Modular Synth Panels

Despite JH's PCB design that allows for "linking" more than one PCB together in tandem, I can't see enough benefit in doing so to warrant a panel specially designed for it. In fact, having two separate resonators have distinct advantages. Dad and I will build two such ones.

Ken Eldhardt, in an Electro-music post, says "About number of bands and overlap. First keep in mind for comparison that the Polyfusion formant filter only has bandpass filters, and covers a more limited range than the Moog. For acoustic instrument formants, the bands work well. If an instrument has two predominant formant peaks, they always seem to fall into two different Moog bands, so Moog picked the frequencies well. Having a 6 band filter bank where the additional 3 are offset a bit for overlap doesn't really get you anything. Running two resonators in parallel to give you 6 bands means you're going to have plenty of overlap. You'll have 2 filters for each range, so there's not much of a need to change frequencies. And there's nothing about the 7.5K range that needs fine tonal control anyway. In addition, I mentioned to JH, that the more bands you use, the more you water down the result. I usually find that I only need one or at most two filters beyond the normal lowpass already in the synth I'd be running through it."

Having two separate resonators, then, actually addresses the purpose of gaining additional bands. In addition, though, separate resonators could be used for stereo processing, for having different mode settings, for running in parallel - in series - for different voices.

So I set out to design a panel for a "single" three-band resonator. This design is preliminary. I guessed at the features based on the photos of JH's prototype, but I think I've taken good guesses. Having a direct-through DRY OUT jack (just hot-wired to the IN jack) would serve for joining two (or more) of the resonators when required.

Bottom line: it fits in 3U.

URL to image: http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV1vIIwidth1-92in.jpg

How does it look? I see areas for possible improvement.

Will (and Bill)

I've been having a few thoughts about this panel myself, but I was looking at using sliders for the main filter controls (a bit like the original)

Using a 3U panel, I would keep the Resonance and mix controls as rotary (along with the mode switch)down one long side of the panel, this would than allow the use of a stooge panel for mounting the PCB. I would then have 3 groups of 3 sliders, probably horizontal, spaced down the panel.

At a squeeze, and using limited length sliders, you could probably cram it all into 2U (though the sliders may have to be rotated 90 degrees for this to work).

Work is in the way of me sitting down with FPD to sketch this out, but I should have time at the weekend to have a play and see what comes out.

Regards

Mike Gorman

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> Despite JH's PCB design that allows for "linking" more than one PCB together in tandem, I can't see enough benefit in doing so to warrant a panel specially designed for it. In fact, having two separate resonators have distinct advantages. Dad and I will build two such ones.
>
> Ken Eldhardt, in an Electro-music post, says "About number of bands and overlap. First keep in mind for comparison that the Polyfusion formant filter only has bandpass filters, and covers a more limited range than the Moog. For acoustic instrument formants, the bands work well. If an instrument has two predominant formant peaks, they always seem to fall into two different Moog bands, so Moog picked the frequencies well. Having a 6 band filter bank where the additional 3 are offset a bit for overlap doesn't really get you anything. Running two resonators in parallel to give you 6 bands means you're going to have plenty of overlap. You'll have 2 filters for each range, so there's not much of a need to change frequencies. And there's nothing about the 7.5K range that needs fine tonal control anyway. In addition, I mentioned to JH, that the more bands you use, the more you water down the result. I usually find that I only need one or at most two filters beyond the normal lowpass already in the synth I'd be running through it."
>
> Having two separate resonators, then, actually addresses the purpose of gaining additional bands. In addition, though, separate resonators could be used for stereo processing, for having different mode settings, for running in parallel - in series - for different voices.
>
> So I set out to design a panel for a "single" three-band resonator. This design is preliminary. I guessed at the features based on the photos of JH's prototype, but I think I've taken good guesses. Having a direct-through DRY OUT jack (just hot-wired to the IN jack) would serve for joining two (or more) of the resonators when required.
>
> Bottom line: it fits in 3U.
>
> URL to image: http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV1vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
>
> How does it look? I see areas for possible improvement.
>
> Will (and Bill)
>

Why not make the bands vertical instead of horizontal? That layout would make more sense to me. 

 

NOTICE: This electronic mail message and its contents, including any attachments hereto (collectively, "this e-mail"), is hereby designated as "confidential and proprietary." This e-mail may be viewed and used only by the person to whom it has been sent and his/her employer solely for the express purpose for which it has been disclosed and only in accordance with any confidentiality or non-disclosure (or similar) agreement between TEAC Corporation or its affiliates and said employer, and may not be disclosed to any other person or entity.

 

Yes, vertical makes more sense here too.

The ultimate would be sliders with the same end caps as a real
Polymoog. But that would be a lot more work to put together. I might
try to put together a mock up anyway.

> Why not make the bands vertical instead of horizontal? That layout
> would make more sense to me.

Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:

URL to image: http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV2vIIwidth1-92in.jpg

As for faders vs knobs, I was working within my perception of MOTM design constraints so I stuck to knobs. According to the Polymoog schematics, the frequency controls are dual gang pots; 10K per JH.
A fancy version would be to use Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L, or similar. I found some at Newark.

