[sdiy] Multiples - passive vs. active?

[Oscar Salas]

For split 1V/octave signals -If the 1V/octave source is convenient designed with impedance=0-  the best option -because its simplicity- is a passive multiplier.  

Actually I don't see sense in a buffered multiple for split signals inside a system with buffered outputs and buffered inputs. I don't see importance in loose amplitude of say a LFO -with standard 1K impedance output- split to modulate several VCOs. Due usually you don't want 1V/oct accuracy on there and further it will pass through an attenuator.

For mix signals better a mixer.

Oscar.



--- On Mon, 1/17/11, Justin Owen <juzowen at googlemail.com> wrote:

> From: Justin Owen <juzowen at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] Multiples - passive vs. active?
> To: "Synth DIY" <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
> Date: Monday, January 17, 2011, 3:03 PM
> On 17 Jan 2011, at 11:31, Justin Owen
> wrote:
> 
> >> Is there any reason or advantage - other than cost
> and PCB space -  
> that someone would choose a passive multiple over an
> active/buffered  
> multiple? Is it always one is better than the other - or is
> there a  
> time and place for both - or it really matters not in the
> real world?
> 
> > Multiples are passive, an active "multiple" is a unity
> gain mixer /  
> amplifier.
> 
> > If the destination(s) is(are) high impedance, passive
> multiples will  
> work, however modules with a lower input impedance will
> load the  
> source hence the need for active mixing.
> 
> To clarify - by 'active' I meant 'buffered'.
> 
> So for peace of mind on impedance issues - it's
> active/buffered.
> 
> Any other takers?
> 
> Ta,
> 
> J
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>