[sdiy] 566 Functional Replacement

[Roman Sowa]

I couldn't agree with you more.
With those VCO chips becoming available again, the charm has gone down 
completely and now I think the dream VCO chip for me would be just the 
expo converter, temperature compensated with good tracking over wide 
range, with bipolar linear input for FM and triangle core. Preferably in 
SOT363 package. Everything else is dead simple to do and better made 
with modern generic components.

Then again more and more the whole idea of doing anything analog fades 
away, as it's so easy to do in digital today. I can't believe I just 
said that.

Roman

W dniu 2018-03-19 o 17:21, Mattias Rickardsson pisze:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>