MOTM

Thinking of a 1U wide, new noise/S&H module.

Bad news: not a full kit, the pcb would be pre-soldered (teeny SMT parts). Still 
have to wire it up, though :)
Good news: check these features!

a) White/Pink out, digitally generated (Pink is analog filtered).
b) the S&H is a cascaded, 4-channel "shift register" type with *infinite* hold 
time/zero droop (it's 12-bit digitized). There is a switch to either be 'Normal' 
(each int/ext clock samples the Input and passes it to the 4 outputs at once) or 
'Shift' (each clock shifts the previous stage down to the next stage, and In 
always goes to Out #1).

Like I said, not a full kit but a nifty module. And same price as current '101 
kit.

Discuss.

Paul S.

Yay!  I'll take two.  Now to discuss...

Digital noise and digital sampling is perfect.  Great idea.

Not sure of the value of a normal/shift switch.  Why would we want 4 
identical outputs (normal mode)?

I find that a clock polarity switch is very useful to choose whether the 
new sample is acquired on the rising or falling clock.  Center-off and 
you have infinite hold, which is perfect with this digital design.

The internal clock in the MOTM-101 is limited by a small range (it 
doesn't go very slowly), a lack of voltage control, and it is not 
available as an output (important for synchronizing other events to the 
new sample).  For these reasons I tend to use a MOTM-390 LFO to clock 
the 101.  I would like the internal clock to have some of these 
features, especially a larger range and an output jack.  VC would be cool.

This may be asking for a lot, but could it have a scale quantizer?  It 
is digital to begin with.  How much extra would adding a major/minor 
scale be?  How about a 3-position toggle switch:  major/minor/off.

Output correlation.  A nice feature of the Oakley S&H is the output 
"restriction".   It's a classic sample and hold feature that's done by 
mixing some of the output back with the input being sampled.  The more 
of the ouput mixed in, the closer the next sample will be to the current 
value.  With noise input this makes for nice meandering sequences 
without sharp jumps.

Panel thoughts.

2 Pots:  Input Level *or* Correlation, Clock Rate
2 Switches:  Quantizing, Clock Polarity
10 Jacks:  Input, Ext Clock Input, Int Clock VC input, Int Clock Output, 
Out 1, Out 2, Out 3, Out 4, White out, Pink out

Too many jacks!  Eight is all that will fit.  Let's lose the Int Clock 
VC input and the White out.  (Maybe provide a jumper option for the 
noise output to be white or pink.)

Ok, discuss!

-Richard Brewster


Paul Schreiber wrote:

>Thinking of a 1U wide, new noise/S&H module.
>
>Bad news: not a full kit, the pcb would be pre-soldered (teeny SMT parts). Still 
>have to wire it up, though :)
>Good news: check these features!
>
>a) White/Pink out, digitally generated (Pink is analog filtered).
>b) the S&H is a cascaded, 4-channel "shift register" type with *infinite* hold 
>time/zero droop (it's 12-bit digitized). There is a switch to either be 'Normal' 
>(each int/ext clock samples the Input and passes it to the 4 outputs at once) or 
>'Shift' (each clock shifts the previous stage down to the next stage, and In 
>always goes to Out #1).
>
>Like I said, not a full kit but a nifty module. And same price as current '101 
>kit.
>
>Discuss.
>
>Paul S.
>
>  
>

Maybe Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise generation). then you 
can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H features.

Paul S.

Why not make it 2U and include everything?

I'm up for 2.

Paul H.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
To: "Richard Brewster" <pugix@...>
Cc: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?


> Maybe Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise generation). 
> then you
> can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H features.
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I like S/H units and think every modular should have several. 
 
I can see the need for more than one *type* of noise in a modular (ie,  
white, pink, brown, very slow random), but I can't see the need in any modular  for 
more than one noise source.
 
(Am I wrong about this?)
 
So you shouldn't have to waste panel space and money for additional noise  
sources when you really want S/H modules.
 
Maybe an idea would be to make the 102 a much better (higher quality more  
diverse) dual S/H module but keep the 101 in stock for a while. That would  
encourage everyone to buy a 101 first, followed by several 102s.
 
JB
 
In a message dated 12/29/2005 7:21:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
synth1@... writes:

Maybe  Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise generation). then 
you  
can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H  features.

I'd like to see an ASR type module combined with a "SOU" type module
in 2U. If I had to choose between ASR (or DSR I guess), LFO control
feature, and SOU features, the two I would pick would be ASR and SOU.

(SOU = Source of Uncertainty, fancy name for random outputs with more
or less correlation, often clocked.

Moe

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote:

>
> Why not make it 2U and include everything?
> 
> I'm up for 2.
> 
> Paul H.
>

> Maybe Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise generation).
> then you
> can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H features.

That's what I'd vote for. I already have a CGS Digital Noise generator and a
MOTM 101. That seems to be enough noise for me.

--Adam

> b) the S&H is a cascaded, 4-channel "shift register" type with *infinite*
> hold
> time/zero droop (it's 12-bit digitized). 

Is that adequate for digitizing pitch-control voltages?

--Adam

I agree with Richard's suggestion and Paul's.  I have noise, I need  
more S/H!  Would buy 2 S/H immediately.  And an envelope follower.

PLL, BFG

On 29-Dec-05, at 10:20 AM, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> Maybe Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise  
> generation). then you
> can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H features.
>
> Paul S.

You could really do all that!?  Wow.  I don't need more noise sources.

