Top octave dividers: why?

Harry Bissell harrybissell at prodigy.net
Wed Nov 10 06:33:47 CET 1999


"NOT AGREE WITH HARRY ???" gasp

I mean to say when poly synths are played in "poly mode" such as chords with
thirds etc...
Any synth played just in parallel octaves, fifths, fourths etc... or MONO is
"Fat"
Sorry I wasn't clear in what I meant...

:^) Harry

Paul Maddox wrote:

> 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