MOTM

all,
  I never thought of it that way, but having one pitch control with a big 
knob does seem advantageous to a coarse/fine setup in that you can sweep the 
full range with just one knob with precision instead of trying to make it 
sound smooth using both knobs..  This is a functional reason behind a big 
knob and Im all for that..   

~Steve M     

  Paul, any audio snippets of the week long patch/Useq from NAMM???

Exactly!

John Loffink
jloffink@... 

>   I never thought of it that way, but having one pitch control with a
big
> knob does seem advantageous to a coarse/fine setup in that you can
sweep
> the
> full range with just one knob with precision instead of trying to make
it
> sound smooth using both knobs..  This is a functional reason behind a
big

> knob and Im all for that..
> 
> ~Steve M
>

I still disagree. Having a honkin big knob doesn't guarantee that the 
pot itself is capable of doing the fine control necessary. Trying to 
move the pot wiper in smaller and smaller increments causes 
mechanical limits to come into play, including backlash, friction on 
the wiper, and shaft wobble. You could find yourself unable to zero 
in on the 'sweet spot'.

Now if you put a multiturn vernier under the knob, I'd agree with 
you. But it would slow you way down doing large manual sweeps. That's 
why coarse and fine are a good idea on both a VCO and a freq shifter.

Moe

--------------------------
Exactly!

John Loffink
jloffink@a... 

> I never thought of it that way, but having one pitch control with a
big
> knob does seem advantageous to a coarse/fine setup in that you can
sweep
> the
> full range with just one knob with precision instead of trying to 
make
it
> sound smooth using both knobs.. This is a functional reason behind a
big
> knob and Im all for that..

You're thinking of this as a set it and forget it type setting, which is
just one mode.  The other is real time sweeps, wide ranging but with
fine control.

John Loffink
jloffink@... 

> 
> 
> I still disagree. Having a honkin big knob doesn't guarantee that the
> pot itself is capable of doing the fine control necessary. Trying to
> move the pot wiper in smaller and smaller increments causes
> mechanical limits to come into play, including backlash, friction on
> the wiper, and shaft wobble. You could find yourself unable to zero
> in on the 'sweet spot'.
> 
> Now if you put a multiturn vernier under the knob, I'd agree with
> you. But it would slow you way down doing large manual sweeps. That's
> why coarse and fine are a good idea on both a VCO and a freq shifter.
> 
> Moe
> 
> --------------------------
> Exactly!
> 
> John Loffink
> jloffink@a...
> 
> > I never thought of it that way, but having one pitch control with a
> big
> > knob does seem advantageous to a coarse/fine setup in that you can
> sweep
> > the
> > full range with just one knob with precision instead of trying to
> make
> it
> > sound smooth using both knobs.. This is a functional reason behind a
> big
> > knob and Im all for that..
>

Not to forget, my suggestion of a normal MOTM sized coarse tune knob and
an oversized fine tune with a wider than normal range seems to meet both
requests.

John Loffink
jloffink@... 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Loffink [mailto:jloffink@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:41 AM
> To: mate_stubb@...; motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] Re: freq shifter knob
> 
> You're thinking of this as a set it and forget it type setting, which
is
> just one mode.  The other is real time sweeps, wide ranging but with
> fine control.
> 
> John Loffink
> jloffink@...
> 
> >
> >
> > I still disagree. Having a honkin big knob doesn't guarantee that
the
> > pot itself is capable of doing the fine control necessary. Trying to
> > move the pot wiper in smaller and smaller increments causes
> > mechanical limits to come into play, including backlash, friction on
> > the wiper, and shaft wobble. You could find yourself unable to zero
> > in on the 'sweet spot'.
> >
> > Now if you put a multiturn vernier under the knob, I'd agree with
> > you. But it would slow you way down doing large manual sweeps.
That's
> > why coarse and fine are a good idea on both a VCO and a freq
shifter.
> >
> > Moe
> >
> > --------------------------
> > Exactly!
> >
> > John Loffink
> > jloffink@a...
> >
> > > I never thought of it that way, but having one pitch control with
a
> > big
> > > knob does seem advantageous to a coarse/fine setup in that you can
> > sweep
> > > the
> > > full range with just one knob with precision instead of trying to
> > make
> > it
> > > sound smooth using both knobs.. This is a functional reason behind
a
> > big
> > > knob and Im all for that..
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

John Loffink writes:
>>You're thinking of this as a set it and forget it type setting, which is
just one mode.  The other is real time sweeps, wide ranging but with fine 
control.<<

This knob size issue never seems to end.  I'm not sure why a frequency shifter 
needs more precision in adjustment or use than all the other modules in a 
synth, especially the osc.  If the damn Bode didn't have a huge knob, nobody 
would have ever thought they needed one too.

