MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Paul Schreiber
Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. a) Pulse & saw out b) 1V/Oct + Mod in no sync, no PWM, pots are Coarse Fine Mod PW will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a $159 kit? Paul S.
Thread
MOTM-310 uVCO
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by J. Larry Hendry
Well, one of my favorite things about pulse is PWM. I almost always use at least soft sync. And, for the price difference, I would still probably prefer the $239 MOTM-300. However, having said that, I'm sure I would buy one if they have the great stability and tracking of the original. But, I'd rather save the extra $$ and get more 300s. As always, opinions and milage may vary. Larry Hendry
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > > a) Pulse & saw out > b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > > no sync, no PWM, pots are > > Coarse > Fine > Mod > PW > > will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a > $159 kit? > > Paul S.
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by james holloway
I like the ones we already have. Why make a low scale one?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> >Reply-To: motm@onelist.com >To: "MOTM listserv" <motm@onelist.com> >Subject: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:01:41 -0500 > >From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > >Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > >a) Pulse & saw out >b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > >no sync, no PWM, pots are > >Coarse >Fine >Mod >PW > >will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a >$159 kit? > >Paul S. > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" >For details, including our weekly drawing, go to >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Dave Bradley
Good choice for someone needing lots of VCOs to build a polyphonic system ala Obie 4 or 8 Voice. Need a single space VCA to match. Just so long as I get my SEM and SSM filters first! Dave Bradley Principal Software Engineer Engineering Animation, Inc. daveb@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...] > Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:02 AM > To: MOTM listserv > Subject: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO > > > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > > Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > > a) Pulse & saw out > b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > > no sync, no PWM, pots are > > Coarse > Fine > Mod > PW > > will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a > $159 kit? > > Paul S. > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" > For details, including our weekly drawing, go to > http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Mark Pulver
james holloway (04:19 AM 9/3/99) wrote: >I like the ones we already have. Why make a low scale one? It's a great idea for someone building up a system and needs a couple of sub-oscillators. If you start building up a complex patch, then a simple VCO becomes great to have around for things like modulating filters, VCA's, etc. It doesn't have to be complex with PWM and all, just something to kick out some harmonics. Tuned low, and tracking at 1v/oct, this also makes for a great tracking LFO. And, if it only takes up one panel width... You can fit more in the same place. Personally, I never tire of having VCOs around... I'll stack 'em all over the place just to add character to a patch. Take a sawtooth and tune it about 3 or 4 octaves above your fundamental in a bass patch. Mix it in low, just so you can kinda feel it's presence more than hear it. If you like the resulting tonal character, then this is a need for a simple tracking VCO. Things like PWM don't need to be there - the effect of a PWM sweep dies anyway quickly at higher pitches. Mark
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Christopher Jeris
I really like the idea of having the classical analogue synth modules available in 1U mini and 2U maxi versions. In particular I would use a couple of 1U sub-oscillators. And I want a 2U VC DADSR! :) It would be funny to have a UVCO and a uVCO, though. (MOTM: Beating your favorite modular synth, with a stick.) peace, Chris Jeris
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by John Speth
I think this is a nice addition to the lineup. Perfect for stacking VCOs. But don't make it cost any more because then I'd be tempted to just get the UltraVCO instead. John Speth Object Engineering, Inc mailto:johns@... On Thursday, September 02, 1999 10:02 PM, Paul Schreiber [SMTP:synth1@...] wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > > Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > > a) Pulse & saw out > b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > > no sync, no PWM, pots are > > Coarse > Fine > Mod > PW > > will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a > $159 kit? > > Paul S. > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" > For details, including our weekly drawing, go to > http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by james holloway
I'd Probably buy one if we had 'em but I think I could live without it and not miss it too much.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>From: Mark Pulver <mpulver@...> >Reply-To: motm@onelist.com >To: motm@onelist.com >Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO >Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:28:37 -0500 > >From: Mark Pulver <mpulver@...> > >james holloway (04:19 AM 9/3/99) wrote: > > >I like the ones we already have. Why make a low scale one? > >It's a great idea for someone building up a system and needs a couple of >sub-oscillators. If you start building up a complex patch, then a simple >VCO becomes great to have around for things like modulating filters, VCA's, >etc. > >It doesn't have to be complex with PWM and all, just something to kick out >some harmonics. > >Tuned low, and tracking at 1v/oct, this also makes for a great tracking >LFO. And, if it only takes up one panel width... You can fit more in the >same place. > > >Personally, I never tire of having VCOs around... I'll stack 'em all over >the place just to add character to a patch. > >Take a sawtooth and tune it about 3 or 4 octaves above your fundamental in >a bass patch. Mix it in low, just so you can kinda feel it's presence more >than hear it. If you like the resulting tonal character, then this is a >need for a simple tracking VCO. Things like PWM don't need to be there - >the effect of a PWM sweep dies anyway quickly at higher pitches. > > >Mark > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist now has T-SHIRTS! >For details and to order, go to: ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/tshirt1 ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by james holloway
DITTO!!
