Yahoo Groups archive

SergeModular

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:13 UTC

Thread

What is a Frequency Shifter?

What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-03 by dahlia13@bigfoot.com

I got a catalog from Serge/STS a few months ago and one of the modules that's causing me alot of confusion is the Frequency Shifter. What the hell is this thing? I've never heard of it before. After some web searches, I discovered a few other manufacturers who have built FS's - Moog (Bode), Buchla, EMS - but the information is scant and I'm nowhere closer to understanding what this thing actually does. The catalog informing me that I can do vibrato effects, robot voices, or Leslie simulations isn't much help either, since I could accomplish those using delays, phasers, ring mods, etc. And it's the most expensive module in the catalog, to boot!

Is this device related to: A vocoder? A ring modulator? An octave divider (i.e. where an oscillator tracks the input frequency)?

Can anyone offer a (simplified) explanation of what's happening inside a frequency shifter circuit? Or put up some .mp3's of a frequency shifter in action?

Thanks!

Igor.
http://www.geocities.com/charnel_whorehouse/

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-03 by John Papiewski

Hey Igor,

You can think of a frequency shifter as a ring modulator with TWO
outputs: the upshift output has only the sum of the two input
frequencies, the downshift output has only the difference frequencies.
Serge has two FS's in their catalog, the internal carrier model, which
has an onboard sinewave oscillator, and the external carrier, which lets
you use your own sinewave or some other waveform or complex source.

Please note that since it is ring modulator based, a frequency shifter
is NOT a pitch shifter! A frequency shifter will add the carrier
frequency to all the harmonics of the sound you want to shift. The
greater the carrier frequency, the more pronounced the harmonic
distortion. This is suitable for, well, distortion effects like
robot/computer/alien voices, etc. At very low carrier frequencies the
FS will simply impart vibrato, mild doppler effects, leslie effects etc
since the harmonic distortion is more subtle and harder to notice.

A pitch shifter on the other hand will multiply by the harmonic
frequencies, keeping the original sound's harmonic structure intact, so
you can *transpose* the original sound by an octave, fifth, or some
other arbitrary interval. You can't do this with a frequency shifter as
far as I know.

Make sense??

John P.

dahlia13@... wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I got a catalog from Serge/STS a few months ago and one of the modules that's causing me alot of confusion is the Frequency Shifter. What the hell is this thing? I've never heard of it before. After some web searches, I discovered a few other manufacturers who have built FS's - Moog (Bode), Buchla, EMS - but the information is scant and I'm nowhere closer to understanding what this thing actually does. The catalog informing me that I can do vibrato effects, robot voices, or Leslie simulations isn't much help either, since I could accomplish those using delays, phasers, ring mods, etc. And it's the most expensive module in the catalog, to boot!
>
> Is this device related to: A vocoder? A ring modulator? An octave divider (i.e. where an oscillator tracks the input frequency)?
>
> Can anyone offer a (simplified) explanation of what's happening inside a frequency shifter circuit? Or put up some .mp3's of a frequency shifter in action?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Igor.
> http://www.geocities.com/charnel_whorehouse/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-03 by Scott Evans, Gen Mgr

--- Igor ----
Can anyone offer a (simplified) explanation of what's happening inside a
frequency shifter
circuit?

--- John ----
A frequency shifter will add the carrier frequency to all the harmonics
of the sound you want to shift.
A pitch shifter on the other hand will multiply by the harmonic
frequencies, keeping the original sound's harmonic structure intact, ...

--- Scott ---
John is correct in his response. Just as clarification (if you are into
numbers):
If a 500Hz fundamental is shifted by 100Hz, the pitch shifter will
"move" the fundamental to 600Hz, the second harmonic (formally 1000Hz)
1200Hz, etc. retaining the relationship of the harmonic. The frequency
shifter would shift the fundamental to 600Hz and the second harmonic to
1100Hz, thereby changing the relationship of the harmonics to one
another. Hope I am not all wet on this, but this is my understanding.

Scott

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-03 by Les Mizzell

> A frequency shifter will add the carrier frequency to all the harmonics
> of the sound you want to shift.

Hey, somebody post some MP3s

....say, simple raw sound and then examples of the same with various degrees
of shifting applied.

What happens with more complex sounds - chords for example?

A sound is worth 10,000 words......


Les Mizzell
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
A computer lets you make more mistakes
faster than any invention in human
history, with the possible exceptions
of handguns and tequila.
- Mitch Ratliffe in Technology Review
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-03 by C. Whitten

Well although everything everyone has said so far has been perfectly
correct....
I think the Frequency Shifter does have some pitch shifting qualities.
I've used it to 'detune' drums. Also if you are running a sequence and send
one of the oscillator outputs to the FS you can get out of tune or
harmonised tones.
It's more than chorusing or leslie effects although not strictly speaking a
'pitch shifter'.
As Mr Opart queried though...what is the purpose of the compressed output?
CW

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-03 by dahlia13@bigfoot.com

Thanks! That's as lucid and down-to-earth an explanation as I
could've asked for. So basically, a frequency shifter allows you to
send the sum and the difference frequencies to seperate outputs (that
must sound interesting with one output panned hard left, the other
hard right), whereas a "conventional" ring modulator doesn't allow
you to seperate the two. That's the main difference?

What I was referring to as an octave divider sounds like what's being
called a pitch shifter in this thread. For some reason, I always
thought a pitch shifter was strictly a digital device that changed
the pitch of sampled audio input without altering the length/speed.

This may be a naive question, but if a frequency shifter is basically
two ring modulators in parallel, why are FS's so expensive? For the
price of one Serge FS (external carrier), a person could buy 4 or 5
of the ring modulator modules...does anyone have any theories as to
why this is? Is seperating the sum/difference frequencies more
difficult to achieve than producing both of them combined?

Igor.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In SergeModular@y..., John Papiewski <johnp@w...> wrote:
> Hey Igor,
>
> You can think of a frequency shifter as a ring modulator with TWO
> outputs: the upshift output has only the sum of the two input
> frequencies, the downshift output has only the difference
frequencies.
> Serge has two FS's in their catalog, the internal carrier model,
which
> has an onboard sinewave oscillator, and the external carrier, which
lets
> you use your own sinewave or some other waveform or complex source.
>
> Please note that since it is ring modulator based, a frequency
shifter
> is NOT a pitch shifter! A frequency shifter will add the carrier
> frequency to all the harmonics of the sound you want to shift. The
> greater the carrier frequency, the more pronounced the harmonic
> distortion. This is suitable for, well, distortion effects like
> robot/computer/alien voices, etc. At very low carrier frequencies
the
> FS will simply impart vibrato, mild doppler effects, leslie effects
etc
> since the harmonic distortion is more subtle and harder to notice.
>
> A pitch shifter on the other hand will multiply by the harmonic
> frequencies, keeping the original sound's harmonic structure
intact, so
> you can *transpose* the original sound by an octave, fifth, or some
> other arbitrary interval. You can't do this with a frequency
shifter as
> far as I know.
>
> Make sense??
>
> John P.

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by Les Mizzell

> A frequency shifter will add the carrier
> frequency to all the harmonics of the sound
> you want to shift.

After considering the possibilities for this, I'd REALLY like somebody to
post some audio somewhere.

For example, with some careful band pass filtering, you could shift only
selected harmonics in the original signal, right? That idea alone could
keep me busy for a couple of weeks...

Damn, I gotta hurry up and order some panels!


