MOTM

If I use the a dual OTA, triange-based VCO, then I can get SAW for a minimal
effort.
So, I'm thinking these lines:

<<the observant will note the panel is the same as the MOTM-800! That's part
of the attraction: I just change silkscreens>>

COARSE
FINE
+/- FM
WAVESHAPE   <<between SQUARE and SAW, this is a fader pot>>

jacks are

1V/Oct     FM
TRI           VAR

I'm thinking this will fit (barely!) on the MOTM-800 "form-factor" pcb.
Still looking like $159 kit, $80
less than a '300.

Even though this VCO has no SYNC, you *can* use it to drive SYNC into a
MOTM-300.
And I'm jealous of Joe Ps. MOTM, too!

Last little thing: hopefully the new end panels will be ready by Friday.
Wait until the
word is out to order.

Paul S.

Yes, Paul.  These are indeed good thoughts.  Although personally, I liked
the original idea of PWM control, that is already available on the 300. 
This shaping between square and saw offers something not available on the
300.  I would be happy to buy these 310s as long as the same great tracking
and stability of the 300 will carry over to this module.  And, thanks for
stating the obvious concerning syncing with a 300 for those of us that may
have forgotten that the audio out of one osc can be used for the sync in of
another.
Larry Hendry

> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> 
> If I use the a dual OTA, triange-based VCO, then
> I can get SAW for a minimal effort.
> So, I'm thinking these lines:
> 
> COARSE
> FINE
> +/- FM
> WAVESHAPE 
> between SQUARE and SAW, this is a fader pot
> 
> jacks are
> 
> 1V/Oct     FM
> TRI           VAR
> 
> I'm thinking this will fit (barely!) on the MOTM-800
> "form-factor" pcb. Still looking like $159 kit, $80
> less than a '300.
> 
> Even though this VCO has no SYNC, you *can*
> use it to drive SYNC into a MOTM-300.

In a message dated 9/5/99 1:51:26 PM, synth1@... writes:
><<the observant will note the panel is the same as the MOTM-800! That's
>part
>of the attraction: I just change silkscreens>>


AH HA! Now I understand!

>I'm thinking this will fit (barely!) on the MOTM-800 "form-factor" pcb.
>Still looking like $159 kit, $80
>less than a '300.

>Even though this VCO has no SYNC, you *can* use it to drive SYNC into a
>MOTM-300.


I'd still like a sync input, but at $159 for a great VCO, who can complain! 
I'm sure I'd be buying some of these as well as the MOTM 300s. 


In a message dated 9/5/99 4:01:34 PM, jlarryh@... writes:
>> 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.

Last night I tried different PW settings (with no PWM) and, without any 
timbre modulation I find I much prefer square waves -- richer, more full 
bodied (can't think of any more coffee metaphors at the moment). So I'm 
wondering if you tend to use one setting such that maybe a switch could give 
you appropriate settings like SQUARE, 70%, and LEAD, or if the pot is really 
worth it -- inquiring minds want to know.

JB

> Last night I tried different PW settings (with no PWM) and, without any 
> timbre modulation I find I much prefer square waves -- richer, more full 
> bodied (can't think of any more coffee metaphors at the moment). So I'm 
> wondering if you tend to use one setting such that maybe a switch could
give 
> you appropriate settings like SQUARE, 70%, and LEAD, or if the pot is
really 
> worth it -- inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> JB

Well, I think the pot is really worth it on the 300 when coupled with PWM
input.  However, with Paul's latest suggestion for a tri and VARiable
output that shapes between a 50% square and saw for the 310, I have pushed
PWM control completely off my wish list.  I think Paul's latest post hit
that last soft spot for having room for 310s in the system.  That shaping
(although limited) that the 300 will not do.  I don't need no stinkin' PWM
knob.  Each voice could have one 310 and still sync up too.  

LH

A pot is easier/as cheap as a switch. So, I'm still gravitating to a
SAW-to-SQUARE
morph pot.

