Yahoo Groups archive

SergeModular

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

Thread

that supposed bitrate patch (Re: [SergeModular] SSG behavior)

that supposed bitrate patch (Re: [SergeModular] SSG behavior)

2001-05-30 by Sebastian Kuehnl

Hello John, Peter and all,

From JohnP:

> The stepped part of the SSG doesn't 'self-clock'. Not mine anyway... the
> CYCLE jack I believe is meant to be patched back to the IN jack. Then
> when
> you clock the SAMPLE (with a periodic clock) you get a weird staircased
> triangle, the stairstep relative size determined by the rate knob. Slow
> rate
> = many small stairsteps = close approximation to triangle, fast rate =
> few,
> large stairsteps = jerky square-edged poor approximation to triangle. So


I've looked at the SSG again and really the only way to get "bitrate"
control of a signal in the Serge system would be to generate steps in a slew
limiter output artificially via voltage control.

this is easy controlling a track-and-hold function like on the SSG Smooth
section, and can also be done with a simple VC slew limiter module - given
the "hold" input (resp. the lag CV input) can react to high (mostly
ultrasonic) frequencies:

For normal slew limiters:
Flip back and forth (that is, the CV to do this must be "1 bit" itself :->)
between no lag/ lag (required lag length theoretically infinite, but
practically depends on input frequency) certain times per (full amplitude)
phase, for example 32 "holds" per phase = 4 bit output, 4096 "holds" = 12
bit output etc.

For the Smooth FG simply, "hold" input going high times per phase.

But so far we can only establish arbitrary, non-steady "bitrates". Any
efficient suggestions as to how to *efficiently* determine and to detect the
tresholds for flipping/ holding at precise rates, using nothing than the
Serge (remember, we can get low bitrate easier..) are welcome.

I don't think envelope followers are fast enough. So here's mine: rectifying
(phase doubling) a copy of the SmoothFG signal input 32 (or 4096, or 65536
or...) times, using this multiplied signal (I said ultrasonic even before!)
to clock an S&H which samples another copy of the SFG input (the clock might
need to be overdriven to have a steep enough edge), OR-ing the S&H out and a
nother copy of the SFG input, finally use OR gate for the SmoothFG "hold"
input... Hah, now you got bitrate control at the SmoothFG output.

;-p



Sebastian Kuehnl



> it's, like, self-sampling an internally generated triangle, but the clock
> still has to be provided from an external source.
>
> You CAN clock the stepped part by patching the smooth part CYCLE jack to
> IN
> jack so it oscillates, then patch IN to SAMPLE on the stepped part.....
> strange thing though, you get TWO triggers per smooth cycle.
>
> My SSG is vintage 1997, Rex Probe, STS. Does anybody else's behave
> differently?
>
> John P.
>
>
>
>



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

that supposed bitrate patch (Re: [SergeModular] SSG behavior)