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>From: John Speth <johns@...> >Reply-To: motm@onelist.com >To: "'motm@onelist.com'" <motm@onelist.com> >Subject: RE: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:24:54 -0700 > >From: John Speth <johns@...> > >I think this is a nice addition to the lineup. Perfect for stacking VCOs. > But don't make it cost any more because then I'd be tempted to just get >the UltraVCO instead. > >John Speth >Object Engineering, Inc >mailto:johns@... > >On Thursday, September 02, 1999 10:02 PM, Paul Schreiber >[SMTP:synth1@...] wrote: > > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > > > > Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > > > > a) Pulse & saw out > > b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > > > > no sync, no PWM, pots are > > > > Coarse > > Fine > > Mod > > PW > > > > will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a > > $159 kit? > > > > Paul S. > > > > > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > > ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" > > For details, including our weekly drawing, go to > > http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ATTENTION ONElist MEMBERS! Are you getting your ONElist news? >If not, join our MEMBER NEWSLETTER here: ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter1 ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Paul Schreiber
And I can't price it too *cheap* because nobody would buy the '300! HA! Paul S. -----Original Message----- From: John Speth <johns@...> To: 'motm@onelist.com' <motm@onelist.com> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:32 PM
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: RE: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO >From: John Speth <johns@...> > >I think this is a nice addition to the lineup. Perfect for stacking VCOs. > But don't make it cost any more because then I'd be tempted to just get >the UltraVCO instead. > >John Speth >Object Engineering, Inc >mailto:johns@... > >On Thursday, September 02, 1999 10:02 PM, Paul Schreiber >[SMTP:synth1@...] wrote: >> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> >> >> Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. >> >> a) Pulse & saw out >> b) 1V/Oct + Mod in >> >> no sync, no PWM, pots are >> >> Coarse >> Fine >> Mod >> PW >> >> will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a >> $159 kit? >> >> Paul S. >> >> >> >> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- >> >> ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" >> For details, including our weekly drawing, go to >> http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ATTENTION ONElist MEMBERS! Are you getting your ONElist news? >If not, join our MEMBER NEWSLETTER here: ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter1 ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by John Speth
Yes, Paul, you've kinda painted yourself into a corner with the M300. The M300 is pricey but a tremendous value for the price. Anything else, whether more expensive or cheaper, will probably miss that optimum value point. John Speth Object Engineering, Inc mailto:johns@... On Friday, September 03, 1999 10:50 AM, Paul Schreiber [SMTP:synth1@...] wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > > And I can't price it too *cheap* because nobody would buy the '300! HA! > > Paul S.
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Dave Bradley
Lots of people don't like CEMs - either the sound, or the fact that it may have an uncertain future, as illustrated by other CEMs which have been discontinued. Either way it might affect marketability in certain camps. Dave Bradley Principal Software Engineer Engineering Animation, Inc. daveb@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message----- > From: hodad1@... [mailto:hodad1@...] > Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 1:23 PM > To: motm@onelist.com > Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO > > > From: hodad1@... > > Though I haven't been here too long, I have kept up with MOTM for > some time, > & as I recall the > original vco plan was to use Cem 3374. I was just wondering why that was > scratched, > what would prevent it from being used in a secondary vco module, etc. > > Just curious > tomr > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...> > To: MOTM listserv <motm@onelist.com> > Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:52 AM > Subject: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO > > > >From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > > > >Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > > > >a) Pulse & saw out > >b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > > > >no sync, no PWM, pots are > > > >Coarse > >Fine > >Mod > >PW > > > >will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a > >$159 kit? > > > >Paul S. > > > > > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > >ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" > >For details, including our weekly drawing, go to > >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Create a list for FRIENDS & FAMILY... > ...and YOU can WIN $100 to Amazon.com. For details, go to > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Teaser113 ">Click Here</a> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by hodad1@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Though I haven't been here too long, I have kept up with MOTM for some time, & as I recall the original vco plan was to use Cem 3374. I was just wondering why that was scratched, what would prevent it from being used in a secondary vco module, etc. Just curious tomr -----Original Message----- From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...> To: MOTM listserv <motm@onelist.com> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:52 AM
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO >From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > >Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > >a) Pulse & saw out >b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > >no sync, no PWM, pots are > >Coarse >Fine >Mod >PW > >will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco resistor. Maybe a >$159 kit? > >Paul S. > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" >For details, including our weekly drawing, go to >http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Paul Schreiber
My intent is the following: 1) higher density for "1 row" systems (ie fit into 5U SKB effects rack) 2) lower entry price for certain customers 3) *much* easier build 4) main use is for "backing vocals": this is not your 'lead' VCO 5) useful for driving stuff like '110 and '120 plus I guess I just like building VCOs. Paul S.
