[sdiy] From a commercial standpoint -- has Eurorack "won"?

rsdio at audiobanshee.com rsdio at audiobanshee.com
Wed May 4 18:38:07 CEST 2016


On May 4, 2016, at 1:22 AM, Mattias Rickardsson <mr at analogue.org> wrote:
> Den 3 maj 2016 6:42 em skrev "David G Dixon" <dixon at mail.ubc.ca>:
> >
> > Yes, even on an analog modular filter, it is often easier to design a VCQ
> 
> How can it be easier to design a VCQ than to not design a VCQ? :-)

It's certainly cheaper and simpler without VC. Resonance feedback can be as simple as connecting the filter output to a potentiometer, with the wiper connected to the input. That means no active components whatsoever. With that circuit, resonance cannot be controlled by CV.

In contrast, VCQ would require a VCA circuit at a minimum, which is definitely an active circuit. A full VCA may not be necessary, but it would certainly not be a simple circuit to implement VCQ. I'd say that VCQ is always less easy than non-VC Q.


> > and then just have a panel pot which sends a fixed voltage to it, and leave
> > the VC controls off the panel.
> 
> What becomes easier I guess is that you can get away with a standard Q potentiometer, you don't have to use a, say, reverse log pot with odd value. Provided that you do the transfer function magic in your VCQ circuits instead.
> 
> Not having to route audio through a panel pot could be considered easier as well, but instead there are CV signals to route there, so no big difference perhaps.
> 
> /mr

What he said.




More information about the Synth-diy mailing list