MOTM

> The Encore Electronics Universal Event Generator (UEG) is also in the
March
> issue of
> Electronic Musician. It's a MOTM-compatible module that can act as a
> sequencer, EG, LFO, or
> voltage generator. Like a Serge DSG on steriods :)
>
> 2 short demos using it in sequencer mode are at:
>
> www.synthtech.com/news
>
> scroll down about 4 paragraphs. Also gives a good indication of the
discrete

> OTA MOTM-440 filter
> sounds like, as opposed to a more familar Moog ladder. The '440 is similar
> to the SSM2040 chip
> in the Voyetra 8 and P5 Rev 2.
>
> Paul Schreiber
> Synthesis Technology
>
>

I am planning on putting together one panel of motm, and I have a number of
questions.

First off, is this the right list??  This seems like sdiy-off-topic.  The
only posts about motm I've seen here have been from Paul Schreiber.  Is
there an announce-only list??  Is their a smaller motm list that is more
on-topic??

I am looking to do two things with my motm:
1) process audio
2) generate mod sources to control other gear

I want an LFO that I cab sync to an incoming clock, and several people have
told me to check out the 320 LFO.  Besides having a superior LFO, I've
compared motm to several other manufactures, and these are my conclusions:


Wiard -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient, but too expensive.  I
love the idea of a joystick controller, but like most people I hate 1/8"
jacks which is why they're probably going out of business.

Synthesizers.com -- While their systems seem very affordable, these people
seem to have absolutely no imagination whatsoever.  Not only do their
modules demonstrate an utter dearth of innovative features, they stole
their look from another manufacture.  They couldn't even think of a better
name than "synthesizers.com"!!

Doepfer -- I also already have two TB-303's and an SH-101, and that's all
the flimsy crap with 1/8" jacks I'll ever need.

RSIntegrator/AnalogueSystems -- Their assortment of modules seems fairly
good, but all their prices were in British Pounds.

Technosaurus -- While I love their name, the descriptions on their website
seemed awfully vague.

MOTM -- Extremely accurate, innovative, and not the least bit space
efficient, with a limited number of modules that seems to be growing.
While affordable in kit form, they seem a bit pricey when purchased
assembled.

Serge -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient, but way too expensive.
Paul S. answers his email, but STS won't even pick up their phone -- do the
math.


What amazes me is that this many companies make modulars!!  I don't think
anyone was making a modular five years ago.

In order to make room and raise money, I'm planning on selling my SPV-355.
While the pitch-to-voltage is excellent, I no longer own any non-electronic
instruments.  However it does have an envelope follower that is quite
useful.  So am looking to get an envelope follower as part of my motm
system.  I've read in the archives that the 820 Lag Processor can be used
an envelope follower, but it isn't that great.   However, a dedicated motm
envelope follower is in development.  Does anyone know how big (units wide)
it will be when it comes out??

I also checked out the Encore UEG.  It seems very versatile and
specifically designed for the motm system.  Unfortunately, it doesn't come
in kit form.  Can it be clocked (step-gated) at audio rates??

I am also looking to offset and invert envelopes and LFO's.  For example, I
would like to take a bipolar LFO (that goes from -5V to +5V) and make it go
from 0V to 5V.  I would also like to take envelopes and make them go the
other way.   Is there any part of the motm system that can do this??

While an analog ring mod would be nice, I'm thinking that most of the audio
(samples, outputs from other synths) will already be VCA'ed.  I also have
several resonant pass filters that I can use with external sounds (eg.
Frostwave Resonator, Mini Moog).

I plan to mount the PS elsewhere, which gives me 10 units:

1)    910 mult
2-3)  Encore UEG
4-5)  820 Lag Processor
6)    800 EG
7-8)  320 VC LFO
9-10) 410 Triple Resonant Filter

How does that sound??  Is there anything that I might have overlooked??
Any other suggestions??

THANX!!

--- In motm@y..., mark@i... wrote:

> First off, is this the right list??  This seems like sdiy-off-topic. 
> The only posts about motm I've seen here have been from Paul 
> Schreiber.  Is there an announce-only list??  Is their a smaller 
> motm list that is more on-topic??

This is the correct list.  The discussion ranges all over the map.  
There are a lot of creative minds here, and they tend to wander..

> I want an LFO that I cab sync to an incoming clock, and several 
> people have told me to check out the 320 LFO.  Besides having a 
> superior LFO, 

I am fairly new to the list and MOTM as well.  I am still waiting for 
my first LFO to show up, but if it is like the other modules of the 
MOTM series that I have had the joy of building, it will be pretty 
awesome.

That being said, I think you need to be clear on what you want. The 
320 (and folks, correct me if I am wrong here) can sync to a clock.. 
But that is in terms of analog sync. Or in other words, the waveform 
will restart on the clock pulse, but that does not mean that the clock 
will drive the frequency of the waveform output by it.  If you are 
seeking to tempo lock your LFO's, say to be 2 measures of whatever 
tempo you are outputting a 24 ppq sync for, the 320 won't do it.  If 
you want a great rock solid LFO with a lot of neat flexibility that 
will restart the wave on a pulse, you have the right item.

Now I could be wrong and there might be some way to tempo lock them, 
but my brain can't get around it.  Of course the tempo locked LFO 
coming out of a Kenton CV box is great at doing that, so that would be 
a great addition to a 320, and could be used via the multiple to 
modulate the output for some really nice LFO effects.

Hope that made sense...

Bruce

> First off, is this the right list??  This seems like sdiy-off-topic.  The
> only posts about motm I've seen here have been from Paul Schreiber.  Is
> there an announce-only list??  Is their a smaller motm list that is more
> on-topic??
>
Touche!  The list has been very off topic of late.  But you've got the right
one.

> I am looking to do two things with my motm:
> 1) process audio
> 2) generate mod sources to control other gear
>
> I want an LFO that I cab sync to an incoming clock, and several people
have
> told me to check out the 320 LFO.  Besides having a superior LFO, I've
> compared motm to several other manufactures, and these are my conclusions:
>
The MOTM VCLFO can sync to incoming clock, but that means the waveform will
be reset as well, including the sawtooth, sine or triangle output.  If you
need contiguous waveforms from your synced LFO then the Encore UEG might
work better.  Another option, assuming the incoming clock is a gate rather
than trigger signal, just feed it to an 820 VC Lag and control the rise and
fall times.

>
> Wiard -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient, but too expensive.  I
> love the idea of a joystick controller, but like most people I hate 1/8"
> jacks which is why they're probably going out of business.
>
One reason Wiard is so expensive because of the anodized front panels.  Why
they'd build panels that will last 20 years with jacks that will only last a
couple is beyond me.  Some very interesting modules though.

> Synthesizers.com -- While their systems seem very affordable, these people
> seem to have absolutely no imagination whatsoever.  Not only do their
> modules demonstrate an utter dearth of innovative features, they stole
> their look from another manufacture.  They couldn't even think of a better
> name than "synthesizers.com"!!
>
I've got their sequencer which is good but could use a few improvements.
Otherwise we're mostly in agreement.  What scared me away was the web future
page:  a few more modules and the system is done.  What impressed me,
however, is that Roger seemed to have put together the whole package:
keyboard, cabinets, sequencer, and a complete (if basic) module set.  I
think he'll do well with the crowd that always wanted a Moog modular.

> Doepfer -- I also already have two TB-303's and an SH-101, and that's all
> the flimsy crap with 1/8" jacks I'll ever need.
>
> RSIntegrator/AnalogueSystems -- Their assortment of modules seems fairly
> good, but all their prices were in British Pounds.
>
A tempting selection of modules if you put together Doepfer, Analogue
Solutions and Analogue Systems, but all built using those darned 1/8" jacks.

> Technosaurus -- While I love their name, the descriptions on their website
> seemed awfully vague.
>
Have been around a few years with the same modules.  They've gotten good
reviews, but without new modules the feature set is still not much more than
basic.  Technosaurus has lately been concentrating on small, feature limited
boxes.

> MOTM -- Extremely accurate, innovative, and not the least bit space
> efficient, with a limited number of modules that seems to be growing.
> While affordable in kit form, they seem a bit pricey when purchased
> assembled.
>
Paul passed my pop quiz on jack grounding and future module feature sets
with flying colors.  I prefer the kit form.  The modules are easy to put
together and the entire process of soldering and assembling is relaxing
IMHO.  Remember that kits and other similar format modules are available
from Oakley, Blacet and Encore not to mention the Larry specials.  The only
frustrating thing is waiting for the slow release rate of MOTM modules.  But
quality is better than quantity if you're bulding a system you want to last
for decades.

> Serge -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient, but way too expensive.
> Paul S. answers his email, but STS won't even pick up their phone -- do
the
> math.
>
My inquiry to Rex Probe in 1994 resulted in a bad xerox of an old catalog (I
had a better one from 1982) and a letter that said "Dir Sir, BLOOG!
Sincerely, Rex Probe".  I'm still reeling from that one!  I had always
wanted a Serge, I even took a university electronic music class last summer
to use a seven panel system in their studio.  The Serge is very powerful but
the experience proved one thing to me, that my patches are too dense for a
compact system like the Serge and the smaller knobs were too wide ranging
and not subtle enough in their response.  And the new higher prices were the
final straw.