-Richard Brewster

Paul Schreiber wrote:

>Maybe Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise generation). then you 
>can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H features.
>
>Paul S.
>
>
>  
>

I use a Wiard/Blacet Miniwave for quantizing.  It is 8-bit but it works 
fine for 12-note chromatic scales.  That's all we're talking about here 
with the quantizer choices limited to major/minor.  You would need more 
bits for microtonal scales I suppose.  If you're talking about 
non-quantized outputs, it doesn't matter unless your input is already 
quantized, which would not be the usual case.

-Richard Brewster

Adam Schabtach wrote:

>>b) the S&H is a cascaded, 4-channel "shift register" type with *infinite*
>>hold
>>time/zero droop (it's 12-bit digitized). 
>>    
>>
>
>Is that adequate for digitizing pitch-control voltages?
>
>--Adam
>
>  
>

Yes, please absolutely!  This would be killer, just what I was
thinking about with some cool additions...

Yeah!

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
>
> Thinking of a 1U wide, new noise/S&H module.
> 
> Bad news: not a full kit, the pcb would be pre-soldered (teeny SMT
parts). Still 
> have to wire it up, though :)
> Good news: check these features!
> 
> a) White/Pink out, digitally generated (Pink is analog filtered).
> b) the S&H is a cascaded, 4-channel "shift register" type with
*infinite* hold 
> time/zero droop (it's 12-bit digitized). There is a switch to either
be 'Normal' 
> (each int/ext clock samples the Input and passes it to the 4 outputs
at once) or 
> 'Shift' (each clock shifts the previous stage down to the next
stage, and In 
> always goes to Out #1).
> 
> Like I said, not a full kit but a nifty module. And same price as
current '101 

> kit.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> Paul S.
>

>Maybe Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise 
>generation). then you
>can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H features.

I'm very interested in a sophisticated MOTM-quality S&H. I like 
Richard's suggestions, particularly the clock edge selector (I'm 
always having to invert a clock into the 101 because it samples on 
the falling edge). I don't need more noise sources, but I can 
definately use more S&H. 1U preferred. Infinite hold? FABULOUS! This 
has a very high drool factor (slurp).

>There is a switch to either be 'Normal'
>(each int/ext clock samples the Input and passes it to the 4 outputs 
>at once) or
>'Shift' (each clock shifts the previous stage down to the next stage, and In
>always goes to Out #1).

I agree with Richard in that having the same output on all 4 outputs 
at once would not be all that useful (in NORMAL mode), since we can 
do that with a multiple. Would it be possible to get 4 different 
outputs at once on each clock (in NORMAL mode)?

I think the +/- edge triggering is a good function of the switch.

Paul S.

Yes S&H only please.
This is MOTM -> 6 stages with ASR design.
ASR Mode switch:
    position 1 = 1->3->5 and 2->4->6, position 2 = 1->2->3->4->5->6
VC Ring switch:
    logic 1 connects 6->1 (or 5->1 and 6->2) and disconnects inputs, logic 0
is normal
Randomizer pot.
VC LFO rate.
VC output correlation.
Clock polarity switch.
Support clocking at audio rates! :)
I would buy two.

George
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
To: "Richard Brewster" <pugix@...>
Cc: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?


> Maybe Richard's ideas into *just* a S&H module? (no noise generation).
then you

> can fit 2 pots and 8 jacks for the S&H features.
>
> Paul S.

I use microtonal scales, so yes, my input would be pre-quantized. It would
be fun to feed it pitch voltages so you could clock them through to create
canon-like effects.

--Adam
(one of those non-equal-tempered weirdos. Blame Robert Rich--he corrupted
me.)

> I use a Wiard/Blacet Miniwave for quantizing.  It is 8-bit but it works
> fine for 12-note chromatic scales.  That's all we're talking about here
> with the quantizer choices limited to major/minor.  You would need more
> bits for microtonal scales I suppose.  If you're talking about
> non-quantized outputs, it doesn't matter unless your input is already
> quantized, which would not be the usual case.
> 
> -Richard Brewster
> 
> Adam Schabtach wrote:
> 
> >>b) the S&H is a cascaded, 4-channel "shift register" type with
> *infinite*
> >>hold
> >>time/zero droop (it's 12-bit digitized).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Is that adequate for digitizing pitch-control voltages?
> >
> >--Adam
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

i can see the need for multiple S&Hs within a system, but not 
multiple noise generators. my vote would be for an extensive S&H in 
1U.

>Yes S&H only please.
>This is MOTM -> 6 stages with ASR design.
>ASR Mode switch:
>     position 1 = 1->3->5 and 2->4->6, position 2 = 1->2->3->4->5->6
>VC Ring switch:
>     logic 1 connects 6->1 (or 5->1 and 6->2) and disconnects inputs, logic 0
>is normal
>Randomizer pot.
>VC LFO rate.
>VC output correlation.
>Clock polarity switch.
>Support clocking at audio rates! :)
>I would buy two.
>
>George

With a little more intelligence this could be turned into an arpeggiator.
Have a switch for Sample On/Off, when On the module has the normal S&H/ASR
type function, when off it recirculates what is in the queue.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@...m] On Behalf Of Adam
> Schabtach
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:53 PM
> To: 'MOTM litserv'
> Subject: RE: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?
> 
> I use microtonal scales, so yes, my input would be pre-quantized. It would
> be fun to feed it pitch voltages so you could clock them through to create
> canon-like effects.
> 
> --Adam
> (one of those non-equal-tempered weirdos. Blame Robert Rich--he corrupted
> me.)
>

Yes! And make the switch voltage controlled.  Very cool.  This is what I was
hinting at with my VC Ring switch suggestion.  One could accomplish this
with a 700 switch and a 910 mult but it would be nice to have this feature
integrated.

