Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2009-01-28 by Richard Brewster
I've realized that I could use some passive attenuators. Just 100K linear pots wired to jacks for in and out. Three could fit on a 1U MOTM-format panel in the same configuration as an Oakley Multi-Mix. I can easily make a FPE panel design for this, but wouldn't this be a nice addition to Bridechamber? Thoughts? -Richard Brewster http://www.pugix.com
2009-01-28 by Scott Deyo
That could easily be done, but they'll have to wait a bit until the current run is finished and paid for. Good idea! I was also planning on making one for DotCom cabinets, a partial width for all those MOTMers using DotCom cabs. Cheers, Scott Deyo The Bridechamber contact@... http://www.bridechamber.com Jealous Edison Record Kompany http://www.jealousedison.com
On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Richard Brewster wrote: > I've realized that I could use some passive attenuators. Just 100K > linear pots wired to jacks for in and out. Three could fit on a 1U > MOTM-format panel in the same configuration as an Oakley Multi-Mix. I > can easily make a FPE panel design for this, but wouldn't this be a > nice > addition to Bridechamber? > > Thoughts? > > -Richard Brewster > http://www.pugix.com > > >
2009-01-28 by David Moylan
That could easily be done, but they'll have to wait a bit until the current run is finished and paid for.
Good idea!
I was also planning on making one for DotCom cabinets, a partial width for all those MOTMers using DotCom cabs.
Cheers,
Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@...
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com
On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Richard Brewster wrote:
I've realized that I could use some passive attenuators. Just 100K
linear pots wired to jacks for in and out. Three could fit on a 1U
MOTM-format panel in the same configuration as an Oakley Multi-Mix. I
can easily make a FPE panel design for this, but wouldn't this be a nice
addition to Bridechamber?
Thoughts?
-Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com
2009-01-28 by Scott Deyo
I could leave the tick-marks unlabeled and you could build it either way -- no 0 to 10, or -5 to +5. Scott Deyo The Bridechamber contact@bridechamber.com http://www.bridechamber.com Jealous Edison Record Kompany http://www.jealousedison.com
On Jan 28, 2009, at 8:38 AM, David Moylan wrote: > I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful? Could > probably be done with an MUUB. > > Dave > > Scott Deyo wrote:That could easily be done, but they'll have to wait > a bit until the current run is finished and paid for. >> >> Good idea! >> >> I was also planning on making one for DotCom cabinets, a partial >> width for all those MOTMers using DotCom cabs. >> >> Cheers, >> Scott Deyo >> The Bridechamber >> contact@bridechamber.com >> http://www.bridechamber.com >> Jealous Edison Record Kompany >> http://www.jealousedison.com >> >> >> On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Richard Brewster wrote: >> >>> I've realized that I could use some passive attenuators. Just 100K >>> linear pots wired to jacks for in and out. Three could fit on a 1U >>> MOTM-format panel in the same configuration as an Oakley Multi-Mix. >>> I >>> can easily make a FPE panel design for this, but wouldn't this be a >>> nice >>> addition to Bridechamber? >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -Richard Brewster >>> http://www.pugix.com >>> > > >
2009-01-28 by Mark
On 1/28/09, David Moylan put forth: >I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful? >Could probably be done with an MUUB. Yes, and it could also be done with the CGS utility boards. Both of which are much more cost-effective options than buying the Oakley boards. However, I don't see why you couldn't use the Multi-Mix panel. The one I have is Stooge, but doesn't Scott already make one??
