MOTM

I like the idea of an ASR module. What about the idea of adding a very
simple clock circuit; that way you can get a knob on there and use it to
anchor the bracket? :) 

-----Original Message-----
From: media.nai@... [mailto:media.nai@...] 
Sent: Thursday, 01 May, 2003 12:45 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] Dual CGS ADSR Stooge Panel

I'm planning on mounting two CatGirlSynth Analogue Shift Registers
behind on 1U Stooge panel.  I'm thinking ten jacks: two inputs, two
clock inputs, and six outputs (the inputs could easily be jack
normalled) like this:

IN  OUT1
     OUT2
CLK OUT3

1N  OUT1
     OUT2
CLK OUT3

How does that sound??  I figure if we all agree, we can order a bunch
of them together.  A space for an LED could be placed between the IN
and CLK inputs, and "masked off" for anyone who doesn't want to add
an LED.

Check out:

http://www.cgs.synth.net/modules/cgs34_asr.html

Notice that the proposed Stooge panel uses two CGS PCB's.

Now, afaik, Stooge Heavy Industries does not offer a bracket for
knobless modules, but maybe if enough of us are interested they could
design one??  It would be perfect for logic modules, breakout panels,
gate sequencers, etc.  Moe??  Larry??

With a panel and bracket it should be very easy to build.

Ken's circuit suggests an LF356 (a single JFET op-amp in an 8-pin
DIP) for the sample & hold circuits, but All ELectronics has LF355's
for $.45 each:

http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?category=285&item=LF355N&
type=store

Check out:
http://www.national.com/pf/LF/LF355.html


While Ken's circuit uses a TL074 for input/output buffers, I'm
planning on using LT1014 (a quad LT1013) for more accurate CV
handling.  While a 4052 should work fine, I'm considering a pin for
pin replacement with better specs.  Any suggestions??



 

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

At 1:53 PM -0400 5/1/03, Tkacs, Ken wrote:
>
>I like the idea of an ASR module. What about the idea of adding a very
>simple clock circuit; that way you can get a knob on there and use it to
>anchor the bracket? :)

That's a creative solution :)  It would require another PCB, and I
don't think one knob is enough to anchor a bracket.

Anyway, I think a "Larry bracket" for knobless modules would be an
excellent product.  Think about it -- quality pots are expensive and
very difficult to buy.  Yet there are all sorts simple, useful and
inexpensive DIY modules, such as logic functions, pulse dividers,
gate sequencers, waveshapers, breakout panels, etc. that do not use
pots.

Btw, I received a number of private emails saying they would want the
Stooge panel and bracket for the CGS ASR.

Question:  Can a "Larry bracket" be attached to a "Stooge panel" by a Switchcraft 112 jack?  Is the jack strong enough to hold it securely, and will the "holes line up"?

-Chris-

-----Original Message-----
From: media.nai@rcn.com [mailto:media.nai@...]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 9:23 AM
To: Tkacs, Ken; MOTM Forum All
Subject: Re: FW: [motm] Dual CGS ASR Stooge Panel


At 1:53 PM -0400 5/1/03, Tkacs, Ken wrote:
>
>I like the idea of an ASR module. What about the idea of adding a very
>simple clock circuit; that way you can get a knob on there and use it to
>anchor the bracket? :)

That's a creative solution :)  It would require another PCB, and I
don't think one knob is enough to anchor a bracket.

Anyway, I think a "Larry bracket" for knobless modules would be an
excellent product.  Think about it -- quality pots are expensive and
very difficult to buy.  Yet there are all sorts simple, useful and
inexpensive DIY modules, such as logic functions, pulse dividers,
gate sequencers, waveshapers, breakout panels, etc. that do not use
pots.

Btw, I received a number of private emails saying they would want the
Stooge panel and bracket for the CGS ASR.



 

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

At 9:42 AM -0500 5/2/03, Chris Parker wrote:
>
>Question:  Can a "Larry bracket" be attached to a "Stooge panel" by 
>a Switchcraft 112 jack?  Is the jack strong enough to hold it 
>securely, and will the "holes line up"?

A regular "Larry bracket" would not attach to a "Stooge panel" by 
"Switchcraft 112" jacks -- the holes would "not" line up.

However, a similar L-shaped piece of sheet metal with holes sized and 
spaced specifically for jacks should work fine, and you can quote me 
on that :)

One could even make a universal U-shaped bracket with jack holes on 
one end and knob holes on the other...