Les Mizzell
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
A computer lets you make more mistakes
faster than any invention in human
history, with the possible exceptions
of handguns and tequila.
- Mitch Ratliffe in Technology Review
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by chris macdonald

Although an analog frequency shifter has (at least)
two ring modulators inside, there is a lot more
circuitry as well. There is a phase delay network
(PDN) which generates two versions of the input signal
with a 90 degree phase difference between them. There
is also a quadrature oscillator which generates sine
and cosine waves at variable frequencies. Then there
are summing amps, an input and output section, etc.

All these circuits must be fairly precise as well,
because any undesired nonlinearities or harmonics will
show up as artifacts in the shifted outputs.

I believe the external carrier version of the Serge FS
is more expensive because a second PDN is needed in
order to generate a quadrature signal from the single
carrier input signal.

-Chris M.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> This may be a naive question, but if a frequency
> shifter is basically
> two ring modulators in parallel, why are FS's so
> expensive? For the
> price of one Serge FS (external carrier), a person
> could buy 4 or 5
> of the ring modulator modules...does anyone have any
> theories as to
> why this is? Is seperating the sum/difference
> frequencies more
> difficult to achieve than producing both of them
> combined?

>
> --- In SergeModular@y..., John Papiewski
> <johnp@w...> wrote:
> > Hey Igor,
> >
> > You can think of a frequency shifter as a ring
> modulator with TWO
> > outputs: the upshift output has only the sum of
> the two input
> > frequencies, the downshift output has only the
> difference
> frequencies.
> > Serge has two FS's in their catalog, the internal
> carrier model,
> which
> > has an onboard sinewave oscillator, and the
> external carrier, which
> lets
> > you use your own sinewave or some other waveform
> or complex source.
> >
> > Please note that since it is ring modulator based,
> a frequency
> shifter
> > is NOT a pitch shifter! A frequency shifter will
> add the carrier
> > frequency to all the harmonics of the sound you
> want to shift. The
> > greater the carrier frequency, the more pronounced
> the harmonic
> > distortion. This is suitable for, well,
> distortion effects like
> > robot/computer/alien voices, etc. At very low
> carrier frequencies
> the
> > FS will simply impart vibrato, mild doppler
> effects, leslie effects
> etc
> > since the harmonic distortion is more subtle and
> harder to notice.
> >
> > A pitch shifter on the other hand will multiply by
> the harmonic
> > frequencies, keeping the original sound's harmonic
> structure
> intact, so
> > you can *transpose* the original sound by an
> octave, fifth, or some
> > other arbitrary interval. You can't do this with
> a frequency
> shifter as
> > far as I know.
> >
> > Make sense??
> >
> > John P.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-~>
> Make good on the promise you made at graduation to
> keep
> in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million
> registered
> high school alumni--chances are you'll find your
> friends!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/03IJGA/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/Q6GVlB/TM
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by John Papiewski

Igor,

Think about it.... One ring modulator yields sum and difference
frequencies mixed together. The expense in the FS AFAIK is in a
filtering network that splits the sum out to one output and the
difference to another. There are several compromises to be addressed in
this filtering network. Difficult design, a lot of parts and labor to
get it all tuned right.

That's why it's so expensive.
The Doepfer FS I believe has a fairly basic version of this network...
it can do some frequency shifting but it is compromised in terms of
performance... I am not speaking from direct experience but according
to the doepfer web site that shifts of < ~ 50 hz are not possible. I
guess that handling the smaller shifts involves more difficult design
and construction. Also in the Doepfer, I think I heard that signal
bleed-thru is a problem (incomplete suppression of signal or carrier).
So perhaps the application of the Doepfer FS is more limited to doing
klangy distortion and robot voices than more subtle effects, but hey,
they offer it at a fraction of the price of anyone else.

Other things to consider:
The Wilson Analog Delay (WAD) Serge module does pitch shifting, but the
pitch shift can't be constant... so you can do vibrato and doppler-type
shifts with it, as long as the "dv/dt" is not zero (sorry, my calculus
is showing). Blacet makes a similar module (VC analog delay), I think
Big Briar too. You can do this with some digital delays as well, since
in each instance you're changing frequency output by varying a master
clock rate.

ANOTHER module that can do pitch shifting is a notch filter or phase
shifter. The shift amounts will be very small but if you shift the
phase you're pushing the wavefront forward or back... again, it has to
be changing to work (remember dv/dt <> 0). So you can do vibrato and
some FM types of effects with a phase shifter.

Guys if I don't have this right let me know.

JP

dahlia13@... wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Thanks! That's as lucid and down-to-earth an explanation as I
> could've asked for. So basically, a frequency shifter allows you to
> send the sum and the difference frequencies to seperate outputs (that
> must sound interesting with one output panned hard left, the other
> hard right), whereas a "conventional" ring modulator doesn't allow
> you to seperate the two. That's the main difference?
>
> What I was referring to as an octave divider sounds like what's being
> called a pitch shifter in this thread. For some reason, I always
> thought a pitch shifter was strictly a digital device that changed
> the pitch of sampled audio input without altering the length/speed.
>
> This may be a naive question, but if a frequency shifter is basically
> two ring modulators in parallel, why are FS's so expensive? For the
> price of one Serge FS (external carrier), a person could buy 4 or 5
> of the ring modulator modules...does anyone have any theories as to
> why this is? Is seperating the sum/difference frequencies more
> difficult to achieve than producing both of them combined?
>
> Igor.
>
>
> --- In SergeModular@y..., John Papiewski <johnp@w...> wrote:
>
>> Hey Igor,
>>
>> You can think of a frequency shifter as a ring modulator with TWO
>> outputs: the upshift output has only the sum of the two input
>> frequencies, the downshift output has only the difference
>
> frequencies.
>
>> Serge has two FS's in their catalog, the internal carrier model,
>
> which
>
>> has an onboard sinewave oscillator, and the external carrier, which
>
> lets
>
>> you use your own sinewave or some other waveform or complex source.
>>
>> Please note that since it is ring modulator based, a frequency
>
> shifter
>
>> is NOT a pitch shifter! A frequency shifter will add the carrier
>> frequency to all the harmonics of the sound you want to shift. The
>> greater the carrier frequency, the more pronounced the harmonic
>> distortion. This is suitable for, well, distortion effects like
>> robot/computer/alien voices, etc. At very low carrier frequencies
>
> the
>
>> FS will simply impart vibrato, mild doppler effects, leslie effects
>
> etc
>
>> since the harmonic distortion is more subtle and harder to notice.
>>
>> A pitch shifter on the other hand will multiply by the harmonic
>> frequencies, keeping the original sound's harmonic structure
>
> intact, so
>
>> you can *transpose* the original sound by an octave, fifth, or some
>> other arbitrary interval. You can't do this with a frequency
>
> shifter as
>
>> far as I know.
>>
>> Make sense??
>>
>> John P.
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by Chris MacDonald

I can't say how the Doepfer FS works, but I think most analog frequency
shifters work by implementing the trig identity

cos(x + y) = cos(x) * cos(y) - sin(x) * sin(y)

in analog hardware. Imagine "x" is your input signal and "y" is the
carrier oscillator. If the equation above can somehow be performed
continuously in real time, then your signal "x" gets shifted by whatever
the frequency of the carrier "y" is (y gets added to x).

This is done in hardware by making a sin and cos version of the input
signal with a phase delay network, then ring modding the cos version of
the signal with a cosine carrier wave from a quadrature oscillator (this
generates the cos(x)*cos(y) part) and, in parallel, ring modding the sin
version of the signal with the sine carrier wave for sin(x)*sin(y). The
two ring mod outputs are then subtracted from each other to get the
final output.