> I am also looking to offset and invert envelopes and LFO's.  For example,
I
> would like to take a bipolar LFO (that goes from -5V to +5V) and make it
go
> from 0V to 5V.  I would also like to take envelopes and make them go the
> other way.   Is there any part of the motm system that can do this??
>
I have to admit I bought a Synthesizers.com Signal Processor module to do
this.  Nothing from MOTM yet.

> While an analog ring mod would be nice, I'm thinking that most of the
audio
> (samples, outputs from other synths) will already be VCA'ed.  I also have
> several resonant pass filters that I can use with external sounds (eg.
> Frostwave Resonator, Mini Moog).
>
> I plan to mount the PS elsewhere, which gives me 10 units:
>
> 1)    910 mult
> 2-3)  Encore UEG
> 4-5)  820 Lag Processor
> 6)    800 EG
> 7-8)  320 VC LFO
> 9-10) 410 Triple Resonant Filter
>
> How does that sound??  Is there anything that I might have overlooked??
This will give you some good modulation sources and for that I'd say the
UEG, 820 Lag and 320 VC LFO are virtually required.  Overall this seems like
a good setup for a 5U modulation and processing system.

best,
John Loffink
microtonal@...

----- Original Message ----- 

From: <mark@...>
First off, is this the right list??  This seems like sdiy-off-topic.
----
LH:  You are in the right place.  Discussion here varies from motm to 
DIY to other manufacturers.  Most people here are MOTM owners
and love the synth and the interface.  That doesn't mean that people
hear own nothing but MOTM.
----
Besides having a superior LFO, I've
compared motm to several other manufactures,
and these are my conclusions:

Wiard -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient,
but too expensive.
--
LH:   AND..  no longer available (almost)
--
Synthesizers.com -- While their systems seem very 
affordable, these people seem to have absolutely
no imagination whatsoever.
--
LH:  I have never heard anyone actually say this.  But,
now that you mention it, I see exactly what you mean.
--
Doepfer -- and that's all the flimsy crap with 1/8" jacks
I'll ever need.
--
LH:  "nuff said.
--
MOTM -- Extremely accurate, innovative, and not the
least bit space efficient, with a limited number of modules
that seems to be growing. While affordable in kit form,
they seem a bit pricey when purchased assembled.
--
LH:  They are fun to assemble.  And, it will be a learning
experience.  once you get your hands on them, you will
realize the quality is well worth the price.
--
Serge -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient, but
way too expensive. Paul S. answers his email, but STS
won't even pick up their phone -- do the math.
--
LH:  Bingo !!

LH: You have reached the same conclusion as have many on this list.
While we may have other gear in our modular systems, most people
here are centered around MOTM because we think it is great stuff
and a good value.
--
I am also looking to offset and invert envelopes and LFO's.
For example, I would like to take a bipolar LFO (that goes
from -5V to +5V) and make it go from 0V to 5V.  I would
also like to take envelopes and make them go the other way.
Is there any part of the motm system that can do this??
--
LH: Not yet.  I have a DIY project on my bench that does 
exactly this and also serves as a pedal interface.  I am planning
to submit the prototype to Paul to consider as an official MOTM
product.  However, his standards are very high, so who knows.

LH:  A product on the market right now that does this function is the
Blacet mixer.  All 4 inputs are reversing attenuators so, so you
can attenuate your 10 V AC to the 5 volt range you desire.  And, 
The Blacet mixer has a built in bias pot so you can bias it all to
one side of zero as you indicated.  Of course, you can do this with
ANY mixer with attenuating inputs buy mixing your LFO (attenuated)
with a DC voltage source.

LH: Paul has promised us a nice mixer soon.

Welcome to the motm list
Larry Hendry

--- In motm@y..., "Microtonal" <microtonal@w...> wrote:
> "Dir Sir, BLOOG!
> Sincerely, Rex Probe".

ROFLMAO! Well, that's clearly the quote of the month, already!

Moe

Dave's Hot Rod MOTM Shop
http://www.users.qwest.net/~daveb2

In a message dated 3/2/2001 5:36:29 PM, mark@... writes:

>Is
>there an announce-only list??  Is their a smaller motm list that is more
>on-topic??

If you buy MOTM, Paul will send you announcements directly (as well as to 
this the MOTM list), that way you don't need to be on this list. There is a 
lot of OT stuff here (which I often contribute to, but try to put OT in the 
header for easy deletion, but that is part of this list's charm and 
camaraderie), but this is also the best place to get information about 
modifications and usage tips -- it also has been the place where users can 
actively give input into future module design.

>I am looking to do two things with my motm:
>1) process audio
>2) generate mod sources to control other gear

<snip>

 They couldn't even think of a better
>name than "synthesizers.com"!!


Well, e-synths was already taken!


>MOTM -- Extremely accurate, innovative, and not the least bit space
>efficient, with a limited number of modules that seems to be growing.
>While affordable in kit form, they seem a bit pricey when purchased
>assembled.



I think the majority of users buy in kit form. I wouldn't say that the 
assembled modules were pricey though, especially in the context of quality. I 
think once you've seen one of these modules (the thick aluminum panel, the 
quality Switchcraft jacks, the large ergonomic knobs and smooth turning pot 
shafts) you'll be hooked -- and the real reasons to chose MOTM are behind the 
panel.


>What amazes me is that this many companies make modulars!!  I don't think
>anyone was making a modular five years ago.


Welcome to the club! This is one of the main reasons that this list goes OT 
so much, so many of us have finally found some community which shares our 
obsession.


However, a dedicated motm
>envelope follower is in development.  Does anyone know how big (units wide)
>it will be when it comes out??


Just guessing but I'd think 2U, but you will also need the (soon to be 
released) MOTM preamp which I'd also think would be 2U.


>I also checked out the Encore UEG.  It seems very versatile and
>specifically designed for the motm system.  Unfortunately, it doesn't come
>in kit form.  Can it be clocked (step-gated) at audio rates??


I'm pretty sure it can -- I need to get one of these!


> I would also like to take envelopes and make them go the
>other way.   Is there any part of the motm system that can do this??


Go the other way? The MOTM 800 has a negative going output (0 to - 5V) which 
mirrors the (normal) positive going output.


>While an analog ring mod would be nice, I'm thinking that most of the audio
>(samples, outputs from other synths) will already be VCA'ed.  I also have
>several resonant pass filters that I can use with external sounds (eg.
>Frostwave Resonator, Mini Moog).
>
>I plan to mount the PS elsewhere, which gives me 10 units:
>
>1)    910 mult
>2-3)  Encore UEG
>4-5)  820 Lag Processor
>6)    800 EG
>7-8)  320 VC LFO
>9-10) 410 Triple Resonant Filter
>
>How does that sound??  Is there anything that I might have overlooked??
>Any other suggestions??


It sounds like you have a very good idea what your needs are, so this would 
be a good first rack for what you describe. I'd recommend any of the other 
filters, of course the RM, VCO (even if only for a modulation source), the 
101 S/H Noise with Vibrato, and the oft overlooked 700 VC Router, and soon to 
be released Dual (multimode) VCA. I say a first rack because if you start 
into this you'll find yourself hooked and need to get more.


Good luck!
John Barlow

>Wiard -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient, but too expensive.  >I
love the idea of a joystick controller, but like most people I hate
>1/8" jacks which is why they're probably going out of business.

For the record, and since it's possible that I'm the only Wiard owner on
this list, the Wiard is absolutely -not- expensive for its functionality. On
the contrary, it's a bargain. Those 6 modules really are the equivalent of
about 20 'standard' analog synth modules. Broken down to a dollar per
function basis, it's an incredibly good deal. It absolutely -is- powerful,
innovative and space efficient, and yes the joystick is terrific. Yes, the
cost of entry is high compared to buying one or two modules at a time. But
you get what you pay for (and much more) with the Wiard.

I seriously doubt that the choice of 1/8" jacks has anything to do with
Grant's decision to stop producing it.

Mike

At 9:06 PM -0600 03/02/01, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>
>You are in the right place.  Discussion here varies from motm to
>DIY to other manufacturers.  Most people here are MOTM owners
>and love the synth and the interface.  That doesn't mean that people
>hear own nothing but MOTM.

Let's hope it doesn't mean everyone talks about everything they own!!  A
friend of mine recently lent me a Novation Supernova.  Don't worry, I won't
talk about it here, but I did join the Supernova list.  Ninety-five percent
of the posts have nothing to do with the Supernova :/

>You have reached the same conclusion as have many on this list.
>While we may have other gear in our modular systems, most people
>here are centered around MOTM because we think it is great stuff
>and a good value.

