What Moe said but add an Improbability Drive. I have enough noise
sources, too, so the S&H functionality only would get my vote. But
only because I have all those other noise sources. If I didn't, I
would vote differently.
Mike
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, ac <analoghell@g...> wrote:
> > I realise that theoritically they are different, but why would they
> > sound different?
> > Could we really descern, audibly or otherwise, any difference?
>
> Noise is just a weighted probability distribution of voltage over
> time. Two different sources will have the same distribution over a
> period of time, but not the same at any given moment of time. So, they
> mix differently and more powerfully than just adding a single signal
> with itself - turning up the volume so to speak.
>
> >
> > I'm struggling to think of a patch or situation where 2 distinct noise
> > sources would be required?
>
> Polyphonic patches, for one.
>
> > But unless you sample a noise source at exactly the same billisecond
> > the chances of getting the same result are pretty slim, surely?
>
> Yes. But when that's exactly what I want to do (obtain multiple random
> values on the same clock edge, nothing else will do. Multiple S&H
> modules sampling the same noise source will give me all the same
> values, or values very close to each other given component variations.
>
> I have white/pink noise in my MOTM 100, digital clocked noise in my
> Dark Star, and shift register clocked noise/white noise in my Noise
> Ring. I find them all to be useful, and use them quite often in the
> same patch.
>
> Your mileage and needs may vary, of course.
>
> Moe
>