Top octave dividers: why?

Harry Bissell harrybissell at
Mon Nov 8 21:31:13 CET 1999

REG: 88 fat as all getout...

IMHO there is a limit to "Fatness" vs. polyphony. I once built a hex fuzz
for guitar... thinking it would be "fat as indicated". It wasn't... it was
mellow. The fuzzes blended very nicely, even on a setting which made each
individual note a razorblade. This was (IMHO) due to
1) The flat envelopes of the fuzz by itself yield a six level amplitude
envelope... Six strings are louder than one...
2) All the beating of the harmonics make a sort of string pad like tone

Therefore... If you want poly thats good... but if you want fat its got to
1) Mono...
2) Duo...
and certainly not more than four nots and thats pushing it...

IMHO of course...

PS the 555 alone isn't the greatest chip... the top octave is a good idea
if you don't want to tune forever...
:^) Harry

Christian Hofmann wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 22:03:32 +1100
> Paul Perry <pfperry at> wrote:
> > With 555 timers so cheap, I don't think it unreasonable to
> > have an instrument with 88 note polyphony.
> > Surely this would be as fat as all getout?
> >
> > paul perry melbourne australia
> Hi Paul,
> I once thought about that as well. But I'm not that familiar with 555s
> (by a weird twist of fate I never happended to use them in my whole diy
> career), so I don't know if this could be a problem:
> Any instrument should have a master tune knob. I'm not sure if 555s can
> be more or less synchronously tuned by a common control voltage.
> Maybe I'm old & wise enough now to understand those sophisticated chips
> like the 555. I think I'll have a look at a linear data book tonight...
> Christian

More information about the Synth-diy mailing list