OK :)

>>I am also looking to offset and invert envelopes and LFO's.
>>For example, I would like to take a bipolar LFO (that goes
>>from -5V to +5V) and make it go from 0V to 5V.  I would
>>also like to take envelopes and make them go the other way.
>>Is there any part of the motm system that can do this??
>
>Not yet. 

Doh!!

>I have a DIY project on my bench that does
>exactly this and also serves as a pedal interface.  I am planning
>to submit the prototype to Paul to consider as an official MOTM
>product.  However, his standards are very high, so who knows.

Good for you!!  I only submit annoying questions :)

>A product on the market right now that does this function is the
>Blacet mixer.  All 4 inputs are reversing attenuators so, so you
>can attenuate your 10 V AC to the 5 volt range you desire.  And,
>The Blacet mixer has a built in bias pot so you can bias it all to
>one side of zero as you indicated.  Of course, you can do this with
>ANY mixer with attenuating inputs buy mixing your LFO (attenuated)
>with a DC voltage source.

Unfortunately, I don't have a DC mixer.  I don't want to get a Blacet
because that would require another mounting chassis and losing another
three rackspaces.  I don't want to spend money on gear that doesn't make
any sound by buying more rack furniture.  It also has 1/8" jacks (notice
dislike them so much I won't even call them by their correct name :)

>Paul has promised us a nice mixer soon.

When the motm DC mixer comes out, how many spaces will it take??

>Welcome to the motm list

Thank you, and thank you for your comments.

> 
> MOTM -- Extremely accurate, innovative, and not the least bit space
> efficient, with a limited number of modules that seems to be growing.
> While affordable in kit form, they seem a bit pricey when purchased
> assembled.
I'm among those few motm'ers where about 90% of my motm modules are
'factory' assembled.  With this in mind, before deciding on basing my
modular on motm, I priced similar units from other companies.  Taking into
account features, quality, size, ..., I concluded that the assembled
modules were very price comparable to other units.  So in my opinion, they
are not pricey.  But, of course, if you are into assembling (and there is
a lot of satisfaction in assembling a module and having it actually work
the way it is supposed to!), then motm is also a good way to go.


> 
> I plan to mount the PS elsewhere, which gives me 10 units:
> 
> 1)    910 mult
> 2-3)  Encore UEG
> 4-5)  820 Lag Processor
> 6)    800 EG
> 7-8)  320 VC LFO
> 9-10) 410 Triple Resonant Filter
One alternative:  One unit that I think is often overlooked is the 700 vc
switcher.  If you have a patch bay that will be close to the motm
rack, and are willing to give up the 800, you might consider incorporating
a 700.
Jeff

In a message dated 3/3/2001 8:24:50 AM, mark@... writes:

>>Paul has promised us a nice mixer soon.
>
>When the motm DC mixer comes out, how many spaces will it take??
>

When we last saw our fabled mixer design, it was a multimode 2U (by 5U of 
course) 6X1 or 2X3 audio and DC mixing module -- it switches from mono to 
stereo output depending on whether one uses one or both outputs. There hasn't 
been much of an update on this module in a while though. 

Note: there is only one MOTM module that is 3U wide (the 900 PSU), and two 
modules that are 1U wide (the 800 EG, and the 910 multiples), the rest of the 
line is 2U and I'd expect the majority of the future modules to be that same 
size, though I remember Paul mentioning a series of 1U modules being on the 
drawing board (like a micro VCO which would have a somewhat reduced feature 
set than the 300, but the same performance characteristics of the remaining 
features).

JB

At 9:02 AM -0700 03/03/01, Mike B. Fisher wrote:
>
>>Wiard -- Powerful, innovative, and space efficient, but too expensive.
>>Ilove the idea of a joystick controller, but like most people I hate
>>1/8" jacks which is why they're probably going out of business.
>
>For the record, and since it's possible that I'm the only Wiard owner on
>this list, the Wiard is absolutely -not- expensive for its functionality.

I didn't say it was, and I apologize if that's what you thought I meant.
Regardless, $3500 is still expensive even if it's a good deal.

>On the contrary, it's a bargain. Those 6 modules really are the
>equivalent of about 20 'standard' analog synth modules. Broken down to a
>dollar per function basis, it's an incredibly good deal. It absolutely -is-
>powerful, innovative and space efficient, and yes the joystick is terrific.
>Yes, the cost of entry is high compared to buying one or two modules at a
>>time. But you get what you pay for (and much more) with the Wiard.
>
>I seriously doubt that the choice of 1/8" jacks has anything to do with
>Grant's decision to stop producing it.

If Grant has decided to stop producing it in spite of adequate demand then
I guess that's true.  However, if he isn't selling enough, I think the 1/8"
jacks could be part of the problem.  Imho, 1/8" jacks do not belong on gear
that costs thousands of dollars.  Not that Switchcraft 1/8" jacks are that
much less reliable than bananas or 1/4", it's that it's nearly impossible
to buy quality 1/8" cords.

In case nobody else has mentioned it, don't forget the Big Briar CP-251 
control processor as another viable product to add to your collection.

http://www.bigbriar.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.100.exe/spec/251.html?L+scstore+xjs

m9325ff40b840+984097481

Ivan

>>First off, is this the right list??

Yeah, it's the right list... (sigh)

>>I am looking to do two things with my motm:
>>1) process audio
>>2) generate mod sources to control other gear

My sentiments exactly. You came to the right place. I'm looking forward
to the MOTM triple preamp. I believe it will be a 1U module. There was a
discussion here a while back about keeping the preamp and envelope
follower as separate modules, a good idea I think.

>>I plan to mount the PS elsewhere, which gives me 10 units:

>>1)    910 mult
>>2-3)  Encore UEG
>>4-5)  820 Lag Processor
>>6)    800 EG
>>7-8)  320 VC LFO
>>9-10) 410 Triple Resonant Filter

>>How does that sound??  Is there anything that I might have
overlooked??
>>Any other suggestions??

Sounds great! you'll need a power distribution board, the 900PCB or the
new one (lost track of my model #s there), because as soon as you start
playing with that '410, you'll want the '440, then a pair of '420s, then
another '320, etc. I'm coming up on my one year anniversary with this
motley crew (1st order shipped 4/11/00) and when the '101 ships, I'll
have 3 full 10U panels going. The addictive quality of MOTM is...is...

It is the way of the Borg...you will be assimilated...resistance is
futile (unless it's in a filter, then I guess it's resonance)...
nyuk-nyuk

Later,
Chuck

> I also checked out the Encore UEG.  It seems very versatile and
> specifically designed for the motm system.  Unfortunately, it doesn't come
> in kit form.  Can it be clocked (step-gated) at audio rates??


Hi Mark,

I joke with Paul sometimes that the kits should be MORE expensive than
assembled because of all the extra work it takes to prepare the kit and the
increased support from kit builders that should be buying pre-built units.
:)

Anyway, to answer your question: the UEG can be clock at about 1.5kHz when
in STEP-GATED mode.

Good luck in your synth buying decision process...it's a fun one.

Tony Karavidas
Encore Electronics

http://www.encoreelectronics.com

Designers of "The best MIDI to CV converter on the planet." -Keyboard Oct.
1997

Tony Karavidas wrote:
>
>I joke with Paul sometimes that the kits should be MORE expensive than
>assembled because of all the extra work it takes to prepare the kit and the
>increased support from kit builders that should be buying pre-built units.

That's a fair point, hopefully I won't need too much support.

>Anyway, to answer your question: the UEG can be clock at about 1.5kHz when
>in STEP-GATED mode.

Excellent!!

>Good luck in your synth buying decision process...it's a fun one.

Thanx :)

>> I've been reading the Encore UEG user's manual, and from what I
>> can tell it cannot generate synced LFO's.
>
>You are correct. You cannot sync it in LOOP ONLY mode.

On the up side, at least I'm correct :)

One feature that would be an awesome improvement to the UEG, would be to
have it fire a trigger at the beginning of each step (as it goes from LED
to LED, rather than at the end of the entire loop) so that you could use it
as a free-running step sequencer and use it to trigger envelopes and reset
LFO's at the beginning of each step.

I'll explain what I mean.  In Loop Only mode the Level would set the VCO's
pitch, and the Time will set the length of the note.  By adjusting the
voltage going into the TCV input you could then adjust the length of the
entire bar (the tempo of the loop) to fit the rest of the track.  With the
Slope switch set to Step and an 820 Lag Processor, I imagine one could come
up with some _very_ funky basslines with the motm system by using this
technique.  If it helps, try visualizing James Brown in a cowboy outfit :)

Is it possible to mod the UEG so it will do this??  I have a 555 and a
hammer :)

re correct. You cannot sync it in LOOP ONLY mode.
>
> On the up side, at least I'm correct :)
>
> One feature that would be an awesome improvement to the UEG, would be to
> have it fire a trigger at the beginning of each step (as it goes from LED
> to LED, rather than at the end of the entire loop) so that you
> could use it
> as a free-running step sequencer and use it to trigger envelopes and reset
> LFO's at the beginning of each step.
>
> I'll explain what I mean.  In Loop Only mode the Level would set the VCO's
> pitch, and the Time will set the length of the note.  By adjusting the
> voltage going into the TCV input you could then adjust the length of the
> entire bar (the tempo of the loop) to fit the rest of the track.  With the
> Slope switch set to Step and an 820 Lag Processor, I imagine one
> could come
> up with some _very_ funky basslines with the motm system by using this
> technique.  If it helps, try visualizing James Brown in a cowboy outfit :)
>
> Is it possible to mod the UEG so it will do this??  I have a 555 and a
> hammer :)



It's possible, but extremely, extremely unlikely. I don't want to have to
update all the units that are already in the field, and it would be a pain
to have people pay for shipping both ways in advance.