As for real-time sweeps but with fine control, that sounds contradictory.

-Elhardt

Why do I get the distinct feeling that everyone who doesn't need the
huge knob has never used a frequency shifter?  Is this just my
imagination?

John Loffink
jloffink@... 

> John Loffink writes:
> >>You're thinking of this as a set it and forget it type setting,
which is
> just one mode.  The other is real time sweeps, wide ranging but with
fine
> control.<<
> 
> This knob size issue never seems to end.  I'm not sure why a frequency
> shifter
> needs more precision in adjustment or use than all the other modules
in a
> synth, especially the osc.  If the damn Bode didn't have a huge knob,
> nobody
> would have ever thought they needed one too.
> 
> As for real-time sweeps but with fine control, that sounds
contradictory.

> 
> -Elhardt
>

This is an interesting point.  At what diameter knob does the fine
resolution become limited by the potentiometer characteristics rather
than the knob size?  I know for certain that it is easier to dial in
sequencer control voltages on my Synthesizers.com sequencers than on a
Serge sequencer.  That's roughly a 2X size difference.  If we go another
2X, does this knob size advantage suddenly become moot?

John Loffink
jloffink@... 

> I still disagree. Having a honkin big knob doesn't guarantee that the
> pot itself is capable of doing the fine control necessary. Trying to
> move the pot wiper in smaller and smaller increments causes
> mechanical limits to come into play, including backlash, friction on
> the wiper, and shaft wobble. You could find yourself unable to zero
> in on the 'sweet spot'.
> 
> Now if you put a multiturn vernier under the knob, I'd agree with
> you. But it would slow you way down doing large manual sweeps. That's
> why coarse and fine are a good idea on both a VCO and a freq shifter.
> 
> Moe
>

John Loffink writes:
>>Why do I get the distinct feeling that everyone who doesn't need the huge 
knob has never used a frequency shifter?  Is this just my imagination?<<

I don't know.  I have a Doepfer freq shifter.  It only has a single small knob 
for frequency, so to me a full sized motm knob + fine tune knob will allow 
plenty of room for accuracy when needed, or for fast real-time usage when 
needed, without a single ugly huge knob that constantly draws the eye to the 
freq shifter module over the synth itself.  But if it were designed with enough 
room and long enough tick marks, then people could pop on whatever size knob 
they want.  Then everybody can be happy.

-Elhardt

The doepfer FS doesn't really have a fine tuning range.  Its lower limit
is 50 Hz.  That makes a usage comparison to a unit that gets down near 0
Hz difficult.  

John Loffink
jloffink@... 

> I don't know.  I have a Doepfer freq shifter.  It only has a single
small
> knob
> for frequency, so to me a full sized motm knob + fine tune knob will
allow
> plenty of room for accuracy when needed, or for fast real-time usage
when
> needed, without a single ugly huge knob that constantly draws the eye
to
> the
> freq shifter module over the synth itself.  But if it were designed
with
> enough
> room and long enough tick marks, then people could pop on whatever
size

> knob
> they want.  Then everybody can be happy.
> 
> -Elhardt
>

I think the reason this knob size issue is seemingly endless is because there
are so many opinions - ALL of which are valid - and Tony graciously has
elicited them.  It is also apparent that the human-synth interface is seen as
very important and is something everyone on this list has some experience in,
and therefore opinions on.  Oh, and we have this sea of 1" knobs just screaming
for a 2" one to set things apart. :)

I (unfortunately) have never had the opportunity to fiddle with one of the
"classic" frequency shifters, although I have played with some stomp boxes that
did some similar things.  The only thing I can say from this experience is that
little knobs suck.  But seriously, I can see a very good reason for a single
large knob, as long as it is attached to a TOP quality pot, that would allow
both somewhat-accurate small motions as well as the larger wide sweeps.  I
think having a fine/coarse setup would be more "clunky" in this regard, but
that is just my naive opinion.

So why is it that many of the "classic" frequency shifters that I have seen
have the "single large knob" setup?  (or more likely I just haven't seen that
many!)  Maybe those of you on the list that have used a freq shifter with a
single knob could share your opinions with the rest of us.

George

(don't you love these wacky threads about the size of a knob??)

----- Original Message -----
From: <elhardt@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:33 PM
Subject: RE: [motm] Re: freq shifter knob


> John Loffink writes:
> >>You're thinking of this as a set it and forget it type setting, which is
> just one mode.  The other is real time sweeps, wide ranging but with fine
> control.<<
>
> This knob size issue never seems to end.  I'm not sure why a frequency
shifter

> needs more precision in adjustment or use than all the other modules in a
> synth, especially the osc.  If the damn Bode didn't have a huge knob, nobody
> would have ever thought they needed one too.
>
> As for real-time sweeps but with fine control, that sounds contradictory.
>
> -Elhardt

I wonder how much a big knob will move if you blow on it?

