[sdiy] Ring Mod (was Re: Hadamard Transform Network)

[Tim Ressel]

'Ring mod' is easier to type than 'Four Quadrant Multiplier', and unless 
you're talking specifics, everyone will know what you mean. Xerox 
bristles every time someone refers to copying as 'Xeroxing' but it has 
become a universal term.

But you bring up an interesting point: 4QMs multiply, but they produce 
x+y, x-y tones. Anyone got the math on that?

--tr


On 5/16/2017 6:12 AM, Tom Wiltshire wrote:
> Let me summarise from last time we had this conversation: strictly 4-quadrant multipliers aren't "ring mods", but many people use "ring mod" universally to apply to both. This is either sloppy and incorrect usage, or a widening of the definition of the term depending on your point of view.
>
>
> On 16 May 2017, at 13:59, mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017, Mattias Rickardsson wrote:
>>> On 15 May 2017 at 19:49, Tim Ressel <timr at circuitabbey.com> wrote:
>>>> whenever you make a bell sound with a ring mod .. that's multiplicative.
>>> Not exactly, if it's a real ring modulator... which is a switching device.
>> It's still multiplying, just multiplying with a square wave.
>>
>>> But a balanced modulator (4-quadrant multiplier ("ringmod")) is purely
>>> multiplicative. :-)
>> In radio work the term "balanced modulator" very often means a diode ring.
>>
>> -- 
>> Matthew Skala
>> mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca                 People before principles.
>> http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Synth-diy mailing list
>> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>

-- 
--Tim Ressel
Circuit Abbey
timr at circuitabbey.com