-Chris

John Papiewski wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Igor,
>
> Think about it.... One ring modulator yields sum and difference
> frequencies mixed together. The expense in the FS AFAIK is in a
> filtering network that splits the sum out to one output and the
> difference to another. There are several compromises to be addressed in
> this filtering network. Difficult design, a lot of parts and labor to
> get it all tuned right.
>
> That's why it's so expensive.
> The Doepfer FS I believe has a fairly basic version of this network...
> it can do some frequency shifting but it is compromised in terms of
> performance... I am not speaking from direct experience but according
> to the doepfer web site that shifts of < ~ 50 hz are not possible. I
> guess that handling the smaller shifts involves more difficult design
> and construction. Also in the Doepfer, I think I heard that signal
> bleed-thru is a problem (incomplete suppression of signal or carrier).
> So perhaps the application of the Doepfer FS is more limited to doing
> klangy distortion and robot voices than more subtle effects, but hey,
> they offer it at a fraction of the price of anyone else.
>
> Other things to consider:
> The Wilson Analog Delay (WAD) Serge module does pitch shifting, but the
> pitch shift can't be constant... so you can do vibrato and doppler-type
> shifts with it, as long as the "dv/dt" is not zero (sorry, my calculus
> is showing). Blacet makes a similar module (VC analog delay), I think
> Big Briar too. You can do this with some digital delays as well, since
> in each instance you're changing frequency output by varying a master
> clock rate.
>
> ANOTHER module that can do pitch shifting is a notch filter or phase
> shifter. The shift amounts will be very small but if you shift the
> phase you're pushing the wavefront forward or back... again, it has to
> be changing to work (remember dv/dt <> 0). So you can do vibrato and
> some FM types of effects with a phase shifter.
>
> Guys if I don't have this right let me know.
>
> JP
>
> dahlia13@... wrote:
>
> > Thanks! That's as lucid and down-to-earth an explanation as I
> > could've asked for. So basically, a frequency shifter allows you to
> > send the sum and the difference frequencies to seperate outputs (that
> > must sound interesting with one output panned hard left, the other
> > hard right), whereas a "conventional" ring modulator doesn't allow
> > you to seperate the two. That's the main difference?
> >
> > What I was referring to as an octave divider sounds like what's being
> > called a pitch shifter in this thread. For some reason, I always
> > thought a pitch shifter was strictly a digital device that changed
> > the pitch of sampled audio input without altering the length/speed.
> >
> > This may be a naive question, but if a frequency shifter is basically
> > two ring modulators in parallel, why are FS's so expensive? For the
> > price of one Serge FS (external carrier), a person could buy 4 or 5
> > of the ring modulator modules...does anyone have any theories as to
> > why this is? Is seperating the sum/difference frequencies more
> > difficult to achieve than producing both of them combined?
> >
> > Igor.
> >
> >
> > --- In SergeModular@y..., John Papiewski <johnp@w...> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Igor,
> >>
> >> You can think of a frequency shifter as a ring modulator with TWO
> >> outputs: the upshift output has only the sum of the two input
> >> frequencies, the downshift output has only the difference
> >
> > frequencies.
> >
> >> Serge has two FS's in their catalog, the internal carrier model,
> >
> > which
> >
> >> has an onboard sinewave oscillator, and the external carrier, which
> >
> > lets
> >
> >> you use your own sinewave or some other waveform or complex source.
> >>
> >> Please note that since it is ring modulator based, a frequency
> >
> > shifter
> >
> >> is NOT a pitch shifter! A frequency shifter will add the carrier
> >> frequency to all the harmonics of the sound you want to shift. The
> >> greater the carrier frequency, the more pronounced the harmonic
> >> distortion. This is suitable for, well, distortion effects like
> >> robot/computer/alien voices, etc. At very low carrier frequencies
> >
> > the
> >
> >> FS will simply impart vibrato, mild doppler effects, leslie effects
> >
> > etc
> >
> >> since the harmonic distortion is more subtle and harder to notice.
> >>
> >> A pitch shifter on the other hand will multiply by the harmonic
> >> frequencies, keeping the original sound's harmonic structure
> >
> > intact, so
> >
> >> you can *transpose* the original sound by an octave, fifth, or some
> >> other arbitrary interval. You can't do this with a frequency
> >
> > shifter as
> >
> >> far as I know.
> >>
> >> Make sense??
> >>
> >> John P.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Keep on Patchin'!
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by opart@dircon.co.uk

C'mon guys! There's been loads of 'how does a freq shifter work'
stuff on other boards - lets be a bit more Serge specific. 2 of us on
this list have asked about the Compressor on the Serge FS with no
explanation.

What is it there for? What type of compressor is it?? Its very brutal
and noisy, but great for drums, etc. Is it related to the function of
the FS or is there just some space to fill behind the module??

K.

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by (Kyle Jarger)

I haven't seen this little bt of info posted about freq shifters yet...that
one of the key things that a frequency shifter does is to change the timbre
of a signal by changing the relative frequencies of their harmonics...
say you have a 500 Hz fundamental frequency saw wave...it has harmonics at
1000 Hz, 1500 Hz, 2000 Hz, and so on...if you merely shifted its pitch by
500 Hz by transposing as in a sampler, the wave would go to 1000Hz, and its
harmonics would be at 2000 Hz, 3000 Hz, 4000 Hz and so on. Note how the
distance between harmonics has doubled.
But a frequency shifter would keep the harmonics 500 Hz apart, so the wave
frequency shifted by 500 Hz would be 1000 Hz, and its harmonics would be at
1500 Hz, 2000 Hz, 2500 Hz, and so on. As you might imagine, this frequency
shifted wave, while having the same 1000 Hz fundamental frequency as the
transposed wave, would have a very different timbre.
To summarize:

Initial wave:
500 Hz fundamental, harmonics at 1000 Hz, 1500 Hz, 2000 Hz
Transpose by 500 Hz:
1000 Hz fundamental, harmonics at 2000 Hz, 3000 Hz, 4000 Hz
Freq shift by 500 Hz:
1000 Hz fundamental, harmonics at 1500 Hz, 2000 Hz, 2500 Hz

Kyle Jarger
jkjelec@...
JKJ Electronics
Visit our MIDI/CV converters website http://www.tiac.net/users/jkjelec

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by jhaible@t-online.de

> I believe the external carrier version of the Serge FS
> is more expensive because a second PDN is needed in
> order to generate a quadrature signal from the single
> carrier input signal.

One thing I always wondered about the external carrier
version is the lowest possible frequency shift.
PDNs have a lower corner frequency by definition. The
ideal hilbert transform is non-causal, so you need a delay
to get the desired phase shift for a certain bandwidth, and for
the lower corner frequency approaching zero, you'd need
infinite delay.
With an internal quadrature VCO it's possible to go to very low
frequencies (or even thru zero), but an external (non-quadrature)
signal needs a PDN and is therefore limited in lower range.
(The PDN does not hurt on the "program" input, because the
audio frequency to be shifted is limited by the range of the human
ear anyway.)

The fact that Serge's FS with external input is more expensive than
the internal VCO version gives hope that they designed a PDN with
very low corner frequency for the external input. I have no idea
where this corner frequency actually is located, however.
Any information ? Just audio range (16Hz) or 1Hz (difficult ...)
or even lower ?

JH.

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-04 by jhaible@t-online.de

> C'mon guys! There's been loads of 'how does a freq shifter work'
> stuff on other boards - lets be a bit more Serge specific. 2 of us on
> this list have asked about the Compressor on the Serge FS with no
> explanation.
>
> What is it there for? What type of compressor is it?? Its very brutal
> and noisy, but great for drums, etc. Is it related to the function of
> the FS or is there just some space to fill behind the module??