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Doug Pearson
I like the idea for all these reasons, too! (except number one, maybe ... there's no way I'm going to be able to keep my MOTM system to one row ... I've already failed at that.) -Doug ceres@... At 01:24 PM 9/3/99 -0500, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>My intent is the following: > >1) higher density for "1 row" systems (ie fit into 5U SKB effects rack) >2) lower entry price for certain customers >3) *much* easier build >4) main use is for "backing vocals": this is not your 'lead' VCO >5) useful for driving stuff like '110 and '120 > >plus I guess I just like building VCOs. > >Paul S.
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by hodad1@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Of course, another option is to give the 310 some small feature (don't know what) that the 300 lacks. That would certainly add to its allure. -----Original Message----- From: John Speth <johns@...> To: 'motm@onelist.com' <motm@onelist.com> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 2:06 PM
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: RE: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO >From: John Speth <johns@...> > >Yes, Paul, you've kinda painted yourself into a corner with the M300. The >M300 is pricey but a tremendous value for the price. Anything else, >whether more expensive or cheaper, will probably miss that optimum value >point. > >John Speth >Object Engineering, Inc >mailto:johns@... > >On Friday, September 03, 1999 10:50 AM, Paul Schreiber >[SMTP:synth1@...] wrote: >> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> >> >> And I can't price it too *cheap* because nobody would buy the '300! HA! >> >> Paul S. > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by David Bivins
Oh, that's simply not true. The right tool for the right job, right? Make 'em cheap! <j/k> I like the idea of the simple VCO, especially now that Mr. Pulver's chimed in. He makes some excellent points, especially with regard to the use of PWM. I know that if I had a full complement of 300s, I'd underuse many of them for simple tasks that a lower-speced osc. would perform just as well. It would also be nice at some point to have a simple LPF with cutoff, res, one input, freq. input... I love the 420 filter to death, but I know I underuse it as well sometimes.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...] > Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 11:50 AM > To: motm@onelist.com > Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO > > > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > > And I can't price it too *cheap* because nobody would buy the '300! HA! > > Paul S. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Speth <johns@...> > To: 'motm@onelist.com' <motm@onelist.com> > Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:32 PM > Subject: RE: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO > > > >From: John Speth <johns@...> > > > >I think this is a nice addition to the lineup. Perfect for > stacking VCOs. > > But don't make it cost any more because then I'd be tempted to just get > >the UltraVCO instead. > > > >John Speth > >Object Engineering, Inc > >mailto:johns@... > > > >On Thursday, September 02, 1999 10:02 PM, Paul Schreiber > >[SMTP:synth1@...] wrote: > >> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > >> > >> Thinking about a 1U wide uVCO. > >> > >> a) Pulse & saw out > >> b) 1V/Oct + Mod in > >> > >> no sync, no PWM, pots are > >> > >> Coarse > >> Fine > >> Mod > >> PW > >> > >> will use slightly less radical parts, still use tempco > resistor. Maybe a > >> $159 kit? > >> > >> Paul S. > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor > ---------------------------- > >> > >> ONElist announces "FRIENDS & FAMILY!" > >> For details, including our weekly drawing, go to > >> http://www.onelist.com/info/onereachsplash3.html > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > >ATTENTION ONElist MEMBERS! Are you getting your ONElist news? > >If not, join our MEMBER NEWSLETTER here: > ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter1 ">Click Here</a> > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Congratulations to THE_COALITION. Our latest ONElist of the week. > For full story and to submit yours, go to > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/ootw24 ">Click Here</a> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Dave Bradley
Somebody mentioned giving the 310 something that the 300 didn't have to improve its desirability to current 300 owners. Well, how about.... through-zero FM ala Doug Kraul's design? Dave Bradley Principal Software Engineer Engineering Animation, Inc. daveb@...