2009-01-29 by Richard Brewster
For this application I want to use passive simple attenuators. I already have two Oakley Multi-Mix and two Blacet Mixers with reversible, center-off, active attenuators. These lack the simplicity of a pot that just goes from zero to 100 percent. I have a number of non-attenuated CV inputs on various modules where I'd just like to patch a passive attenuator. Richard Brewster http://www.pugix.com David Moylan wrote:
> I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful? Could > probably be done with an MUUB. > > Dave > > Scott Deyo wrote: >> That could easily be done, but they'll have to wait a bit until the >> current run is finished and paid for. >> >> Good idea! >> >> I was also planning on making one for DotCom cabinets, a partial >> width for all those MOTMers using DotCom cabs. >> >> Cheers, >> Scott Deyo >> The Bridechamber >> contact@... >> http://www.bridechamber.com >> Jealous Edison Record Kompany >> http://www.jealousedison.com >> >> >> On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Richard Brewster wrote: >> >> I've realized that I could use some passive attenuators. Just 100K >> linear pots wired to jacks for in and out. Three could fit on a 1U >> MOTM-format panel in the same configuration as an Oakley >> Multi-Mix. I >> can easily make a FPE panel design for this, but wouldn't this be >> a nice >> addition to Bridechamber? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Richard Brewster >> http://www.pugix.com >> > >
2009-01-29 by Richard Brewster
Yes, Scott has a Multi-Mix panel. But for the reasons I've stated that doesn't work for me. It would work for reversible attenuators, if you don't mind the panel fibbing about the module name. Richard Brewster Mark wrote:
> On 1/28/09, David Moylan put forth: > >> I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful? >> Could probably be done with an MUUB. >> > > Yes, and it could also be done with the CGS utility boards. Both of > which are much more cost-effective options than buying the Oakley > boards. However, I don't see why you couldn't use the Multi-Mix > panel. The one I have is Stooge, but doesn't Scott already make one?? > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
2009-01-29 by Richard Brewster
Sending again, as this didn't seem to get posted. Richard Brewster wrote:
> For this application I want to use passive simple attenuators. I > already have two Oakley Multi-Mix and two Blacet Mixers with > reversible, center-off, active attenuators. These lack the simplicity > of a pot that just goes from zero to 100 percent. I have a number of > non-attenuated CV inputs on various modules where I'd just like to > patch a passive attenuator. > > Richard Brewster > http://www.pugix.com > > David Moylan wrote: >> I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful? Could >> probably be done with an MUUB. >> >> Dave >> >> Scott Deyo wrote: >>> That could easily be done, but they'll have to wait a bit until the >>> current run is finished and paid for. >>> >>> Good idea! >>> >>> I was also planning on making one for DotCom cabinets, a partial >>> width for all those MOTMers using DotCom cabs. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Scott Deyo >>> The Bridechamber >>> contact@... >>> http://www.bridechamber.com >>> Jealous Edison Record Kompany >>> http://www.jealousedison.com >>> >>> >>> On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:09 PM, Richard Brewster wrote: >>> >>> I've realized that I could use some passive attenuators. Just 100K >>> linear pots wired to jacks for in and out. Three could fit on a 1U >>> MOTM-format panel in the same configuration as an Oakley >>> Multi-Mix. I >>> can easily make a FPE panel design for this, but wouldn't this be >>> a nice >>> addition to Bridechamber? >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -Richard Brewster >>> http://www.pugix.com >>>
2009-01-29 by John L Rice
Couldn't you just use the Multi-Mix panel backwards, so the blank side faces front? ;-) John L Rice From: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Brewster Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:15 PM To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] 1U MOTM panel for three passive attenuators Yes, Scott has a Multi-Mix panel. But for the reasons I've stated that doesn't work for me. It would work for reversible attenuators, if you don't mind the panel fibbing about the module name. Richard Brewster Mark wrote:
> On 1/28/09, David Moylan put forth: > >> I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful? >> Could probably be done with an MUUB. >> > > Yes, and it could also be done with the CGS utility boards. Both of > which are much more cost-effective options than buying the Oakley > boards. However, I don't see why you couldn't use the Multi-Mix > panel. The one I have is Stooge, but doesn't Scott already make one?? > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > >
2009-01-29 by David Moylan
Couldn\u2019t you just use the Multi-Mix panel backwards, so the blank side faces front? ;-)
John L Rice
From: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Brewster
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:15 PM
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] 1U MOTM panel for three passive attenuators
Yes, Scott has a Multi-Mix panel. But for the reasons I've stated that
doesn't work for me. It would work for reversible attenuators, if you
don't mind the panel fibbing about the module name.
Richard Brewster
Mark wrote:
> On 1/28/09, David Moylan put forth:
>
>> I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful?
>> Could probably be done with an MUUB.