-George

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Loffink" <jloffink@...>
To: "'Adam Schabtach'" <adam@...>; "'MOTM litserv'"
<motm@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?


> With a little more intelligence this could be turned into an arpeggiator.
> Have a switch for Sample On/Off, when On the module has the normal S&H/ASR
> type function, when off it recirculates what is in the queue.
>
> John Loffink
> The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
> http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
> The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
> http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

Multiple noise sources in a system can be useful. For one thing, two
noise sources feeding different audio chains sound different than one
feeding both. 

They are also useful as sources of randomness - if you need multiple
random sources at the same time, you need different seeds - without a
second noise source, I end up having to tie up a couple of high speed
cross modulating oscillators.

FWIW.

Moe

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Jason Proctor <jason@r...> wrote:

>
> i can see the need for multiple S&Hs within a system, but not 
> multiple noise generators. my vote would be for an extensive S&H in 
> 1U.

On 30/12/05, mate_stubb <mate_stubb@...> wrote:
> Multiple noise sources in a system can be useful. For one thing, two
> noise sources feeding different audio chains sound different than one
> feeding both.

Interesting. I don't understand why. Care to explain Moe?

I realise that theoritically they are different, but why would they
sound different?
Could we really descern, audibly or otherwise, any difference?

I'm struggling to think of a patch or situation where 2 distinct noise
sources would be required?

> They are also useful as sources of randomness - if you need multiple
> random sources at the same time, you need different seeds - without a
> second noise source, I end up having to tie up a couple of high speed
> cross modulating oscillators.

But unless you sample a noise source at exactly the same billisecond
the chances of getting the same result are pretty slim, surely? (yeh,
i know, stop calling you Shirley)

Would not a single noise source to multiple S&H sound the same as
multiple noise sources into multiple S&H? The very analogness of a S&H
means they are highly unlikely
to sample the same point in time as a parallel S&H on the same source
- although I haven't actually tested this, i'm just assuming....

Cheers,

ac

In a message dated 12/30/2005 11:13:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
analoghell@... writes:

On  30/12/05, mate_stubb <mate_stubb@...> wrote:
> Multiple  noise sources in a system can be useful. For one thing, two
> noise  sources feeding different audio chains sound different than one
>  feeding both.

Interesting. I don't understand why. Care to explain  Moe?



> They are also useful as sources of randomness - if  you need multiple
> random sources at the same time, you need different  seeds - without a
> second noise source, I end up having to tie up a  couple of high speed
> cross modulating oscillators.

But unless  you sample a noise source at exactly the same billisecond
the chances of  getting the same result are pretty slim, surely? 
 
I agree (as I stated in my post yesterday). I don't understand why  different 
noise sources would be better than a single noise source. Unless, by  your 
statement, "at the same time" you mean at the same *instant* and are  sampling 
the noise with the same clock. (in that way sampling different noise  sources 
with the same clock should always give you non-correlated results)
 
Also, (given that I don't know anything about electronics) doesn't your  term 
"seed" imply a digital (pseudo-random) noise source and not an analog noise  
source (which I guess is also pseudo-random though in a different way).
 
Am I wrong?
 
JB

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, ac <analoghell@g...> wrote:
> I realise that theoritically they are different, but why would they
> sound different?
> Could we really descern, audibly or otherwise, any difference?

Noise is just a weighted probability distribution of voltage over
time. Two different sources will have the same distribution over a
period of time, but not the same at any given moment of time. So, they
mix differently and more powerfully than just adding a single signal
with itself - turning up the volume so to speak.

> 
> I'm struggling to think of a patch or situation where 2 distinct noise
> sources would be required?

Polyphonic patches, for one.

> But unless you sample a noise source at exactly the same billisecond
> the chances of getting the same result are pretty slim, surely? 

Yes. But when that's exactly what I want to do (obtain multiple random
values on the same clock edge, nothing else will do. Multiple S&H
modules sampling the same noise source will give me all the same
values, or values very close to each other given component variations.

I have white/pink noise in my MOTM 100, digital clocked noise in my
Dark Star, and shift register clocked noise/white noise in my Noise
Ring. I find them all to be useful, and use them quite often in the
same patch.

Your mileage and needs may vary, of course.

Moe

Very interesting!!

So if I feed two S&H from a single noise source and clock them from
the same gate/LFO (or whatever) i'll more-than-likely get the same
held CV value?

I didn't think that analog was *that* accurate! I'll be trying this
out first chance i get.
In which case, i *can* see why you'd need more than one noise source
of the same type.

