[sdiy] VCO reset time
harrybissell
harrybissell at prodigy.net
Fri Jun 4 17:30:03 CEST 2004
Hi Don (et al)
I did a simulation of the trapezoid core and it indeed looks very
promising...
but correct me if I'm wrong
The two integrating capacitors have to be the same value (precisely).
When I
simulated one a little bigger/smaller... performance degraded severely.
How will
you get around this issue ???
H^) harry
Don Tillman wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:21:56 +0200
> > From: Rene_Schmitz <uzs159 at uni-bonn.de>
> >
> > > What is a good ramp reset time ? How fast have you seen
> > > ramp reset be ?
> >
> > Zero. (A special triangle core ;-))
>
> > Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 00:14:30 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: Magnus Danielson <cfmd at bredband.net>
> >
> > I consider triangular cores a very interesting concept and they
> > might compete very well with sawtooth cores IMHO.
>
> I've been questioning the whole point of sawtooth cores for a couple
> years now, and I'm thinking that triangle cores are a lot better.
>
> Here are three advantages of triangle core VCO's:
>
> 1. No reset detuning.
>
> 2. You can get each of the basic waveforms in just one step:
>
> triangle -> saw
> -> square
> -> sine
>
> With the sawtooth you need two steps to get to the sine wave (and
> possibly the square wave depending upon how you want PWM to
> work):
>
> sawtooth -> triangle -> sine
> -> square
>
> 3. Any glitches in the triangle-to-sawtooth conversion will be less
> noticable because the sawtooth has more harmonic content to mask
> them, while any glitches in the sawtooth-to-traingle conversion
> will be more noticible as there is less harmonic content to mask
> them.
>
> The only advantage I can see to a sawtooth core is in visualizing the
> waveshaping. That is, your waveshaping transfer function looks like
> your output waveform.
>
> Of course a trapezoid core VCO is better still. :-)
>
> -- Don
>
> --
> Don Tillman
> Palo Alto, California
> don at till.com
> http://www.till.com
More information about the Synth-diy
mailing list