The UEG code is final...

Regards,
Tony Karavidas
Encore Electronics

http://www.encoreelectronics.com

Designers of "The best MIDI to CV converter on the planet." -Keyboard Oct.
1997

At 4:00 AM +0000 03/07/01, thomas white wrote:
>
>I love this UEG things output right into my 820 lag processor before
>patching it into my filters or vca's. The 820 is so damn cool with the up
>and down controls as separate knobs! I spent over 2 hours fiddling with it
>around after power up late last night. If you don't have an 820 and you
>>have one of these UEG's you are seriously missing out! If you don't have
>an
>820 anyway you must be sleeping because it has ended up one of my more
>useful modules. Get one and see for yourself.

I'm thinking the exact same thing.  I also think a UEG would be an
excellent way to modulate the filter cutoff in my MiniMoog, Kenton modded
SH-101, modded TB-303, and Frostwave Resonator.  I could also use it to
trigger synced envelopes that I can use with the pedal inputs on my DSP
boxes and digital synths.  I have similar plans for the motm VC LFO.

>Also got my Encore UEG yesterday. PHAT addition to my basic synth!!! The
>semi-sequencer type effects you can get from it are very cool! Too bad the
>trigger out couldn't have a switch to select trigger on the last step or
>trigger for each step. That would truly be *somethin else* right?

I haven't bought a UEG yet, but I asked the same question myself.  This is
the answer I received:

At 10:07 PM -0800 03/06/01, Tony Karavidas wrote:
>
>It's possible, but extremely, extremely unlikely. I don't want to have to
>update all the units that are already in the field, and it would be a pain
>to have people pay for shipping both ways in advance.
>
>The UEG code is final...

I don't understand why you have to update all of the units already sold,
manufactures upgrade existing products all the time.  Regardless, I trust
you know much more about running your own company than I do, and I accept
your decision.


Anyway, since it seems that we will not get this feature from Encore, I'm
thinking that perhaps a daughter board or additional module could be
devised.  I don't know if a trigger for each step can be tapped off of the
UEG's PCB.  Since it is advancing and lighting the next LED on each step
I'm thinking that this information already exists within the circuit.  Are
the schematics available??

If not, then perhaps an "edge detector" could be devised.  I'm no EE, but I
have seen flip-flop circuits that could detect negative or positive going
edges.  We would need a circuit that could detect small edges going in
either direction from the CV output and output a trigger pulse.  This
should work with the UEG Slope set to Step, or any sort of stairstep
generator:

          -----
      ---      ------

-----
     ^   ^     ^     ^

     This is what I mean by "edges".


Furthermore, the Trigger out jack on the UEG could be replaced with a TRS
jack, so that a trigger is available on each step when the jack is inserted
half way, and that a trigger is available at the end of the entire loop
when inserted all the way (the way the UEG works now).

Any ideas??

0:07 PM -0800 03/06/01, Tony Karavidas wrote:
> >
> >It's possible, but extremely, extremely unlikely. I don't want to have to
> >update all the units that are already in the field, and it would
> be a pain
> >to have people pay for shipping both ways in advance.
> >
> >The UEG code is final...
>
> I don't understand why you have to update all of the units already sold,
> manufactures upgrade existing products all the time.  Regardless, I trust
> you know much more about running your own company than I do, and I accept
> your decision.
>
>
> Anyway, since it seems that we will not get this feature from Encore, I'm
> thinking that perhaps a daughter board or additional module could be
> devised.  I don't know if a trigger for each step can be tapped off of the
> UEG's PCB.  Since it is advancing and lighting the next LED on each step
> I'm thinking that this information already exists within the circuit.  Are
> the schematics available??
>
> If not, then perhaps an "edge detector" could be devised.  I'm no
> EE, but I
> have seen flip-flop circuits that could detect negative or positive going
> edges.  We would need a circuit that could detect small edges going in
> either direction from the CV output and output a trigger pulse.  This
> should work with the UEG Slope set to Step, or any sort of stairstep
> generator:


Listen to you! All ready to hack into it!!! :)

The first issue is developing the code to add the feature. Not only do I
have to modify things to make the feature work, but I also have to test
everything else again to make sure nothing breaks. I already slipped a bug
out as was documented earlier last month. People are sending units back for
upgrades, but it costs me money,  and time, and it costs everyone else money
and time.
The other problem isn't that I "have" to update, but I'll be requested to
update.

Te third problem is that the more I add, the less intuitive it becomes.
Right now the front panel is WYSIWYG with only one exception. (the level for
stage 8 in GATED STEP mode is actually controlled by the TIME8 knob.) If I
add the option you describe, where am I going to put it? Most likely in the
SLOPE switch, since it's not used in this mode anyway. Well, now there would
be this function that isn't at all obvious. Also, since the TRIGGER OUT is
5mS, it would limit the maximum clock rate of the module, because if you
clocked the module up at 1500Hz, the TRIG OUT would always be on.

This wouldn't be useful in GATED STEP mode anyway. You already have an
incoming "clock" for each stage. In the other modes, all the switches are
used, so it couldn't be implemented anyway.

Tony Karavidas
Encore Electronics

http://www.encoreelectronics.com

Designers of "The best MIDI to CV converter on the planet." -Keyboard Oct.
1997

I think Tony has done a wonderful job on an extremely versatile piece of
modular madness that fits right into my MOTM/Blacet/Everything else that is
cv'd gear.  In fact I have two of them and love to see Tony, Paul, John,
etc.... keep coming up with these wonderful pieces of equipment.  I'll keep
buying them whether it's the perfect piece or missing a couple of features
that aren't that important.  Well Done to ALL the People who are putting
their own effort into designing these devices.  I know I'm laying it on a
little thick but hey do we give these guys enough credit for what they do
for us?  
Just my .02

Joe Bruno
Bruno Independent Living Aids
mailto:Joe.Bruno@...
http://www.bruno.com/

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Tony Karavidas [mailto:tony@...] 
Sent:	Thursday, March 08, 2001 1:10 PM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	RE: [motm] Encore UEG

0:07 PM -0800 03/06/01, Tony Karavidas wrote:
> >
> >It's possible, but extremely, extremely unlikely. I don't want to have to
> >update all the units that are already in the field, and it would
> be a pain
> >to have people pay for shipping both ways in advance.
> >
> >The UEG code is final...
>
> I don't understand why you have to update all of the units already sold,
> manufactures upgrade existing products all the time.  Regardless, I trust
> you know much more about running your own company than I do, and I accept
> your decision.
>
>
> Anyway, since it seems that we will not get this feature from Encore, I'm
> thinking that perhaps a daughter board or additional module could be
> devised.  I don't know if a trigger for each step can be tapped off of the
> UEG's PCB.  Since it is advancing and lighting the next LED on each step
> I'm thinking that this information already exists within the circuit.  Are
> the schematics available??
>
> If not, then perhaps an "edge detector" could be devised.  I'm no
> EE, but I
> have seen flip-flop circuits that could detect negative or positive going
> edges.  We would need a circuit that could detect small edges going in
> either direction from the CV output and output a trigger pulse.  This
> should work with the UEG Slope set to Step, or any sort of stairstep
> generator:


Listen to you! All ready to hack into it!!! :)

The first issue is developing the code to add the feature. Not only do I
have to modify things to make the feature work, but I also have to test
everything else again to make sure nothing breaks. I already slipped a bug
out as was documented earlier last month. People are sending units back for
upgrades, but it costs me money,  and time, and it costs everyone else money
and time.
The other problem isn't that I "have" to update, but I'll be requested to
update.

Te third problem is that the more I add, the less intuitive it becomes.
Right now the front panel is WYSIWYG with only one exception. (the level for
stage 8 in GATED STEP mode is actually controlled by the TIME8 knob.) If I
add the option you describe, where am I going to put it? Most likely in the
SLOPE switch, since it's not used in this mode anyway. Well, now there would
be this function that isn't at all obvious. Also, since the TRIGGER OUT is
5mS, it would limit the maximum clock rate of the module, because if you
clocked the module up at 1500Hz, the TRIG OUT would always be on.

This wouldn't be useful in GATED STEP mode anyway. You already have an
incoming "clock" for each stage. In the other modes, all the switches are
used, so it couldn't be implemented anyway.

Tony Karavidas
Encore Electronics

http://www.encoreelectronics.com

Designers of "The best MIDI to CV converter on the planet." -Keyboard Oct.
1997




 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I am willing to gush praise on request.

