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

Mattias Rickardsson mr at analogue.org
Wed May 4 23:01:11 CEST 2016


I see your point. Better might not be easier than easy, but it surely is
better than easy.  :-)

/mr
Den 4 maj 2016 10:57 em skrev "David G Dixon" <dixon at mail.ubc.ca>:

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/e949c562/attachment.htm>


More information about the Synth-diy mailing list