I assume they make dual gang Faders too. How do they attach to a panel? Would they require some kind of special bracket? I've seen them in Dad's mixers, but not anywhere else.

Point me in a direction here, I'll do some research.

Will (and Bill)

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, vertical makes more sense here too.
>
> The ultimate would be sliders with the same end caps as a real
> Polymoog. But that would be a lot more work to put together. I might
> try to put together a mock up anyway.
>
> > Why not make the bands vertical instead of horizontal? That layout
> > would make more sense to me.
>

After second thought, I don't think faders would not work very well
for this circuit (with an MOTM layout). I have a Polymoog and was
looking at the resonator section trying to figure out a way to make
those faders fit (vertically) within an MOTM panel and it's not good.
The fader layout on the Polymoog works well because the faders are all
in a horizontal row, and not very tall. If you try to make them fit
into an MOTM panel, you'd have a very wide panel with lots of blank
space. Or you could break the faders up into groups and make two rows,
but I don't think that looks very good. I suppose you could do
horizontal faders, but then that's not sticking to the "tribute
module" that I was hoping to achieve.

Forget I mentioned it. Knobs good, faders bad.

On 27-Aug-09, at 6:49 PM, wjhall11 wrote:

> Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather
> than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:
>
> URL to image: http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV2vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
>
> As for faders vs knobs, I was working within my perception of MOTM
> design constraints so I stuck to knobs. According to the Polymoog
> schematics, the frequency controls are dual gang pots; 10K per JH.
> A fancy version would be to use Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L, or
> similar. I found some at Newark.
>
> I assume they make dual gang Faders too. How do they attach to a
> panel? Would they require some kind of special bracket? I've seen
> them in Dad's mixers, but not anywhere else.
>
> Point me in a direction here, I'll do some research.
>
> Will (and Bill)

Arg, first sentence should be "I don't think faders would work very
well".

On 27-Aug-09, at 8:05 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:

> After second thought, I don't think faders would not work very well
> for this circuit (with an MOTM layout). I have a Polymoog and was
> looking at the resonator section trying to figure out a way to make
> those faders fit (vertically) within an MOTM panel and it's not good.
> The fader layout on the Polymoog works well because the faders are all
> in a horizontal row, and not very tall. If you try to make them fit
> into an MOTM panel, you'd have a very wide panel with lots of blank
> space. Or you could break the faders up into groups and make two rows,
> but I don't think that looks very good. I suppose you could do
> horizontal faders, but then that's not sticking to the "tribute
> module" that I was hoping to achieve.
>
> Forget I mentioned it. Knobs good, faders bad.

Scott J,

OK, then. I'll take your word re. the faders. I had begun to research them and it does look to me like they'd end up taking up more space.

At the risk of indulging in pulsus a mortuus equus, but for what it's worth anyway, I was looking at my Dad's Crumar Orchestrator because it has a lot of small faders on it. From what I see, I'm not sure there's really any advantage to these faders as opposed to knobs so far as human engineering is concerned. My Dad has said that on stage sometimes the lighting makes things harder to see and so I've tried to think how that might have been an original design consideration.

To me, faders make intuitive sense on a mixer and they seem obvious on a graphic equalizer. I have no particular experience with a PolyMoog, of course. And whereas I completely support the desire for a tribute approach, as someone with no previous experience with the vintage instrument, I actually see no intrinsic advantage to the design aside from, perhaps, looking cool which, alone, has undeniable value.

Still, it seems that although, as some say, the polymoog was a bit of a clunker, Moog got the resonator part right. Therefore, I suppose I'm looking for an explanation for the original design.

Nonetheless, faders are out, knobs are in.

Thanks, Scott J.

Will (and Bill)

PS. Who said my Latin classes would be good for nothing? Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> After second thought, I don't think faders would not work very well
> for this circuit (with an MOTM layout). I have a Polymoog and was
> looking at the resonator section trying to figure out a way to make
> those faders fit (vertically) within an MOTM panel and it's not good.
> The fader layout on the Polymoog works well because the faders are all
> in a horizontal row, and not very tall. If you try to make them fit
> into an MOTM panel, you'd have a very wide panel with lots of blank
> space. Or you could break the faders up into groups and make two rows,
> but I don't think that looks very good. I suppose you could do
> horizontal faders, but then that's not sticking to the "tribute
> module" that I was hoping to achieve.
>
> Forget I mentioned it. Knobs good, faders bad.
>
> On 27-Aug-09, at 6:49 PM, wjhall11 wrote:
>
> > Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather
> > than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:
> >
> > URL to image: http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV2vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
> >
> > As for faders vs knobs, I was working within my perception of MOTM
> > design constraints so I stuck to knobs. According to the Polymoog
> > schematics, the frequency controls are dual gang pots; 10K per JH.
> > A fancy version would be to use Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L, or
> > similar. I found some at Newark.
> >
> > I assume they make dual gang Faders too. How do they attach to a
> > panel? Would they require some kind of special bracket? I've seen
> > them in Dad's mixers, but not anywhere else.
> >
> > Point me in a direction here, I'll do some research.
> >
> > Will (and Bill)
>

I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I added a second input and attenuators to make for a more symmetrical layout.

http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm

Dave

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>> Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:
>
> URL to image: http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV2vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
>
> Will (and Bill)

I like it!