I love my modular.

And it loves me. 

I don't even have to turn it on to appreciate it. Sometimes I just go down
the hall to the studio, turn on the light, stare at it for a while, smile,
and then turn off the light and close the door.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Joe Bruno [mailto:Joe.Bruno@...] 
Sent:	Thursday, 08 March, 2001 2:55 PM
To:	'motm@yahoogroups.com'
Cc:	'tony@...'
Subject:	RE: [motm] Encore UEG

...  Well Done to ALL the People who are putting their own effort into
designing these devices.  I know I'm laying it on a little thick but hey do
we give these guys enough credit for what they do for us?

(sniff)...That's beautiful Man!



>>> ken.tkacs@... 03/08/01 01:59PM >>>

I am willing to gush praise on request.

I love my modular.

And it loves me. 

I don't even have to turn it on to appreciate it. Sometimes I just go down
the hall to the studio, turn on the light, stare at it for a while, smile,
and then turn off the light and close the door.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Joe Bruno [mailto:Joe.Bruno@...] 
Sent:	Thursday, 08 March, 2001 2:55 PM
To:	'motm@yahoogroups.com' 
Cc:	'tony@encoreelectronics.com' 
Subject:	RE: [motm] Encore UEG

...  Well Done to ALL the People who are putting their own effort into
designing these devices.  I know I'm laying it on a little thick but hey do
we give these guys enough credit for what they do for us?  




 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I like this idea!  The easiest way to get this function is to reprogram the
chip.  Tony has stated several times that most DIYers don't have the
equipment to do this.  I haven't programmed any EPROMs for 15 years, so I am
not up-to-date in this area and what geeks like us may have sitting around
at home...

It looks like all of the incoming data is available from all of the
switchesand you can program the output of each of the
jacks--in particular, the TRIG OUT jack.  You can check for LOOP ONLY mode.
When in this mode, you could use one of the settings on the unused STEP/TRIG
LOOP/RELEASE switch to turn on the "trigger out at the beginning of each
step" mode.  The location to check for this should be very obvious is the
source code.  And it should take too many extra lines of code to add:

At the beginning of each step--

	Check for LOOP ONLY mode.

	Check for TRIG mode.

	Send trigger pulse to TRIG OUT.

If anyone can read and burn these chips, I will be glad to help disect the
code.

Cheers!
Shemp

> >> Anyway, since it seems that we will not get this feature from
> Encore, I'm
> >> thinking that perhaps a daughter board or additional module could be
> >> devised.  I don't know if a trigger for each step can be tapped off of
> >> the UEG's PCB.  Since it is advancing and lighting the next LED on each
> >> step I'm thinking that this information already exists within the
> >> circuit.  Are the schematics available??
> >>
> >> If not, then perhaps an "edge detector" could be devised.  I'm no
> >> EE, but I have seen flip-flop circuits that could detect negative or
> >> positive going edges.  We would need a circuit that could detect small
> >> edges going in either direction from the CV output and output a trigger
> >>>> pulse.  This should work with the UEG Slope set to Step, or any sort
> >>of
> >> stairstep generator:
> >
> >Listen to you! All ready to hack into it!!! :)
>
> Well, many of the motm folks are from diy :)
>
> >The first issue is developing the code to add the feature. Not only do I
> >have to modify things to make the feature work, but I also have to test
> >everything else again to make sure nothing breaks. I already
> slipped a bug
> >out as was documented earlier last month. People are sending
> units back for
> >upgrades, but it costs me money,  and time, and it costs everyone else
> >money and time. The other problem isn't that I "have" to update, but I'll
> >be requested to update.
>
> I'm not asking Encore for an update.  I had an idea for improving the UEG,
> and I presented that idea to the list.  If you don't like the idea, that's
> OK :)
>
> >Te third problem is that the more I add, the less intuitive it becomes.
> >Right now the front panel is WYSIWYG with only one exception. (the level
> >for stage 8 in GATED STEP mode is actually controlled by the TIME8 knob.)
> >If I add the option you describe, where am I going to put it? Most likely
> >in the SLOPE switch, since it's not used in this mode anyway. Well, now
> >there would be this function that isn't at all obvious.
>
> According to the documentation on your website, the SLOPE switch
> is used in
> LOOP ONLY mode.  It's just that the SLOPE switch would most likely be set
> to STEP when using LOOP ONLY mode to sequence a VCO, although the
> other two
> SLOPE settings could be used as well.
>
> >Also, since the TRIGGER OUT is 5mS, it would limit the maximum clock rate
> >>of the module, because if you clocked the module up at 1500Hz, the
> >TRIG OUT would always be on.
>
> That doesn't make sense to me.  If it were clocked at 1500Hz, it wouldn't
> be being used as a sequencer, nor would it be run that fast in LOOP ONLY
> mode.  Nor do I think the TRIGGER OUT would be useful when
> clocked in GATED
> STEP mode at audio rates as it is (I think you would just get a pulse with
> an eighth of the incoming clock's frequency).
>
> >This wouldn't be useful in GATED STEP mode anyway. You already have an
> >incoming "clock" for each stage. In the other modes, all the switches are
> >used, so it couldn't be implemented anyway.
>
> Like you just said, in GATED STEP the length of the note is set by the
> required incoming clock.   As I have previously explained, this feature is
> not for GATED STEP mode.  It's for sequencing with the UEG in LOOP ONLY
> mode.  In LOOP ONLY mode, the Time knobs set the length of each note.   By
> adjusting the voltage going into the TCV input you could then adjust the
> length of the entire bar (the tempo of the loop) to fit the rest of the
> track.  No additional switches are necessary.
>
> Furthermore, the Trigger out jack on the UEG could be replaced with a TRS
> jack, so that a trigger is available on each step when the jack
> is inserted
> half way, and that a trigger is available at the end of the entire loop
> when inserted all the way (the way the UEG works now).
>
> Anyway, I am not trying to get Encore to implement this change.  I had
> already accepted that they are not, and I have previously stated that
> acceptance.  So let us all try to move on by discussing further options.
> If Encore has schematics available so I can tap the trigger off
> of the PCB,
> then that's great.   If not, I'll try to develop some sort of
> edge detector
> and install it on a daughter board.
>
> So if anyone has any ideas about how I could do that, or knows of any good
> edge detecting circuits, please let me know.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 11:10 AM -0800 03/08/01, Tony Karavidas wrote:
>
>> Anyway, since it seems that we will not get this feature from Encore, I'm
>> thinking that perhaps a daughter board or additional module could be
>> devised.  I don't know if a trigger for each step can be tapped off of
>> the UEG's PCB.  Since it is advancing and lighting the next LED on each
>> step I'm thinking that this information already exists within the
>> circuit.  Are the schematics available??
>>
>> If not, then perhaps an "edge detector" could be devised.  I'm no
>> EE, but I have seen flip-flop circuits that could detect negative or
>> positive going edges.  We would need a circuit that could detect small
>> edges going in either direction from the CV output and output a trigger
>>>> pulse.  This should work with the UEG Slope set to Step, or any sort
>>of
>> stairstep generator:
>
>Listen to you! All ready to hack into it!!! :)

Well, many of the motm folks are from diy :)

>The first issue is developing the code to add the feature. Not only do I
>have to modify things to make the feature work, but I also have to test
>everything else again to make sure nothing breaks. I already slipped a bug
>out as was documented earlier last month. People are sending units back for
>upgrades, but it costs me money,  and time, and it costs everyone else
>money and time. The other problem isn't that I "have" to update, but I'll
>be requested to update.

I'm not asking Encore for an update.  I had an idea for improving the UEG,
and I presented that idea to the list.  If you don't like the idea, that's
OK :)

>Te third problem is that the more I add, the less intuitive it becomes.
>Right now the front panel is WYSIWYG with only one exception. (the level
>for stage 8 in GATED STEP mode is actually controlled by the TIME8 knob.)
>If I add the option you describe, where am I going to put it? Most likely
>in the SLOPE switch, since it's not used in this mode anyway. Well, now
>there would be this function that isn't at all obvious.

According to the documentation on your website, the SLOPE switch is used in
LOOP ONLY mode.  It's just that the SLOPE switch would most likely be set
to STEP when using LOOP ONLY mode to sequence a VCO, although the other two
SLOPE settings could be used as well.

>Also, since the TRIGGER OUT is 5mS, it would limit the maximum clock rate
>>of the module, because if you clocked the module up at 1500Hz, the
>TRIG OUT would always be on.

That doesn't make sense to me.  If it were clocked at 1500Hz, it wouldn't
be being used as a sequencer, nor would it be run that fast in LOOP ONLY
mode.  Nor do I think the TRIGGER OUT would be useful when clocked in GATED
STEP mode at audio rates as it is (I think you would just get a pulse with
an eighth of the incoming clock's frequency).

>This wouldn't be useful in GATED STEP mode anyway. You already have an
>incoming "clock" for each stage. In the other modes, all the switches are
>used, so it couldn't be implemented anyway.

