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

David G Dixon dixon at mail.ubc.ca
Wed May 4 22:57:03 CEST 2016


I guess, by "easier" I meant that it was easier for me to just do it right
to begin with, so if I wanted to make it VCQ later, it was already done, and
instead of audio going through a panel pot, it was just reference voltages.
"Easier" wasn't the right word. "Better" would be the better word.


  _____  

From: navelludd at gmail.com [mailto:navelludd at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mattias
Rickardsson
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 1:22 AM
To: David G Dixon
Cc: synthdiy diy; Neil Johnson
Subject: RE: [sdiy] From a commercial standpoint -- has Eurorack "won"?



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? :-)

> 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20160504/4117de5c/attachment.htm>


More information about the Synth-diy mailing list