Paul S.

I like that kind of thinking.  :)
LH

----------

> From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
> To: motm@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] More uVCO thoughts
> Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 1:22 PM
> 
> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> 
> A pot is easier/as cheap as a switch. So, I'm still gravitating to a
> SAW-to-SQUARE
> morph pot.
> 
> Paul S.

Hi Larry,

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

JB


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

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

> Hi Larry,
>
> I agree that the 310 waveshaping sounds like a very worth while
> control, and
> as it stands the 310 looks to be a great oscillator and a great
> deal! But I'm
> still kind of interested in how YOU use pulse waves, and how
> precise you are
> in determining a static duty cycle.

Moe butting in here.

Narrow pulses are especially useful for emulating certain sounds, such as
clavinet or harpsichord sounds. They also work as well in a multitracked
dense piece for standing out in the mix without taking a lot of lower
midrange sonic space.

Just another tool in your sonic arsenal.

Eenie Meenie Mienee Moe

First off, let me say I like the direction this VCO is headed--looks better
& better all the time.

One question, though.  Somebody mentioned possibly setting up the 310 as a
dual vco.  How
would this affect the cost relative to having 2 separate single panel units?
I know
that making it dual limits versatility (eg where you put the vcos in your
rack),  but would
there be a significant enough price difference to make it at all worthwhile?

Tomr

No, just buy 2 '310s! :) Zero savings.

Paul S.

-----Original Message-----
From: hodad1@... <hodad1@...>
To: motm@onelist.com <motm@onelist.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] More uVCO thoughts


>From: hodad1@...
>
>First off, let me say I like the direction this VCO is headed--looks better
>& better all the time.
>
>One question, though.  Somebody mentioned possibly setting up the 310 as a
>dual vco.  How
>would this affect the cost relative to having 2 separate single panel
units?
>I know
>that making it dual limits versatility (eg where you put the vcos in your
>rack),  but would
>there be a significant enough price difference to make it at all
worthwhile?

>
>Tomr
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>ONElist:  your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> From: JWBarlow@...
> So Larry, do you always use the same 
> setting for this hollow lead sound?
> JB

Sorry, JB.  I didn't mean to ignore you but needed to do some research in
some of my hollow lead synth sounds.  Actually, my brain was in total fade.
 I find that most patches I have with this type sound use a pulse wave very
close to 50% or just plain square.  However, Dave B did properly indicate
some good uses for narrow pulse waves closer to the 80/20 ratio.  Of
course, I have misplaced his insightful response.  I think Harpsichord type
sounds could be high on that list.

Larry H.

In a message dated 9/14/99 3:56:04 PM, jlarryh@... writes:

>> From: JWBarlow@...
>> So Larry, do you always use the same 
>> setting for this hollow lead sound?
>> JB

>Sorry, JB.  I didn't mean to ignore you but needed to do some research
>in
>some of my hollow lead synth sounds.  Actually, my brain was in total fade.
> I find that most patches I have with this type sound use a pulse wave
>very
>close to 50% or just plain square.  However, Dave B did properly indicate
>some good uses for narrow pulse waves closer to the 80/20 ratio.  Of
>course, I have misplaced his insightful response.  I think Harpsichord
>type
>sounds could be high on that list.

Oh don't worry about it Larry, I'm not waiting for you to respond or 
anything, there's plenty for me to do around the house here between checking 
my e-mail and eating frozen dinners and the like. And there's a lot on TV 
too, so don't worry about me just sitting here all alone -- and cold, and 
feeling a little down. I'll be OK -- really.

But seriously. I think this could be an interesting area of investigation, of 
how this is actually used. Possibly a three position switch would be good 
enough for many applications. I've found myself playing with the pulse width 
when using my Waveshaper and Wave Multiplier stuff, but it might just be too 
many knobs to turn at once to realize your not really changing that much of 
your output.

And Dave's best description for this use was Clavinet sounds -- great idea!
JB