--- On Fri, 8/28/09, djbrow54 <davebr@...> wrote:

From: djbrow54 <davebr@...>
Subject: [ModularSynthPanels] Re: JH Polymoog Resonator Panel
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 28, 2009, 12:40 PM

 

I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I added a second input and attenuators to make for a more symmetrical layout.

http://modularsynth esis.com/ jhaible/resonato r/polyres. htm

Dave

--- In ModularSynthPanels@ yahoogroups. com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>> Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:
>
> URL to image: http://www.dragonfl yalley.com/ images/JHpolymoo gResonator/ JHPolymoogResV2v IIwidth1- 92in.jpg
>
> Will (and Bill)

 

I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.

What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX jack
after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator output?
If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack. Bottom
half of panel would be like this:

IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack

Just throwing out ideas.

On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:

> I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I
> added a second input and attenuators to make for a more symmetrical
> layout.
>
> http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
>
> Dave
>

Latin est stolidus, tamen infigo.

-greg

-----Original Message-----
From: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wjhall11
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:10 PM
To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ModularSynthPanels] Re: JH Polymoog Resonator Panel

Scott J,

OK, then. I'll take your word re. the faders. I had begun to research them
and it does look to me like they'd end up taking up more space.

At the risk of indulging in pulsus a mortuus equus, but for what it's worth
anyway, I was looking at my Dad's Crumar Orchestrator because it has a lot
of small faders on it. From what I see, I'm not sure there's really any
advantage to these faders as opposed to knobs so far as human engineering is
concerned. My Dad has said that on stage sometimes the lighting makes
things harder to see and so I've tried to think how that might have been an
original design consideration.

To me, faders make intuitive sense on a mixer and they seem obvious on a
graphic equalizer. I have no particular experience with a PolyMoog, of
course. And whereas I completely support the desire for a tribute approach,
as someone with no previous experience with the vintage instrument, I
actually see no intrinsic advantage to the design aside from, perhaps,
looking cool which, alone, has undeniable value.

Still, it seems that although, as some say, the polymoog was a bit of a
clunker, Moog got the resonator part right. Therefore, I suppose I'm
looking for an explanation for the original design.

Nonetheless, faders are out, knobs are in.

Thanks, Scott J.

Will (and Bill)

PS. Who said my Latin classes would be good for nothing? Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> After second thought, I don't think faders would not work very well
> for this circuit (with an MOTM layout). I have a Polymoog and was
> looking at the resonator section trying to figure out a way to make
> those faders fit (vertically) within an MOTM panel and it's not good.
> The fader layout on the Polymoog works well because the faders are all
> in a horizontal row, and not very tall. If you try to make them fit
> into an MOTM panel, you'd have a very wide panel with lots of blank
> space. Or you could break the faders up into groups and make two rows,
> but I don't think that looks very good. I suppose you could do
> horizontal faders, but then that's not sticking to the "tribute
> module" that I was hoping to achieve.
>
> Forget I mentioned it. Knobs good, faders bad.
>
> On 27-Aug-09, at 6:49 PM, wjhall11 wrote:
>
> > Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather
> > than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:
> >
> > URL to image:
http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV2vIIw
idth1-92in.jpg
> >
> > As for faders vs knobs, I was working within my perception of MOTM
> > design constraints so I stuck to knobs. According to the Polymoog
> > schematics, the frequency controls are dual gang pots; 10K per JH.
> > A fancy version would be to use Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L, or
> > similar. I found some at Newark.
> >
> > I assume they make dual gang Faders too. How do they attach to a
> > panel? Would they require some kind of special bracket? I've seen
> > them in Dad's mixers, but not anywhere else.
> >
> > Point me in a direction here, I'll do some research.
> >
> > Will (and Bill)
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Mix is the summed output of the inputs. Out is the output of the resonator. I was thinking that Mix out might be handy if you wanted to cascade two resonators or run them in stereo.

On the other hand ... as people have noted, you add another attenuator and have three inputs. I put a picture of it on there as well.

Dave

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.
>
> What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX jack
> after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator output?
> If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack. Bottom
> half of panel would be like this:
>
> IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
> RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
> IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack
>
> Just throwing out ideas.
>
> On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
>
> > I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I
> > added a second input and attenuators to make for a more
> > symmetrical layout.
> >
> > http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
> >
> > Dave
> >
>