Like you just said, in GATED STEP the length of the note is set by the
required incoming clock.   As I have previously explained, this feature is
not for GATED STEP mode.  It's for sequencing with the UEG in LOOP ONLY
mode.  In LOOP ONLY mode, the Time knobs set the length of each note.   By
adjusting the voltage going into the TCV input you could then adjust the
length of the entire bar (the tempo of the loop) to fit the rest of the
track.  No additional switches are necessary.

Furthermore, the Trigger out jack on the UEG could be replaced with a TRS
jack, so that a trigger is available on each step when the jack is inserted
half way, and that a trigger is available at the end of the entire loop
when inserted all the way (the way the UEG works now).

Anyway, I am not trying to get Encore to implement this change.  I had
already accepted that they are not, and I have previously stated that
acceptance.  So let us all try to move on by discussing further options.
If Encore has schematics available so I can tap the trigger off of the PCB,
then that's great.   If not, I'll try to develop some sort of edge detector
and install it on a daughter board.

So if anyone has any ideas about how I could do that, or knows of any good
edge detecting circuits, please let me know.

I add my thanks to all the MOTM design people (and John B., Tony, and Tony 
too) as well as the faithful users on the list. But Chris killed me with this 
one -- thanks Chris!
JB

In a message dated 3/8/2001 1:02:58 PM, cparker@... writes:

>(sniff)...That's beautiful Man!

At 5:26 PM -0500 03/08/01, Tentochi wrote:
>
>I like this idea!

That's why I mentioned it :)

>The easiest way to get this function is to reprogram the chip.

Yes, that would be the most elegant method.

Another way which might be possible is to tap the trigger off of the
existing PCB (which would likely require a daughter board with at least a
voltage follower).

A third way would be to build an edge detecting daughter board connected to
the CV out of the UEG.  It could be mummified in electrical tape and stuck
with double-sided tape somewhere.

The first two options require help from Encore.  The third option does not.
If this seems somehow disrespectful, disloyal, unappreciative, or immoral,
to any of you, just try thinking of this as merely some guy trying to
differentiate a stepped function in his spare time :)

Since the dawn of man, I'm sure someone before us wanted to know whenever
the voltage of a signal jumped up or down.  So I'm thinking a circuit that
does this is already out there.  However, I'm not an EE, and all of my
"cookbooks" are about food.

Yet, I do have a copy of Horowitz & Hill.  It just showed up one day in the
back yard.  Using stone tools and coconut husks, I pieced together the
following circuit in my mind (please note that my primitive mind is one of
the worst places one could keep a circuit!):

Take the CV output of the UEG, run it through a voltage follower (as not to
draw too much current), to a differentiator.  Figure 4.51 on page 224 looks
like a cap (C) going into the inverting input of an op-amp, with a resistor
(R) going from the op-amp's output to the inverting input, and the
non-inverting input going to ground, such that:

Vout = -RC dVin/dt

Since this looks like calculus I started jumping up and down "Oooh oook
oook! eee eek!!" :)

Then it says this circuit generally has "problems with noise and
instabilities at high frequencies because of the op-amp's high gain and
internal phase shifts".  It shows a new circuit, with high-frequency
rolloff, in Figure 4.52.  Yet it doesn't give a formula in which to
calculate the component values.  Stupid aliens!!  So I started hollering
and flinging poop at the monolith :)

Luckily he monolith ignored me, but I knew that even if I could get the
differentiator to work, I would end up with both negative and positive
voltages.  So after this differentiatior, I would need an "absolute value
circuit" or "active full wave rectifier", I found two on page 222 and
started beating my chest :)

After that, I need to get this positive voltage up to approximately 5
volts, with enough current available to be used as a trigger.  Is there a
comparator circuit that anyone would like to recommend??  I'm thinking a
LM339 with a pullup resistor connected to 5 volts would work.

Do they make comparators that will give a positive output regardless of the
polarity of the input voltage??  The table in Horowitz & Hill (pp. 584-585)
leads me to believe that an LM311 can, which would eliminate the need for
an absolute value circuit.

Does all of this monkey business make sense??  Does anyone know how to get
the circuit on in Figure 4.52 so that it will work??


>Tony has stated several times that most DIYers don't have the
>equipment to do this.

I certainly don't!!

>I haven't programmed any EPROMs for 15 years, so I am
>not up-to-date in this area and what geeks like us may have sitting
>around at home...
>
>It looks like all of the incoming data is available from all of the
>switches and you can program the output of each of the
>jacks--in particular, the TRIG OUT jack.  You can check for LOOP ONLY mode.
>When in this mode, you could use one of the settings on the unused
>STEP/TRIG LOOP/RELEASE switch to turn on the "trigger out at the
>beginning of each step" mode.  The location to check for this should be
>very obvious is the source code.  And it should take too many extra lines
>of code to add:
>
>At the beginning of each step--
>
>	Check for LOOP ONLY mode.
>
>	Check for TRIG mode.
>
>	Send trigger pulse to TRIG OUT.
>
>If anyone can read and burn these chips, I will be glad to help disect the
>code.

Thanks :)  Does anyone know how to read and burn these chips??  Regardless,
building an edge detector might be easier than trying to re-write the code,
which could introduce a bug.  Also, an edge detector circuit might be
useful with other things besides the UEG.

Just my personal opinion - I think you guys are nutz<g>! The UEG is 
not designed or optimized for sequencer operation, it just includes a 
bonus pseudo-sequencer mode. I'd recommend either waiting for the 
MOTM sequencer, or building your own true sequencer if you can't 
wait. There are dozens of designs floating around that will clock 
faster, and allow you to get the trigger and gate output options and 
stage selection flexibility that you want. My point is that the 
amount of work you'd have to put into the UEG to turn it into a 
sequencer, could be spent to make an actual one. Hell, use my 
SuperMoe schemos if you like (published on my site).

Look at your UEG carefully. Notice that you will have to completely 
disassemble it to get to the pcb, because so many of the controls are 
mounted directly to it. Remember that it is more static sensitive 
than a typical all-analog MOTM circuit. You risk ruining a fine (and 
expensive!) module.

Not trying to be a wet blanket - just pointing out that you should 
pick your DIY battles carefully, and weigh the risks. I would be too 
afraid of screwing mine up, for not enough gain to satisfy me. You 
will have to make that evaluation yourself, of course.

Remind me to tell the sad tale sometime of my "portable B-3" project.

Moe

--- In motm@y..., mark@i... wrote:
> At 5:26 PM -0500 03/08/01, Tentochi wrote:
> >
> >I like this idea!
> 
> That's why I mentioned it :)
> 
> >The easiest way to get this function is to reprogram the chip.
> 
> Yes, that would be the most elegant method.
> 
> Another way which might be possible is to tap the trigger off of the
> existing PCB (which would likely require a daughter board with at 
least a
> voltage follower).
> 
> A third way would be to build an edge detecting daughter board 
connected to
> the CV out of the UEG.  It could be mummified in electrical tape 
and stuck
> with double-sided tape somewhere.
> 
> The first two options require help from Encore.  The third option 
does not.
> If this seems somehow disrespectful, disloyal, unappreciative, or 
immoral,
> to any of you, just try thinking of this as merely some guy trying 
to
> differentiate a stepped function in his spare time :)
> 
> Since the dawn of man, I'm sure someone before us wanted to know 
whenever
> the voltage of a signal jumped up or down.  So I'm thinking a 
circuit that
> does this is already out there.  However, I'm not an EE, and all of 
my
> "cookbooks" are about food.
> 
> Yet, I do have a copy of Horowitz & Hill.  It just showed up one 
day in the
> back yard.  Using stone tools and coconut husks, I pieced together 
the
> following circuit in my mind (please note that my primitive mind is 
one of
> the worst places one could keep a circuit!):
> 
> Take the CV output of the UEG, run it through a voltage follower 
(as not to
> draw too much current), to a differentiator.  Figure 4.51 on page 
224 looks
> like a cap (C) going into the inverting input of an op-amp, with a 
resistor
> (R) going from the op-amp's output to the inverting input, and the
> non-inverting input going to ground, such that:
> 
> Vout = -RC dVin/dt
> 
> Since this looks like calculus I started jumping up and down "Oooh 
oook
> oook! eee eek!!" :)
> 
> Then it says this circuit generally has "problems with noise and
> instabilities at high frequencies because of the op-amp's high gain 
and
> internal phase shifts".  It shows a new circuit, with high-frequency
> rolloff, in Figure 4.52.  Yet it doesn't give a formula in which to
> calculate the component values.  Stupid aliens!!  So I started 
hollering
> and flinging poop at the monolith :)
> 
> Luckily he monolith ignored me, but I knew that even if I could get 
the
> differentiator to work, I would end up with both negative and 
positive
> voltages.  So after this differentiatior, I would need an "absolute 
value
> circuit" or "active full wave rectifier", I found two on page 222 
and
> started beating my chest :)
> 
> After that, I need to get this positive voltage up to approximately 
5
> volts, with enough current available to be used as a trigger.  Is 
there a
> comparator circuit that anyone would like to recommend??  I'm 
thinking a
> LM339 with a pullup resistor connected to 5 volts would work.
> 
> Do they make comparators that will give a positive output 
regardless of the
> polarity of the input voltage??  The table in Horowitz & Hill (pp. 
584-585)
> leads me to believe that an LM311 can, which would eliminate the 
need for
> an absolute value circuit.
> 
> Does all of this monkey business make sense??  Does anyone know how 
to get
> the circuit on in Figure 4.52 so that it will work??
> 
> 
> >Tony has stated several times that most DIYers don't have the
> >equipment to do this.
> 
> I certainly don't!!
> 
> >I haven't programmed any EPROMs for 15 years, so I am
> >not up-to-date in this area and what geeks like us may have sitting
> >around at home...
> >
> >It looks like all of the incoming data is available from all of the
> >switches and you can program the output of each of the
> >jacks--in particular, the TRIG OUT jack.  You can check for LOOP 
ONLY mode.
> >When in this mode, you could use one of the settings on the unused
> >STEP/TRIG LOOP/RELEASE switch to turn on the "trigger out at the
> >beginning of each step" mode.  The location to check for this 
should be
> >very obvious is the source code.  And it should take too many 
extra lines
> >of code to add:
> >
> >At the beginning of each step--
> >
> >	Check for LOOP ONLY mode.
> >
> >	Check for TRIG mode.
> >
> >	Send trigger pulse to TRIG OUT.
> >
> >If anyone can read and burn these chips, I will be glad to help 
disect the
> >code.
> 
> Thanks :)  Does anyone know how to read and burn these chips??  
Regardless,
> building an edge detector might be easier than trying to re-write 
the code,
> which could introduce a bug.  Also, an edge detector circuit might 
be
> useful with other things besides the UEG.