In my more arrogant moments I sometimes fool myself into thinking I
have this whole analog thing "licked" (as you Americans like to say),
so it's always nice to learn something new like this. Thanks!

ac

On 30/12/05, mate_stubb <mate_stubb@...m> wrote:
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, ac <analoghell@g...> wrote:
> > I realise that theoritically they are different, but why would they
> > sound different?
> > Could we really descern, audibly or otherwise, any difference?
>
> Noise is just a weighted probability distribution of voltage over
> time. Two different sources will have the same distribution over a
> period of time, but not the same at any given moment of time. So, they
> mix differently and more powerfully than just adding a single signal
> with itself - turning up the volume so to speak.
>
> >
> > I'm struggling to think of a patch or situation where 2 distinct noise
> > sources would be required?
>
> Polyphonic patches, for one.
>
> > But unless you sample a noise source at exactly the same billisecond
> > the chances of getting the same result are pretty slim, surely?
>
> Yes. But when that's exactly what I want to do (obtain multiple random
> values on the same clock edge, nothing else will do. Multiple S&H
> modules sampling the same noise source will give me all the same
> values, or values very close to each other given component variations.
>
> I have white/pink noise in my MOTM 100, digital clocked noise in my
> Dark Star, and shift register clocked noise/white noise in my Noise
> Ring. I find them all to be useful, and use them quite often in the
> same patch.
>
> Your mileage and needs may vary, of course.
>
> Moe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What Moe said but add an Improbability Drive. I have enough noise
sources, too, so the S&H functionality only would get my vote.  But
only because I have all those other noise sources.  If I didn't, I
would vote differently.


Mike

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

>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, ac <analoghell@g...> wrote:
> > I realise that theoritically they are different, but why would they
> > sound different?
> > Could we really descern, audibly or otherwise, any difference?
> 
> Noise is just a weighted probability distribution of voltage over
> time. Two different sources will have the same distribution over a
> period of time, but not the same at any given moment of time. So, they
> mix differently and more powerfully than just adding a single signal
> with itself - turning up the volume so to speak.
> 
> > 
> > I'm struggling to think of a patch or situation where 2 distinct noise
> > sources would be required?
> 
> Polyphonic patches, for one.
> 
> > But unless you sample a noise source at exactly the same billisecond
> > the chances of getting the same result are pretty slim, surely? 
> 
> Yes. But when that's exactly what I want to do (obtain multiple random
> values on the same clock edge, nothing else will do. Multiple S&H
> modules sampling the same noise source will give me all the same
> values, or values very close to each other given component variations.
> 
> I have white/pink noise in my MOTM 100, digital clocked noise in my
> Dark Star, and shift register clocked noise/white noise in my Noise
> Ring. I find them all to be useful, and use them quite often in the
> same patch.
> 
> Your mileage and needs may vary, of course.
> 
> Moe
>

> I'm struggling to think of a patch or situation where 2 distinct noise
> sources would be required?

Also Stereo patches. Try it for extra wide wind/surf effects and a 
wicked snare drum.

Tony

www.oakleysound.com

Whatever you come up with Paul, a 1 unit module would have my preference, I have limited 
space but would like to put as much high quality modules in that space that I can. 
Although I must say, that if you need to drop features to gain quality and keeping the price 
reasonable, then by all means do so. That would suit me best.
A redesigned 101 in a 1 unit space perhaps? :-)

Koos

Happy New Year everyone!

On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 09:59 -0500, Richard Brewster wrote:
> This may be asking for a lot, but could it have a scale quantizer?  It 
> is digital to begin with.  How much extra would adding a major/minor 
> scale be?  How about a 3-position toggle switch:  major/minor/off.

I've been thinking a lot about how to do pitch CV quantizing.  Being as
it is the case that I'm new to the analog modular, and far more trained
in software engineering than hardware, I probably have some of this
wrong, so I ask that you forgive me for that, and take what I say
without much authority.

For my purposes, pre-programmed scales would be useless.  The long
duration accuracy being discussed deeper in this thread turns me off
too.  What I've decided I really want is a VC sequencer that steps
through it's stages not once every time a square CV drops, but smoothly
as a saw shaped CV goes from zero all the way up.  A triangle CV would
make the sequencer go back and forth, etc..  With one of these, you
could quantize pitch CVs into whatever other arbitrary set of pitch CVs
you wanted.

I think the Milton sequencer can do this.  I'm not sure how stable a
Milton can hold it's output CV over time.  It also seems like the CV out
of the Milton is digital, and it's not clear to me what resolution that
has.  I have some Milton boards and preprogrammed PICs, but getting
front panels and stuffing the boards properly is a little daunting given
that I don't really completely know what I'm doing.

What's the output CV resolution on the Miniwave, and can you still get
them?

(jfm3)

A lot of this discussion seems to center on the idea of using a VCO 
generated sawtooth wave, putting it into an A to D converter and using the 
output essentially as a counter.  The accuracy of this particular scheme is 
highly dependent on the sawtooth ramp being a perfectly straight line.  Any 
curvature in the ramp would cause the counter to count faster at some times 
and slower at others as the slope varies.

A better way would be to start with the triangle wave, run it through a 
series of rectifiers followed by capacitors to eliminate the DC component. 
This would get you a frequency multiplied triangle wave.  If you then 
generate a pulse from the frequency multiplied triangle you can drive a 
counter directly.  The result should be more linear than the sawtooth 
driving the A to D and you don't need a converter.

I would think you could run at least 8 rectifier/capacitor units in series. 
That would get you a 256x pulse.  You'd probably want to use high speed ops. 
I'd like to see a frequency multiplied module using this idea.  You could 
probably get some strange outputs by running complex waveforms in the input 
in place of a triangle.

Paul H.




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

From: "jfm3" <jfm3@...>
To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?


