Top octave dividers: why?

Paul Maddox Paul.Maddox at unilever.com
Tue Nov 9 09:32:58 CET 1999


Harry, Old crow, et al,

  Like the the old crow says... a TOG with a micro is no problem
at all, and these days micro's PIC/AVR/Scenix are sooooo
cheap that its just as finacially viable to it that way.. to tune
the whole thing would simply be a matter of either varying the clock
speed of the micro or varying the clock signal that the micro is
reading, for simplicity I'd go for the former..

   On the subjet of fat, ermmm, Im not sure I agree with Harry,
have you heard a Prophet VS? A Jupiter 8?

  Paul

*********************************************************
*   Modulus Synthesiser DIY page ;-				*
*			http://www.xavax.com/modulus	*
*  Email ;-							*
*	  Paul.Maddox at unilever.com				*
*********************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From:	Harry Bissell [SMTP:harrybissell at prodigy.net]
Sent:	Monday, November 08, 1999 8:31 PM
To:	Christian Hofmann
Cc:	synth-diy at mailhost.bpa.nl
Subject:	Re: Top octave dividers: why?

REG: 88 note...as 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
be
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 melbpc.org.au> 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