Re: RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Paul Schreiber
errr....no. For 1 thing, it wouldn't fit! For 2 thing, I'm saving it for next year. Paul S. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Bradley <daveb@...> To: MOTM List <motm@onelist.com> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 5:03 PM
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: [motm] RE: MOTM-310 uVCO >From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...> > >Somebody mentioned giving the 310 something that the 300 didn't have to >improve its desirability to current 300 owners. > >Well, how about.... through-zero FM ala Doug Kraul's design? > >Dave Bradley >Principal Software Engineer >Engineering Animation, Inc. >daveb@... > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist members: don't miss out on the latest news at ONElist >Join our community member news update at ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/newsletter5 ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by JWBarlow@xxx.xxx
I agree that a smaller, simpler, cheaper VCO would be a good idea. I also agree with many of the comments already given (even some of those opposed to the module), but in the long run, when one is imagining say a four voice system with two to four (or more) VCOs per voice it quickly becomes apparent that features like sync, PWM, and all four waveforms will not be worth the extra dollars (since two MOTM 300s will cost about as much as three MOTM 310s) -- I think Mark described a perfect use for such a VCO. Now let me make an even more controversial suggestion: lose the pulse output in favor of triangle. Why? Because you lose the PW pot (maybe you could add a sync, or other input or feature), and (like the Serge Precision VCO) you can still get a pulse out with PWM by using an external comparator module. (How's about a 1U MOTM 710 dual comparator module with 2 inputs, 1 output, and 1 pot per module. Such a module would be useful for sequencers as well as squaring up audio signals.) I've also thought a 310 VCO like you describe could be offered as a dual VCO module in a 3U panel (with two PCBs). You could maybe add a couple of extra or features for such a module and offer it for around $350. John B.
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by improv@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
>From: "james holloway" <jimh54@...>
>
>I like the ones we already have. Why make a low scale one?
>
I think you can never have enough VCO's in a patch, and I'd definitely want
a couple of uVCO's. I'd personally prefer if they had sine or triangle
outs, as I gravitate towards those over saw/pulse. My modular has 6 vco's
(2 SEM, 2 Doepfer standard, 1 Doepfer "High End" VCO, 1 MOTM 300), and I'm
waiting for the free time to build 2 of Tom G's VCO 4e's (see
http://www.mindspring.com/~vco/ ), I have the boards, parts and front
panel, just no time. Even if some of these VCO's aren't as stable as the
300, there are still places to use them, doubling voices, audio mod
sources, tracking LFO's, etc. I like the idea of a set of 1U wide modules
as I'm considering building a smaller live modular for gigs.
________________________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@... : www.peak.org/~improv/
"...there will come a day when you won't have to use
gasoline. You'd simply take a cassette and put it in
your car, let it run. You'd have to have the proper
type of music. Like you take two sticks, put 'em
together, make fire. You take some notes and rub 'em
together - dum, dum, dum, dum - fire, cosmic fire."
-Sun Ra
________________________________________________________Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by Paul Schreiber
1) How about a Tri/Pulse VCO? This is a different circuit as a Saw/Pulse, but still easy to do in a small form-factor. 2) Dave: How about a VCO Roundup of your gear? Compare/likes/dislikes Paul S. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Trenkel <improv@...> To: motm@onelist.com <motm@onelist.com> Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 1:58 PM
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-310 uVCO >From: improv@... (Dave Trenkel) > >>From: "james holloway" <jimh54@...> >> >>I like the ones we already have. Why make a low scale one? >> >I think you can never have enough VCO's in a patch, and I'd definitely want >a couple of uVCO's. I'd personally prefer if they had sine or triangle >outs, as I gravitate towards those over saw/pulse. My modular has 6 vco's >(2 SEM, 2 Doepfer standard, 1 Doepfer "High End" VCO, 1 MOTM 300), and I'm >waiting for the free time to build 2 of Tom G's VCO 4e's (see >http://www.mindspring.com/~vco/ ), I have the boards, parts and front >panel, just no time. Even if some of these VCO's aren't as stable as the >300, there are still places to use them, doubling voices, audio mod >sources, tracking LFO's, etc. I like the idea of a set of 1U wide modules >as I'm considering building a smaller live modular for gigs. > >________________________________________________________ >Dave Trenkel : improv@... : www.peak.org/~improv/ > >"...there will come a day when you won't have to use >gasoline. You'd simply take a cassette and put it in >your car, let it run. You'd have to have the proper >type of music. Like you take two sticks, put 'em >together, make fire. You take some notes and rub 'em >together - dum, dum, dum, dum - fire, cosmic fire." > -Sun Ra >________________________________________________________ > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist: your connection to people who share your interests. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by Christopher Jeris