> On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 09:59 -0500, Richard Brewster wrote:
>> This may be asking for a lot, but could it have a scale quantizer?  It
>> is digital to begin with.  How much extra would adding a major/minor
>> scale be?  How about a 3-position toggle switch:  major/minor/off.
>
> I've been thinking a lot about how to do pitch CV quantizing.  Being as
> it is the case that I'm new to the analog modular, and far more trained
> in software engineering than hardware, I probably have some of this
> wrong, so I ask that you forgive me for that, and take what I say
> without much authority.
>
> For my purposes, pre-programmed scales would be useless.  The long
> duration accuracy being discussed deeper in this thread turns me off
> too.  What I've decided I really want is a VC sequencer that steps
> through it's stages not once every time a square CV drops, but smoothly
> as a saw shaped CV goes from zero all the way up.  A triangle CV would
> make the sequencer go back and forth, etc..  With one of these, you
> could quantize pitch CVs into whatever other arbitrary set of pitch CVs
> you wanted.
>
> I think the Milton sequencer can do this.  I'm not sure how stable a
> Milton can hold it's output CV over time.  It also seems like the CV out
> of the Milton is digital, and it's not clear to me what resolution that
> has.  I have some Milton boards and preprogrammed PICs, but getting
> front panels and stuffing the boards properly is a little daunting given
> that I don't really completely know what I'm doing.
>
> What's the output CV resolution on the Miniwave, and can you still get
> them?
>
> (jfm3)
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, what you're looking for and what is being discussed here are two totally separate things.  This is a shift register and you want a sequencer.  

The Milton does what you're looking for.  I'm not sure what you mean by your milton vc out question... Its a voltage divider circuit, not a s&h.  I also don't understand what you mean by the output being digital.  Either way, these are inquiries best put to the Milton discussion group.

The miniwave is still available at blacet.com.  Having said that, a synth tech quantizer module that accepts multiple inputs and outputs would be a dreamy addition to the 600 series (and would probably reuse the midi cvter software in part).

Cheers,
Eric f



Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: jfm3 <jfm3@ouroboros-complex.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:31:12 
To:MOTM litserv <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?

On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 09:59 -0500, Richard Brewster wrote:
 > This may be asking for a lot, but could it have a scale quantizer?  It 
 > is digital to begin with.  How much extra would adding a major/minor 
 > scale be?  How about a 3-position toggle switch:  major/minor/off.
 
 I've been thinking a lot about how to do pitch CV quantizing.  Being as
 it is the case that I'm new to the analog modular, and far more trained
 in software engineering than hardware, I probably have some of this
 wrong, so I ask that you forgive me for that, and take what I say
 without much authority.
 
 For my purposes, pre-programmed scales would be useless.  The long
 duration accuracy being discussed deeper in this thread turns me off
 too.  What I've decided I really want is a VC sequencer that steps
 through it's stages not once every time a square CV drops, but smoothly
 as a saw shaped CV goes from zero all the way up.  A triangle CV would
 make the sequencer go back and forth, etc..  With one of these, you
 could quantize pitch CVs into whatever other arbitrary set of pitch CVs
 you wanted.
 
 I think the Milton sequencer can do this.  I'm not sure how stable a
 Milton can hold it's output CV over time.  It also seems like the CV out
 of the Milton is digital, and it's not clear to me what resolution that
 has.  I have some Milton boards and preprogrammed PICs, but getting
 front panels and stuffing the boards properly is a little daunting given
 that I don't really completely know what I'm doing.
 
 What's the output CV resolution on the Miniwave, and can you still get
 them?
 
 (jfm3)
 
 

 
 SPONSORED LINKS  
 Label: <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Label&w1=Label&w2=Cd+music+label&w3=Independent+music+label&c=3&s=60&.sig=6Ue5iYG1cB-4-PxKoePVpw> Cd music label: <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Cd+music+label&w1=Label&w2=Cd+music+label&w3=Independent+music+label&c=3&s=60&.sig=HcQO9bFYletC1PmCSbcMNA> Independent music label: <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Independent+music+label&w1=Label&w2=Cd+music+label&w3=Independent+music+label&c=3&s=60&.sig=4zI39fYigTJ8RURahZcwuw>  
 
 
----------------
 YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
 
 
*  Visit your group "motm: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm> " on the web.
  
*  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com: <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 
  
*  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service: <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 
 
 
 
----------------

No, I'm not looking for a sequencer.
I have several, BTW.  I also have two Miniwaves.
What I'm talking about is a method of driving a counter from a VCO with 
better accuracy than using the method which is used in the MiniWave, which 
is deriving a count from a VCO sawtooth driving an A to D.
I also think a frequency multiplier could be musically useful in its own 
right, especially when used with a divider module.

A frequency multiplier could also provide the clocking for any number of 
digital based modules such as a Fourier series generator, a Walsh function 
generator, or a cloud generator.

I'm not sure if this would be more accurate than driving a digital based 
module with a DCO, but frequency transitions would be smooth, not stepped.


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

From: <ach_gott@...>
To: "jfm3" <jfm3@...>; <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?


