SergeModular

Hi,

I'm trying to decide the best mix of filters for a system and how
they are useful compared to each other. Of course I'd have at least 1
VCFQ, but what about the usefulness of VCFS conmpared to a VCF2? I
guess it boils down to if I had to choose between VCFS and VCF2,
which one to choose?

Good commentary for VCFQ on EGRES, but the others are a bit slim.

regards,

Peff

> I'm trying to decide the best mix of filters for a system and how
> they are useful compared to each other. Of course I'd have at least 1
> VCFQ, but what about the usefulness of VCFS conmpared to a VCF2? I
> guess it boils down to if I had to choose between VCFS and VCF2,
> which one to choose?

It probably depends on what you want to do...theVCF2 is much like a tunable
formant filter and is excellent for making vocal sounds but because of he
patching logistics of this filter, you might want to have a MIX2 nearby.

The VCFS, on the other hand, is a unique animal in the synth world in that
the slope itself is VC. This feature is usefull for emulation of some
real-world transient timbres (i.e. sharp timbres that become soft). The VCFS
also has an -18db / Oct slope for sounds with more bite than the -12db
filters. Because of the internal mixer function of the VCFS, you could
probably do with just a standard 3x1 MIX nearby.

I only had room for two filters and my personal choice was the VCFQ(X) and
the VCFS.

Regards, James
--
My Waldorf MicrowaveXT page:
http://www.carbon111.com/mwxt.html
My Gallery:
http://www.carbon111.com

> The VCFS also has an -18db / Oct slope for sounds with more bite
> than the -12db filters.

Is that really true? All the VCFSs I've seen have only two
stages, giving a final slope of -12dB/octave. I was under
the impression that the "real" slope could only be varied
between -6B/oct and -12dB/.oct and that higher "slopes"
were achieved by internally raising the resonance. The
catalogue seems to indicate this too. Anyone know the
truth?


SPR

> > The VCFS also has an -18db / Oct slope for sounds with more bite
> > than the -12db filters.
>
> Is that really true? All the VCFSs I've seen have only two
> stages, giving a final slope of -12dB/octave. I was under
> the impression that the "real" slope could only be varied
> between -6B/oct and -12dB/.oct and that higher "slopes"
> were achieved by internally raising the resonance. The
> catalogue seems to indicate this too. Anyone know the
> truth?

I'm just going on what Rex told me.

With the slope control at max, the resonance is boosted a little bit but not
enough to notice much - the Serge filters tend to be very well behaved
(unless patched to be unruly) ^_^

The catalog may not be the best place to look for confirmation as they have
the -12db and the -6db slope labels reversed. ;)

Regards, James
--
My Waldorf MicrowaveXT page:
http://www.carbon111.com/mwxt.html
My Gallery:
http://www.carbon111.com

Hi. Wich is the bandwidth range of the variable BP VCF? It is very
tight when closed at max? Say 10Hz? And wich is it's the slope in
dB/oct?
Fernando

Ooops! well excuse me, that depends on the slope, no? But at
your ears, does the VCF2 blocks effectively the frequencies
outside the band?
F

> The catalog may not be the best place to look for confirmation as they

have

> the -12db and the -6db slope labels reversed. ;)

I suppose I should clarify that - the catalog from the 70s has the labels
switched, it looks like somebody noticed by the 80s and fixed it ^_^
Regards, James

I recommend Serge filters in this order:

VCFQ(X) - Best all around filter, includes VC resonance. I highly
recommend the extended range option as it gives a quadrature oscillator
at low frequencies, great for panning and VCA effects, and costs only
$20 more.

VCFS - I love this filter. I have two. I don't know what it is, but
something about this filter almost seems to add something to the sound,
particularly to multiple oscillators tuned to unison or perfect
intervals. It's very subtle, but beautiful. The catalog says this goes
to 18 dB and my ears confirm this, though I haven't opened it up to see
how many filter stages are there.