2001-05-30 by sonic@sonicboomuk.fsnet.co.uk

--- In SergeModular@y..., "Sebastian Kuehnl" <skuehnl@y...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Hello John, Peter and all,
>
> From JohnP:
>
> > The stepped part of the SSG doesn't 'self-clock'. Not mine
anyway... the
> > CYCLE jack I believe is meant to be patched back to the IN jack.
Then
> > when
> > you clock the SAMPLE (with a periodic clock) you get a weird
staircased
> > triangle, the stairstep relative size determined by the rate
knob. Slow
> > rate
> > = many small stairsteps = close approximation to triangle, fast
rate =
> > few,
> > large stairsteps = jerky square-edged poor approximation to
triangle. So
>
>
> I've looked at the SSG again and really the only way to
get "bitrate"
> control of a signal in the Serge system would be to generate steps
in a slew
> limiter output artificially via voltage control.
>
> this is easy controlling a track-and-hold function like on the SSG
Smooth
> section, and can also be done with a simple VC slew limiter module -
given
> the "hold" input (resp. the lag CV input) can react to high (mostly
> ultrasonic) frequencies:
>
> For normal slew limiters:
> Flip back and forth (that is, the CV to do this must be "1 bit"
itself :->)
> between no lag/ lag (required lag length theoretically infinite, but
> practically depends on input frequency) certain times per (full
amplitude)
> phase, for example 32 "holds" per phase = 4 bit output,
4096 "holds" = 12
> bit output etc.
>
> For the Smooth FG simply, "hold" input going high times per phase.
>
> But so far we can only establish arbitrary, non-steady "bitrates".
Any
> efficient suggestions as to how to *efficiently* determine and to
detect the
> tresholds for flipping/ holding at precise rates, using nothing
than the
> Serge (remember, we can get low bitrate easier..) are welcome.
>
> I don't think envelope followers are fast enough. So here's mine:
rectifying
> (phase doubling) a copy of the SmoothFG signal input 32 (or 4096,
or 65536
> or...) times, using this multiplied signal (I said ultrasonic even
before!)
> to clock an S&H which samples another copy of the SFG input (the
clock might
> need to be overdriven to have a steep enough edge), OR-ing the S&H
out and a
> nother copy of the SFG input, finally use OR gate for the
SmoothFG "hold"
> input... Hah, now you got bitrate control at the SmoothFG output.
>
> ;-p
>
>
>
> Sebastian Kuehnl
>
>
>
> > it's, like, self-sampling an internally generated triangle, but
the clock
> > still has to be provided from an external source.
> >
> > You CAN clock the stepped part by patching the smooth part CYCLE
jack to
> > IN
> > jack so it oscillates, then patch IN to SAMPLE on the stepped
part.....
> > strange thing though, you get TWO triggers per smooth cycle.
> >
> > My SSG is vintage 1997, Rex Probe, STS. Does anybody else's
behave
> > differently?
> >
> > John P.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

bitrate patch (Re: [SergeModular] Random fun

2001-05-30 by sonic@sonicboomuk.fsnet.co.uk

--- In SergeModular@y..., "Sebastian Kuehnl" <skuehnl@y...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Hello John, Peter and all,
>
> From JohnP:

dear john , sebastien & co.
apolagies about the clocking mistake .Trying to remember too many
modules & systems from memory -still assembling the "studio" area.
Looks like you've got all the juice here . hope you're having
random fun.
p.k.


>
> > The stepped part of the SSG doesn't 'self-clock'. Not mine
anyway... the
> > CYCLE jack I believe is meant to be patched back to the IN jack.
Then
> > when
> > you clock the SAMPLE (with a periodic clock) you get a weird
staircased
> > triangle, the stairstep relative size determined by the rate
knob. Slow
> > rate
> > = many small stairsteps = close approximation to triangle, fast
rate =
> > few,
> > large stairsteps = jerky square-edged poor approximation to
triangle. So
>
>
> I've looked at the SSG again and really the only way to
get "bitrate"
> control of a signal in the Serge system would be to generate steps
in a slew
> limiter output artificially via voltage control.
>
> this is easy controlling a track-and-hold function like on the SSG
Smooth
> section, and can also be done with a simple VC slew limiter module -
given
> the "hold" input (resp. the lag CV input) can react to high (mostly
> ultrasonic) frequencies:
>
> For normal slew limiters:
> Flip back and forth (that is, the CV to do this must be "1 bit"
itself :->)
> between no lag/ lag (required lag length theoretically infinite, but
> practically depends on input frequency) certain times per (full
amplitude)
> phase, for example 32 "holds" per phase = 4 bit output,
4096 "holds" = 12
> bit output etc.
>
> For the Smooth FG simply, "hold" input going high times per phase.
>
> But so far we can only establish arbitrary, non-steady "bitrates".
Any
> efficient suggestions as to how to *efficiently* determine and to
detect the
> tresholds for flipping/ holding at precise rates, using nothing
than the
> Serge (remember, we can get low bitrate easier..) are welcome.
>
> I don't think envelope followers are fast enough. So here's mine:
rectifying
> (phase doubling) a copy of the SmoothFG signal input 32 (or 4096,
or 65536
> or...) times, using this multiplied signal (I said ultrasonic even
before!)
> to clock an S&H which samples another copy of the SFG input (the
clock might
> need to be overdriven to have a steep enough edge), OR-ing the S&H
out and a
> nother copy of the SFG input, finally use OR gate for the
SmoothFG "hold"
> input... Hah, now you got bitrate control at the SmoothFG output.
>
> ;-p
>
>
>
> Sebastian Kuehnl
>
>
>
> > it's, like, self-sampling an internally generated triangle, but
the clock
> > still has to be provided from an external source.
> >
> > You CAN clock the stepped part by patching the smooth part CYCLE
jack to
> > IN
> > jack so it oscillates, then patch IN to SAMPLE on the stepped
part.....
> > strange thing though, you get TWO triggers per smooth cycle.
> >
> > My SSG is vintage 1997, Rex Probe, STS. Does anybody else's
behave
> > differently?
> >
> > John P.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

that supposed bitrate patch ??????????????