At 7:49 PM +0000 03/10/01, mate_stubb@... wrote:
>
>Just my personal opinion - I think you guys are nutz<g>!

We thank you for your support ;)

> The UEG is not designed or optimized for sequencer operation,
>it just includes a bonus pseudo-sequencer mode.

A Jupiter 8 wasn't designed or optimized for MIDI either :)

>I'd recommend either waiting for the
>MOTM sequencer, or building your own true sequencer if you can't
>wait. There are dozens of designs floating around that will clock
>faster, and allow you to get the trigger and gate output options and
>stage selection flexibility that you want. My point is that the
>amount of work you'd have to put into the UEG to turn it into a
>sequencer, could be spent to make an actual one. Hell, use my
>SuperMoe schemos if you like (published on my site).

I'll take a look at those, but building another sequencer will cost a lot
more money -- decent pots are very expensive.  Adding another module will
also take up more room.

I'm also thinking an edge detector daughter board is something I could
build on a perfboard with a couple of IC's.  You can't build an entire
sequencer that easily.

>Look at your UEG carefully. Notice that you will have to completely
>disassemble it to get to the pcb, because so many of the controls are
>mounted directly to it. Remember that it is more static sensitive
>than a typical all-analog MOTM circuit. You risk ruining a fine (and
>expensive!) module.

Yet, I won't have to disassemble it.  With an edge detector I just need to
tap off of the CV out jack.  In fact I could test it without taking the UEG
out of the rack, and even build it as a completely separate module.

>Not trying to be a wet blanket - just pointing out that you should
>pick your DIY battles carefully, and weigh the risks. I would be too
>afraid of screwing mine up, for not enough gain to satisfy me. You
>will have to make that evaluation yourself, of course.

That sounds like very good advice.  So I'm thinking that instead of #1
re-writing the ROM or #2 tapping a voltage off of the PCB, that #3 building
an edge-detector might be the least invasive method.

So, do you want to help me with my differentiator circuit?? :)

I'd thought I'd rephrase my questions, and leave out the silly _2001: A
Space Odyssey_ jokes, in hope of getting a better response.

I would like to build an edge detecting circuit in order to derive a
trigger signal from the voltage changes of a stepped waveform.  I plan on
using it with the CV output of a UEG in LOOP ONLY mode with the SLOPE
switch set to STEP.  So it will generate a signal when the voltage changes
in either direction.

I'm not an EE, but I have a copy of Horowitz & Hill.  Based on that text, I
have pieced together the following ideas for a circuit:

Take the CV output of the UEG, run it through a voltage follower (as not to
draw too much current), to a differentiator.  Figure 4.51 on page 224 looks
like a cap (C) going into the inverting input of an op-amp, with a resistor
(R) going from the op-amp's output to the inverting input, and the
non-inverting input going to ground, such that:

Vout = -RC dVin/dt

Then it says this circuit generally has "problems with noise and
instabilities at high frequencies because of the op-amp's high gain and,
internal phase shifts".  It shows a new circuit, with high-frequency
rolloff, in Figure 4.52.  Yet it doesn't give a formula in which to
calculate the component values.  Does anyone know how to get this circuit
in Figure 4.52 so that it will work??  Any other ideas??

Even if I can get the differentiator to work, I would end up with both
negative and positive voltages.  So after this differentiatior, I would
need an "absolute value circuit" or "active full wave rectifier", I found
two on page 222.

After that, I need to get this positive voltage up to approximately 5
volts, with enough current available to be used as a trigger.  Is there a
comparator circuit that anyone would like to recommend??  I'm thinking a
LM339 with a pullup resistor connected to 5 volts would work.

Do they make comparators that will give a positive output regardless of the
polarity of the input voltage??  The table in Horowitz & Hill (pp. 584-585)
leads me to believe that an LM311 can, which would eliminate the need for
an absolute value circuit.  Any ideas??

You might want to consider making use of the "falling-edge detector." I
don't think you want to full-wave rectify the pulses you get; rather use two
half-wave rectifiers, one to "peel off" the positive triggers and one the
negative. Then you can have a separate jack with the falling edge triggers.
You can combine the positive and negative triggers to a third jack for the
'absolute value' triggers as well. I can imagine some neat effects possible
by having a choice of up/down/both triggers.

I'm no EE either, so I can't answer your technical questions. I've dabbled
(on paper) with things like this myself, based on examples in Forest Mims
books, but haven't actually tinkered anything together.

This may be the wrong approach, but... if *I* were going to make such a
differentiator, I would probably start with a simple lag-integrator circuit
(cheaper synths have a one-op-amp integrator, low parts count) and use the
same parts rearranged into a differentiator configuration. I *think* you get
essentially the same kind of specs, just a reversed filter response. That at
least puts you in the ball park of the range you want to filter, since
you're creating a kind of "anti-lag" circuit.

I'm sure a real engineer would do some serious eye-rolling over the above,
but when you're tinkering... you do strange things.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	mark@... [mailto:mark@...] 
Sent:	Monday, 12 March, 2001 11:07 AM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	[motm] looking for help with edge detector circuit

.....

Even if I can get the differentiator to work, I would end up with both
negative and positive voltages.  So after this differentiatior, I would
need an "absolute value circuit" or "active full wave rectifier", I found
two on page 222.......

Here are some more thoughts.

Since you're using a differentiator to detect rapid voltage changes, you are
only going to extract _triggers_ from your input. With a handful of extra
parts, you can create a gate output as well.

There are ways of using a 555 timer chip as a 'pulse width' circuit. You
could have the triggers 'trip' the 555, which will then stay high for a time
and then fall a specified period later, which can be set with a
potentiometer. This would give you gates with the same 'on-time.' The 555 is
used as the basis of a lot of gate delay circuits.

--- In motm@y..., mark@i... wrote:

> Then it says this circuit generally has "problems with noise and
> instabilities at high frequencies because of the op-amp's high gain 
> and internal phase shifts".  

Well, how high? 100kHz? 1 mHz? You will be running more or less 1 
kHz - 2 kHz tops, so I'd guess you don't even have to worry about it. 
Try it on a breadboard, and see if it works.
 
> Even if I can get the differentiator to work, I would end up with 
> both negative and positive voltages.  So after this 
> differentiatior, I would need an "absolute value circuit" 
> 
> Do they make comparators that will give a positive output
> regardless of the polarity of the input voltage?

You won't be able to get by with just one differentiator and a 
comparator. That's not enough to deal with 3 voltage states - high, 
zero, and low. You'll still need the absolute value circuit, OR you 
could build a second comparator to trigger on the zero to low 
transition, then sum the two comparator outputs. You may also need to 
add a one shot to insure that you have a clean output pulse of known 
duration.

Moe

At 11:17 AM -0500 03/12/01, Tkacs, Ken wrote:
>
>You might want to consider making use of the "falling-edge detector."

I want to detect both falling and rising edges.  I looked at a few CMOS/TTL
approaches, but most of the flip-flop circuits I found were looking for
much larger edges.

>I don't think you want to full-wave rectify the pulses you get; rather
>use two half-wave rectifiers, one to "peel off" the positive triggers and
>one the negative. Then you can have a separate jack with the falling edge
>>triggers. You can combine the positive and negative triggers to a third
>jack for the 'absolute value' triggers as well. I can imagine some neat
>>effects possible by having a choice of up/down/both triggers.