>>
>
> Yes, and it could also be done with the CGS utility boards. Both of
> which are much more cost-effective options than buying the Oakley
> boards. However, I don't see why you couldn't use the Multi-Mix
> panel. The one I have is Stooge, but doesn't Scott already make one??
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
2009-01-29 by Scott Deyo
If you don't mind paying a few extra dollars... I suppose they're still much less than FPE, and then I don't have to have them sitting in stock forever. On the other hand, behind the panel has become as aesthetically important to me as the front lately. That's why I'm liking my new red box caps instead of yellow! : ) Scott Deyo The Bridechamber contact@... http://www.bridechamber.com Jealous Edison Record Kompany http://www.jealousedison.com
On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:53 AM, David Moylan wrote: > Or screen print both sides slightly differently. > > Dave > > John L Rice wrote:Couldn’t you just use the Multi-Mix panel > backwards, so the blank side faces front? ;-) >> >> >> >> John L Rice >> >> >> >> From: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard >> Brewster >> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:15 PM >> To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] 1U MOTM panel for three passive >> attenuators >> >> >> >> Yes, Scott has a Multi-Mix panel. But for the reasons I've stated that >> doesn't work for me. It would work for reversible attenuators, if you >> don't mind the panel fibbing about the module name. >> >> Richard Brewster >> >> Mark wrote: >> > On 1/28/09, David Moylan put forth: >> > >> >> I like this idea but wouldn't 3 attenu-verters be more useful? >> >> Could probably be done with an MUUB. >> >> >> > >> > Yes, and it could also be done with the CGS utility boards. Both of >> > which are much more cost-effective options than buying the Oakley >> > boards. However, I don't see why you couldn't use the Multi-Mix >> > panel. The one I have is Stooge, but doesn't Scott already make >> one?? >> > >> > ------------------------------------ >> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > >
2009-01-29 by Scott Juskiw
A possible option might be to roll your own port-a-pots: http://moogarchives.com/portapot.htm Saves eating up panel space. And if you need 10 of them one day, just build yourself 10 of them. Would be nice of some company actually made these for general purpose use: injection molded one piece tubular design with a small pot on the side, wouldn't need to have a big knob sticking out like the Moog ones.
2009-01-29 by Jason Proctor
and that would also have the nice side effect that the PCB is MOTM-side, as opposed to Oakley-side :-)
>Couldn't you just use the Multi-Mix panel backwards, so the blank >side faces front? ;-) > >John L Rice >
2009-01-29 by krisp
From: Scott JuskiwSent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:02 PMSubject: Re: [ModularSynthPanels] 1U MOTM panel for three passive attenuatorsA possible option might be to roll your own port-a-pots:
http://moogarchives.com/portapot.htm
Saves eating up panel space. And if you need 10 of them one day, just
build yourself 10 of them.
Would be nice of some company actually made these for general purpose
use: injection molded one piece tubular design with a small pot on the
side, wouldn't need to have a big knob sticking out like the Moog ones.
2009-01-30 by Richard Brewster
These Radio Shack Y adapters work nicely for the "Move-A-Mult" idea. I have half a dozen. http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103712 I like the Port-A-Pot idea, except the pot will interfere with cables plugged into nearby jacks. This gives me the idea to build a pot and two jacks into a little box that I can run patch cables to. That way I don't need to use valuable cabinet space for a panel with passive attenuators (although that would be a tidier approach). Richard Brewster http://www.pugix.com krisp wrote:
> I had to try this and it works like a dream > I have a whole bunch of the Move-A-Mult and now to build some more > Port-A-Pot's > > Paul > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Scott Juskiw <mailto:scott@...> > *To:* ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:02 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ModularSynthPanels] 1U MOTM panel for three > passive attenuators > > A possible option might be to roll your own port-a-pots: > > http://moogarchives.com/portapot.htm > <http://moogarchives.com/portapot.htm> > > Saves eating up panel space. And if you need 10 of them one day, just > build yourself 10 of them. > > Would be nice of some company actually made these for general purpose > use: injection molded one piece tubular design with a small pot on > the > side, wouldn't need to have a big knob sticking out like the Moog > ones. > >
2009-01-30 by data2action
