On 4/14/07, Richard Brewster put forth:
bintic being used as a filter -- especially with complex sounds such
as voice and instrument samples.
I noticed that your version is different from the Bridechamber
version, and does not have an input level knob for the filter.
That's one thing that annoys the hell out of me with the MOTM-490.
Anyway, it does illustrate that many different configurations are
possible. Which outputs from the counter did you choose for sub 1 -
4?? I'd like to hear about what other UI choices people have made.
On 4/14/07, Scott Deyo put forth:
around. I would have thought that linear FM would be more useful
since, afaik, in the MOTM system the envelopes are exponential (and
the VCA's are linear). I guess the linear input could still be used,
but it would just be labeled a bit wrong. Alternatively, a switch
could be added.
a better understanding of the math involved might know. In deciding
whether it would be a useful modification, the question is whether or
not filters could be produced by varying the pulse width that could
not be produced by varying the VCO frequency or some other parameter.
Even if I knew how to set up a valid experiment, I don't have the
equipment necessary to perform such a test.
Anyway, now that the error in the schematic for the comparator section
the VCO output daughterboard has been figured out, where does the
560K with the down-pointing arrow go??
On 4/14/07, Jason Proctor put forth:
to a TL072, OP275, etc.
>As I mentioned last week, I patched up a demo of the Bi-N-Tic Filter toThank you for posting that. I would love to hear more demos of the
>show how it can work nicely as a VCO. Go here to listen to it.
>
>http://www.pugix.com/bottom-cabinet-lower.htm#cgsbintic
>
>bi-n-tic-vcf-vco.mp3 <http://www.pugix.com/music/bi-n-tic-vcf-vco.mp3>
bintic being used as a filter -- especially with complex sounds such
as voice and instrument samples.
I noticed that your version is different from the Bridechamber
version, and does not have an input level knob for the filter.
That's one thing that annoys the hell out of me with the MOTM-490.
Anyway, it does illustrate that many different configurations are
possible. Which outputs from the counter did you choose for sub 1 -
4?? I'd like to hear about what other UI choices people have made.
On 4/14/07, Scott Deyo put forth:
>I just thought people would use expo FM more, and it would be a pain toI agree that would be a pain, but at least it's a possible work
>have to patch a mixer each time.
around. I would have thought that linear FM would be more useful
since, afaik, in the MOTM system the envelopes are exponential (and
the VCA's are linear). I guess the linear input could still be used,
but it would just be labeled a bit wrong. Alternatively, a switch
could be added.
> > I had thought about that. Apparently the clock input is driven byPerhaps someone who has the Electronotes (which might explain it) or
> > negative going edges. So I wonder if the duty cycle of the clock
> > were something other than 50% -- or even if its pulse width was
> > modulated -- so that the intervals charging and discharging the
> > capacitors varied, then would that effect the sound of the filter??
>
>Good question. Try it and let us know ;)
a better understanding of the math involved might know. In deciding
whether it would be a useful modification, the question is whether or
not filters could be produced by varying the pulse width that could
not be produced by varying the VCO frequency or some other parameter.
Even if I knew how to set up a valid experiment, I don't have the
equipment necessary to perform such a test.
Anyway, now that the error in the schematic for the comparator section
the VCO output daughterboard has been figured out, where does the
560K with the down-pointing arrow go??
On 4/14/07, Jason Proctor put forth:
>LT1013 is another good fast rail-safe opamp. MOTM standard for CVThe LT1013 is very accurate for DC voltages, but it is slow compared
>processing etc.
to a TL072, OP275, etc.