Ha! That's great. My teacher says we're tackling Virgil this year. That shouldn't be too dull I hope. Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "Greg James" <gjames@...> wrote:
>
> Latin est stolidus, tamen infigo.
>
> -greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wjhall11
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:10 PM
> To: ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ModularSynthPanels] Re: JH Polymoog Resonator Panel
>
> Scott J,
>
> OK, then. I'll take your word re. the faders. I had begun to research them
> and it does look to me like they'd end up taking up more space.
>
> At the risk of indulging in pulsus a mortuus equus, but for what it's worth
> anyway, I was looking at my Dad's Crumar Orchestrator because it has a lot
> of small faders on it. From what I see, I'm not sure there's really any
> advantage to these faders as opposed to knobs so far as human engineering is
> concerned. My Dad has said that on stage sometimes the lighting makes
> things harder to see and so I've tried to think how that might have been an
> original design consideration.
>
> To me, faders make intuitive sense on a mixer and they seem obvious on a
> graphic equalizer. I have no particular experience with a PolyMoog, of
> course. And whereas I completely support the desire for a tribute approach,
> as someone with no previous experience with the vintage instrument, I
> actually see no intrinsic advantage to the design aside from, perhaps,
> looking cool which, alone, has undeniable value.
>
> Still, it seems that although, as some say, the polymoog was a bit of a
> clunker, Moog got the resonator part right. Therefore, I suppose I'm
> looking for an explanation for the original design.
>
> Nonetheless, faders are out, knobs are in.
>
> Thanks, Scott J.
>
> Will (and Bill)
>
> PS. Who said my Latin classes would be good for nothing? Will
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> >
> > After second thought, I don't think faders would not work very well
> > for this circuit (with an MOTM layout). I have a Polymoog and was
> > looking at the resonator section trying to figure out a way to make
> > those faders fit (vertically) within an MOTM panel and it's not good.
> > The fader layout on the Polymoog works well because the faders are all
> > in a horizontal row, and not very tall. If you try to make them fit
> > into an MOTM panel, you'd have a very wide panel with lots of blank
> > space. Or you could break the faders up into groups and make two rows,
> > but I don't think that looks very good. I suppose you could do
> > horizontal faders, but then that's not sticking to the "tribute
> > module" that I was hoping to achieve.
> >
> > Forget I mentioned it. Knobs good, faders bad.
> >
> > On 27-Aug-09, at 6:49 PM, wjhall11 wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather
> > > than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:
> > >
> > > URL to image:
> http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV2vIIw
> idth1-92in.jpg
> > >
> > > As for faders vs knobs, I was working within my perception of MOTM
> > > design constraints so I stuck to knobs. According to the Polymoog
> > > schematics, the frequency controls are dual gang pots; 10K per JH.
> > > A fancy version would be to use Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L, or
> > > similar. I found some at Newark.
> > >
> > > I assume they make dual gang Faders too. How do they attach to a
> > > panel? Would they require some kind of special bracket? I've seen
> > > them in Dad's mixers, but not anywhere else.
> > >
> > > Point me in a direction here, I'll do some research.
> > >
> > > Will (and Bill)
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Yes. That's good. Are you imagining a mixing inverter thing, Mr. B, or just the inputs being tied together somehow?

Dad and I will go with the general consensus, of course, but even in a three-unit, large knob version I like your orientation of the controls better. That is, with the frequency knobs all at the top.

I'll mess around with it a little more later on.

Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@...> wrote:
>
> Mix is the summed output of the inputs. Out is the output of the resonator. I was thinking that Mix out might be handy if you wanted to cascade two resonators or run them in stereo.
>
> On the other hand ... as people have noted, you add another attenuator and have three inputs. I put a picture of it on there as well.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> >
> > I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.
> >
> > What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX jack
> > after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator output?
> > If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack. Bottom
> > half of panel would be like this:
> >
> > IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
> > RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
> > IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack
> >
> > Just throwing out ideas.
> >
> > On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
> >
> > > I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I
> > > added a second input and attenuators to make for a more
> > > symmetrical layout.
> > >
> > > http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> >
>

Here's a 3U compromise. Two inputs with attenuators. A MIXED OUT jack for linking resonators together. Ihe Input knobs are very low, but I think this is not without precedence.

http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV3vIIwidth1-92in.jpg

Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@...> wrote:
>
> Mix is the summed output of the inputs. Out is the output of the resonator. I was thinking that Mix out might be handy if you wanted to cascade two resonators or run them in stereo.
>
> On the other hand ... as people have noted, you add another attenuator and have three inputs. I put a picture of it on there as well.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> >
> > I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.
> >
> > What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX jack
> > after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator output?
> > If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack. Bottom
> > half of panel would be like this:
> >
> > IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
> > RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
> > IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack
> >
> > Just throwing out ideas.
> >
> > On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
> >
> > > I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I
> > > added a second input and attenuators to make for a more
> > > symmetrical layout.
> > >
> > > http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> >
>

Yes, a mixing inverter. I don't know what the front end looks like yet to see if it can be expanded. If not, there is a breadboard area on the PCB which will eliminate the need for a second PCB to add an op amp.

Dave

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. That's good. Are you imagining a mixing inverter thing, Mr. B, or just the inputs being tied together somehow?
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@> wrote:
> >
> > Mix is the summed output of the inputs. Out is the output of the resonator. I was thinking that Mix out might be handy if you wanted to cascade two resonators or run them in stereo.
> >
> > On the other hand ... as people have noted, you add another attenuator and have three inputs. I put a picture of it on there as well.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.
> > >
> > > What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX jack
> > > after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator output?
> > > If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack. Bottom
> > > half of panel would be like this:
> > >
> > > IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
> > > RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
> > > IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack
> > >
> > > Just throwing out ideas.
> > >
> > > On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I
> > > > added a second input and attenuators to make for a more
> > > > symmetrical layout.
> > > >
> > > > http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

The only thing to watch out for, as Dave Brown noted on his webpage,
is that the FREQ pots are dual-ganged which might be difficult to
source in a size small enough to fit at the top of a panel (if using
the standard MOTM grid). I've used 24 mm Alpha dual-ganged pots in a
couple of modules and had to make sure they weren't at the top,
otherwise I couldn't get the module to fit into my cabinet. Luckily, I
build prototypes with plastic panels so it was easy to redo the layout
at the last minute.