I have no idea what compressor circuit is used in the Serge FS. But
the description in the Serge catalog has influenced me to include
a compressor in my own FS, so I'll jump in here. Even the best
FS produces some bleedthru, i.e. the VCO frequency is not
completely cancelled (as it should according to the formula that
was recently posted). Bode (the classic one) used a "Squelch"
function (sort of noise gate) to get rid of tht annoying noise in
silent parts of the input signal. The Electronotes FS did a similar
thing. The Serge approach is much better: like a Dolby or DBX
noise reduction, the input signal is first compressed, then
processed in the FS, and then expanded. So the noise is reduced
in silent parts, but you don't have a hard gating.
I never heard a Serge FS - I just took the idea from the verbal
description - but in practice that derived version works fine.

BTW, Serge once wrote in EN that he also used companders in
his Ring Modulator and Phaser. Anybody has seen schematics
for this ?

JH.

Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-05 by C. Whitten

> The
> ideal hilbert transform is non-causal
This thread is starting to sound like the old 'plumbers joke' by Steve
Martin (gangly wrench etc..), but seriously, lots of interesting
information, most of which I didn't understand.
I thought it might be time to have a gentle debate on the future of
Serge/STS.
It seems (although it hasn't been confirmed) that there is a long waiting
list for new panels. I saw a report of nearly six months for a custom panel.
I've never really understood whether the shop panels are still being put
together in Oakland and the custom ones by Rex in Wisconsin or not.
Anyway, the whole situation puts me off ordering anymore panels and I know
at least one other person who feels the same.
Contrast that with ModCan who can complete an order in less than two months,
with equal workmanship and at a cheaper price. In addition, ModCan have a
website with (effectively) online ordering.
I've just ordered an FR-777 from Future Retro. I assume it is a similarly
small operation however they have a glossy website with sound samples,
photographs, downloadable manuals and ordering information.
So what is the future of the Serge synthesiser with no manual, no website
(apart from the sterling work by JohnP), no email address, no information on
ordering....the list goes on.
In the immortal words of David St Hubbins "Can someone check me on this. Am
I going insane?"
CW

monolith panels vs seperate modules (was: Serge future?)

2001-04-05 by norman fay

In message <B6F1F450.74C%chris@...>, C. Whitten
<chris@...> writes
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>It seems (although it hasn't been confirmed) that there is a long waiting
>list for new panels. I saw a report of nearly six months for a custom panel.
>I've never really understood whether the shop panels are still being put
>together in Oakland and the custom ones by Rex in Wisconsin or not.
>Anyway, the whole situation puts me off ordering anymore panels and I know
>at least one other person who feels the same.

If I were to order serge panel no.2, the looooong wait wouldn't put me
off, because I'm a low-budget sort :( and I'd need time to raise the
cash for sales tax & customs duty. Although the serge panel is a
smashing, & very cool thing, I really *really* wish they'd supply
seperate modules, and a mounting frame/rails like everyone else does.
buying a couple of modules at a time, I can manage. Scraping up 2
grand+ in one go is VERY difficult for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in
having this problem

>Contrast that with ModCan who can complete an order in less than two months,
>with equal workmanship and at a cheaper price. In addition, ModCan have a
>website with (effectively) online ordering.

I suppose then that you must be the "one other modcan user" in the UK
that Bruce Duncan referred to when he emailed me recently. I can
confirm that modcan's modules are VERY nicely put together, and look
nice & stylish too. Also, I've found bruce duncan to be pretty friendly
& cool, AND he'll supply small quantities (min 2 modules, in my
experience) However, I do sometimes wonder about their similarity to
serge layouts and functionality (I'm referring to the positions of the
pots & sockets on the panels, I don't know about what's "under the
hood", though modcan works off +/-15v instead of the +/- 12v that serge
uses, if that makes any difference) I don't know if this has occured to
anyone else.

I dunno....sometimes I look at the motm/blacet/modcan/wiard modules I
have, and reflect on the fact that if I'd just squirreled away the cash,
I'd probably have had enough for another 2 serge panels. Would it have
been better to do that? Functionally no, because I now have a more -
er- capable/functionally balanced synth, but OTOH, serge does have this
weird voodoo-istic quality about it, I used the serge panel (especially
the variable bandwidth filter) a *lot* during mixdown of our album, but
I never thought of using any of the other stuff (tho' I'd have probably
used the borg filter, if I'd had it then). Anyway, at some point in the
near future, I'm probably just going to have to get my head down and
spend the best part of a year scraping up cash for panel 2, and I
*really* wish I could just order up, say, a dual phaser and a couple of
resonant EQs...it would be *so* much easier...

blah..

best etc
--
norman fay
vietgrove
blue apple boy
newcastle england

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-05 by John Papiewski

It used to be that you could call STS at just about any time and find
someone there. If it was Rex you'd be on the horn for an hour and a
half, but only if he was busy. Otherwise, three hours min. After
endlessly obsessing about which modules on which panel and coughing up
the 50% down, you could expect to get your stuff in a couple months.

After Rex's move & reorganization things have slowed down a lot. This
will probably improve in time... he has after all phones to set up,
boxes to unpack, etc. My sense is that it may be some months yet but,
esp with the shop panel thing going, turnaround time will get much
better. If Rex was just going to pull the plug, that's what he would
have done. Custom panels, I don't know... Rex seems to be in charge of
those and he wants to kick back and enjoy himself once in a while, so
the custom panels may be a long turnaround thing for some time.

On the Modcan thing... I have only had a brief time with Modcan gear and
my reaction was mixed. Yes, the website looks great and the gear seems
fine. Build quality is up there. I was interested in checking out the
ladder filter. Playability and sound quality, I was not real impressed.
The ladder filter sounded thin to me, and not real stable. The other
modules were fine, the quad vca was a bit funky in lay-out.

Anybody else have Modcan impressions? It seems that Mr Duncan took some
Serge things from late 70's vintage and did mixed liberally with his own
ideas. Yes, having separate modules is a very good thing. I don't know
if Rex will ever go that way, the R&D to changing all that stuff over
might be prohibitive.

JP

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-05 by C. Whitten

> After
> endlessly obsessing about which modules on which panel and coughing up
> the 50% down, you could expect to get your stuff in a couple months.

Those really were the days. I wish it was so now. That's really my point, at
a time when there is unprecedented interest in modular synthesisers and new
'boutique' systems like AS, Wiard and Fenix are springing up all over the
place what is happening at STS?
>
>Custom panels, I don't know... Rex seems to be in charge of
> those and he wants to kick back and enjoy himself once in a while, so
> the custom panels may be a long turnaround thing for some time.

How many businesses can afford to have such an attitude, especially with the
amount of competition around today.
>
> On the Modcan thing... Playability and sound quality, I was not real
impressed.
> The ladder filter sounded thin to me, and not real stable. The other
> modules were fine, the quad vca was a bit funky in lay-out.

Well most things are subjective especially sound. I stress that I would NOT
have a ModCan system over a Serge. I don't know what you mean by a filter
not being stable however. I think it is reasonable to say some of the other
modules are more than fine. I can't fault the digital oscillator for
example.
>
> It seems that Mr Duncan took some
> Serge things from late 70's vintage and did mixed liberally with his own
> ideas.

A little harsh again IMO. He's taken ideas from several different systems,
Digisound and Polyfusion for example. And why not if they sound good.
On the other hand there has barely been any development to the Serge modules
in recent years apart from a couple of control modules (Boolean Logic etc).
I guess the bottom line is we have to be thankful that Rex resurrected the
Serge name and has kept the thing going all this time.
Is there anyone however who can't honestly say that it would be slammin' if
there was an *official* STS website with pictures, mp3's, info on all the
modules, online ordering, and you might just get your panel (with a
manual!!) in less than two months.....just like every other small synth
company has been capable of doing.
CW

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-05 by John Papiewski

C. Whitten wrote:


>
> How many businesses can afford to have such an attitude, especially with the
> amount of competition around today.
>

It isn't bad attitude if you want to change priorities & enjoy life
outside of building synths. If you believe that competition is going to
'eat you alive', guess what will happen? You will become a nut case.