like this, more or less?: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ModularSynthPanels/photos/album/525459013/pic/1523257515/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc i'm also a big fan of y-cords, mostly diy 1/8"... hate wasting panel real-estate, and y-cords are can always go right where you need 'em. b --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Richard Brewster <pugix@...> wrote:
> > These Radio Shack Y adapters work nicely for the "Move-A-Mult" idea. I > have half a dozen. > > http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103712 > > I like the Port-A-Pot idea, except the pot will interfere with cables > plugged into nearby jacks. This gives me the idea to build a pot and > two jacks into a little box that I can run patch cables to. That way I > don't need to use valuable cabinet space for a panel with passive > attenuators (although that would be a tidier approach). > > Richard Brewster > http://www.pugix.com >
2009-01-30 by Mark
Very interesting, but from just looking at them, they don't seem all that mechanically reliable. You can also put attenuators, mults, and other passive circuits (rectifiers, high pass filters, etc) in little boxes. I've seen people use breath mint tins, plastic food containers, film canisters, etc. Fine for home use, imho. On 1/29/09, Scott Juskiw put forth:
>A possible option might be to roll your own port-a-pots: > >http://moogarchives.com/portapot.htm > >Saves eating up panel space. And if you need 10 of them one day, just >build yourself 10 of them. > >Would be nice of some company actually made these for general purpose >use: injection molded one piece tubular design with a small pot on the >side, wouldn't need to have a big knob sticking out like the Moog ones.
2009-01-30 by wjhall11
Will just pointed out that if we use 100K lin pots for such a gadget, we could have a switch to send the signal through a couple op-amps with resistors to make the pot act like a log pot... so we could switch each pot between lin (truly passive) and log (via op amps and resistors set to unity gain). He's thinking Tellun MUUB4. Kind of a cool idea. I'll ask him to explore the little circuit design. So this would be an added benefit of building it into a 1U panel... that it could have this active component just for fun. Bill and Will --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Mark <yahoogroups@...> wrote:
> > > Very interesting, but from just looking at them, they don't seem all > that mechanically reliable. You can also put attenuators, mults, > and other passive circuits (rectifiers, high pass filters, etc) in > little boxes. I've seen people use breath mint tins, plastic food > containers, film canisters, etc. Fine for home use, imho. > > On 1/29/09, Scott Juskiw put forth: > >A possible option might be to roll your own port-a-pots: > > > >http://moogarchives.com/portapot.htm > > > >Saves eating up panel space. And if you need 10 of them one day, just > >build yourself 10 of them. > > > >Would be nice of some company actually made these for general purpose > >use: injection molded one piece tubular design with a small pot on the > >side, wouldn't need to have a big knob sticking out like the Moog ones. >
2009-01-31 by Richard Brewster
That's the general idea. I'd try to make it compact. How's the box in your photo wired up? Is it one input with two pots and two outputs, a kind of distributor? -Richard data2action wrote:
> like this, more or less?: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ModularSynthPanels/photos/album/525459013/pic/1523257515/view?picmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir=asc > > i'm also a big fan of y-cords, mostly diy 1/8"... hate wasting panel > real-estate, and y-cords are can always go right where you need 'em. > > b > > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Richard Brewster > <pugix@...> wrote: > >> These Radio Shack Y adapters work nicely for the "Move-A-Mult" idea. I >> have half a dozen. >> >> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103712 >> >> I like the Port-A-Pot idea, except the pot will interfere with cables >> plugged into nearby jacks. This gives me the idea to build a pot and >> two jacks into a little box that I can run patch cables to. That way I >> don't need to use valuable cabinet space for a panel with passive >> attenuators (although that would be a tidier approach). >> >> Richard Brewster >> http://www.pugix.com >> >>
2009-01-31 by Mark
While that might be fun, and possibly educational, being able to switch between linear and a log response isn't all that practical. While most audio level controls have a log response, it isn't necessary. I've mixed and attenuated audio signals with my Oakley Multimix, CGS Tube VCA, and other gizmos with linear knobs without any problems. However, what might be more fun for Will is seeing how many synth functions he can accomplish without using any power. All sorts of waveshapers, filters, rectifiers, pulse stretchers, logic functions, etc., even an approximation of an attenuator that switches between linear/log, can be built using only passive components, if one were so inclined. On 1/30/09, wjhall11 put forth:
