[sdiy] Pots vs Encoders, was Re: [sdiy] dave smith *instruments*

[cheater cheater]

Carry,

Thanks for your email.

> When I want a longer
> attack or higher filter cutoff I know which way to turn the knob.  I may not
> know the exact value to turn it to but I know I want up or down.

This is because you have not developed muscle memory to do this.

> I'm not
> sure how having a hard limit of a pot helps my ability to change a sound.

Exactly by letting you do what you just stated you couldn't.

> The
> vast majority of my studio gear uses switches.  There are some places where
> pots are used, things like threshold on compressors, output gain, etc.  My
> Focusrite, Neve, and Daking gear have pots for eq amount.  The other
> controls (eq freqs, lo/hi pass filters, ratios, etc) are all switches.

Which is exactly for quickly recalling the setting. A lot of studio
gear has 'evolved' from using potentiometers to using rotary switches,
because the pots would get worn and in the same knob position the gear
would have a different setting over time, so your mastering session
notes did not work anymore.

However potentiometers nowadays are better than the carbon film ones
of the 70s and do not deteriorate as much. Therefore developing muscle
memory with synthesizers is not only possible but very feasible and
useful.

> I don't
> see lack of a continuously variable pot affecting my ability to do a good
> mix.

But this whole thing isn't about continuous variability. It is about
being able to recall the exact position quickly. You must have
misunderstood the point of this whole conversation.

> The controls could all be encoders and it wouldn't affect usability,
> maybe sound quality, but not usability.

Are you talking out of experience (i.e. have mixed a complete album on
a console which only uses encoders, even for the level faders) or are
you just considering this idea hypothetically?

> All mechanical elements of an instruments UI are going to wear and need
> replacement.  Doesn't matter if it's an encoder, pot, switch, string, reed,
> or valve.  Instrument builders should do a better job of evaluating
> components to ensure we're not saddled with a $500 repair mere months or
> years into ownership.  But $500 for maintenance every 10-15 years?  Doesn't
> seem out of line to me.

Even though not the point of the conversation, it's definitely true
right here. People complaining about a synth not working as it should
on a shop floor should know the kind of monkey treatment it gets from
people abusing it.

To give this a twist towards the pots/encoders debacle: A
potentiometer value can be smoothed out and de-noised in digital. Even
if it goes (and the modern high quality pots simply refuse to), it
will do so gradually, and won't just go crazy all of a sudden. You
cannot do that with an encoder; once it's gone, it's gone for good. So
the 'life' of a potentiometer is the amount of cycles after which
there will be a somewhat noticeable difference in function. The 'life'
of an encoder is the time until it's completely dead.

D.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 03:16, Cary Roberts <cary.roberts at retrosynth.net> wrote:
>>- you can't directly use presets when mixing. They can only be an
>>entry point, but they will never work exactly the way you want with
>>the sounds you have, unless you're a 'loop musician' and are using the
>>same loops over and over. Every sound and every recording session are
>>different and require different compressor settings and reverb decays
>>and what ever else. Even when getting from an 'entry point' provided
>>by presets, to the exact sound you want, it's much easier to use pots.
>
> Funny is the instinctive reflex that one develops for adjusting controls on
> Oberheim or other preset synth gear that requires you to move the pot past
> the existing setting to get the sound to change.  When I want a longer
> attack or higher filter cutoff I know which way to turn the knob.  I may not
> know the exact value to turn it to but I know I want up or down.  I'm not
> sure how having a hard limit of a pot helps my ability to change a sound.
> Sure, I may prefer gear with pots over encoders but I can use either equally
> well.
>
> Not to feed the trolls but I got a good chuckle out of this discussion.  The
> vast majority of my studio gear uses switches.  There are some places where
> pots are used, things like threshold on compressors, output gain, etc.  My
> Focusrite, Neve, and Daking gear have pots for eq amount.  The other
> controls (eq freqs, lo/hi pass filters, ratios, etc) are all switches.  My
> Quad Eight, API, Electrodyne, Sphere gear - all rotary switches.  I don't
> see lack of a continuously variable pot affecting my ability to do a good
> mix.  The controls could all be encoders and it wouldn't affect usability,
> maybe sound quality, but not usability.
>
> All mechanical elements of an instruments UI are going to wear and need
> replacement.  Doesn't matter if it's an encoder, pot, switch, string, reed,
> or valve.  Instrument builders should do a better job of evaluating
> components to ensure we're not saddled with a $500 repair mere months or
> years into ownership.  But $500 for maintenance every 10-15 years?  Doesn't
> seem out of line to me.
>
> -Cary
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>