MOTM

Here's my take on 300 vs. 310 VCOs.

Find a way to try both. Depending on the room you have in your system 
to devote to VCOs, I'd start with one or more 300s. The extra 
triangle and sine outputs are invaluable, not to mention linear FM 
and sync inputs. You really have a much wider tonal palette to 
synthesize from.

Once you have a couple of 300s, the 310s are great for getting a lot 
of bang for the panel space buck. They have a nifty variable saw to 
pulse output that the 300 doesn't.

Moe
http://www.hotrodmotm.com

On Thursday 08 January 2004 16:50, mate_stubb wrote:
> Here's my take on 300 vs. 310 VCOs.
>
> Find a way to try both. Depending on the room you have in
> your system to devote to VCOs, I'd start with one or more
> 300s. The extra triangle and sine outputs are invaluable,
> not to mention linear FM and sync inputs. You really have
> a much wider tonal palette to synthesize from.

But do the 310's pulse and saw outputs sound identical to 
the 300? Or is the 300 about 1U fatter in that respect? ;)


> Once you have a couple of 300s, the 310s are great for
> getting a lot of bang for the panel space buck. They have
> a nifty variable saw to pulse output that the 300
> doesn't.

Is there a patch available to have the 310's Shape CV 
controlled? I guess the PWM input doesn't change the shape, 
right?

- Robert

>
> > Once you have a couple of 300s, the 310s are great for
> > getting a lot of bang for the panel space buck. They have
> > a nifty variable saw to pulse output that the 300
> > doesn't.
>
> Is there a patch available to have the 310's Shape CV
> controlled? I guess the PWM input doesn't change the shape,
> right?
>
And expanding on Robert's question, I haven't been able to figure out if
the PWM cv 'always' effects the pulse width or just effects the pulse
width when the shape pot is nearly all the way to the right (for pulse
only).  Any comments?  Maybe it is just that the PWM effect is less
discernable the more the saw waveshape contributes to the overall
waveshape?
Jeff

Another thing to be aware of is that 310s tie up another module when
doing PW stuff since they don't have a PW knob of their own.

Also, for LFO-driven PWM, you normally need an attenuator somewhere
since otherwise the LFO will take the 310 out of the useful range of
PW (eg. it'll go silent periodically.  Fine when you want that, but
mostly you don't).

My advice would be to go for at least a couple of 300s before getting
any 310s. I slightly regret getting any 310s at all (I have two of
each type), but for people with larger (or mobile) rigs, I can see the
space-saving advantage.

Harry

The PWM input always effects the Pulse, even if the SHAPE is all the way over to
SAW.

The SHAPE is just a simple passive fader between the 2 waves/

Paul S>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Pontius" <jpont@...>
To: "Robert van der Kamp" <robnet@...>
Cc: <motm@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] 300 versus 310


> >
> > > Once you have a couple of 300s, the 310s are great for
> > > getting a lot of bang for the panel space buck. They have
> > > a nifty variable saw to pulse output that the 300
> > > doesn't.
> >
> > Is there a patch available to have the 310's Shape CV
> > controlled? I guess the PWM input doesn't change the shape,
> > right?
> >
> And expanding on Robert's question, I haven't been able to figure out if
> the PWM cv 'always' effects the pulse width or just effects the pulse
> width when the shape pot is nearly all the way to the right (for pulse
> only).  Any comments?  Maybe it is just that the PWM effect is less
> discernable the more the saw waveshape contributes to the overall
> waveshape?
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

On Thursday 08 January 2004 18:24, cormallen wrote:
> Another thing to be aware of is that 310s tie up another
> module when doing PW stuff since they don't have a PW
> knob of their own.
>
> Also, for LFO-driven PWM, you normally need an attenuator
> somewhere since otherwise the LFO will take the 310 out
> of the useful range of PW (eg. it'll go silent
> periodically.  Fine when you want that, but mostly you
> don't).

Both good points.

>
> My advice would be to go for at least a couple of 300s
> before getting any 310s. I slightly regret getting any
> 310s at all (I have two of each type), but for people
> with larger (or mobile) rigs, I can see the space-saving
> advantage.

Understood, thanks.

- Robert

I'd recommend getting either 1 300 and 2 310s or 2 300s and 1 310.
Personally for 3 osc voicings I prefer 2 300s and 1 310.
The extra features in the 300 are definitely worth the extra bucks 
and the extra panel space.