simple LFO question

[Jim Johnson]

I still think everyone has missed the boat on this issue.

The problem is not the shape of the LFO; it's the response of the delay
line. We all know that frequency-based devices like VCOs and VCFs need to
be have an exponential response to CV in order to sound "right", simply
because of the way our brains interpret signals. It stands to reason that a
flanger (for example), being a complex filter, should have an exponential
response to control voltages as well. Why don't the designers of these
things put exponential front ends on the clock VCO's, instead of playing
games with the CV generators?

Hey, Michael, if this doesn't make it to the list, could you forward it? My
last post bounced.

Jim Johnson 
Metaphoric Software
-------------------
Makers of Techno Toys
Software for Electronic Music
http://www.technotoys.com
info at technotoys.com


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 6/20/00 at 10:38 PM WeAreAs1 at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 6/20/00 12:25:39 PM, you wrote:
>
><<The Hypertriangular LFO design by Anderton was based on a Curtis CEM
3340
>VCO chip -- I have the schematics;  could scan them & send them to you,
but
>you'd still have to get hold of one of those hard-to-find chips.>>
>
>The way Craig's Hypertriangle works is that it simply feeds some of the 
>triangle's output back into the LFO's CV input.  This causes the frequency
of 
>the LFO to modulate faster and slower as the triangle's amplitude goes up
and 
>down (or slower and faster, if you invert the CV before feeding it back.
I 
>don't remember which way Craig said sounded better for flanging...)  At
any 
>rate, you could do this with any voltage-controlled LFO - you don't 
>specifically have to use a CEM3340.
>
>Michael Bacich