<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>How about a triangle (or saw) VCO core on a small SMD board
piggybacked on an 8 pin DIP header?<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/19/18 11:26 AM, Tim Ressel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ef0e0fda-6253-3f54-6bfb-0415e435ba73@circuitabbey.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>When I sed 'VCO' I did not mean a full-featured volt per octave
VCO. I literally meant an oscillator that has voltage control.
Cv in, triangle and square out, thats it. thats what the 566
did. that is what I want. 8 pins, 5 passives, and you're in
business. thats what the 566 brought to the party.</p>
<p>-t-i-m-b-o-<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/19/2018 9:21 AM, Mattias
Rickardsson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP92RBXPnv=7jtKnXTTGe5c_JpiNbuisF4xuNuUiY57fZkzrmA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Some thoughts about the dream VCO discussions here:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What would be the main reasons for wanting a tiny VCO IC?<br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Making wishlists with VCO features, ending up on the 3340
specification from 38 years back... aren't we missing
something? :-)=</div>
<div>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? :-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>/mr</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Synth-diy mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy" moz-do-not-send="true">http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--Tim Ressel
Circuit Abbey
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:timr@circuitabbey.com" moz-do-not-send="true">timr@circuitabbey.com</a></pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Synth-diy mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy">http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>