Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list next in topic

Subject: Re: Driving the '320 into audio range

From: Doug Pearson <ceres@...
Date: 1999-12-16

When I wrote Larry to tell him how great his 320-tracking tip was, in
proper Stooge form :^) he didn't notice that I had sent him an off-list
Email (understandable, given all the private Emails that were flooding the
list this morning :^) ), thus depriving the list of yet another great idea
further on down ...

>From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
>Well, even if the new micro-VCO is stripped as has no sync input, it could
>be the master with other 300s or 320s sync'ed from it. For certain, the
>320 is a very nice LFO. But, I can see that I will use mine in the audio
>range as a bass enhancer on a regular basis. As much as I like the 120, a
>square wave gets a bit tiresome. So, sometimes I know I will appreciate
>the 320 as my sub osc. As an LFO, this shape knob has got me smiling REAL
>big. I never dreamed it would offer such flexibility and audible
>difference in LFO modulations.
>Speaking of square waves. What about a separate MOTM modules that would
>just be a WAVE shaper? -- Square wave input, the "big 4" outputs. I would
>buy one.

Is this possible/practical? The waveshaper inherent in the -300 uses a
sawtooth wave as input in order to output a square (pulse) wave, and I'm
not quite sure how it would work the other way around. The -800 EG can be
used as sort of a wave shaper, but that's not really practical AFAIK unless
your range of pitches is pretty severly restricted. Would a true
square-input waveshaper require some sort of phase-locked loop to keep
amplitudes consistent?

But if it can be done, I'll buy one!