Isn't one of the '500 series modules going to perform full-on ASR functions? 
If so, I am surprised this is being discussed here.  I may be TOTALLY wrong
though, so....

Paul?  Anyone?

Cheers!
Shemp

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

So far, about dozen people expressed interest in this module.
Surprisingly, it seems that everyone agreed with my proposed panel
layout, so I will go ahead and pass it along to Moe.

A mounting bracket is in the works, and is being addressed in a
parallel thread on this list.

Someone asked if I was putting together kits, but I don't see the
point.  This module uses readily available parts, and buying the
PCB's and panels directly from Ken and Stooge Inc. seems easy enough.

Now, if enough people tell me that they want kits, I'll do it.  In
any event, I will put together a parts list and post it to the list.

I'm still open to IC suggestions to maximize tuning precision.  We need:

1) Single-packaged very high-impedance op-amp for the sample & hold.
Ken used LF356, and suggests a CA3140 which has an input impedance of
1.5T!!  The problem is that Digikey and Mouser do not stock CA3140.
Jameco and JDR sell them, but then shipping gets expensive.

2) A pin-for-pin replacement or best version of 4052 mux.  We want
channel matching and low RON.

3) A quad-package op-amp as an input/output buffer.  Ken uses a
TL074.  An LT1014 is the quad version of the dual op-amp MOTM
typically uses for DC precision (1013), but the 1014 is not
particularly good at handling capacitive loads (such as patch cables)
without additional circuitry that the CGS PCB does not provide.
However, there are op-amps with built-in capacitive-load handling.  I
just haven't had the time to look.

>Isn't one of the '500 series modules going to perform full-on ASR functions?
>If so, I am surprised this is being discussed here.  I may be TOTALLY wrong
>though, so....

Huh??  I'm all for supporting MOTM, but please, let's be realistic.
Paul S. said something about the Rhythm Wheel, but I have no idea
what it does, or whether or not it could replace a dual ASR.  Nor is
there anything about it on the website.  So a better question might
be, by the time they ship, will our gorilla overseers will allow us
to keep them??

The CGS ASR is an inexpensive DIY module.  A dual unit costs less
than $100 to build.  I severely doubt that could have any effect
whatsoever on the sale of an expensive digital module that might be
available sometime next year.

At 12:00 AM -0400 5/5/03, media.nai@... wrote:
>
>1) Single-packaged very high-impedance op-amp for the sample & hold.
>Ken used LF356, and suggests a CA3140 which has an input impedance of
>1.5T!!  The problem is that Digikey and Mouser do not stock CA3140.
>Jameco and JDR sell them, but then shipping gets expensive.

Doh!!  Mouser does stock the CA3140.

http://www.mouser.com//index.cfm?handler=displayproduct&&lstdispproductid=286733


Still looking for an improved 4052....

Does anyone sell cable by the foot??  I need shielded multiconductor 
for a DB-15, and snake cable for CV/Gate.  Both are for a Kenton 
Pro-4 panel.   I do not want to invest in a 100' spools as I only 
need a few feet of each.

Is there any way to lengthen the maximum time or shorten the minimum
time of the MOTM-800??  I'm thinking decreasing the value of C9 (a
3M3 bipolar) would make the envelopes faster, and increasing C9 would
make them slower.  Has anyone tried this??

If I remember correctly, Paul S. said something about this a while
back, but I looked and couldn't find it.

Well, the faster/slower times apply to BOTH extremes.

Increasing C9 allows longer Releases, but the minimum Attack is proportionally  *longer*.

I found that 6.8uf seemed to be the ideal value, but couldn't find any low-leakage non-polars in
the correct voltage (needs to be 25V or better).

I have several folks that have "stock" 3.3uf caps in 2 EGs and 10uf in 2 other ones for like 25
sec. Releases. But the price you pay is a very narrow panel control range for "snappy" Attacks.

The other solution: use a MOTM-820 as an AR envelope. You can get 'snappy' Attack (defined as
<1ms) and Release times approaching 1 *minute*.

Paul S.