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, <groovyshaman@s...> wrote:
> I think the reason this knob size issue is seemingly endless is 
because there
> are so many opinions - ALL of which are valid - and Tony 
graciously has
> elicited them.  It is also apparent that the human-synth interface 
is seen as
> very important and is something everyone on this list has some 
experience in,
> and therefore opinions on.  Oh, and we have this sea of 1" knobs 
just screaming
> for a 2" one to set things apart. :)
> 
> I (unfortunately) have never had the opportunity to fiddle with 
one of the
> "classic" frequency shifters, although I have played with some 
stomp boxes that
> did some similar things.  The only thing I can say from this 
experience is that
> little knobs suck.  But seriously, I can see a very good reason 
for a single
> large knob, as long as it is attached to a TOP quality pot, that 
would allow
> both somewhat-accurate small motions as well as the larger wide 
sweeps.  I
> think having a fine/coarse setup would be more "clunky" in this 
regard, but
> that is just my naive opinion.
> 
> So why is it that many of the "classic" frequency shifters that I 
have seen
> have the "single large knob" setup?  (or more likely I just 
haven't seen that
> many!)  Maybe those of you on the list that have used a freq 
shifter with a
> single knob could share your opinions with the rest of us.
> 
> George
> 
> (don't you love these wacky threads about the size of a knob??)
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <elhardt@a...>
> To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:33 PM
> Subject: RE: [motm] Re: freq shifter knob
> 
> 
> > John Loffink writes:
> > >>You're thinking of this as a set it and forget it type 
setting, which is
> > just one mode.  The other is real time sweeps, wide ranging but 
with fine
> > control.<<
> >
> > This knob size issue never seems to end.  I'm not sure why a 
frequency
> shifter
> > needs more precision in adjustment or use than all the other 
modules in a
> > synth, especially the osc.  If the damn Bode didn't have a huge 
knob, nobody
> > would have ever thought they needed one too.
> >
> > As for real-time sweeps but with fine control, that sounds 
contradictory.
> >
> > -Elhardt

> I wonder how much a big knob will move if you blow on it?
>
> Mike
>

Ok, I read the jokey responses.  But was anyone here ever a ham radio
operator?  Now *there* is a need for coarse/fine frequency tuning.  Mike's
comment reminded me of a knob I became intimate with, many years ago.  No
one mentioned the big tuning knobs used on some of the old radio receivers.
I actually owned one of these:

http://www.qsl.net/ab0cw/nc303.htm

Now there's a big knob!  Next to that huge wheel, low, and to the side
perches a fine tuning knob about 3/8 inch in diameter.  This little machined
knob had a flange for your fingertips, and was merely a gear that engaged
the big wheel to give fine, smooth movement with plenty of control.  A
mechanical engineer's handiwork!  The little knob snapped in for traction
when in use (as well as to keep the big one from moving when you blew on it
;-), and snapped out when you wanted to sweep.  You got the best of both
worlds: a big wheel for smooth, large sweeps, plus the ability to do really
fine tuning.  Admittedly the application is different.  Sweeping a radio
knob is usually to get to another spot quickly, whereas when sweeping a VCO
or frequency shifter, it's the journey that's more important.  (The radio
knob was hooked to a variable capacitor.  How many of you even know what one
of those looked like?  Three-ganged monsters.  That sort of capacitor no
doubt has a finer resolution than an ordinary potentiometer.  The resolution
of a pot attached to such a knob would have to be considered.  Most
fine-resolution pots are multi-turn, which would seem to defeat the sweeping
ablility.)

Such a specialized knob would be expensive or hard to get, I expect.  But it
might find application to synthesizers.

Ok, resume the debate.  This was sort of a side comment.

-Richard Brewster

I really, truly should have known better.  But I promise it was not 
intended as a mean-spirited joke.

I love the uniformity of the MOTM, knob-wise and jack-wise.  But I 
also really dig Jurgen's newest synth with that Vernier (sp?) knob.

And full disclosure: the closest I've been to frequency shifter to 
the best of my knowledge if the MOTM 110 ring modulator.

So sorry about the post, I'l behave from now on.

Mike

PS - The Brits in the crowd must really be getting a laugh regarding 
all this BIG KNOB business.

