Yahoo Groups archive

PLAN B analog blog

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:10 UTC

Thread

New Model 14 re-design

New Model 14 re-design

2006-01-10 by (i think you can figure that out)

All,

In building the prototype Model 14 for NAMM and have come to 
the conclusion that the current faceplate design is unacceptable. 
There are too many controls to close to one another, so much so 
that ergomonics are compromised - it makes it difficult to week 
knobs when some of the nearby jacks had something connected 
to them.  I think you would agree that this is no good.

So...I've rethought and redesigned the faceplate to fix this issue 
and did so without altering it's functionality or making it wider.  
The new design is shown on the Model 14 product page on our 
site.  

Please note:

The photograph still shows the prototype design.  There will 
none of the new faceplates made until this unit goes into 
production ~ sometime around March of this year.

Go here:

http://www.ear-group.com/model_14.html

- P

RE: [PLAN_B_analog_blog] New Model 14 re-design

2006-01-10 by unknown freak

I hate to say it but I’m still trying to understand the signal flow of the module. What would be an example of what one might do with it? Thanks.

--Chuck

From: PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of (i think you can figure that out)
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:26 PM
To: PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PLAN_B_analog_blog] New Model 14 re-design

All,

In building the prototype Model 14 for NAMM and have come to
the conclusion that the current faceplate design is unacceptable.
There are too many controls to close to one another, so much so
that ergomonics are compromised - it makes it difficult to week
knobs when some of the nearby jacks had something connected
to them. I think you would agree that this is no good.

So...I've rethought and redesigned the faceplate to fix this issue
and did so without altering it's functionality or making it wider.
The new design is shown on the Model 14 product page on our
site.

Please note:

The photograph still shows the prototype design. There will
none of the new faceplates made until this unit goes into
production ~ sometime around March of this year.

Go here:

http://www.ear-group.com/model_14.html

- P





Re: [PLAN_B_analog_blog] New Model 14 re-design

2006-01-10 by Peter Grenader

OK -

The Model 14 consists of two independent 3 input, three output voltage processors.

Voltage processors are the type of module you'll never think you'll need until you get one and then you'll find you're running out of them constantly. My system has eight - and I still find myself swaering because they're constantly used up. Let me give you a description of hat this thing does:

Inputs first:

Each input has a bipolar attenuator - or what Dieter called a 'polarized' attenuator. You can increase the volume of the input positively (like a regular level pot) when you turn the knob CW from center. Turning it CCW from center, the input inverts and the further CCW from center, the louder the inverted signal. So if you put a positive going ramp into the Model 14 and turn it's attenuator fully CCW, you'd get a negative going ramp at full volume. When the attenuators are set to 12 O'clock (up), then that channel is fully closed - no signal. Volume on 0 so to speak. The diagram on the Model 14 page gives a pretty clear example of what I'm talking about here.

So, there are three inputs like that.

There is also a master offset knob for each channel. So no matter how you've flavored the mix of the three inputs by way of their own bipolar attenuator, you can offset the whole thing in a positive or negative direction by tweeking the offset pot. For instance, it you had three positive going ramp waves at the inputs, with each of their attenuators fully CW, you'd get a mixer of three positive going ramp waves out if the offset pot was set fully CW (like like a regular mixer). However, if you turned the master offset fully CCW, you'd get a mixer of three negative going ramp waves out - this master offset as the same function as the three input pot - it just effects all of the channels

Now to the outputs:

There are three different outputs for each of the two processors. One output SUMS the three voltages at the inputs - just like a mixer would. One gives only the MAXimum voltage at any given moment - meaning if you've got two signals mixing together, the voltage which is highest of the two at any given moment is what you'll get out. The third output gives the MINimum voltage at any given time - the inverse of the MAX output. You only get the lowest voltage of the three out at any given time.

There's also an two colored LED at the output which shows which side of zero you're currently outputting. It glows one color when negative and another when positive and mixes the two colors when at ground.

So there are two processors. No big deal when you're putting audio signals into them - you just get a lot of ways of changing phase relationships. But put control voltages or LFOs through them - and this is when the Model 14 kicks butt. IYou can build complex voltage patterns. If you put a sequencer input into one channel, you can use the other two to offset that voltage - you can transpose the sequencer. Also, instead of having only one VC input for a given function - you can expand it to three.

But I'm still not done with the description...

Along with the two processors, there also a SUM out cross fader. It takes the SUM output of Processor 1 and 2 and crossfades them together. You can do this manually with the XFADE pot, or via external voltage control using the VC XFADE input. So you possibilities for creating complex VC patterns gets much more interesting.

- P

unknown freak wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
I hate to say it but I¹m still trying to understand the signal flow of the module. What would be an example of what one might do with it? Thanks.



--Chuck




From: PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of (i think you can figure that out)
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:26 PM
To: PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PLAN_B_analog_blog] New Model 14 re-design



All,

In building the prototype Model 14 for NAMM and have come to
the conclusion that the current faceplate design is unacceptable.
There are too many controls to close to one another, so much so
that ergomonics are compromised - it makes it difficult to week
knobs when some of the nearby jacks had something connected
to them. I think you would agree that this is no good.

So...I've rethought and redesigned the faceplate to fix this issue
and did so without altering it's functionality or making it wider.
The new design is shown on the Model 14 product page on our
site.

Please note:

The photograph still shows the prototype design. There will
none of the new faceplates made until this unit goes into
production ~ sometime around March of this year.

