SV: Re: SV: Re: [sdiy] Nonlinearities in IR3109 filters

[elmacaco]

I see it as a drawback.  I asked on the Andromeda list if anyone could name
a positive use for having the reduction with high resonance included (as it
was on the andromeda) and there is no real benefit, Synthesizers dot com
compensated for this and made it selectable if you want the reduction to
happen via a jumper, but I have yet to find a valid reason to include it
except historical accuracy.

besides, we all know it's the moog oscillators that really give the filter
such a good name

 ;)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Danielson" <cfmd at bredband.net>
To: <dalenkarl at yahoo.se>
Cc: <seancostello2003 at comcast.net>; <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: [sdiy] Nonlinearities in IR3109 filters


> From: karl dalen <dalenkarl at yahoo.se>
> Subject: SV: Re: SV: Re: [sdiy] Nonlinearities in IR3109 filters
> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:47:49 +0200 (CEST)
> Message-ID: <20060802224749.20893.qmail at web27605.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
>
> > > I tend to look at it as a design flaw, not a design error. Then again,
this
> > > form of non-perfect aspects of designs seems to make them "popular"
for their
> > > "character".
>
> > OK, flaw is fine with me, but one could wondering when a flaw becomes an
error!
> > The line is thin!
>
> Indeed.
>
> > I still think those 10nF is an error. They sound so thin! :-)
> > Oh, jittery i meant! :-)
>
> Hehe... change the design a bit and you do get other characteristics.
>
> > > > I tought people here had dissected that filter as a laying ladder?!
> > >
> > > No, that's the SSM2044. It's all in the SSM2044 patent.
> >
> > Ah yes, the 2040 is OTA ofcourse, as you point out!
> > I mixed it with the 2044, i was looking at JH schematic
> > when commenting on Collins question.
>
> Yeah, it happends easilly. I mix stuff up every now and then too.
>
> Cheers,
> Magnus