balloon & Needle. 2013. http://www.balloonnneedle.com.Barbour, E. 2000. Audio Synthesis Via Vacuum

Tubes. http://www.cgs.synth.net/tube (accessed on 1 January2013).

Collins, N. 2009. Handmade Electronic Music: The Art ofHardware Hacking. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.

DeMarinis, P. 2004. Firebirds and Tongues of fire artiststatement. http://iowareview.uiowa.edu/TIRW/TIRW_Archive/feb06/demarinis_statement.pdf (accessed on1 January 2013).

Electronotes. 2013. http://electronotes.netfirms.com.Hertz, G. and Parikka, J. 2012. Zombie Media: Circuit

Bending Media Archaeology into an Art Method.Leonardo Music Journal 45(5): 424–30.

Highly Liquid. 2013. http://highlyliquid.com.Johnson, C.L. 1956. Analog Computer Techniques. York,

PA: Maple Press.Lewer, S.K. 1948. Electronic Musical Instruments. London:

Electronic Engineering.Make. 2009. Vol. 17.Meanwell, P. 2011. Balloon & Needle. The Wire 325: 73.Napper, B. 2000. Frederic Calland Williams (1911–1977).

http://www.computer50.org/mark1/williams.html (accessedon 1 January 2013).

Parikka, J. 2012. What is Media Archaeology? Cambridge:Polity Press Kindle edition.

Royal Air Force 1962. A.P. 3302 Standard TechnicalTraining Notes for the Radio Engineering Trade GroupPart 3. 2nd edn. Archived at http://www.radarpages.co.uk/theory/theoryindex.htm (accessed 1 May 2013).

Seely, S. 1958. Electron Tube Circuits. 2nd edn. York, PA:Maple Press.

Wilson, D. 2012. Miraculous Agitations: On the Uses ofChaotic, Non-Linear and Emergent Behavior in AcousticVibrating Physical Systems. Leonardo Music Journal 22:35–40.

Wilson, D. 2013. Build Your Own Francis Bacon ‘SoundHouse’. http://miraculousagitations.blogspot.com (accessedon 1 May 2013).

298 Lorin Edwin Parker