[sdiy] 566 Functional Replacement

[Mattias Rickardsson]

 Some thoughts about the dream VCO discussions here:

What would be the main reasons for wanting a tiny VCO IC?
I can find it hypothetically attractive, sure, but given that it will never
have many features AND a small size at the same time, I'd almost always
need to add stuff outside in the end since you rarely want just the basic
functionality. If I'd use a dedicated VCO IC I'd rather have some features
that are sometimes not in use than having to add near-basic functionality
with external components. The only true reason for a small chip that I can
come to think of is cost. I guess it somehow scales with size in IC
fabrication?

Making wishlists with VCO features, ending up on the 3340 specification
from 38 years back... aren't we missing something? :-)=
Many modern analog oscillators (both in modulars and in hardwired synths)
have other features than the ones we had in the '80s. This should be
reflected a bit in the wishlists we make for VCOs today, even if most of
these features could be added outside the main chip. Exponential and linear
CV should be mandatory, triangle/sawtooth/square outputs as well - and I'm
thinking that a triangle core would be the way to go, even if proper sync
needs to be dealt with in a less obvious way. That said, we're still stuck
in 1980. Sine shaper, thru-zero FM, what more is desired for the
synthesists of today? :-)

Btw, Tim P, that negative expo CV allowing a single inverting CV summer is
a smart choice. What about the double cap pins in your suggested pinout? Do
they give a better solution than the cap-to-ground used in both CEM and SSM
ICs?

/mr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20180319/682b3df8/attachment.htm>