Comments on trimmers and circuit design

[Saul Stokes]

A few weeks ago I built a ring modulator from a Serge schem. Once again I
came across something that always seems to boggle me about the goal of the
circuit designer. It's weird that so much effort is put into a mathmatical
solution instead of a musical solution.  What I'm trying to say is that
for the most part, many of the trimmer pots within many of the circuits
I've build have just as interesting or more interesting sound control than
some of the front panel pots.  Take this Serge ring modulator for example.
3 of the trimmers have such a profound control over the waveshape that I
couldn't imaging not sending them to pots on the front panel.  The actual
schem shows that the final panel has no pots, only two jacks in and two
jacks out. What's happening here is that the trimmers are only there to
find the correct solution to the circuit, not aid in sound design.  This
is too bad. This isn't the first time I've came across this. I would say
that 15 of the 100 or so pots on my first modular were suppose to be just
trimmers. I'm sure a lot of you have found the same thing and I've read
about musicians who open up their synths to tweek the trimmers. Is this
just a matter of personal taste?  I'm interested if some designers use
trimmers as sound designing tools when they hear how interesting they are. 


saul stokes