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

From: <media.nai@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:19 PM
Subject: [motm] 800 time


>
> Is there any way to lengthen the maximum time or shorten the minimum
> time of the MOTM-800??  I'm thinking decreasing the value of C9 (a
> 3M3 bipolar) would make the envelopes faster, and increasing C9 would
> make them slower.  Has anyone tried this??
>
> If I remember correctly, Paul S. said something about this a while
> back, but I looked and couldn't find it.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

At 3:45 PM -0500 5/13/03, Paul Schreiber wrote:
>Well, the faster/slower times apply to BOTH extremes.
>
>Increasing C9 allows longer Releases, but the minimum Attack is
>proportionally  *longer*.

Yes, it would take longer to both charge and to discharge with a larger
value.  I was thinking of two "modified" versions:  one with a smaller
value for extra snappy short percussive envelopes with a finer attack
control, and another with a larger value for long fades and sweeps.

>I found that 6.8uf seemed to be the ideal value, but couldn't find
>any low-leakage non-polars in the correct voltage (needs to be 25V
>or better).

What sort ofleakage specs does it require??  Digikey lists three
different Xicon radial 6.8uF 50V non-polar and bi-polar caps in their
catalog on page 265.

Also, is there a difference between non-polar and bi-polar??  The
parts list says bi-polar and "B.P." is printed on the cap.  The
schematic says "NP" and you are calling it non-polar here.

>I have several folks that have "stock" 3.3uf caps in 2 EGs and 10uf
>in 2 other ones for like 25 sec. Releases. But the price you pay is
>a very narrow panel control range for "snappy" Attacks.

Perhaps these people should speak up and say which part they used!!

I was planning on adding a 3 position toggle to my 800s, allowing 
for three caps to be selected.  The middle range would use the 
3.3uf.  I was going to use a 10uf for the long range.  I hadn't 
selected a cap for the short range yet.  I was thinking about a 1uf, 
but I may go a little smaller depending on how fast I want to get.  
I will probably get some stooge panels made for my 800s as I am 
thinking of adding some other mods as well.  I'm playing with a 
design for a voltage controlled trigger/gate delay and also with the 
idea of enabling the 800 to retrigger itself so that it would act as 
sort of a LFO.  I have not decided how much of this to incorporate 
into a modified 800.  I may just make stand alone addons.
BTW, I was planning on replacing C9 with the smallest cap and then 
adding the other caps in parallel when the toggle is switched.  That 
way I could use a three position center off toggle, but I'm unsure 
whether this will create a leakage problem.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, media.nai@r... wrote:
> At 3:45 PM -0500 5/13/03, Paul Schreiber wrote:
> >Well, the faster/slower times apply to BOTH extremes.
> >
> >Increasing C9 allows longer Releases, but the minimum Attack is
> >proportionally  *longer*.
> 
> Yes, it would take longer to both charge and to discharge with a 
larger
> value.  I was thinking of two "modified" versions:  one with a 
smaller
> value for extra snappy short percussive envelopes with a finer 
attack
> control, and another with a larger value for long fades and sweeps.
> 
> >I found that 6.8uf seemed to be the ideal value, but couldn't find
> >any low-leakage non-polars in the correct voltage (needs to be 25V
> >or better).
> 
> What sort ofleakage specs does it require??  Digikey lists three
> different Xicon radial 6.8uF 50V non-polar and bi-polar caps in 
their
> catalog on page 265.
> 
> Also, is there a difference between non-polar and bi-polar??  The
> parts list says bi-polar and "B.P." is printed on the cap.  The
> schematic says "NP" and you are calling it non-polar here.
> 
> >I have several folks that have "stock" 3.3uf caps in 2 EGs and 
10uf
> >in 2 other ones for like 25 sec. Releases. But the price you pay 
is

> >a very narrow panel control range for "snappy" Attacks.
> 
> Perhaps these people should speak up and say which part they used!!

At 2:39 PM +0000 5/14/03, paulhaneberg wrote:
>
>I was planning on adding a 3 position toggle to my 800s, allowing
>for three caps to be selected.

It fits on a 190, so that sounds like it would work.

>The middle range would use the
>3.3uf.  I was going to use a 10uf for the long range.  I hadn't
>selected a cap for the short range yet.  I was thinking about a 1uf,
>but I may go a little smaller depending on how fast I want to get.

I was thinking of building three versions (I have one 800 built, two kits
arrived last week, and two more are on backorder) making three stock,
one extra fast, and one extra slow.  Since I am also adding Moe's LED
mod, my plan is to use three different colors to tell them apart.