Oops, I did it again...

m

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Brewster" <pugix@n...> wrote:
> > I wonder how much a big knob will move if you blow on it?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> 
> Ok, I read the jokey responses.  But was anyone here ever a ham 
radio
> operator?  Now *there* is a need for coarse/fine frequency 
tuning.  Mike's
> comment reminded me of a knob I became intimate with, many years 
ago.  No
> one mentioned the big tuning knobs used on some of the old radio 
receivers.
> I actually owned one of these:
> 
> http://www.qsl.net/ab0cw/nc303.htm
> 
> Now there's a big knob!  Next to that huge wheel, low, and to the 
side
> perches a fine tuning knob about 3/8 inch in diameter.  This 
little machined
> knob had a flange for your fingertips, and was merely a gear that 
engaged
> the big wheel to give fine, smooth movement with plenty of 
control.  A
> mechanical engineer's handiwork!  The little knob snapped in for 
traction
> when in use (as well as to keep the big one from moving when you 
blew on it
> ;-), and snapped out when you wanted to sweep.  You got the best 
of both
> worlds: a big wheel for smooth, large sweeps, plus the ability to 
do really
> fine tuning.  Admittedly the application is different.  Sweeping a 
radio
> knob is usually to get to another spot quickly, whereas when 
sweeping a VCO
> or frequency shifter, it's the journey that's more important.  
(The radio
> knob was hooked to a variable capacitor.  How many of you even 
know what one
> of those looked like?  Three-ganged monsters.  That sort of 
capacitor no
> doubt has a finer resolution than an ordinary potentiometer.  The 
resolution
> of a pot attached to such a knob would have to be considered.  Most
> fine-resolution pots are multi-turn, which would seem to defeat 
the sweeping
> ablility.)
> 
> Such a specialized knob would be expensive or hard to get, I 
expect.  But it

> might find application to synthesizers.
> 
> Ok, resume the debate.  This was sort of a side comment.
> 
> -Richard Brewster

At the risk of beating a long dead horse:
If the frequency shifter is to be in part digital, I assume it would 
include a PIC.  The potentiometer could be replaced by an encoder 
and the PIC could be programmed to interpret the encoder as a coarse 
control when turned quickly and a fine control when turned slowly.  
There could even be several scalings all based on the angular 
velocity of the knob.  The one large knob could be both the coarse 
and fine control.  
I have no idea of what this could do to the cost, but possibly you 
wouldn't need an encoder and could do the same thing with a pot.

I friend of mine used to run sound for a band I was in.  We used to 
feel sorry for him because the band members got the girls and all he 
got to do was pack up equipment, so we always told the girls he 
wanted a knob job.  Okay, Okay, I know.  But I'm just continuing the 
thread.

Interesting idea this. We'd need some kind of additional display to 
indicate the dialed in frequency shift. At least _I_ would need this 
in order to annotate a patch. Tony, are you rolling your eyes at all 
this?

At 3:47 PM +0000 2003/01/25, paulhaneberg <phaneber@...> wrote:

>At the risk of beating a long dead horse:
>If the frequency shifter is to be in part digital, I assume it would
>include a PIC.  The potentiometer could be replaced by an encoder
>and the PIC could be programmed to interpret the encoder as a coarse
>control when turned quickly and a fine control when turned slowly. 
>There could even be several scalings all based on the angular
>velocity of the knob.  The one large knob could be both the coarse
>and fine control. 
>I have no idea of what this could do to the cost, but possibly you
>wouldn't need an encoder and could do the same thing with a pot.

>Tony, are you rolling your eyes at all this?

Heh heh, sort of.

Actually I think it's a pretty cool idea, but it will entail more delay
and more cost. I don't know if enough people think it would be worth
that. And you're right, you would need some sort of display to know
where the value is set.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Juskiw [mailto:scott@...] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 1:30 PM
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [motm] Re: freq shifter knob
> 
> 
> Interesting idea this. We'd need some kind of additional display to 
> indicate the dialed in frequency shift. At least _I_ would need this 
> in order to annotate a patch. Tony, are you rolling your eyes at all 
> this?
> 
> At 3:47 PM +0000 2003/01/25, paulhaneberg <phaneber@...> wrote:
> >At the risk of beating a long dead horse:
> >If the frequency shifter is to be in part digital, I assume it would 
> >include a PIC.  The potentiometer could be replaced by an 
> encoder and 
> >the PIC could be programmed to interpret the encoder as a coarse 
> >control when turned quickly and a fine control when turned slowly. 
> >There could even be several scalings all based on the 
> angular velocity 
> >of the knob.  The one large knob could be both the coarse and fine 
> >control. I have no idea of what this could do to the cost, 
> but possibly 
> >you wouldn't need an encoder and could do the same thing with a pot.
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>