On 30-Aug-09, at 5:11 AM, wjhall11 wrote:

> Here's a 3U compromise. Two inputs with attenuators. A MIXED OUT
> jack for linking resonators together. Ihe Input knobs are very low,
> but I think this is not without precedence.
>
> http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV3vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
>
> Will

OK, Mr. B., in that case, the output to the MIX jack should be re-inverted, right? We could use one side of a dual op-amp for the input mix inverter and the other side to re-invert the summed input for the MIX jack.

On the PCB drawing, Mr. Haible has the three pads labeled "DRY" and, because his prototype photo has a pot there, Dad and I decided it must mix input and the resonator output - so when I sketched out the panel, I called it "MIX". If, when we see the schematic, it bears out that this is what that control actually does, what would you think of re-naming the output you're calling "MIX" to something like "LINK OUT" to avoid confusion?

In my latest 3U interpretation of your 2U interpretation of my/our interpretation of a guess, I call the two outputs LINK OUT and RES OUT. Just an idea. If we could but say these in Latin, I'm sure, as Greg says, it would be so much more impressive.

Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, a mixing inverter. I don't know what the front end looks like yet to see if it can be expanded. If not, there is a breadboard area on the PCB which will eliminate the need for a second PCB to add an op amp.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes. That's good. Are you imagining a mixing inverter thing, Mr. B, or just the inputs being tied together somehow?
> >
> > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mix is the summed output of the inputs. Out is the output of the resonator. I was thinking that Mix out might be handy if you wanted to cascade two resonators or run them in stereo.
> > >
> > > On the other hand ... as people have noted, you add another attenuator and have three inputs. I put a picture of it on there as well.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.
> > > >
> > > > What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX jack
> > > > after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator output?
> > > > If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack. Bottom
> > > > half of panel would be like this:
> > > >
> > > > IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
> > > > RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
> > > > IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack
> > > >
> > > > Just throwing out ideas.
> > > >
> > > > On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I
> > > > > added a second input and attenuators to make for a more
> > > > > symmetrical layout.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

How's this? Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L - Newark# 62K3288 - on sale for $8 ea. We just grabbed six so we sure hope they'll do. Bill and Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> The only thing to watch out for, as Dave Brown noted on his webpage,
> is that the FREQ pots are dual-ganged which might be difficult to
> source in a size small enough to fit at the top of a panel (if using
> the standard MOTM grid). I've used 24 mm Alpha dual-ganged pots in a
> couple of modules and had to make sure they weren't at the top,
> otherwise I couldn't get the module to fit into my cabinet. Luckily, I
> build prototypes with plastic panels so it was easy to redo the layout
> at the last minute.
>
> On 30-Aug-09, at 5:11 AM, wjhall11 wrote:
>
> > Here's a 3U compromise. Two inputs with attenuators. A MIXED OUT
> > jack for linking resonators together. Ihe Input knobs are very low,
> > but I think this is not without precedence.
> >
> > http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV3vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
> >
> > Will
>

That looks like the right one.

On 30-Aug-09, at 12:56 PM, wjhall11 wrote:

> How's this? Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L - Newark# 62K3288 - on sale
> for $8 ea. We just grabbed six so we sure hope they'll do. Bill
> and Will

I've done a 3rd concept panel around the Alpha 24mm pots and I did have to move the top row down 0.4" from my original concept to clear the large bodies. It still looks OK. There was quite a bit of blank space above so I filled it in with more text.

My Varisynth module had this same issue. I copied my FFB panel which used miniature pots. Luckly the spacing came right out at 0.5" so it fits. I've since updated my design file in case anyone else uses it.

I always print out a wireframe template and place all the parts on it to double check before I order a panel. I believe the switch has clearance as it's the same one I used for my Bi-N-Tic panel.

Dave

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> The only thing to watch out for, as Dave Brown noted on his webpage,
> is that the FREQ pots are dual-ganged which might be difficult to
> source in a size small enough to fit at the top of a panel (if using
> the standard MOTM grid). I've used 24 mm Alpha dual-ganged pots in a
> couple of modules and had to make sure they weren't at the top,
> otherwise I couldn't get the module to fit into my cabinet. Luckily, I
> build prototypes with plastic panels so it was easy to redo the layout
> at the last minute.
>
> On 30-Aug-09, at 5:11 AM, wjhall11 wrote:
>
> > Here's a 3U compromise. Two inputs with attenuators. A MIXED OUT
> > jack for linking resonators together. Ihe Input knobs are very low,
> > but I think this is not without precedence.
> >
> > http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV3vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
> >
> > Will
>

I always keep the phase the same so yes, if I add an inverter on the input, I need to add another inverter somewhere else. However, I want to look at the schematics first. For example, if there is a normal and invert output, they just reverse. You could always add an inverter on the output, or add another inverter after the input inverter.

