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: More random EG thoughts

From: JWBarlow@...
Date: 2000-02-04

First: I have a question for any gurus reading this. Would someone please
give me a mathematical explanation of how the ATTACK (rising) and DECAY or
RELEASE (falling) controls change their respective rates? I'm wondering how
the curves are changing and how the knobs control those changes (if you read
my post about MoaEG, you may know why I'm asking this).

In a message dated 2/3/2000 9:03:02 AM, daveb@... writes:
>2. 1U vs 2U, simple versus complex, flexible versus affordable: we really
>have 2 conversations going, one about a simple VC AR, maybe chainable or
>retriggerable, and the other about a super whizbang multistage VC DADSR
>level/time based EG.

Uh! We're having way more than two EG conversations going here. But I think
each of the concepts has merit:
1) VC DADSR -- proposed module from long ago.
2) (DUAL) VC AD/AR -- main topic of discussion recently.
3) MoaEG -- though dismissed by some, there is great promise in such a module
and Paul, Crow, Roy, and others could make the most powerful and easy to
operate multi stage EG available within a year or two.

These are incompatible goals, so we should realize
>are talking about at least 2 different modules. I like the idea of 1U for
>the simple case because if I want to chain 3 or 4 together, I don't want
>burn 8U of space.

My original suggestion was for a DUAL (or triple) 2U (now VC) AD/AR, since
AD/AR envelopes aren't all that interesting, especially if used for
controlling VCAs and VCFs. They can, however, be more interesting when you've
got a lot of them. I also think that a 2U would be reasonably cheap (maybe
$150 given the number of pots and the lack of specialty components). I also
seem to remember Paul preferring to have all the 1U panels have the same hole
pattern as the 800.

I think it very unlikely that Paul will offer two different VC AD/AR modules
(at least within the near future). I also think that VC delay is useful, but
not very often. So let me propose that a dual VC GATE delay module could be
offered. These could be used as VC gate delay (probably just done with a
556). Such a module could possibly also be used for Dave V.'s SUSTAIN time
control, and maybe Hugo's peak control -- still waiting for a more complete
explanation of that one, Hugo.