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

[Donald Tillman]

> On May 16, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> 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.

I'm known around these parts as a stickler for precise technical language, perhaps annoyingly so, but I think in this case it's time to give it up.  

Pretty much every single company that makes a 4-quadrant multiplier advertises it as a Ring Modulator.  The early synth makers did, ARP did, Buchla did, Serge did, Emu did, the ElectroComp did.  It's really tough to find an exception.

(Well... Aries, called theirs a Balanced Modulator, but how many of them exist?)

Bode and Moog made transformer/diode Ring Modulators, but those weren't modules and they're very rare.  Modern Moog products call 4-quadrant multipliers Ring Modulators.

The synthesizers we love have effectively added a second definition to the word.  And that's okay, that happens with language.  

And it's solidified by the word "ring" suggesting a bell, as bell-like timbres are the primary application.  

And you can even blame Bode and Moog, because the product name should reflect what it does, not the particular circuit configuration used.

So I think it's time to embrace the second definition of Ring Modulator.  People will know what you're talking about and it will keep every modulation discussion from degenerating into diodes and transformers.

Next topic, Fender swapping "tremolo" and "vibrato".

  -- Don

--
Don Tillman
Palo Alto, California
don at till.com
http://www.till.com