Go here:

http://www.ear-group.com/model_14.html

- P








YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  • Visit your group "PLAN_B_analog_blog " on the web.
  • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  • PLAN_B_analog_blog-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .






Re: New Model 14 re-design

2006-01-11 by paradigmshiftbeats

Any possibility of adding A/B inputs to the cross-fader? (Your re-
design would appear to allow space for two jacks above the VC Xfade 
input.) The two mixers could certainly be normalled to these inputs, 
but this would also permit users to substitute external sources for 
one or both mixers, further enhancing the module's flexibility.

Chris

Re: [PLAN_B_analog_blog] Re: New Model 14 re-design

2006-01-11 by Peter Grenader

that's a good idea - let me think out the circuit and I'll get back to you
all.  Thanks for the input!

- P




paradigmshiftbeats wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Any possibility of adding A/B inputs to the cross-fader? (Your re-
> design would appear to allow space for two jacks above the VC Xfade
> input.) The two mixers could certainly be normalled to these inputs,
> but this would also permit users to substitute external sources for
> one or both mixers, further enhancing the module's flexibility.
> 
> Chris

Regarding A/B inputs...

2006-01-12 by (i think you can figure that out)

Thinking a little more about this i have a question:

What's the difference between the switchable second input of the 
xfader and just using one of the processor inputs?  anything that 
goes into the secondary input could go into one of the processor 
inputs are well - so this switched in/ non normalized xfader input 
would just limit three input per side (via the processor) to only 1 
input per side (via the secondary input).

Am i missing the boat on this?  let me know and thnaks,

- P

Re: Regarding A/B inputs...

2006-01-12 by paradigmshiftbeats

This would give you all the convenience of your current design while 
also allowing you to use each sub-module separately, for example:

cv 1,2,3 into Mixer 1
audio 1,2,3 into Mixer 2
cv 4, 5 (or audio 4,5) into Xfade A,B

or perhaps:

cv 1,2,3 into Mixer 1
Mixer 1 normalled to Xfade A input
cv 2 to Xfade B input
cv 4,5,Xfade out into Mixer 2

or even:

cv 1,2,3 into Mixer 1
cv 4,5,6 into Mixer 2
Mixer 1 Max out to Xfade A input
Mixer 2 Min out to Xfade B input

You see what I mean?  :-)


--- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "(i think you can figure 
that out)" <peter@b...> wrote:
>
> Thinking a little more about this i have a question:
> 
> What's the difference between the switchable second input of the 
> xfader and just using one of the processor inputs?  anything that 
> goes into the secondary input could go into one of the processor 
> inputs are well - so this switched in/ non normalized xfader input 
> would just limit three input per side (via the processor) to only 
1 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> input per side (via the secondary input).
> 
> Am i missing the boat on this?  let me know and thnaks,
> 
> - P
>

Re: [PLAN_B_analog_blog] Re: Regarding A/B inputs...

2006-01-12 by Peter Grenader

OK, that makes sense.  You could use one of the processors as an audio mixer
onto itself and then still crossfade CV - from the 'B' input with the other
processor which could be adding CV's together.  Good idea.

Consider it done.  It shall be known as the Paradigm Shift input.

- P


paradigmshiftbeats wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> This would give you all the convenience of your current design while
> also allowing you to use each sub-module separately, for example:
> 
> cv 1,2,3 into Mixer 1
> audio 1,2,3 into Mixer 2
> cv 4, 5 (or audio 4,5) into Xfade A,B
> 
> or perhaps:
> 
> cv 1,2,3 into Mixer 1
> Mixer 1 normalled to Xfade A input
> cv 2 to Xfade B input
> cv 4,5,Xfade out into Mixer 2
> 
> or even:
> 
> cv 1,2,3 into Mixer 1
> cv 4,5,6 into Mixer 2
> Mixer 1 Max out to Xfade A input
> Mixer 2 Min out to Xfade B input
> 
> You see what I mean?  :-)
> 
> 
> --- In PLAN_B_analog_blog@yahoogroups.com, "(i think you can figure
> that out)" <peter@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> Thinking a little more about this i have a question:
>> 
>> What's the difference between the switchable second input of the
>> xfader and just using one of the processor inputs?  anything that
>> goes into the secondary input could go into one of the processor
>> inputs are well - so this switched in/ non normalized xfader input
>> would just limit three input per side (via the processor) to only
> 1 
>> input per side (via the secondary input).
>> 
>> Am i missing the boat on this?  let me know and thnaks,
>> 
>> - P
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

RE: [PLAN_B_analog_blog] Regarding A/B inputs...

2006-01-12 by Ingo Zobel

hello peter,

with these additional inputs you could use the
crossfader and the two mixers separately.

best wishes

ingo



--- "(i think you can figure that out)" <peter@buzzclick-music.com>
schrieb:

> Thinking a little more about this i have a question:
> 
> What's the difference between the switchable second input of the 
> xfader and just using one of the processor inputs?  anything that 
> goes into the secondary input could go into one of the processor 
> inputs are well - so this switched in/ non normalized xfader input 
> would just limit three input per side (via the processor) to only 1 
> input per side (via the secondary input).
> 
> Am i missing the boat on this?  let me know and thnaks,
> 
> - P
> 
> 
> 
> 


http://www.dron.de
http://www.selfoscillate.de
http://www.signalform.de


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.