While that's a very creative idea, I want to keep this circuit as simple as
possible as I'll be building it on perfboard.  Extra jacks also cost money
and take up space (which costs even more money).  Also, a diode drop (.6V)
is likely to be more than the output of the differentiator, and I have no
idea how to make an "active half-wave rectifier".

I'm hoping I can find a comparator that accepts both positive and negative
going voltages so that I can eliminate the absolute value circuit entirely.

>I'm no EE either, so I can't answer your technical questions. I've dabbled
>(on paper) with things like this myself, based on examples in Forest Mims
>books, but haven't actually tinkered anything together.
>
>This may be the wrong approach, but... if *I* were going to make such a
>differentiator, I would probably start with a simple lag-integrator circuit
>(cheaper synths have a one-op-amp integrator, low parts count) and use the
>same parts rearranged into a differentiator configuration. I *think* you
>>get essentially the same kind of specs, just a reversed filter response.
>That at least puts you in the ball park of the range you want to filter,
>>since you're creating a kind of "anti-lag" circuit.

Right, a differentiator is the opposite of an integrator -- the type of
circuit typically used as a lag processor.

>I'm sure a real engineer would do some serious eye-rolling over the above,
>but when you're tinkering... you do strange things.

Perhaps a real engineer like Paul or JH might chime in on this thread :)

>Here are some more thoughts.
>
>Since you're using a differentiator to detect rapid voltage changes,
>you are only going to extract _triggers_ from your input. With a handful
>of extra parts, you can create a gate output as well.
>
>There are ways of using a 555 timer chip as a 'pulse width' circuit. You
>could have the triggers 'trip' the 555, which will then stay high for a
>>time and then fall a specified period later, which can be set with a
>potentiometer. This would give you gates with the same 'on-time.'
>The 555 is used as the basis of a lot of gate delay circuits.

Yes, I have already built a 555 circuit in a project box that converts a
short trigger into a gate so I can use a drum machine trigger to play
various monosynths.  It has a knob to control the length of the gate, and
both Roland and S-trigger outputs to control the SH-101 and Mini Moog
respectively.

I have also added a passive "pulse stretcher" (a cap which discharges
through a resistor) to an S-trigger converter so I can use the trigger outs
from my TR-808 to flip the A/B switch on the Lexicon Vortex.  The regular
(non-stretched) gate to S-trigger converter I use to sequence the Mini Moog
did not work with the Vortex because the 808 trigger was too short for the
Vortex to recognize it (I presume this is because the Vortex pedal inputs
are debounced).

I'm hoping I will find a comparator circuit whose output is held high long
enough.  Horowitz & Hill discuss the use of a Schmitt trigger by adding
positive feedback to a comparator.  I don't know how this would apply to an
input that is essentially a spike whose trigger point is at ground.
Anyway, if it is long enough to trigger the motm EG and reset the motm VC
LFO, I should be fine.

Thank you for your comments.

At 4:31 PM +0000 03/12/01, mate_stubb@... wrote:
>
>> Then it says this circuit generally has "problems with noise and
>> instabilities at high frequencies because of the op-amp's high gain
>> and internal phase shifts".
>
>Well, how high? 100kHz? 1 mHz? You will be running more or less 1
>kHz - 2 kHz tops, so I'd guess you don't even have to worry about it.
>Try it on a breadboard, and see if it works.

Good point!!

>> Even if I can get the differentiator to work, I would end up with
>> both negative and positive voltages.  So after this
>> differentiatior, I would need an "absolute value circuit"
>>
>> Do they make comparators that will give a positive output
>> regardless of the polarity of the input voltage?
>
>You won't be able to get by with just one differentiator and a
>comparator. That's not enough to deal with 3 voltage states - high,
>zero, and low. You'll still need the absolute value circuit, OR you
>could build a second comparator to trigger on the zero to low
>transition, then sum the two comparator outputs.

Hmmmm...using two comparators might be less parts.  Do they make
comparators that can be configured to detect negative or positive
voltages??  That way I can get two (or more) of the same kind one chip.  I
also wonder how I can connect output of the same differentiator to two
different comparators without having them interfere with each other.

I'm starting to think that Horowitz & Hill might not be the best book for
me.  I need something entitled _Comparators for Dummies_ or _So You Want to
Use a Comparator??_  :)

Are there any comparators whose application notes you would recommend??

>You may also need to add a one shot to insure that you have a clean
>output pulse of known duration.

OK :)  I know how to build one with a 555 if I find that's necessary.

A comparator works by sending its output positive if the noninverting 
input is more positive than the inverting input.

A comparator with its inverting input tied to ground, and 
noninverting input tied to a signal, will have a positive output when 
the signal is above ground.

A comparator with its noninverting input tied to ground, and 
inverting input tied to a signal, will have a positive output when 
the signal is below ground.

This assumes you have a comparator capable of working with negative 
voltage inputs. Some are spec'ed for only a 0-5v input range.

There are a couple of practical refinements: instead of tying the 
inputs in the above examples directly to ground, it's better to tie 
them slightly above and slightly below ground respectively, so that 
you have a little noise immunity. You can also add hysteresis (beyond 
the scope of my reply here) to accomplish the same thing.

Moe

--- In motm@y..., mark@i... wrote:
> Do they make
> comparators that can be configured to detect negative or positive
> voltages??  That way I can get two (or more) of the same kind one 
chip.  I
> also wonder how I can connect output of the same differentiator to 
two
> different comparators without having them interfere with each other.
>

It's difficult for men to explain hysteresis.

Sorry, sorry... Latin, you see...

(Honestly, I wonder what the origin of that word is? It can't be what it
looks like, can it?)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	mate_stubb@... [mailto:mate_stubb@...] 
Sent:	Monday, 12 March, 2001 2:46 PM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	[motm] Re: (2)looking for help with edge detector circuit

... You can also add hysteresis (beyond the scope of my reply here) ...

Hi Mark and all,

The very circuit you need was used in the little DIY Clef Microsynth to
detect new notes from the pitch CV even when playing legato. The whole
article in Practical Electronics is on Anders Sponton's website. Its a
simple circuit involving a couple of op-amps or comparators (I can't
remember which) but all the awkward things like time constants and
trigger levels have been worked out for you.

See http://omega.tellus.vallentuna.se/anders/ Go to Synths and then down
to Practical Electronics.

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, England

Oakley Modular Synth and TB3030:
www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm
My music: www.mp3.com/taklamakan

from Greek hysteresis [shortcoming], from hysterein [to be late, fall 
short], from hysteros [later]

--- In motm@y..., "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
> 
> It's difficult for men to explain hysteresis.
> 
> Sorry, sorry... Latin, you see...
> 
> (Honestly, I wonder what the origin of that word is? It can't be 
what it
> looks like, can it?)

Hey, I liked the 2001 jokes ;-)

Chuck

--- In motm@y..., mark@i... wrote:

> 
> I'd thought I'd rephrase my questions, and leave out the silly _2001: A
> Space Odyssey_ jokes, in hope of getting a better response.
> 
> I would like to build an edge detecting circuit in order to derive a
> trigger signal from the voltage changes of a stepped waveform.  I plan on
> using it with the CV output of a UEG in LOOP ONLY mode with the SLOPE
> switch set to STEP.  So it will generate a signal when the voltage changes
> in either direction.
> 
> I'm not an EE, but I have a copy of Horowitz & Hill.  Based on that text, I
> have pieced together the following ideas for a circuit:
> 
> Take the CV output of the UEG, run it through a voltage follower (as not to
> draw too much current), to a differentiator.  Figure 4.51 on page 224 looks
> like a cap (C) going into the inverting input of an op-amp, with a resistor
> (R) going from the op-amp's output to the inverting input, and the
> non-inverting input going to ground, such that:
> 
> Vout = -RC dVin/dt
> 
> Then it says this circuit generally has "problems with noise and
> instabilities at high frequencies because of the op-amp's high gain and,
> internal phase shifts".  It shows a new circuit, with high-frequency
> rolloff, in Figure 4.52.  Yet it doesn't give a formula in which to
> calculate the component values.  Does anyone know how to get this circuit
> in Figure 4.52 so that it will work??  Any other ideas??
> 
> Even if I can get the differentiator to work, I would end up with both
> negative and positive voltages.  So after this differentiatior, I would
> need an "absolute value circuit" or "active full wave rectifier", I found
> two on page 222.
> 
> After that, I need to get this positive voltage up to approximately 5
> volts, with enough current available to be used as a trigger.  Is there a
> comparator circuit that anyone would like to recommend??  I'm thinking a
> LM339 with a pullup resistor connected to 5 volts would work.
> 
> Do they make comparators that will give a positive output regardless of the
> polarity of the input voltage??  The table in Horowitz & Hill (pp. 584-585)
> leads me to believe that an LM311 can, which would eliminate the need for
> an absolute value circuit.  Any ideas??