I like the idea of saw/tri outputs and using a comparator for pulse (or a 700, with a couple of constant CV sources). This would also allow PWM, if you really wanted it, via a CV in on the comparing module. On the other hand, anyone using a 310 as the sole VCO of a low-cost system would probably want the pulse output instead. The 1U uVCO permits a quite impressive one-row system: Support: 1x 900 power (rear mounted) @ $125 1x your favorite 1U midi/cv @ $200 +/- ... 1x 6U SKB @ $110 1x rails @ $ 40 (plus however you mount the power) Core: 2x 310 uVCO @ $160 2x 800 ADSR @ $ 90 1x 4xx filter (your choice) @ $160 or whatever Extras: 1x 320 VC LFO @ $140 1x 110 ringmod/VCA @ $130 Total $1300ish Other "Extras" are easy to think of, for instance if a 1U uLFO and/or uVCA were to be offered one could add a 100 or 120. This is pretty impressive when placed next to the $1000 one-row Doepfer system, which of course is Doepfer and not MOTM! Incidentally the 420 filter is a great marketing hook to put in a one-row system, because no one can hear a single 420 without immediately wanting a second one. Then you have to start another row, and then... *grin* (Yes, Paul, I'm going to order another one with the 410... :)) peace, Chris
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-05 by Mark Pulver
Paul Schreiber (03:56 PM 9/4/99) wrote: >1) How about a Tri/Pulse VCO? This is a different circuit as a Saw/Pulse, >but still easy to do in a small form-factor. Tri/Pulse would make more sense if someone was to look at the VCO as being a modulation source. I personally don't find sawtooth modulation (at either audio or low freqs) very useful. Mark _______________________________________________________ Try the AH Archives! http://www.midiwall.com/aharchives
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-05 by JWBarlow@xxx.xxx
Like Mark, I also prefer triangle to saw for LF and audio modulation (my next
preference would be for sine), part of my reason for suggesting it. But I do
think (again like Mark) that saw waves are very useful as audio sources, but
can't they also be used as clock or sync sources given the instantaneous rise
leads the falling ramp? I'm not sure why a pulse wave output (with a PW
control but no PWM input) is preferable to a square wave out -- is the PW
control alone that useful?
I also find sync to be far more interesting than PWM; so in the place of the
lowest pot, I can imagine having a sync input, and an output select switch
(to select between TRI/SAW). So here's my (revised) suggestion for the MOTM
310 1U VCO:
Controls:
COARSE
FINE
LIN FM
TRI/SAW (switch for output selection)
Inputs:
1V/OCT
LIN FM
SYNC
Outputs:
SQUARE
TRI/SAW
BTW: I also liked Chris's layout of a small MOTM system, and Joe's idea of
having a pot for waveshaping on the VCO (doesn't the Synthi have something
like that?), but I think that would be better suited for the through zero
linear FM VCO -- maybe a good place for that VC waveshaping circuit too.
What I don't like about my ARP VCOs:
1) Only VCO 2 has a PWM input.
2) Only VCO 2 has TRI and SINE outputs.
3) VCO 1 only has SQUARE and SAW outs, and VCO 3 has a SAW out, and a PULSE
out with a PW control.
4) No VCOs have SYNC.
My 3340 VCOs and MOTM 300s are great!
John B.
In a message dated 9/4/99 1:47:29 PM, synth1@... writes:Show quoted textHide quoted text
>1) How about a Tri/Pulse VCO? This is a different circuit as a Saw/Pulse, >but still easy to do in a small form-factor. >2) Dave: How about a VCO Roundup of your gear? Compare/likes/dislikes
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-05 by J. Larry Hendry
> From: JWBarlow@... > > Like Mark, I also prefer triangle to saw for LF and audio modulation (my next > preference would be for sine), part of my reason for suggesting it. But I do > think (again like Mark) that saw waves are very useful as audio sources, but > can't they also be used as clock or sync sources given the instantaneous rise > leads the falling ramp? I'm not sure why a pulse wave output (with a PW > control but no PWM input) is preferable to a square wave out -- is the PW > control alone that useful? YES, in my opinion. I think the extremes ends of the PW (well not the total end, duh..) are some of the best suited waveforms for that hollow synth lead sound. Larry H.