freq. mult.

[Scott Gravenhorst]

Martin Czech <czech at Micronas.Com> wrote:
>if you already synthesize the master frequency, you may be better off with
>additional osc. and soft sync (or no sync).
>I remember a 4 note chord module with 4 vcos and a switching network to create
> 7 m7 d7 chords.
> 
>Now, my idea of electronic music is a bit different, I'd say wasted hardware for
>an outdated concept of music.

I'm not sure I understand this statement.  "outdated" ?

>btw.: I didn't say  yesterday that plls won't track. I just wanted to "damp" a
>perhaps to optimistic vision of such a system.

Absolutely agreed; a PLL will not ever track *perfectly* during input
frequency change.  However, so often the PLL is mentioned here, but 
only it's negative aspects are pointed out.  So much depends on the 
application.  It does have musical applications.  Often the 
imperfections in an instrument are what make it interesting to the ear.

>btw.2.: the 4046 circuit should be second order (it is).
>There are more complicated pll concepts arround, I guess higher order.
>But I didn't tale a look at them so far. Any experiences out there?
>
>
>m.c.
>
>:::Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:10:54
>:::From: Scott Gravenhorst <music.maker at gte.net>
>:::To: synth-diy at node12b53.a2000.nl
>:::Subject: Re: freq. mult.
>:::X-Mail-Agent: RedStarWare SMTP Emailer v0.03
>:::X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: synth-diy at node12b53.a2000.nl
>:::
>:::<possibly silly mode>
>:::Hmm.  I'm conguring up an image of a 'synth-cordian', a 
>:::device that uses a PLL to track a mono VCO and pop it's
>:::output up around 1 megahertz, this driving a TOG which
>:::is connected to a zillion buttons that select notes
>:::to mix into chords...  You play the VCO with one hand
>:::and the chord buttons with the other.  Heh, well at
>:::least you wouldn't have to pump it; or use the pumping
>:::action as a controller for portamento/VCF.  Polka?
>:::</possibly silly mode>
>:::
>:::WeAreAs1 at aol.com wrote:
>:::>
>:::>In a message dated 11/28/00 7:25:27 AM, blacet at monitor.net writes:
>:::>
>:::><< The standard method of using a PLL such as a 4046 and a binary counter
>:::>works well if you get the filter right. See "The CMOS Cookbook" by Don
>:::>Lancaster. >>
>:::>
>:::>This has got me thinking...  Do you guys remember the old EML "Poly Box"?  It 
>:::>had a little one-octave keyboard and an input for a monophonic VCO, and it 
>:::>would allow you to play polyphonic chords that you could then send to your 
>:::>monophonic synth's VCF and VCA.  Obviously, it had some kind of top-octave 
>:::>divider in it.  But what I would like to know is:  Did it require the input 
>:::>of a very high frequency VCO (in order to put the top-octave divider's output 
>:::>in a useful octave range), or did it have some kind of frequency multiplier 
>:::>(PLL?) inside that allowed you to keep your monosynth VCO in a more "normal" 
>:::>octave range?  Have any of you guys ever owned or looked inside one of those 
>:::>Poly Boxes?
>:::>
>:::>Michael Bacich
>:::
>:::-- Scott Gravenhorst : On The Edge, but the Edge of What?
>:::-- Linux Rex, Linux Vobiscum  |  RedWebMail by RedStarWare
>:::-- FatMan: www.teklab.com/~chordman
>:::-- NonFatMan: members.xoom.com/_XMCM/chordman/index.html
>:::-- The 21st century does NOT start in the year 2000!!!
>:::
>

-- Scott Gravenhorst : On The Edge, but the Edge of What?
-- Linux Rex, Linux Vobiscum  |  RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: www.teklab.com/~chordman
-- NonFatMan: members.xoom.com/_XMCM/chordman/index.html
-- The 21st century does NOT start in the year 2000!!!