> Well, what you're looking for and what is being discussed here are two 
> totally separate things.  This is a shift register and you want a 
> sequencer.
>
> The Milton does what you're looking for.  I'm not sure what you mean by 
> your milton vc out question... Its a voltage divider circuit, not a s&h. 
> I also don't understand what you mean by the output being digital.  Either 
> way, these are inquiries best put to the Milton discussion group.
>
> The miniwave is still available at blacet.com.  Having said that, a synth 
> tech quantizer module that accepts multiple inputs and outputs would be a 
> dreamy addition to the 600 series (and would probably reuse the midi cvter 
> software in part).
>
> Cheers,
> Eric f
>
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jfm3 <jfm3@...>
> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:31:12
> To:MOTM litserv <motm@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [motm] Interest in a MOTM-102 module?
>
> On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 09:59 -0500, Richard Brewster wrote:
> > This may be asking for a lot, but could it have a scale quantizer? It
> > is digital to begin with. How much extra would adding a major/minor
> > scale be? How about a 3-position toggle switch: major/minor/off.
>
> I've been thinking a lot about how to do pitch CV quantizing. Being as
> it is the case that I'm new to the analog modular, and far more trained
> in software engineering than hardware, I probably have some of this
> wrong, so I ask that you forgive me for that, and take what I say
> without much authority.
>
> For my purposes, pre-programmed scales would be useless. The long
> duration accuracy being discussed deeper in this thread turns me off
> too. What I've decided I really want is a VC sequencer that steps
> through it's stages not once every time a square CV drops, but smoothly
> as a saw shaped CV goes from zero all the way up. A triangle CV would
> make the sequencer go back and forth, etc.. With one of these, you
> could quantize pitch CVs into whatever other arbitrary set of pitch CVs
> you wanted.
>
> I think the Milton sequencer can do this. I'm not sure how stable a
> Milton can hold it's output CV over time. It also seems like the CV out
> of the Milton is digital, and it's not clear to me what resolution that
> has. I have some Milton boards and preprogrammed PICs, but getting
> front panels and stuffing the boards properly is a little daunting given
> that I don't really completely know what I'm doing.
>
> What's the output CV resolution on the Miniwave, and can you still get
> them?
>
> (jfm3)
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Label: 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Label&w1=Label&w2=Cd+music+label&w3=Independent+music+label&c=3&s=60&.sig=6Ue5iYG1cB-4-PxKoePVpw> 
> Cd music label: 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Cd+music+label&w1=Label&w2=Cd+music+label&w3=Independent+music+label&c=3&s=60&.sig=HcQO9bFYletC1PmCSbcMNA> 
> Independent music label: 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Independent+music+label&w1=Label&w2=Cd+music+label&w3=Independent+music+label&c=3&s=60&.sig=4zI39fYigTJ8RURahZcwuw>
>
>
> ----------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> * Visit your group "motm: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm> " on the 
> web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com: 
> <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service: 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, jfm3 <jfm3@o...> wrote:
> I think the Milton sequencer can do this.  I'm not sure how stable a
> Milton can hold it's output CV over time.  It also seems like the CV
> out of the Milton is digital, and it's not clear to me what 
> resolution that has. 

This is incorrect. A true analog sequencer such as the Milton, has
100% analog signal path, and its output is in fact an analog voltage
with infinite resolution, or at least the resolution of the windings
on the pot.

All you are doing with an analog step sequencer is using a bunch of
digital logic to connect a series of pots acting as voltage dividers
to the output. It can hold that voltage indefinitely - there are no
droop problems.

> What's the output CV resolution on the Miniwave, and can you still 
> get them?

A Miniwave is an 8 bit ROM addressable via voltage control. There are
16 banks of 16 wavetables, and each wavetable is I think 256 bytes
long. You choose which of the 256 memory locations in a table is
connected to the output via a DAC by the input control voltage.

So this device has an 8 bit output resolution, and also has no droop
problems. Scanning the tables via various waveforms (saw, tri, reverse
saw) allows you to control the direction of playback as you mentioned.

Hope this helps clear things up!

Moe
http://www.hotrodmotm.com
http://www.wisegusynth.com

> A lot of this discussion seems to center on the idea of using a VCO 
> generated sawtooth wave, putting it into an A to D converter and using the 
> output essentially as a counter.  The accuracy of this particular scheme is 
> highly dependent on the sawtooth ramp being a perfectly straight line.  Any 
> curvature in the ramp would cause the counter to count faster at some times 
> and slower at others as the slope varies.

Whilst this is true, the linearity of the charge/discharge is actually 
pretty linear. The biggest problem is normally maximum peak level, this 
is normally deliberately reduced as the VCO frequency gets higher to 
compensate for discharge timing. Failure to arrive at the correct peak 
level means certain output codes missing.

Any oddities at the peak caused by the discharge circuit can be 
problematic for the ADC too. The Oakley VCO would spike to +10V 
momentarily and this would may cause some problem to any level detecting 
circuit.

One method, used by Grant Richter, is to incorporate the ADC in the VCO 
core itself. Thus discharge is controlled by the ADC and not a 
comparator. Another method of high frequency compensation would need to 
be used of course, but this can be done in the expo and/or CV summer.

> A better way would be to start with the triangle wave, run it through a 
> series of rectifiers followed by capacitors to eliminate the DC component. 
> This would get you a frequency multiplied triangle wave.

This method is actually harder to do. Whilst the number of pulses 
derived per cycle of the input frequency is correct, the spacing between 
the pulses is entirely dependant on the accuracy of the full wave 
rectifiers. The FWR circuits will become less accurate as the frequency 
of operation increases.

Both active methods, that is; FET switches or diodes in feedback loops 
do have problems with the speed at which they operate. ie. the time it 
takes for them to conduct in each direction is limited by the switch 
speed or slew rate of the op-amp. Odd things happen to the output at the 
point of phase reversal.

Also, noise is a problem, since each folding of the wave requires a gain 
change of 6dB to bring it back up to the same level as the input, or a 
resultant increase in sensitivity of the final pulse generator. Noise 
from the switching of the diodes or FET switches may then be amplified 
sufficiently to produce erroneous glitches in the ADC output.