2001-05-30 by sonic@sonicboomuk.fsnet.co.uk

--- In SergeModular@y..., sonic@s... wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

re: SUPPOSED BITRATE PATCH .

I hope it was clear from my post , that this doesnt actually have
anything to do with "digital" with a capital D , or "bitrate" with a
capital or small B . It is , as I said an Analogue "simulation" of
that effect often called "decimation on Digital stuff . I think this
was clear ? appy olly loggys if not................
P.K.

Re: that supposed bitrate patch ??????????????

2001-06-01 by Sebastian Kuehnl

Hi Peter,

It was not clear to me as some terms were used strangely, but it really
didn't matter to me; the reply (PWM etc) was solely intended to give
information...

I hope you didn't take my patch from Wednesday too seriously. It wasn't even
outlined completely (some parts are not required for simple waveforms, for
complex ones the path must be split into processing the initial simple wave
as described and using the OR gate to "hold" the final complex wave in the
SmoothFG). I just sometimes like thinking up the most cumbersome and
complicated patches with the least efficient build/ goal ratio -
"counterproductive", contemplative fun, getting lost in patchcord jungle ;->

Bla blupp

Sebastian Kuehnl

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: <sonic@...>
To: <SergeModular@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:50 AM
Subject: [SergeModular] that supposed bitrate patch ??????????????


: --- In SergeModular@y..., sonic@s... wrote:
: > > Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
:
: re: SUPPOSED BITRATE PATCH .
:
: I hope it was clear from my post , that this doesnt actually have
: anything to do with "digital" with a capital D , or "bitrate" with a
: capital or small B . It is , as I said an Analogue "simulation" of
: that effect often called "decimation on Digital stuff . I think this
: was clear ? appy olly loggys if not................
: P.K.
:




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

Re: that supposed bitrate patch ?

2001-06-01 by sonic@sonicboomuk.fsnet.co.uk

--- In SergeModular@y..., "Sebastian Kuehnl" <skuehnl@y...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Hi Peter,
>
> It was not clear to me as some terms were used strangely, but it
really
> didn't matter to me; the reply (PWM etc) was solely intended to give
> information...



The info you gave was very good . I'm all for the standardisation of
all parameter names (e.g. no more response/resonance/emphasis - just
RESONANCE etc.)
I hate hearing of "tremelo" arms etc. on guitars . I could be
wrong , but I was under the inpression that what was being
called "decimation" on modern gear was a bitrate reduction "effect" .
I realise as more and more new effects arise (thank god ! at last!)
we will have all sorts of names thrown up . I dont know if there is a
good web glossary of terms (standardised , but with variations) , but
it would be a usefull resource I would imagine.


>
> I hope you didn't take my patch from Wednesday too seriously. It
wasn't even
> outlined completely (some parts are not required for simple
waveforms, for
> complex ones the path must be split into processing the initial
simple wave
> as described and using the OR gate to "hold" the final complex wave
in the
> SmoothFG). I just sometimes like thinking up the most cumbersome and
> complicated patches with the least efficient build/ goal ratio -
> "counterproductive", contemplative fun, getting lost in patchcord
jungle ;->
>
> Bla blupp
>
> Sebastian Kuehnl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sonic@s...>
> To: <SergeModular@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:50 AM
> Subject: [SergeModular] that supposed bitrate patch ??????????????
>
>
> : --- In SergeModular@y..., sonic@s... wrote:
> : > > Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> :
> : re: SUPPOSED BITRATE PATCH .
> :
> : I hope it was clear from my post , that this doesnt actually
have
> : anything to do with "digital" with a capital D , or "bitrate"
with a
> : capital or small B . It is , as I said an Analogue "simulation"
of
> : that effect often called "decimation on Digital stuff . I think
this
> : was clear ? appy olly loggys if not................
> : P.K.
> :
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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.