[sdiy] Article "Analyzing the Moog Filter"

Quincas Moreira quincas at gmail.com
Fri Aug 23 18:09:48 CEST 2019


Don’t forget the Leapfrog topology as implemented by Matthew Skala.

Also the Steiner Parker, the Wasp filter. The EMS diode ladde and Arp 2600 filters maybe closely related to the Moog but there are differences. Still cool to see a young mind tackle this analysis

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 23, 2019, at 11:57, Donald Tillman <don at till.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 22, 2019, at 11:30 PM, Brian Willoughby <brianw at audiobanshee.com> wrote:
>> 
>> First of all, where is the specification for the Moog Ladder Filter that shows it having accurate voltage control over a defined range? Is it really that accurate? Doesn’t it require calibration periodically?
>> 
>> How bad is the CV accuracy for other filters? Don’t the others calibrate to the same end results?
> 
> If a filter is tuned with a transistor's exponential base-to-collector function, then it will probably be accurate enough to throw into oscillator mode and be used to play a melody.
> 
> That's not the case with filters tuned with diodes, FETs or vactrols.
> 
> That said, if I'm buying something called a "filter", then it's not reasonable to assume that I can play a melody on it.
> 
> 
>> Second, if you were to build a 4-pole SVF, would it be considered two 2-pole low-pass sections in series, or would the two dual integrators make some folks call it “four” single-pole low-pass sections in series?
>> 
>> Since I haven’t tried this, I’m not familiar with how global feedback might cause problems with 2 SVF in series. I do recall some nice discussions around here, though.
> 
> There are multiple ways to build a 4-pole SVF. 
> 
>  -- Don
> --
> Donald Tillman, Palo Alto, California
> http://www.till.com
> 
> 
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2019, at 11:05 PM, Donald Tillman <don at till.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 22, 2019, at 6:07 PM, Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I don’t like to disagree with you, Don, but I’m not sure what you’re thinking. Moog or SVF are definitely *not* the only two filter options.
>>>> OTA+cap-to-ground+buffer? VCA+Integrators?
>>> 
>>> Consider a description of a filter as a sort of "taxonomy" with three layers:
>>> 
>>>   Top Layer: the filter spec, number of poles, response
>>> 
>>>   Second Layer: the topology that implements that filter function
>>> 
>>>   Bottom Layer: implementation details, including the control element
>>> 
>>> So a Moog Ladder would be:
>>> 
>>>  Top Layer: 4 pole, low-pass, with resonance
>>> 
>>>  Second Layer: 4 single-pole low-pass sections in series, with feedback
>>> 
>>>  Bottom Layer: the ladder circuit
>>> 
>>> And a State Variable filter would be:
>>> 
>>>  Top Layer: 2 pole, multi-mode
>>> 
>>>  Second Layer: 2 integrators and an inverter, in a loop
>>> 
>>>  Bottom Layer: the circuit, perhaps OTAs 
>>> 
>>> And so forth.  
>>> 
>>> This analysis also works really well with oscillators and other functions.
>>> 
>>> Here's a Moog style VCO:
>>> 
>>>   Top Layer: VCO with sine, square, triangle, sawtooth waves
>>> 
>>>   Middle Layer: block diagram with exponential current source, sawtooth core, waveshapers
>>> 
>>>   Bottom Layer: the circuit details
>>> 
>>> So if I dismiss the implementation details, as defined this way, it limits the number of unique filter designs.
>>> 
>>> You know I'm a big fan of implementation details.  And you'd want to make sure that the implementation details didn't have a significant functional effect as you draw these lines.  That's part of the craft.
>>> 
>>> But if I'm characterizing filter types, I think it's reasonable to pay attention to the implementation topology and ignore the implementation details.
>>> 
>>> -- Don
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy




More information about the Synth-diy mailing list