>
> A little harsh again IMO. He's taken ideas from several different systems,
> Digisound and Polyfusion for example. And why not if they sound good.
> On the other hand there has barely been any development to the Serge modules
> in recent years apart from a couple of control modules (Boolean Logic etc).
> I guess the bottom line is we have to be thankful that Rex resurrected the
> Serge name and has kept the thing going all this time.
> Is there anyone however who can't honestly say that it would be slammin' if
> there was an *official* STS website with pictures, mp3's, info on all the
> modules, online ordering, and you might just get your panel (with a
> manual!!) in less than two months.....just like every other small synth
> company has been capable of doing.

Bruce Duncan has absolutely done a great job in hybridizing(is that a
word?) a line up from several 'classic' mfrs. My first reaction after
looking at his line up was though, at some point he had a late 70's
Serge & took it apart. The oscillators, env gen, peak & trough, quad
vca, use of bananas, etc... the family resemblence is very strong - you
can't say you don't know who the daddy is!

Rex has actually done a lot with the Serge modules. Revised layouts on
most of them, better parts, LED's on the sequencers, custom variations
on some modules, a lot of improvements. Somehow he has also had the
time to create a few new modules like the blog, pdiv, dual clock, skinny
mixers, etc.
On the other points.... STS is doing just fine with no official web
site, no mp3's and no manuals. Rex is an odd bird when it comes to that
stuff, and my opinion is, let him do what he wants.

IMO mp3's are something everybody seems to want, but aren't that great a
sales tool. Maybe a demo CD would be a good thing, you would get great
fidelity and enough time to really get into some good stuff.

Anyway, enough of my $.02.

JP

Re: monolith panels vs seperate modules (was: Serge future?)

2001-04-05 by dahlia13@bigfoot.com

Although the serge panel is a
> smashing, & very cool thing, I really *really* wish they'd supply
> seperate modules, and a mounting frame/rails like everyone else
does.
> buying a couple of modules at a time, I can manage. Scraping up 2
> grand+ in one go is VERY difficult for me, and I'm sure I'm not
alone in
> having this problem
>

I agree with this. I've been contemplating buying a Serge/STS system,
but the fact that you can't buy it module at a time is a major turn
off for me. Having to buy it panel at a time means forking over major
cash (which I don't have) for a product I may not even feel is worth
it (I live in a small Canadian city - I've never played a Serge
before and I can't exactly go to a local representative for a demo),
with no hope of getting a refund since it was completely customized
to my specifications. If I could buy seperate modules, I could
atleast evaluate the system with less damage to my pocketbook, and
I'd be able to start using the Serge in my music right away, instead
of saving up for months or even years to get a whole panel. Plus,
with seperate modules, it wouldn't be a big deal to get a refund if
you were really dissatisfied with one of them.

I'm sure a number of people here will get defensive at the following
comments, but what the hell, I'll say them anyways:

1) If a synth manufacturer is going to charge as much bread as
Serge/STS for their products, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to
offer more than a 2 year warranty (How about 5 years? 10? How about a
lifetime warranty? Yes, some manufacturers still offer lifetime
warranties, Royer Labs on their microphones, for example). If part of
the justification for the Serge's high cost is that it's high-end,
well-built, durable, military-spec, etc., well, a 2-year warranty
doesn't exactly vouch for their confidence (my plastic GE toaster has
a 2 year warranty).

2) I'm sure it's been said before, but I really can't help but think
that Serge/STS stuff is *way* overpriced...for example, $600 US for a
bucket-brigade delay? When Moog/Big Briar put out a $600 "limited
edition" delay (in the same enclosure as all their other Moogerfooger
pedals), I thought, "What a bunch of opportunists...they're charging
people $300+ for an IC they probably only paid $12 each for." Shortly
thereafter, I got the Serge/STS catalog in the mail, and whaddya
know? They're doing the exact same thing! There's alot of modules in
the catalog where the pricing seems questionable to me.

I know Serge/STS are a small company and that we all have to make a
living, but isn't their pricing just a tad bit excessive? If John
Blacet can offer a pre-assembled bbd delay for $200 + change that
rivals the WAD module, how do Serge justify charging $600 for theirs?

If it weren't for the whole Serge "mystique" and brand name, I'm sure
a company charging prices like this would've gone out of business by
now, no matter how superior or unique their products were.

Respectfully,
Igor.

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-06 by dahlia13@bigfoot.com

>
> One thing I always wondered about the external carrier
> version is the lowest possible frequency shift.
> PDNs have a lower corner frequency by definition. The

Excuse my ignorance, but what does PDN stand for?

Igor.

Re: Serge kits? (was: monolith panels vs seperate modules)

2001-04-06 by DarkStr717@aol.com

In a message dated 4/5/01 9:49:25 PM, dahlia13@... writes:

<< Just as an afterthought, does anyone know why Serge modules aren't being
offered in kit form anymore?

Igor.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>>

You ever taken one of these puppies apart?? what a nightmare.
john

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-07 by Chris MacDonald

Hi Igor,

PDN is "phase difference network". It's a circuit used inside a
frequency shifter to create two versions of the input signal which will
have a 90 degree relative phase difference between each other over a
wide frequency range.

Frequency shifters need a sine and cosine version of both the input
signal and the carrier signal in order to operate. The sine versions of
signal and carrier are put through one ring modulator, and the cosine
versions are put through another ring mod. Then they add (or subtract)
the two ring mod outputs together to get the final output.

In the case of the Serge external carrier shifter, an extra PDN would be
needed to take the external carrier input and make sine and cosine
versions of it. In the internal version, the built-in carrier
oscillator comes with sine and cosine outputs (it's a quadrature
oscillator), so the extra PDN isn't needed. I assume that's how the
Serge shifters work anyway, I've never peeked inside one.

I haven't heard of anyone making a PDN module for a modular synth
system, but if there was one, you could probably patch up your own
frequency shifter manually using a PDN, two ring mods, a quadrature
oscillator and a mixer.

-Chris

dahlia13@... wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> >
> > One thing I always wondered about the external carrier
> > version is the lowest possible frequency shift.
> > PDNs have a lower corner frequency by definition. The
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what does PDN stand for?
>
> Igor.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: Serge kits? (was: monolith panels vs seperate modules)

2001-04-07 by Steve Ridley

>> Just as an afterthought, does anyone know why Serge modules aren't being
>> offered in kit form anymore?

> You ever taken one of these puppies apart?? what a nightmare.

At Serge prices, there's no excuse for them being a nightmare.


Steve Ridley

Re: What is a Frequency Shifter?

2001-04-07 by Steve Ridley

> In the case of the Serge external carrier shifter, an extra PDN would be
> needed to take the external carrier input and make sine and cosine
> versions of it. In the internal version, the built-in carrier
> oscillator comes with sine and cosine outputs (it's a quadrature
> oscillator), so the extra PDN isn't needed. I assume that's how the
> Serge shifters work anyway, I've never peeked inside one.

That's how the (earlier) Buchla 285 Frequency Shifter works. Two
PDNs when used with an external carrier shift. The Buchla was
switchable between internal (it's own quadrature oscillator) and
external carrier shift. That looks like the best of both worlds, but
I've never heard one, and they weren't cheap.