VCF2 - Another great filter. I think of this as the original morphing
filter. With control voltages you can essential morph this from low
pass to band pass to high pass modes due to the cascaded filter stages.


John Loffink
jloffink@...

"Steve Ridley" wrote:

> Message-Id: <001801c29cb4$2f89c6c0$19f4883e@default>
> List-Unsubscribe:

<mailto:SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

> From: "Steve Ridley" <spr@...>
> X-Priority: 3
> Reply-To: SergeModular@yahoogroups.com
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE

V5.00.2314.1300

> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:14:27 -0000
> Mailing-List: list SergeModular@yahoogroups.com;

contact SergeModular-owner@yahoogroups.com

> Received: (cpmta 13590 invoked from network); 5 Dec

2002 15:13:00 -0800

> Received: from 66.218.66.73 (HELO

n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com)

> by smtp.c014.snv.cp.net (209.228.35.68) with SMTP; 5

Dec 2002 15:13:00 -0800

> Received: from [66.218.67.192] by

n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2002 23:13:00
-0000

> Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 5 Dec 2002 23:13:00

-0000

> Received: (qmail 31524 invoked from network); 5 Dec

2002 23:12:59 -0000

> Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
> by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002

23:12:59 -0000

> Received: from unknown (HELO cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk)

(195.92.195.172)

> by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002

23:12:59 -0000

> Received: from

modem-25.bursa-trigger.dialup.pol.co.uk
([62.136.244.25] helo=default)

> by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
> id 18K5Aw-0004eB-00
> for SergeModular@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002

23:12:58 +0000

> X-Egroups-Return:

sentto-2947859-1727-1039129980-theanalogcottage=cswebmail.com@...

> X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> X-Apparently-To: SergeModular@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [SergeModular] Filter comparisons
> X-Received: 5 Dec 2002 23:13:00 GMT
> References: <asln6d+cr5l@...>

<002901c29bef$3feeaa50$0201a8c0@carbon111>

> Precedence: bulk
> Delivered-To:

cswebmail.com%theanalogcottage@...

> Delivered-To: mailing list

SergeModular@yahoogroups.com

> Return-Path:

<sentto-2947859-1727-1039129980-theanalogcottage=cswebmail.com@...>

> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: <SergeModular@yahoogroups.com>
> X-Sender: spr@...
>
> > The VCFS also has an -18db / Oct slope for sounds
> with more bite
> > than the -12db filters.
>
> Is that really true? All the VCFSs I've seen have

only

> two
> stages, giving a final slope of -12dB/octave. I was
> under
> the impression that the "real" slope could only be
> varied
> between -6B/oct and -12dB/.oct and that higher

"slopes"

> were achieved by internally raising the resonance.

The

> catalogue seems to indicate this too. Anyone know the
> truth?
>
>
> SPR
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SergeModular-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Keep on Patchin'!
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> <a

href="http://mail.cswebmail.com/jump/http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms</a>/

Hi Steve,

The VCFS has a VC slope better than -18dB! This filter
is more unique than the VCFQ...

Regards,

Andre'

___________________________________________________
The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe
Better! Faster! More Powerful!
250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now!
http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/

If you're getting a VCFS be sure to get an inverter (as in the
Active processor etc.) this way
(using the second input) you can generate the resonance through
external feedback. The VCFS can really scream this way, the builtin
resonance just sounds weak by comparison. so the VCFS is not really
"complete" w/o an extra inverter.

The VCFS is not quite as "buzzy" as most 12dB filters,
but it doesn't sound like a 24dB either under even the highest slope
setting, so I'd say 18dB is a good guess.

With or without resonance, the VCFS tends to sound better under
fast envelope sweeps, so use this primarily if you're going for
percussive sounds. on the other hand the VCFQ sounds better
under fixed resonances and slow sweeps. I'd get one of each, plus
an Active processor to make the VCFS complete.