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: VCEG again!

From: "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <PaulBr@...>
Date: 2000-03-02

Hmmm, in English? That's difficult, I'm much more fluent in C...

Well, the idea for a built in atteunator on the VCEG is this: One possible
usage for a EG is shaping the amplitude of another signal via a VCA. Well,
we have a VCA already, but its got a few extra features such as the DC
offset and ring-mod. If I just want to shape the amplitude of a signal, it
seems a little overkill to use a whole 'nuther module when the functionality
can easily be tacked onto the EG. (I mentioned the knobby version because
that's the ultra easy version, just a pot, but its controlled by hand.)
This also has the effect of encouranging the use of many, many EGs, because
you need fewer parts to use them effectively.

OTOH... many modules already come with VC control, so maybe the extra
shaping attenuation isn't so useful. <shrug>

Reguarding the VC sustain... if you sum the output of the EG with the CV
source, then you are fluctuating the EG output at all times... having a
dedicated VC sustain would allow the level to fluctuate only during the
sustain period (or so I would imagine). Imagine using an LFO for the VC
sustain... you would get your normal attack, decay, a warbled sustain, then
release. If you sum the LFO with the EG output, you get a warbled

Now, I'm not passionate about the subject, so I imagine I could go either
way. But it seems to me that even with a VS sustain, you can still sum the
EG output, and get the extra neato-factor. Of course, I suspect that's what
the whole argument was about to begin with, but I was a little swamped when
those e-mails can around... ;P

Reguarding the multi... D'oh! I'll have Paul S. ship you one... thanks!!!


> -----Original Message-----
> From:jwbarlow@... [SMTP:jwbarlow@...]
> Sent:Wednesday, March 01, 2000 7:40 PM
> Subject:Re: [motm] VCEG again!
> Did you say free attenuators? Send me a bunch!
> OK, I've looked at this a couple of times, and I have no idea what you're
> talking about. Could you say it in English this time <grin>.
> BTW, The reason I think VC sustain is the least useful of all the
> time/voltage domains under VC (should be included, but can lose features
> like
> an attenuator more quickly than the others):
> If, for example, VC sustain is a one to one relationship (1V CV input
> produces a 1V increase in the output of sustain), you can get a very
> similar
> (possibly more useful) effect by merely summing your CV source with the
> output of your EG and using that sum to control your....
> Bring it on, you wusses!
> JB
> Hey, you gonna send me a 1U to drill for mults?