Steve Ridley

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by hizumi@rocketmail.com

> > It seems that Mr Duncan took some
> > Serge things from late 70's vintage and did mixed liberally
with his own
> > ideas.
>
> A little harsh again IMO. He's taken ideas from several different
systems,
> Digisound and Polyfusion for example. And why not if they
sound good.

err IMHO you aren't being harsh yourself. There is one Digisound
Module and 2 Polyfusion filters (not counting the actual
Polyfusion LFO boards which were a spinoff from a custom job)

I'd say about half his modules are very close to old Serge
designs without many of his own ideas on those modules.
(PCO, multimode, LFO, VCA, ADSR, there's a whole basic serge
there, 2 of the multipliers, the morphed waveform, peak trough).
This isn't to say he has no ideas of his own or that they are badly
constructed, quite the opposite.

> On the other hand there has barely been any development to
the Serge modules
> in recent years apart from a couple of control modules
(Boolean Logic etc).

very true, he did the a new divider too I think

> I guess the bottom line is we have to be thankful that Rex
resurrected the
> Serge name and has kept the thing going all this time.

and whats perhaps more interesting is that the modules simply
haven't been across the board surpassed by the new
competition in any serious technical ways. Sure a few things out
there do something new, but you'd think someone would
manage to make a (probably very expensive) system that
decidedly outdoes Serge in a bunch of ways

Like Bruce Duncan, for all his skills isn't pushing the old Serge
stuff further than the present day Serge stuff.

Many are making fine units and the Encore built MOTM module
and Wiard do seem to be pushing the envalope :-)

But I keep seeing these new standard complemented medium
sized systems with nothing terribly original going on inside them
over and over again, not exactly close competition.

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by Bill Felton

Well, you know, I'm fascinated by the recurring
theme (and not just in Serge-land) of "you'd think
someone would manage to make a system that
decidedly outdoes Serge in a bunch of ways".
What kinds of things do people think would fill
the bill on this? Or is it just a vague feeling
that "since this stuff (Serge, or whatever is under
comment at the time) is old, something newer must
perforce be better/offer improvements"?
I'd sure be happy, or at least vastly interested,
to hear thoughts as to what would 'vasty improve'
the land of modular, or even analog, synthesis,
but... Lots of talk about how this "should" be
possible, "should" be happening, but precious little
(like no) concrete suggestions as to what would
fit the bill.
Anybody else see this, or am I once again off the
far end of the bell curve?

cheers,
Bill

"There are two kinds of fool -- one says 'this is
old and therefore good' and the other says 'this
is new and therefore better'...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hizumi@... [mailto:hizumi@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 8:54 PM
> To: SergeModular@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [SergeModular] Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?
>
>
>
> > > It seems that Mr Duncan took some
> > > Serge things from late 70's vintage and did mixed liberally
> with his own
> > > ideas.
> >
> > A little harsh again IMO. He's taken ideas from several different
> systems,
> > Digisound and Polyfusion for example. And why not if they
> sound good.
>
> err IMHO you aren't being harsh yourself. There is one Digisound
> Module and 2 Polyfusion filters (not counting the actual
> Polyfusion LFO boards which were a spinoff from a custom job)
>
> I'd say about half his modules are very close to old Serge
> designs without many of his own ideas on those modules.
> (PCO, multimode, LFO, VCA, ADSR, there's a whole basic serge
> there, 2 of the multipliers, the morphed waveform, peak trough).
> This isn't to say he has no ideas of his own or that they are badly
> constructed, quite the opposite.
>
> > On the other hand there has barely been any development to
> the Serge modules
> > in recent years apart from a couple of control modules
> (Boolean Logic etc).
>
> very true, he did the a new divider too I think
>
> > I guess the bottom line is we have to be thankful that Rex
> resurrected the
> > Serge name and has kept the thing going all this time.
>
> and whats perhaps more interesting is that the modules simply
> haven't been across the board surpassed by the new
> competition in any serious technical ways. Sure a few things out
> there do something new, but you'd think someone would
> manage to make a (probably very expensive) system that
> decidedly outdoes Serge in a bunch of ways
>
> Like Bruce Duncan, for all his skills isn't pushing the old Serge
> stuff further than the present day Serge stuff.
>
> Many are making fine units and the Encore built MOTM module
> and Wiard do seem to be pushing the envalope :-)
>
> But I keep seeing these new standard complemented medium
> sized systems with nothing terribly original going on inside them
> over and over again, not exactly close competition.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by Les Mizzell

> What kinds of things do people think would fill
> the bill on this?

I don't own a Serge yet. I can't even get a full catalog! So, all I've got
to look at and study are a few color prints of some shop panels, plus what's
out there on Egres.

To be honest, with the existing modules that already exist, almost anything
I can think of can be patched up. Certainly goes way beyond the 2500 and
Steiner modulars I trained on years ago.

Maybe a nice 24dB filter, but hell, you can do better than that by patching
two of the existing ones together, so why bother, other than the fact that
you'd only be using one module.

Other than that, Rex seems more than happy to perform small "modifications"
on modules, providing it's something reasonable, makes sense and you don't
mind waiting and paying for it.

What's REALLY missing from this system? I'd be really interested in the
opinions.


Les Mizzell
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
"God don't make no mistakes -- that's
how he got to be God."
- Archie Bunker
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by hizumi@rocketmail.com

--- In SergeModular@y..., "Bill Felton" <bfelton@m...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Well, you know, I'm fascinated by the recurring
> theme (and not just in Serge-land) of "you'd think
> someone would manage to make a system that
> decidedly outdoes Serge in a bunch of ways".
> What kinds of things do people think would fill
> the bill on this?

Sell individual modules in a wide range and of serge quality
specs.

Add the last couple i/o connections that Serge skips. (I don't like
the stock rise/both/fall switch on the USG

Make new modules of Serge quality with has high specs and
with as much CV.

Offer new kinds of wave and voltage processors.

Make it easy to produce all kinds of quadrature from LFOs
synced to a tempo

People are making "new" synths but they rarely go beyond 20
year old ideas. All through the 70s synths kept getting better and
more feature filled. There are only a handfull of exceptions.


>Or is it just a vague feeling
> that "since this stuff (Serge, or whatever is under
> comment at the time) is old, something newer must
> perforce be better/offer improvements"?


As we just talked about, Rex improved the specs when he took
over.

I'd say that proves my point at least in part! Why not someone
else doing it to something else. Or something new from the
ground up?

but that was a while back, one would think that someone would
have caught up. Maybe Grant or Paul S. or John Blacet might
someday, but not yet.

> I'd sure be happy, or at least vastly interested,
> to hear thoughts as to what would 'vasty improve'
> the land of modular, or even analog, synthesis,

really tight VC delay with feedback to do waveguide type things
that track

a resonant filter bank with indy outs

moving the individual poles on filters

better tools for working with multiple formants

counters

more binary operations

patch storage :-)

I'm sure all of us could think of some.

