MOTM

Hi Larry,

I agree that the 310 waveshaping sounds like a very worth while control, and 
as it stands the 310 looks to be a great oscillator and a great deal! But I'm 
still kind of interested in how YOU use pulse waves, and how precise you are 
in determining a static duty cycle. I do spend a bit of time setting PW when 
I use the (in)famous Wave Multipliers, but in my "experiments" last night I 
found that I liked the (unfiltered) sound most in the center, and found it 
almost irritating at the extremes. I'm sure Paul would want to know your 
thoughts as well for when he begins to design that performance oriented 
keyboard instrument that he has been keeping top secret (a new Mini for a new 
millennium). So Larry, do you always use the same setting for this hollow 
lead sound?

JB


In a message dated 9/6/99 11:10:00 AM, jlarryh@... writes:

>From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
>
>
>
>> Last night I tried different PW settings (with no PWM) and, without any
>
>
>> timbre modulation I find I much prefer square waves -- richer, more full
>
>
>> bodied (can't think of any more coffee metaphors at the moment). So I'm
>
>
>> wondering if you tend to use one setting such that maybe a switch could
>
>give 
>
>> you appropriate settings like SQUARE, 70%, and LEAD, or if the pot is
>
>really 
>
>> worth it -- inquiring minds want to know.
>
>> 
>
>> JB
>
>
>
>Well, I think the pot is really worth it on the 300 when coupled with PWM
>
>input.  However, with Paul's latest suggestion for a tri and VARiable
>
>output that shapes between a 50% square and saw for the 310, I have pushed
>
>PWM control completely off my wish list.  I think Paul's latest post hit
>
>that last soft spot for having room for 310s in the system.  That shaping
>
>(although limited) that the 300 will not do.  I don't need no stinkin'
>PWM
>
>knob.  Each voice could have one 310 and still sync up too.  
>
>