Dave

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> OK, Mr. B., in that case, the output to the MIX jack should be re-inverted, right? We could use one side of a dual op-amp for the input mix inverter and the other side to re-invert the summed input for the MIX jack.

Hi guys -

I know this issue is probably ultimately sleeping until Scott Deyo has time in his line-up for fabrication, but looking back over Dave and Will's work here, I made a change to Will's 3U design to come closer to what I would want (FWIW).

It has 3 input jacks, but no input attenuation. (this means an input mix buffer thing and an inverter built into the little breadboard area on the PCB a la Dave's idea.) It has a LINK output for ganging a couple resonators together.

Image:

http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV4vIIwidth1-92in.jpg

I like Dave's 2U design and it will probably be best for the majority of us. My own preference is for the bigger knobs - just 'cause I prefer them. My hope is that Scott will be able to make both versions.

Thanks, All.

Bill

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> OK, Mr. B., in that case, the output to the MIX jack should be re-inverted, right? We could use one side of a dual op-amp for the input mix inverter and the other side to re-invert the summed input for the MIX jack.
>
> On the PCB drawing, Mr. Haible has the three pads labeled "DRY" and, because his prototype photo has a pot there, Dad and I decided it must mix input and the resonator output - so when I sketched out the panel, I called it "MIX". If, when we see the schematic, it bears out that this is what that control actually does, what would you think of re-naming the output you're calling "MIX" to something like "LINK OUT" to avoid confusion?
>
> In my latest 3U interpretation of your 2U interpretation of my/our interpretation of a guess, I call the two outputs LINK OUT and RES OUT. Just an idea. If we could but say these in Latin, I'm sure, as Greg says, it would be so much more impressive.
>
> Will
>
>
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, a mixing inverter. I don't know what the front end looks like yet to see if it can be expanded. If not, there is a breadboard area on the PCB which will eliminate the need for a second PCB to add an op amp.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. That's good. Are you imagining a mixing inverter thing, Mr. B, or just the inputs being tied together somehow?
> > >
> > > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mix is the summed output of the inputs. Out is the output of the resonator. I was thinking that Mix out might be handy if you wanted to cascade two resonators or run them in stereo.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand ... as people have noted, you add another attenuator and have three inputs. I put a picture of it on there as well.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX jack
> > > > > after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator output?
> > > > > If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack. Bottom
> > > > > half of panel would be like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
> > > > > RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
> > > > > IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack
> > > > >
> > > > > Just throwing out ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small knobs. I
> > > > > > added a second input and attenuators to make for a more
> > > > > > symmetrical layout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Very nice, Bill! This is the one I would like to buy (two of) from
Scott! I'm a big-knob guy too.

Here's hoping,

skw

On Sep 7, 2009, at 3:02 AM, wjhall11 wrote:

> Hi guys -
>
> I know this issue is probably ultimately sleeping until Scott Deyo
> has time in his line-up for fabrication, but looking back over Dave
> and Will's work here, I made a change to Will's 3U design to come
> closer to what I would want (FWIW).
>
> It has 3 input jacks, but no input attenuation. (this means an
> input mix buffer thing and an inverter built into the little
> breadboard area on the PCB a la Dave's idea.) It has a LINK output
> for ganging a couple resonators together.
>
> Image:
>
> http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV4vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
>
> I like Dave's 2U design and it will probably be best for the
> majority of us. My own preference is for the bigger knobs - just
> 'cause I prefer them. My hope is that Scott will be able to make
> both versions.
>
> Thanks, All.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> OK, Mr. B., in that case, the output to the MIX jack should be re-
>> inverted, right? We could use one side of a dual op-amp for the
>> input mix inverter and the other side to re-invert the summed input
>> for the MIX jack.
>>
>> On the PCB drawing, Mr. Haible has the three pads labeled "DRY"
>> and, because his prototype photo has a pot there, Dad and I decided
>> it must mix input and the resonator output - so when I sketched out
>> the panel, I called it "MIX". If, when we see the schematic, it
>> bears out that this is what that control actually does, what would
>> you think of re-naming the output you're calling "MIX" to something
>> like "LINK OUT" to avoid confusion?
>>
>> In my latest 3U interpretation of your 2U interpretation of my/our
>> interpretation of a guess, I call the two outputs LINK OUT and RES
>> OUT. Just an idea. If we could but say these in Latin, I'm sure,
>> as Greg says, it would be so much more impressive.
>>
>> Will
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, a mixing inverter. I don't know what the front end looks
>>> like yet to see if it can be expanded. If not, there is a
>>> breadboard area on the PCB which will eliminate the need for a
>>> second PCB to add an op amp.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes. That's good. Are you imagining a mixing inverter thing,
>>>> Mr. B, or just the inputs being tied together somehow?
>>>>
>>>> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mix is the summed output of the inputs. Out is the output of
>>>>> the resonator. I was thinking that Mix out might be handy if
>>>>> you wanted to cascade two resonators or run them in stereo.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand ... as people have noted, you add another
>>>>> attenuator and have three inputs. I put a picture of it on
>>>>> there as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like it. I was hoping to build this into 2U.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the difference between the MIX and OUT jacks? Is the MIX
>>>>>> jack
>>>>>> after the MIX pot and the OUT jack just the straight resonator
>>>>>> output?
>>>>>> If so, you could have 3 inputs by getting rid of the OUT jack.
>>>>>> Bottom
>>>>>> half of panel would be like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IN1 pot, IN2 pot, IN3 pot
>>>>>> RES pot, PASS MODE switch, MIX pot
>>>>>> IN1 jack, IN2 jack, IN3 jack, MIX jack
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just throwing out ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28-Aug-09, at 1:40 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used your layout design and did a 2U version with small
>>>>>>> knobs. I
>>>>>>> added a second input and attenuators to make for a more
>>>>>>> symmetrical layout.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://modularsynthesis.com/jhaible/resonator/polyres.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