Its not that things have to get improved its more a puzzlement.
Now that analog synths have been back several years and there
is a little competition, how come so many companies just spend
time looking for more old designs to copy? The final

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by matt wilson law office

hizumi@... wrote:

--- In SergeModular@y..., "Bill Felton" <bfelton@m...> wrote:
> Well, you know, I'm fascinated by the recurring
> theme (and not just in Serge-land) of "you'd think
> someone would manage to make a system that
> decidedly outdoes Serge in a bunch of ways".
> What kinds of things do people think would fill
> the bill on this?
wow. to be totally honest, aside from my former rather pedestrian prodding at rex regarding increased
production, making a cheap introductory panel, etc (none of which i advocate today), i really don't sit
around wishing serge did this or that; i accept the situation and deal with it without much fantasizing or
wishful thinking....i mean, if my aunt had a dick she's be my uncle, if you get the metaphor....the serge gear does
certain things, doesn't do others, there aren't individual modules, and they don't do the dishes.

not fun, i admit, but today i was refered to as a "former romantic and present day pragmatic realist", so thats
what ya get. ;-0....

matt

(altho i will say i like the laundry list of suggestions!)
--
Matt Wilson, Attorney @ Law
mbwlaw@...
(619) 234-2200

Re: Metasonix

2001-04-13 by C. Whitten

> People are making "new" synths but they rarely go beyond 20
> year old ideas. All through the 70s synths kept getting better and
> more feature filled.
If you read the literature about Metasonix you would think that was about to
happen. But....
I've been playing with the TS21 Modulator for a couple of days and (to cut
to the chase) I'm not sure I couldn't recreate the results by patching
together a couple of Serge modules.
I have got some really good sounds out of it *and* I don't think it's too
expensive. At around $699 it comes close to the price of 3 Serge modules
which you can't even buy seperately.
I patched into the TS21 from my NTO and got some very strong wave shaping
results, I don't own a Serge Wave Shaper so can't report how it compares.
I got the most ear pleasing sounds by patching my DADSR into the Hellfire's
VCA in and a PCO into the PWM/Beam in (at both low and hi rates).
Disregarding the theory of it all I haven't yet heard anything that was
vastly different from patches I've used incorporating Filter FM, the
Frequency Shifter or Wave Multiplier.
I'm going to buy it because I did get some great sounds out of it. It does
add another dimension to my Serge (or would to any modular) but I couldn't
say I was that blown away by it.
.....still saving for my next Serge panel.
CW

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by C. Whitten

> and whats perhaps more interesting is that the modules simply
> haven't been across the board surpassed by the new
> competition in any serious technical ways.
Now this is a very interesting point that I hadn't ever really thought
about.
One opinion that I must express first off is that I think *a lot* of the
useful components for a modular system have long been available. If you look
at everything from Buchla to Wiard how much more complex and out there could
modules get.
As someone said a while ago, there is enough stuff on a basic Serge system
to keep you occupied for years. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface
of mine. Having said that there are some module ideas that have been
suggested by list members like VC Spring Reverb, VC Resonant EQ or Resonant
EQ with individual outs. They may not be groundbreaking but worthwhile all
the same. (We've had lists of interesting ideas over on the Fenix list).
CW

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by Steve Ridley

>> "you'd think someone would manage to make a system that
>> decidedly outdoes Serge in a bunch of ways".

I've had a few long conversations about the lack of
imagination with a friend who manufactures modular
synths. Lot's of interesting ideas and new features
come up, but the problem can be summed up with the
old joke:

Q. "How many folk/country musicians does it take to change
a lightbulb?"

A. "Five, one to change it and four to sing about how good
the old one was!"

If you're going to manufacture a synth module, you want to
sell it, so you're going to build what everyone thinks they
want to buy. You can now buy modules or kits for between
five and ten variations on:

TB303
Moog lowpass filter
MS20 filter
etc.

Why? Because people buy them. 1000 lemmings can't be
wrong. Everyone wants to sound like everyone they like...

The only safe way for a manufacturer to make something new
is to stick his new "hoofly dong wobulator" feature on the output
of a Moog VCF etc, and even then "purists" will grumble that it's
"not like the old ones".

Serge users may be more enlightened than the average synth
user, but are there enough to support another synth manufacturer
in the same area? I'm not brave (or foolish) enough to risk it.

Yours controversially


Steve Ridley

(banging his head against the wall and wondering if it would
sound better with a piezo transducer attached to the wall...)

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by Les Mizzell

> The only safe way for a manufacturer to make something new
> is to stick his new "hoofly dong wobulator" feature on the output
> of a Moog VCF etc, and even then "purists" will grumble that it's
> "not like the old ones".

So Grant is taking a big chance on the two new announced modules for the
Wiard system then...

I quoteth:

The "WoggleBug" random voltage generator (based on the Buchla Model 265
"Source of Uncertainty" module) will be available in Summer 2001. A source
of fluctuating smooth, stepped and "woggled" random voltages and tones, it
makes noises like a bug, if a bug were the size of a refrigerator. Sample at
http://www.wiard.com/samples/WogglebugDemo.mp3

The "Weirding" module is a complete mono-synth in 300 module format. A front
panel control allows "circuit bending" the voice into a chaotic system under
voltage control. Sounds range from "phat" to "burning, melting and dripping
phat". Available Fall 2001

I unquoteth:

If you had enough modules, you could probably patch up what these do. Right?

So, I'll ask again myself...short of "well, I'd like a switch on this module
to turn this off" or "give me another input here"...somebody name a new
module or function that's CAN'T CURRENTLY BE DONE at all on the Serge,
regardless of how much stuff you patch up. There's only so many ways to
vary a voltage, right?

In addition, you would also have to take into consideration the R&D time to
come up with stuff. If you're a very small company like Serge, doing R&D
means that Rex is probably NOT filling somebody's panel order. (heh...)



Les Mizzell
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
"God don't make no mistakes -- that's
how he got to be God."
- Archie Bunker
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-13 by Sebastian Kuehnl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Mizzell" <lesmizz@...>
To: <SergeModular@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 5:04 PM
Subject: RE: [SergeModular] Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?


: > The only safe way for a manufacturer to make something new
: > is to stick his new "hoofly dong wobulator" feature on the output
: > of a Moog VCF etc, and even then "purists" will grumble that it's
: > "not like the old ones".
:
: So Grant is taking a big chance on the two new announced modules for the
: Wiard system then...
:
: I quoteth:
:
: The "WoggleBug" random voltage generator (based on the Buchla Model 265
: "Source of Uncertainty" module) will be available in Summer 2001. A source
: of fluctuating smooth, stepped and "woggled" random voltages and tones, it
: makes noises like a bug, if a bug were the size of a refrigerator. Sample
at
: http://www.wiard.com/samples/WogglebugDemo.mp3
:
: The "Weirding" module is a complete mono-synth in 300 module format. A
front
: panel control allows "circuit bending" the voice into a chaotic system
under
: voltage control. Sounds range from "phat" to "burning, melting and
dripping
: phat". Available Fall 2001
:
: I unquoteth:
:
: If you had enough modules, you could probably patch up what these do.
Right?
:
: So, I'll ask again myself...short of "well, I'd like a switch on this
module
: to turn this off" or "give me another input here"...somebody name a new
: module or function that's CAN'T CURRENTLY BE DONE at all on the Serge,
: regardless of how much stuff you patch up. There's only so many ways to
: vary a voltage, right?


Ok, everything is frequency... but what are you saying? Isn't this question
what analog modular design is all about? Modularity versus integration? Some
people think that, for example, lack of pulse waves was a heavy
disadvantage. Others prefer to have all the single components for pulse
derivation freely accessible, and they will actually *gain* sound generation
capability, in exchange for some programming rapidity. But the same person
might prefer the specialized circuitry of a Buchla Programmable Spectral
Processor to three panels of phasers/ EQs/ mixers/ whatever be required to
patch one of its functions up.