>Will just pointed out that if we use 100K lin pots for such a gadget, >we could have a switch to send the signal through a couple op-amps >with resistors to make the pot act like a log pot... so we could >switch each pot between lin (truly passive) and log (via op amps and >resistors set to unity gain). He's thinking Tellun MUUB4. Kind of a >cool idea. I'll ask him to explore the little circuit design. So >this would be an added benefit of building it into a 1U panel... that >it could have this active component just for fun. Bill and Will
2009-01-31 by wjhall11
OK, we're biting <G> - where do we learn about these passive circuits? Bill and Will --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Mark <yahoogroups@...> wrote:
> > > While that might be fun, and possibly educational, being able to > switch between linear and a log response isn't all that practical. > While most audio level controls have a log response, it isn't > necessary. I've mixed and attenuated audio signals with my Oakley > Multimix, CGS Tube VCA, and other gizmos with linear knobs without > any problems. > > However, what might be more fun for Will is seeing how many synth > functions he can accomplish without using any power. All sorts of > waveshapers, filters, rectifiers, pulse stretchers, logic functions, > etc., even an approximation of an attenuator that switches between > linear/log, can be built using only passive components, if one were > so inclined. > > On 1/30/09, wjhall11 put forth: > >Will just pointed out that if we use 100K lin pots for such a gadget, > >we could have a switch to send the signal through a couple op-amps > >with resistors to make the pot act like a log pot... so we could > >switch each pot between lin (truly passive) and log (via op amps and > >resistors set to unity gain). He's thinking Tellun MUUB4. Kind of a > >cool idea. I'll ask him to explore the little circuit design. So > >this would be an added benefit of building it into a 1U panel... that > >it could have this active component just for fun. Bill and Will >
2009-02-01 by Mark
On 1/31/09, wjhall11 put forth: >OK, we're biting <G> - where do we learn about these passive circuits? It's where most most introductory textbooks on electronics start. Typically, they begin by describing resistors, capacitors, inductors, then move onto discrete semiconductors. At this point, there is probably enough on the web to get started. Another approach is to look at active circuits, such as synth modules and stomp boxes, then realize that the active circuitry is often just an impedance buffer. There is often an input buffer stage such as an op-amp, followed by a passive network, then an active output stage. In something like an MOTM modular, the output impedance of the modules are already low, and the input impedances are already high, so you can often just put that passive network between the two modules without adding additional buffer stages. One thing to look at is passive filter designs. One can make low pass, high pass, band pass, and notch filters using only passive components. Say you want to change the input of a ring mod from being AC-coupled to DC-coupled. The MOTM-110 has a switch, which is a nice feature, but the 190 doesn't. Put a large cap between two jacks and you have a high pass filter. Want to use an 820 as an envelope follower? Build a half-wave rectifier with a diode. Distortion and waveshaper circuits can also be built using diodes (as well as LED's, transistors, FET's, etc. acting as diodes) which can be further developed by adding capacitors and resistors. A pulse stretcher can be built with a diode followed by a cap going to ground (provided by the shield of the jack). As long as it is going into a high impedance input, you don't need a buffer stage. If you want to trigger an EG from two different sources, an OR gate can be built from two diodes. Anyway, that should give you some ideas.
2009-02-02 by Mark
> Say you want to change the input of a ring mod from > being AC-coupled to DC-coupled. Woops, that should have read "DC-coupled to AC-coupled".
2009-02-04 by doctorvague
This thread has a bunch of ideas including my 2-parts count passive VCF: http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26643 --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
> > OK, we're biting <G> - where do we learn about these passive circuits? > Bill and Will
2009-02-05 by Mark
That's awesome, although I'd add a small (2K) resistor to the CV input, even though it increases the parts count by 50% :) Like I said before, the guts of most stomp boxes are passive circuits between two active buffers. By applying your vactrol idea, one could create a multitude of passive voltage controlled wavewshaper and filter circuits. http://www.muzique.com/lab/main.htm Doesn't Scott make vactrol PCB's? On 2/4/09, doctorvague put forth:
>This thread has a bunch of ideas including my 2-parts count passive VCF: > >http://electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26643