I looked at both systems when I was making my WalshBank digital VCO and 
revisited them when designing the 'two up two down' module. This former 
relies on a high frequency clock which is them decoded down by binary 
counters. In the end I settled for a very fast triangle based VCO. This 
would operate at 32 times the normal frequencies of a musical VCO. 
However, I never really got much further than breadboarding this one.

Another thought is a tracking sync slave VCO. Slaved to the master CV, 
it would operate at 32 times to a master VCO. A hard sync connection 
would then keep it effectively locked in.

Tony

www.oakleysound.com

I've generated some confusion and remain confused myself, so I'll try to
undo that...

Paul H. replied to ach_gott@...:
> No, I'm not looking for a sequencer.

Paul H, I don't think he was talking to you, he was correcting me.  I
think the point at which I became confused (and remain confused) is when
Richard Brewster wrote:

> This may be asking for a lot, but could it have a scale quantizer?
> It 
> is digital to begin with.  How much extra would adding a major/minor 
> scale be?  How about a 3-position toggle switch:  major/minor/off.

Really, all I wanted to add to the conversation was that I thought
major/minor/off was too limiting.  I probably wouldn't use it, at
least.  

What follows is more of what I've figured out so far, you should only
read it if you're feeling charitable :)

I think that a "scale quantizer" here is: 1) CV meant to represent a
pitch comes in, then 2) nearest allowable pitch CV comes out, where
allowable pitches are selected from a ROM table, or something.  I'm not
even sure what this has to do with a S&H, other than perhaps that the
circuitry for the S&H may be easily extended to provide this "scale
quantizer" functionality (perhaps because there is a digital section
which can be programmed more or less arbitrarily?).

I do want some way to take a CV meant to represent a pitch and feed it
to a machine which produces one of N CVs, each decided upon by a knob.
It turns out this is what I'm terming a "VC sequencer" -- my jargon may
be off.  At this point I'll resort to cheap math to display my ignorance
of electronics :)  Imagine the incoming CV as a real value in [0 1].
Normally, this is interpreted by a VCO as a pitch.  A four step "VC
sequencer" would act like a function: 

f(x) = a if x < .25 
       b if x >= .25 and x < .50
       c if x >= .50 and x < .75
       d if x >= .75

a, b, c, and d, are controllable with knobs.  Now if the real values of
a, b, c, and d, were the notes in a maj7 chord, we'd have something like
a "scale quantizer".  If instead x is a value that changes over time,
such as a saw tooth wave which rises from 0 to 1 every 4 seconds, then
we have a sequencer.  Of course an ideal sequencer would have more
possible values, and other features, I'm just trying to get the model in
my head correctly.

It seems like the miniwave is like the function above except there are
256 possible function values (a, b, c, d, e, f, ...), that these values
are relatively low resolution, preset in a ROM, and not as accurate
("droopy") as some would like for the purposes of CVs that represent
pitches.

How am I doing?

If I've got it right so far, then I'd say having a scale quantizer in my
S&H module was ... strange.

On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 17:08 +0000, mate_stubb wrote:
> > What's the output CV resolution on the Miniwave, and can you still 
> > get them?
> 
> A Miniwave is an 8 bit ROM addressable via voltage control. There are
> 16 banks of 16 wavetables, and each wavetable is I think 256 bytes
> long. You choose which of the 256 memory locations in a table is
> connected to the output via a DAC by the input control voltage.
> 
> So this device has an 8 bit output resolution, and also has no droop
> problems. Scanning the tables via various waveforms (saw, tri, reverse
> saw) allows you to control the direction of playback as you mentioned.
> 
> Hope this helps clear things up!

This very much helps to clear things up. Thank you very much!
-- 
(jfm3)

I think the point of the scale quantizer is the ability to confine the 
output voltages of a Sample Hold to specific voltages deemed to be musically 
useful, such as a major or minor scale.

I think a chromatic scale makes some sense as the intervals are equal.  You 
would be quantizing to the nearest 1/12 volt.  Major or minor scales are 
more problematic as the intervals are not equal.  If the inputs to the scale 
quantizer are truly random and the interals of the quantizer are not equal 
some note would play more than others since the probability of the random 
voltage input falling into a samller interval is less than falling into a 
greater one.

Some feel that to be musical, sounds have to be confined to equally tempered 
or other scales.  Others feel that this is confining.  I personally think 
both approaches are musically useful and valid.

I would rather see a quantizer as a seperate module.


Also responding to Tony at Oakley ---

I had not thought about the lack of precision in the rectifiers affecting 
the timing between pulses, thanks for pointing that out.

You are certainly correct about the noise level increasing with each stage. 
I have played around with this on a breadboard and gone 32x without too much 
difficulty, but had not considered what amounts to clock jitter.  Obviously 
to maintain high factors of multiplication at increasing frequencies you 
would need op amps with high bandwidth product.

Paul H.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jfm3" <jfm3@...>
To: "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@...>
Cc: <motm@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Interest in a MOTM-102 module?