One should buy a Wiard if one wanted a reliable, stabile source for an
outrageous range of sounds, rapidly programmable (normalled and doubled
connections, integrated PWM, waveform storage; think of using a ROM Emulator
during a performance...) and in a small sturdy format (multifunctional,
uniform modules, 6.35mm jacks). One would be handicapped with a Wiard system
if one wanted the choice over all different methods of pulsewave derivation,
do complex visual synthesis (which easily leaves the frequency territories
of many modular systems), subtile external signal processing,
extensively interactive and highly sensitive "living", fluctuating programs,
or take advantage of more complex playing techniques than just linearly
activated envelopes; and today it seems to be common thinking that one would
buy a STS Serge then. The saying goes that it was the reliable and improved
heir of the supposedly noble, but somewhat impracticable Buchla 200 series.
But many users of the Buchla stuff claim the comparison is hybrid and if you
bother thoroughly investigating, you must agree. The 200 series' variety
of different levels of modularity and integration made it the theoretically
most versatile and intuitively operatable analog modular system up to today.

Why didn't these complex devices make it into the present? Since for example
the 281 Function Generator is so ultra-flexible, why don't the Universal
Slope Generator and the Envelator, 25 years later, include all of its
features? Why are arbitrary pulse outputs (stealing free access to a
comparator, inverter, flip-flop or what have you) more important than the
circuitry required for real quadrature interdependency?


[ Rambling on... Personally, my respect goes to technology design which
does more than serve my existing knowledge; which surprises me and makes me
wonder; which seems to "behave", like it was alive. I am aware that this is
sentimental and that the requirement for a machine to fascinate me and steal
my attention from my living environment is dependent on my currently
existing knowledge. And thinking of the limitations of culturally rooted
acoustic instruments and tonal scales as hindrances (essentially the
motivation behind synthesizers, right?) can quickly lead to ignoring that
limitations should by nature induce creativity, or to getting spoilt by the
wealth which enabled liberation from these. It is very hard to find your
personal balance in a machine realm. Why am I talking about balance anyway?
A creative process only takes place where something is out of balance? When
dealing with technology you are always a consumer at last. The complexity
and interdependence of the practical aspects which technical developments
are to change will always be integral to electronically (= *industrially*)
based arts.

In digital synthesis there have been a lot of development possibilities, but
it doesn't look like they have brought any significant creative
developments. Any laptop computer can theoretically do anything a PPG
Waveterm could, in less physical space and millions of colours, and without
the pro-analog argument of knobs vs. keys, and it CAN (quote) do the dishes
(unquote) (well, almost). But the wave editor programs of today DO not do
everything the Waveterms did, why? "VA" is a purely commercial thing; much
more interesting digital stuff happened long ago (GROOVE, Music Mouse;
Buchla too again) with supposedly less capable technology, but it is not
marketable. So (disregarding the discontent with the lack of standards for
computers) I wonder, is the same vintage cult going on on digital synthesist
discussion forums? "DSP and XYZ modelling and VA equipped laptops are neat,
but we want highly specialized Buchla 700s, room-filling Synclavier systems,
and clonking Waveterms"? ] Rambling off.


Concluding, I have a very clear and realistic notion (quote) as to what
would 'vasty improve' the land of modular, or even analog, synthesis
(unquote), but this land would be my personal dictatorship of course. I
cannot afford time and money to realize it. With the remaining
possibilities, I would buy anything Buchla (259, 296 etc) rather than a
Serge panel of signal processors; but I do buy Wiard Wavecities; not because
its functionality was out of competition, e.g. its waveshaping ability lacks
VC; but the combination of possible uses is attractive to me; and I choose
wether I call it a compromise, or a decision.

Kind regards
Sebastian Kuehnl





:
: In addition, you would also have to take into consideration the R&D time
to
: come up with stuff. If you're a very small company like Serge, doing R&D
: means that Rex is probably NOT filling somebody's panel order. (heh...)
:
:
:
: Les Mizzell
: -------------------------------------
: -------------------------------------
: "God don't make no mistakes -- that's
: how he got to be God."
: - Archie Bunker
: -------------------------------------
: -------------------------------------












_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-14 by Sebastian Kuehnl

Hi

> These ultra complex devices DID make it to the future. The Serge USG and
> Wiard Envelator are improvements on the original design.

Please explain "nothing is a substitute for anything else" and then "this is an
improvement".


> The only practical use for the quadrature mode (that I am aware of) is for
> quadraphonic panning where the travel time on each side path can be
> independently varied. Most multi-channel positioning today is done in
> software. So the feature takes up valuable panel space, but adds nothing
> currently useful.

Delay-attack-duration-release, attack-duration-release-hold, ADSR

You can certainly continue my previous list of things which you better do with
a Wiard, or better with a Buchla.

> Serge chose not to bring out the internal trigger flip-flop. So to use a USG
> as a square wave LFO, you need an external comparator. The Envelator brings
> this output to the front panel. The 281 Function Generator did not have
> attenuators on the Attack and Decay time inputs. This mean you have to patch
> up external attenuators. The Envelators have these attenuators in place
> (AMOD and DMOD).

I tried to say something about modularity here and integration there and about
that which to put where is matter of subjective preference..
We could start right here... what's bad about accessible comparators? You can
make much more complex binary waveforms with them. I love them, even if they
use up frontpanel space... With a handful methods for simple variable width
pulse wave derivation, each with its own properties of DC, vertical and
horizontal phase shift or pitch, I cannot but welcome having the choice.
Someone else might not.

> No self respecting designer will simply copy anothers work. While both the
> Serge and Wiard are "derivative" designs from the Buchla, both are intended
> as original instruments and are not "copies" of anything.

Correct

> Grant Richter
>
>

Kind regards
Sebastian Kuehnl


__________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-14 by John Papiewski

Sebastian Kuehnl wrote:


> Grant Richter wrote??
>> Serge chose not to bring out the internal trigger flip-flop. So to use a USG
>> as a square wave LFO, you need an external comparator. The Envelator brings
>> this output to the front panel. The 281 Function Generator did not have
>> attenuators on the Attack and Decay time inputs. This mean you have to patch
>> up external attenuators. The Envelators have these attenuators in place
>> (AMOD and DMOD).

Whoa,

This ain't true.
DSG/DTG or even SSG can produce rectangular waves as-is without needing
a comparator.

JP

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-15 by C. Whitten

> The only practical use for the quadrature mode (that I am aware of) is for
>> quadraphonic panning where the travel time on each side path can be
>> independently varied. Most multi-channel positioning today is done in
>> software. So the feature takes up valuable panel space, but adds nothing
>> currently useful.
This last line is *very* subjective. My personal preference is for hardware
over software anyway. Apart from that there are live concert applications,
plus guitar (or other) processing for say a film score where you don't want
to pass the signal through a computer. As Sebastian pointed out there are
other control applications, I've used a Quadrature Osc. to modulate 4
filters in sequence for example.
Most synthesis is performed via stuff like JV1080, Nord or other sound
modules so why bother taking up panel space with any kind of modular synth.
CW

Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

2001-04-15 by Sebastian Kuehnl

inline
----- Original Message -----
From: C. Whitten
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [SergeModular] Re: Freq. Shifter...Serge future?

> The only practical use for the quadrature mode (that I am aware of) is for
>> quadraphonic panning where the travel time on each side path can be
>> independently varied. Most multi-channel positioning today is done in
>> software. So the feature takes up valuable panel space, but adds nothing
>> currently useful.
This last line is *very* subjective. My personal preference is for hardware
over software anyway. Apart from that there are live concert applications,
plus guitar (or other) processing for say a film score where you don't want
to pass the signal through a computer. As Sebastian pointed out there are
other control applications, I've used a Quadrature Osc. to modulate 4
filters in sequence for example.
This requires no real quadrature but can also be done with the master-slave patch (using the end pulse output) on the Wiard and Serge EGs (or with any slew limters and some patch setup).

Most synthesis is performed via stuff like JV1080, Nord or other sound
modules so why bother taking up panel space with any kind of modular synth.
CW

When personal preference is for modular over nodular anyway ;)
Sebastian

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.