I'm thinking of keeping 3.3uF as the stock value (even though Paul S.
says 6M8 is "ideal"), using 1uF for snappy, and 22uF for extra long
sweeps and fades.

Then again I'm just guessing.  Based on reported results, 3M3 is 14
seconds and 10M is 25 seconds.  So I'm thinking 1M would be be a
maximum of about 7 seconds, (which is still pretty long) and 22M
would be about 35 seconds.

>  I will probably get some stooge panels made for my 800s as I am
>thinking of adding some other mods as well.  I'm playing with a
>design for a voltage controlled trigger/gate delay and also with the
>idea of enabling the 800 to retrigger itself so that it would act as
>sort of a LFO.  I have not decided how much of this to incorporate
>into a modified 800.  I may just make stand alone addons.

Imho, stand-alone addons would be more flexible and less invasive.

>BTW, I was planning on replacing C9 with the smallest cap and then
>adding the other caps in parallel when the toggle is switched.  That
>way I could use a three position center off toggle, but I'm unsure
>whether this will create a leakage problem.

How would that create a leakage problem??  Have you found source and
part number for low-leakage non-polar radial caps??  So far it is
between the Panasonic SU and the Xicon NPRL.   Any idea which part
the 800 uses for 3.3uf??  I can't tell from the markings.


At 9:25 PM -0400 5/13/03, media.nai@... wrote:
>Digikey lists three different Xicon radial 6.8uF 50V non-polar and
>bi-polar caps in their catalog on page 265.

Doh!!  That should be Mouser instead of Digikey.  It's on page 265 of
Mouser catlaog 612.   Digikey lists the Panasonic SU.

Just curious:

Do people really need more snappy attack times than the stock 800 
offers? I find that I have to back the attack time off to keep from 
popping a VCA, especially if using the exp response of the 190. And 
since I can get a satisfying 'knock' sound when sweeping a filter 
with no attack, no decay, why would you need something faster?

Moe

The 800 uses a Panasonic SU series Bipolar 'Lytic.  The Digikey part 
# is P1198 for 3.3M, P1196 for 1M and P1280 for 10M.
I would have the 1M in circuit at all times.  With the toggle in 
upper position a 3.3M would be in parallel with the 1M for 4.3M.  
With the toggle in lower position a 10M would be in parallel with 
the 1M for 11M.  I might consider trying a 22M just to see what it 
is like.  
I have a Studio Electronics SE-1 which has a quicker attack than the 
MOTM (I think - at least it sounds that way to me).  I really like 
the pop on the attack under some situations.



--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, media.nai@r... wrote:
> At 2:39 PM +0000 5/14/03, paulhaneberg wrote:
> >
> >I was planning on adding a 3 position toggle to my 800s, allowing
> >for three caps to be selected.
> 
> It fits on a 190, so that sounds like it would work.
> 
> >The middle range would use the
> >3.3uf.  I was going to use a 10uf for the long range.  I hadn't
> >selected a cap for the short range yet.  I was thinking about a 
1uf,
> >but I may go a little smaller depending on how fast I want to get.
> 
> I was thinking of building three versions (I have one 800 built, 
two kits
> arrived last week, and two more are on backorder) making three 
stock,
> one extra fast, and one extra slow.  Since I am also adding Moe's 
LED
> mod, my plan is to use three different colors to tell them apart.
> 
> I'm thinking of keeping 3.3uF as the stock value (even though Paul 
S.
> says 6M8 is "ideal"), using 1uF for snappy, and 22uF for extra long
> sweeps and fades.
> 
> Then again I'm just guessing.  Based on reported results, 3M3 is 14
> seconds and 10M is 25 seconds.  So I'm thinking 1M would be be a
> maximum of about 7 seconds, (which is still pretty long) and 22M
> would be about 35 seconds.
> 
> >  I will probably get some stooge panels made for my 800s as I am
> >thinking of adding some other mods as well.  I'm playing with a
> >design for a voltage controlled trigger/gate delay and also with 
the
> >idea of enabling the 800 to retrigger itself so that it would act 
as
> >sort of a LFO.  I have not decided how much of this to incorporate
> >into a modified 800.  I may just make stand alone addons.
> 
> Imho, stand-alone addons would be more flexible and less invasive.
> 
> >BTW, I was planning on replacing C9 with the smallest cap and then
> >adding the other caps in parallel when the toggle is switched.  
That
> >way I could use a three position center off toggle, but I'm unsure
> >whether this will create a leakage problem.
> 
> How would that create a leakage problem??  Have you found source 
and
> part number for low-leakage non-polar radial caps??  So far it is
> between the Panasonic SU and the Xicon NPRL.   Any idea which part
> the 800 uses for 3.3uf??  I can't tell from the markings.
> 
> 
> At 9:25 PM -0400 5/13/03, media.nai@r... wrote:
> >Digikey lists three different Xicon radial 6.8uF 50V non-polar and
> >bi-polar caps in their catalog on page 265.
> 
> Doh!!  That should be Mouser instead of Digikey.  It's on page 265 
of
> Mouser catlaog 612.   Digikey lists the Panasonic SU.