How about swapping the position of the FREQ and GAIN pots? I don't see
that it's necessary to have FREQ at the top.

We don't need no stinkin' mods! Three inputs with attenuators (as Dave
Brown has shown) is all the hacking I plan to do.

On 9-Sep-09, at 7:53 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:

>
>
> Questions/ comments :
> Since most people may use 24mm dual-gang Alphas for Freq, I should
> move them down a bit to make sure they clear rails/ cabinet tops.
> I think the 2U's tickmarks will make it look extra cramped since I
> can't stagger the pots, really.
>
> What are the mods on this? If possible, I'd like to go non-mods.
>

So far as Will and I are concerned, we'd be happy with no mods at all including the extra inputs and their attenuators. And again, in our case, we aren't interested in the small-knob / 2U panel, but even so, Scott Juskiw makes a great point - the FREQ controls certainly needn't be at the top - Will says that's just the way he imagined it should be based on the way these things are often layed-out - no over-riding functional consideration there.

So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more space at the top anyway, right? And so far as mods - well - based on that last design of ours, you can eliminate input jacks 2 & 3 and have a no-mod version of the module.

Bill and Will

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> How about swapping the position of the FREQ and GAIN pots? I don't see
> that it's necessary to have FREQ at the top.
>
> We don't need no stinkin' mods! Three inputs with attenuators (as Dave
> Brown has shown) is all the hacking I plan to do.
>
> On 9-Sep-09, at 7:53 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Questions/ comments :
> > Since most people may use 24mm dual-gang Alphas for Freq, I should
> > move them down a bit to make sure they clear rails/ cabinet tops.
> > I think the 2U's tickmarks will make it look extra cramped since I
> > can't stagger the pots, really.
> >
> > What are the mods on this? If possible, I'd like to go non-mods.
> >
>

Oh - let's not forget that the MIX function is an educated guess at this point and needs to be verified either by Jurgen, or by studying the schematics when they become available.

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> So far as Will and I are concerned, we'd be happy with no mods at all including the extra inputs and their attenuators. And again, in our case, we aren't interested in the small-knob / 2U panel, but even so, Scott Juskiw makes a great point - the FREQ controls certainly needn't be at the top - Will says that's just the way he imagined it should be based on the way these things are often layed-out - no over-riding functional consideration there.
>
> So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more space at the top anyway, right? And so far as mods - well - based on that last design of ours, you can eliminate input jacks 2 & 3 and have a no-mod version of the module.
>
> Bill and Will
>
>
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> >
> > How about swapping the position of the FREQ and GAIN pots? I don't see
> > that it's necessary to have FREQ at the top.
> >
> > We don't need no stinkin' mods! Three inputs with attenuators (as Dave
> > Brown has shown) is all the hacking I plan to do.
> >
> > On 9-Sep-09, at 7:53 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Questions/ comments :
> > > Since most people may use 24mm dual-gang Alphas for Freq, I should
> > > move them down a bit to make sure they clear rails/ cabinet tops.
> > > I think the 2U's tickmarks will make it look extra cramped since I
> > > can't stagger the pots, really.
> > >
> > > What are the mods on this? If possible, I'd like to go non-mods.
> > >
> >
>

I've emailed Jurgen asking about this. Thanks all. Bill

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> Oh - let's not forget that the MIX function is an educated guess at this point and needs to be verified either by Jurgen, or by studying the schematics when they become available.
>
>
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@> wrote:
> >
> > So far as Will and I are concerned, we'd be happy with no mods at all including the extra inputs and their attenuators. And again, in our case, we aren't interested in the small-knob / 2U panel, but even so, Scott Juskiw makes a great point - the FREQ controls certainly needn't be at the top - Will says that's just the way he imagined it should be based on the way these things are often layed-out - no over-riding functional consideration there.
> >
> > So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more space at the top anyway, right? And so far as mods - well - based on that last design of ours, you can eliminate input jacks 2 & 3 and have a no-mod version of the module.
> >
> > Bill and Will
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@> wrote:
> > >
> > > How about swapping the position of the FREQ and GAIN pots? I don't see
> > > that it's necessary to have FREQ at the top.
> > >
> > > We don't need no stinkin' mods! Three inputs with attenuators (as Dave
> > > Brown has shown) is all the hacking I plan to do.
> > >
> > > On 9-Sep-09, at 7:53 PM, Scott Deyo wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Questions/ comments :
> > > > Since most people may use 24mm dual-gang Alphas for Freq, I should
> > > > move them down a bit to make sure they clear rails/ cabinet tops.
> > > > I think the 2U's tickmarks will make it look extra cramped since I
> > > > can't stagger the pots, really.
> > > >
> > > > What are the mods on this? If possible, I'd like to go non-mods.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

> So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more
> space at the top anyway, right?

