Doepfer

On 3 Dec 2005, at 14:43, Dieter Doepfer wrote:

> To speak the truth I did not read all the groovalizer messages in detail but

the first mail has a short description

> how about this solution:
> 
> Clock a VC trigger delay (e.g. A-142 or A-162 with reduced timing capacitors
> and the planned universal vactrol module) with the fixed (i.e. non-grooving)
> master clock. A random or any other control voltage (sequencer, LFO,
> Midi-to-CV, Theremin ...) is used to vary the delay time in the desired
> range. The output of the trigger delay is the new grooving master clock.
>
You're absolutely right, modding the delay time of the A-162 and 
adding vactrol vc for time and length would give me the features I 
want, but I would personally use this only for short grooves of up to 
4 steps where I can use one A-151 and a mixer to trigger the A-162. 
Bigger patterns of 5-8 steps would require big patches, and using a 
sequencer to trigger the A-162 would not be that great, because you 
want to be able to trigger the sequencer itself with the resulting 
grooves.. 

So the module idea is really about having a simple intuitive user 
interface instead of a big patch, something that you could use live 
on stage without getting confused. 

> For the planned synced LFO (A-143-4 ?, still in the planning stage) we will
> see if it is possible to introduce grooving features.

Keep us posted! I think the module might be handy for 'true positive and negative 
delay' so to speak :-))

Thanks and greetings,

Anton

> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
> 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Anton Coops
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Dezember 2005 20:48
> > An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: Re: [Doepfer_a100] suggestion: groovalizer
> >
> >
> > On 2 Dec 2005, at 15:30, Florian Anwander wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, Anton, it should be kidding.
> >
> > I'm not at all offended
> >
> > > The main problem is, that the Seq-outCV-controls-VCO method influences
> > > the tempo. This should not happen to my opinion.
> >
> > I agree, and even stronger, to me that makes this method quite
> > useless, because the most important thing to me would be staying
> > locked into the main beat and being able to do unorthodox things at
> > the same time without getting lost. Think of the more extreme flows
> > you hear in d&b/garage/grime grooves, or some of the stranger
> > hiphop beats.
> >
> > The other main function of the module would be to finetune the feel
> > of basslines, melodies, hihats etc. and creating all kinds of crazy
> > loops. Also it can be refreshing to get out of the 4/8/16 grid and use
> > a bit of 3, 5, 6 or 7, and just experiment in general. That's really what
> > this is all about. I think this groove module could help to create some
> > really new sounds and music. That's also why I suggested the
> > extended quantizing module some time ago. I see those two ideas as
> > related, or complementary. The quantizer idea basically would offer
> > more grids which can be used for the cv-output of a sequencer,
> > while the groove-module would offer more and flexible grids which
> > can be used for the clock input of a sequencer.
> >
> > You could say that the groove-module approach is better because
> > you can tweak each value individually, and the tuning-module idea
> > depends upon a template (the n-tet) with only 1 variable n (same
> > function as the number of steps-switch in groove module). But on
> > the other hand tweaking the individual value of each step in a tuning
> > would require so many pots that this would probably become
> > unpractical. Definitely if you would let n go up to 24 (although
> > personally I wouldn't mind having that possibility at all). But then
> > again you could refine the n grids and make them more usable with
> > an editable scale-mask, which is actually quite necessary for higher
> > values of n.
> >
> > It's just such a pity that a lot of people have no idea what's
> > behind scales
> > and tunings, although it is right at the core of all music. That keeps
> > you from exploring and you end up with the same notes over and over
> > again while there are so many more notes... :-))
> >
> > > > The typical delay-range for the individual steps would be somewhere
> > > > between +/- 5 and 200 ms, so in this aspect this idea would require
> > > > more precision than the A-162, which has a (+/-?) trigger delay of
> > > > up to 10 seconds, and which is not very precise in the 15 - 50 ms
> > > > range, where a lot of groove is to be found.
> > > It is technically very simple to add an switch and an alternative
> > > capacitor to reduce the delay time range. Like the range
> > switches of the
> > > A140 envelopes.
> >
> > Yes, I've been thinking about such a modification. That's how I got this
> > idea in the first place.
> >
> > What would be the preferred method to change the delay-range of the
> > A-162 so the level indicators of the pot would roughly translate to ms
> > x 10 (level 1 10 ms, level 5 somewhere around 50ms etc.) ?? Do you
> > happen to know?
> >
> > > PS:
> > >  > I bet you a crate of dutch beer
> > > Never, never, never bet for dutch beer with someone born and living in
> > > Bavaria. ;-)
> >
> > Ok.. I won't, I have far too much respect for German beer ;-)
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Anton
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>