I've been wondering about this myself.  I keep thinking that my VCAs 
are not calibrated correctly because I get pops on fast attacks with 
some patches.  In a few sounds, the pop is OK because it gives 
something like pick attack or click to the timbre.  But with others, 
even most of the time, the pop turns into distortion or some other 
annoyance.  With the 190 in exponential mode, things is plenty fast, 
rise-wise.

I guess I'm missing something here, too.

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@y...> wrote:

> Just curious:
> 
> Do people really need more snappy attack times than the stock 800 
> offers? I find that I have to back the attack time off to keep from 
> popping a VCA, especially if using the exp response of the 190. And 
> since I can get a satisfying 'knock' sound when sweeping a filter 
> with no attack, no decay, why would you need something faster?
> 
> Moe

Add me to this list. I almost always find myself dialing the attack a hair
up from zero to get rid of the click, if it's controlling a VCA (110s in my
case, because I haven't yet received my 190). It's not a problem, really,
but I can't imagine needing a faster attack time out of an 800.

--Adam

> I've been wondering about this myself.  I keep thinking that my VCAs
> are not calibrated correctly because I get pops on fast attacks with
> some patches.  In a few sounds, the pop is OK because it gives
> something like pick attack or click to the timbre.  But with others,
> even most of the time, the pop turns into distortion or some other
> annoyance.  With the 190 in exponential mode, things is plenty fast,
> rise-wise.
> 
> I guess I'm missing something here, too.
> 
> Mike
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@y...> wrote:
>> Just curious:
>> 
>> Do people really need more snappy attack times than the stock 800
>> offers? I find that I have to back the attack time off to keep from
>> popping a VCA, especially if using the exp response of the 190. And
>> since I can get a satisfying 'knock' sound when sweeping a filter
>> with no attack, no decay, why would you need something faster?
>> 
>> Moe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

At 8:40 PM +0000 5/14/03, mate_stubb wrote:
>Just curious:
>
>Do people really need more snappy attack times than the stock 800
>offers? I find that I have to back the attack time off to keep from
>popping a VCA, especially if using the exp response of the 190. And
>since I can get a satisfying 'knock' sound when sweeping a filter
>with no attack, no decay, why would you need something faster?

That's a good question :)

While I think there are times when you want a barn door that is as
close to the rising edge of a square wave as possible, and decreasing
the value of C9 will get you closer to that, it will also give a much
finer knob control within the snappy range.  Like most EG's, 90% of
the attack knob's rotation is useless for percussive sounds.  With a
knob range intended for a more specific purpose, it should be easier
to design fast transients and take advantage of the various VCA's the MOTM
system has to offer.

At 9:23 PM +0000 5/14/03, paulhaneberg wrote:
>The 800 uses a Panasonic SU series Bipolar 'Lytic.  The Digikey part
># is P1198 for 3.3M, P1196 for 1M and P1280 for 10M.

Hmmm.... Paul S. sent me an email stating a leakage current spec much
better than the Panasonic SU, but he said that they were OK to use.

Here is a Xicon cap in the Mouser catalog that might work:
"Non-Polarized Electrolytics"
Leakage current  I=0.02CV=3uA max
50V 6.8uF  10%    140NPRL50V6.8

>I would have the 1M in circuit at all times.  With the toggle in
>upper position a 3.3M would be in parallel with the 1M for 4.3M.
>With the toggle in lower position a 10M would be in parallel with the
>1M for 11M.  I might consider trying a 22M just to see what it is
>like.

Just like you are considering a smaller value than 1uF to make more
of a difference, I'm considering 22uF for the same reason.  I'm also
considering the Xicon 15uF 50V NPRL (which I'm guessing means "Non
Polar Radial Lytic")