Even using the standard big knob MOTM grid, you can't fit a 24mm pot
along the top. I tried that with my TLN-867 tuner/headphone thingy and
had to swap the two pots at the last minute.

eeek - OK - we move FREQ down - what makes sense to be on top - GAIN or EMPHASIS?

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> > So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more
> > space at the top anyway, right?
>
> Even using the standard big knob MOTM grid, you can't fit a 24mm pot
> along the top. I tried that with my TLN-867 tuner/headphone thingy and
> had to swap the two pots at the last minute.
>

I say, from top to bottom:

GAIN
FREAK
EMPH

By keeping FREAK in the middle you avoid any other possible conflicts
with rotary switches, which can also be larger than your average bear,
but that probably only matters for the more cramped 2U layouts.

On 10-Sep-09, at 12:37 PM, wjhall11 wrote:

> eeek - OK - we move FREQ down - what makes sense to be on top - GAIN
> or EMPHASIS?
>
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...>
> wrote:
>>
>>> So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more
>>> space at the top anyway, right?
>>
>> Even using the standard big knob MOTM grid, you can't fit a 24mm pot
>> along the top. I tried that with my TLN-867 tuner/headphone thingy
>> and
>> had to swap the two pots at the last minute.
>>

OK - and now for a correction from Jurgen... RESON on the PCB is the resonator output level at the output jack. DRY is the level of dry input at the output jack. So together, they act like a two channel mixer. If both levels are down, there's nothing at the output jack.

I changed Will's drawing to reflect this change and also moved the FREQ knob down per Scott Juskiw's idea.

http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV4vIIwidth1-92in.jpg

Dave Brown, you'll want to reflect the RESON/DRY out change in your 2U design too, right?

Bill

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> I say, from top to bottom:
>
> GAIN
> FREAK
> EMPH
>
> By keeping FREAK in the middle you avoid any other possible conflicts
> with rotary switches, which can also be larger than your average bear,
> but that probably only matters for the more cramped 2U layouts.
>
> On 10-Sep-09, at 12:37 PM, wjhall11 wrote:
>
> > eeek - OK - we move FREQ down - what makes sense to be on top - GAIN
> > or EMPHASIS?
> >
> >
> > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more
> >>> space at the top anyway, right?
> >>
> >> Even using the standard big knob MOTM grid, you can't fit a 24mm pot
> >> along the top. I tried that with my TLN-867 tuner/headphone thingy
> >> and
> >> had to swap the two pots at the last minute.
> >>
>

What's confusing about this circuit is that there is more than one way
to implement the output.

One method, as you've noted below, is to have two pots feeding into a
two channel mixer. One pot sets the level of the unprocessed signal
(or the DRY signal), the other pot sets the level of the resonator
output (after the GAIN pots). A second is to have one pot that selects
either the resonator output (full strength) at one end of the pot
rotation, or the unprocessed signal (full strength) at the other end
of the pot rotation, and a MIX of the two at points in between.

I prefer the two pot approach because once you've gotten the balance
between the three filters figured out, you can then change the overall
output level and mix in some of the unprocessed signal without having
to futz with the three GAIN pots.

What you've got is good, despite not having 3 attenuators for the
inputs (which is not critical). But Dave's 2U small-knob version has
that, which is probably how I'll build mine.

On 10-Sep-09, at 2:21 PM, wjhall11 wrote:

> OK - and now for a correction from Jurgen... RESON on the PCB is the
> resonator output level at the output jack. DRY is the level of dry
> input at the output jack. So together, they act like a two channel
> mixer. If both levels are down, there's nothing at the output jack.
>
> I changed Will's drawing to reflect this change and also moved the
> FREQ knob down per Scott Juskiw's idea.
>
> http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV4vIIwidth1-92in.jpg
>
> Dave Brown, you'll want to reflect the RESON/DRY out change in your
> 2U design too, right?
>
> Bill
>
>
> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> I say, from top to bottom:
>>
>> GAIN
>> FREAK
>> EMPH
>>
>> By keeping FREAK in the middle you avoid any other possible conflicts
>> with rotary switches, which can also be larger than your average
>> bear,
>> but that probably only matters for the more cramped 2U layouts.
>>
>> On 10-Sep-09, at 12:37 PM, wjhall11 wrote:
>>
>>> eeek - OK - we move FREQ down - what makes sense to be on top - GAIN
>>> or EMPHASIS?
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So in the case of a 3U large-knob version, I believe there's more
>>>>> space at the top anyway, right?
>>>>
>>>> Even using the standard big knob MOTM grid, you can't fit a 24mm
>>>> pot
>>>> along the top. I tried that with my TLN-867 tuner/headphone thingy
>>>> and
>>>> had to swap the two pots at the last minute.
>>>>
>>
>
>
>