DIR

I started using the label DIR (Dimi Is Reborn) for projects related to Erkki Kurenniemi’s instruments, beginning with the DIMI-A documentation project in 2015. This is an ongoing investigation, research, and reinterpretation of the hardware used in these instruments. The main objective of the project is to preserve the original Kurenniemi instruments.

Typically, conserving a physical object means preserving its state as well as possible. However, when conserving an operational object, this becomes more complex. Simply storing it as it is does not necessarily preserve the state, as there are many variables that might continue to deteriorate during storage. For electrical devices, lack of usage might be as detrimental as keeping them in use.

In my mind, the conservation process of such objects starts with carefully documenting the object. This might mean fully reverse engineering the circuits from the original hardware. This might mean fully modeling the object in CAD software. If a device has memory or there is software included, a backup dump is required.

Also, the operational behavior of the object needs to be documented. For inconsistent and unusual behavior, it is necessary to verify whether it is caused by the design, a design mistake, or a hardware fault. If it is any two of the latter, is it possible to determine how long the object has been in that state? What would be the solution?

From these questions, we land on the process of restoration or renovation. Do we attempt to fix possible issues on the original hardware to bring them to the operational state they once were? Objects might have had a long history of usage, during which lots of tweaks might have been done to the hardware. Some of them might make little sense. Some of them might be quick temporary fixes that haven’t been fully sorted later. It is important to try to come up with some kind of timeline of the service history of the object from both the original hardware and historical documents, recordings, etc.

Sometimes fixing original hardware is a trivial option; there might be NOS components you can replace the faulty ones with. In many studios, I have seen original backup component collections, including components from the exact same patch of components that the original instrument is built of.

If original components are no longer available or are considered to be of extremely poor quality, the decision to replace them with something else must be made. Then the question arises: is the functionality of the object more important than its physical presence? For many, the answer has been the latter, but an increasing number of people share my personal view that the top priority in conserving a functional and operational object is to keep it functional and operational, even if that requires adjustments to its physical properties.

All service done on hardware needs to be documented in great detail.

When the original object is documented in high enough detail, building a copy is possible. Especially if the original object is somewhat unstable, building a device that behaves exactly as the original allows continuing the research on the object to a copy. If you suspect that the original circuits don’t work correctly for some reason or another, you can tweak the circuit and software on the copy as well.

In 2024, under the umbrella of DIR, I have fully documented DIMI-A and have been building three DIMI-A units. I have also been developing an operational reinterpretation of DICO (currently in beta test phase), restoring the Integrated Synthesizer, filling out the gaps in the documentation of Sähkökvartetti, and developing an operational reinterpretation of the sequencer of Sähkökvartetti (beta test phase). In addition to these concrete outcomes, a great body of work in collecting and sorting data on all Kurenniemi instruments has been done, and is waiting for more thorough analysis.