[sdiy] digital control of CV

[jure zitnik]

wow, that surely is enlightening! i'll have to read it a few more
times though. but it seems to me that 1 octave combined with fixed DC
offsets for additional octaves might be the easiest (and most
accurate) way to go?

david: encoders have *low* resolution. a few tens of values per
revolution. while they're useful for some things, they feel quite
lousy for let's say cutoff control, try to imagine. 24 values per turn
mean that either you'll have terrible stepping (if you want to cover
the entire range in one turn) or that you'll have to spin the knob
like crazy to get to the other end. i know some implement
"intelligent" acceleration, that is if you turn the encoder faster,
the steps will be bigger (i'm talking about software of course)... but
it just doesn't feel as good as a pot.

a 360 pot is an endless pot, just like an encoder, at least that's
what i imagine. you can then sample its position with any frequency
you want. it still looks like encoder but acts differently. apparently
alesis ion/micron use such pots.

jure

On 9/4/07, David Betz <dbetz at xlisper.com> wrote:
> > sampa - (yep, it's me ;) - why do you say s&h muxes are obsolete?
> > what's a "patch mode"? i'm not really interested in having encoders in
> > the system, i've been looking into 360deg potentiometers though...
>
> Why are encoders considered so bad? They seem like they would be more
> convenient than the scheme that Moog uses where you have to move an analog
> pot around and "pick up" the current setting before changing it. Do encoders
> not have enough resolution for fine control?
>
> Also, does anyone have a source of encoders appropriate for use in an
> analog/digital hybrid synth?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>