[sdiy] A crazy idea..

[Jeff Farr]

Or, perhaps the raw CV signals could be multiplexed straight into the inputs
along with a master clock signal on another channel for demuxing somewhat
like SMPTE?

On 10/5/05, Jeff Farr <moogah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was thinking about 8 bands per audio channel, starting around 16k on
> downward in octaves. However, I realize this will take a steep BP curve to
> decode so that there is enough headroom between bands for good resolution,
> I'm not sure what kinds of slope can be easily achieved but I imagine having
> 12 or 24db of space for each octave may not be high enough for a good
> resolution 'decode'.
>
> On 10/5/05, Harry Bissell Jr <harrybissell at prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/4/05, Eric Honour <autophage at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What about using a channel as one half of a
> > > vocoder?
> > > >
> > > > IE, one audio channel carries twenty different
> > > CV's by having twenty
> > > > different (harmonically unrelated) tones of
> > > varying amplitude... much like
> > > > the 'ghosting' technique previously mentioned, but
> > > not actually containing
> > > > usable audio (it'd just sound like a crappy
> > > dissonant chord) - then using a
> > > > series of very narrow bandpass filters into a
> > > bunch of envelope followers?
> >
> > You don't need 'harmonically unrelated' tones if you
> > are using sine waves (which have no harmonics). The
> > limiting factor would be how steep you can make the
> > bandpass filters... and how stable the recording
> > method is (wow, flutter, speed changes ?)
> >
> > The lower audio tones will STILL be much slower to
> > recover. I'd think that twenty tones would be really
> > pushing the limits of what you could do with practical
> > bandpass filters...
> >
> > H^) harry
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20051005/a68c0cfb/attachment.htm>