> I've generated some confusion and remain confused myself, so I'll try to
> undo that...
>
> Paul H. replied to ach_gott@...:
>> No, I'm not looking for a sequencer.
>
> Paul H, I don't think he was talking to you, he was correcting me.  I
> think the point at which I became confused (and remain confused) is when
> Richard Brewster wrote:
>
>> This may be asking for a lot, but could it have a scale quantizer?
>> It
>> is digital to begin with.  How much extra would adding a major/minor
>> scale be?  How about a 3-position toggle switch:  major/minor/off.
>
> Really, all I wanted to add to the conversation was that I thought
> major/minor/off was too limiting.  I probably wouldn't use it, at
> least.
>
> What follows is more of what I've figured out so far, you should only
> read it if you're feeling charitable :)
>
> I think that a "scale quantizer" here is: 1) CV meant to represent a
> pitch comes in, then 2) nearest allowable pitch CV comes out, where
> allowable pitches are selected from a ROM table, or something.  I'm not
> even sure what this has to do with a S&H, other than perhaps that the
> circuitry for the S&H may be easily extended to provide this "scale
> quantizer" functionality (perhaps because there is a digital section
> which can be programmed more or less arbitrarily?).
>
> I do want some way to take a CV meant to represent a pitch and feed it
> to a machine which produces one of N CVs, each decided upon by a knob.
> It turns out this is what I'm terming a "VC sequencer" -- my jargon may
> be off.  At this point I'll resort to cheap math to display my ignorance
> of electronics :)  Imagine the incoming CV as a real value in [0 1].
> Normally, this is interpreted by a VCO as a pitch.  A four step "VC
> sequencer" would act like a function:
>
> f(x) = a if x < .25
>       b if x >= .25 and x < .50
>       c if x >= .50 and x < .75
>       d if x >= .75
>
> a, b, c, and d, are controllable with knobs.  Now if the real values of
> a, b, c, and d, were the notes in a maj7 chord, we'd have something like
> a "scale quantizer".  If instead x is a value that changes over time,
> such as a saw tooth wave which rises from 0 to 1 every 4 seconds, then
> we have a sequencer.  Of course an ideal sequencer would have more
> possible values, and other features, I'm just trying to get the model in
> my head correctly.
>
> It seems like the miniwave is like the function above except there are
> 256 possible function values (a, b, c, d, e, f, ...), that these values
> are relatively low resolution, preset in a ROM, and not as accurate
> ("droopy") as some would like for the purposes of CVs that represent
> pitches.
>
> How am I doing?
>
> If I've got it right so far, then I'd say having a scale quantizer in my
> S&H module was ... strange.
>
> On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 17:08 +0000, mate_stubb wrote:
>> > What's the output CV resolution on the Miniwave, and can you still
>> > get them?
>>
>> A Miniwave is an 8 bit ROM addressable via voltage control. There are
>> 16 banks of 16 wavetables, and each wavetable is I think 256 bytes
>> long. You choose which of the 256 memory locations in a table is
>> connected to the output via a DAC by the input control voltage.
>>
>> So this device has an 8 bit output resolution, and also has no droop
>> problems. Scanning the tables via various waveforms (saw, tri, reverse
>> saw) allows you to control the direction of playback as you mentioned.
>>
>> Hope this helps clear things up!
>
> This very much helps to clear things up. Thank you very much!
> -- 
> (jfm3)
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>I would rather see a quantizer as a seperate module.

Ditto. If the 102 has a chromatic scale quantizer built in, fine. I 
may not use it. Once you start talking about quantizers you get into 
the whole realm of different scales, modes, and intonation. Soon 
we're getting into microtuning. (I'll step aside and let John L. take 
over on this topic).

If there's going to be an MOTM quantizer, it should be a "no 
compromise" quantizer, and not some single switch add-on to a S&H, 
IMHO.

Doesn't the 650 support different intonations and micro-tuning? Would 
this cover the needs of a quantizer (from the MIDI keyboard/sequencer 
viewpoint)? I suppose there's still a need to quantize control 
voltages.

Another ditto.  I am now convinced that a quantizer function is too rich 
with possibilities to warrant inclusion in this simple S&H module.  Yes, 
it was I who brought it up.  I was brainstorming.  This collaborative 
design is great.  The best ideas stick and the more off-the-wall  ideas 
shake out and maybe lead to other module design ideas.  A consensus is 
converging that a MOTM-102 should not include noise or quantizing.  If 
you take those out, we're left with the remaining good ideas and it is 
simple enough to fit in 1U.  Agree?  Or do you still want noise or 
quantizing in this little module?

-Richard Brewster

http://www.pugix.com

Scott Juskiw wrote:

>>I would rather see a quantizer as a seperate module.
>>    
>>
>
>Ditto. If the 102 has a chromatic scale quantizer built in, fine. I 
>may not use it. Once you start talking about quantizers you get into 
>the whole realm of different scales, modes, and intonation. Soon 
>we're getting into microtuning. (I'll step aside and let John L. take 
>over on this topic).
>
>If there's going to be an MOTM quantizer, it should be a "no 
>compromise" quantizer, and not some single switch add-on to a S&H, 
>IMHO.
>
>Doesn't the 650 support different intonations and micro-tuning? Would 
>this cover the needs of a quantizer (from the MIDI keyboard/sequencer 
>viewpoint)? I suppose there's still a need to quantize control 
>voltages.
>
>
>
>  
>

>Another ditto.  I am now convinced that a quantizer function is too rich
>with possibilities to warrant inclusion in this simple S&H module.  Yes,
>it was I who brought it up.  I was brainstorming.  This collaborative
>design is great.  The best ideas stick and the more off-the-wall  ideas
>shake out and maybe lead to other module design ideas.  A consensus is
>converging that a MOTM-102 should not include noise or quantizing.  If
>you take those out, we're left with the remaining good ideas and it is
>simple enough to fit in 1U.  Agree?  Or do you still want noise or
>quantizing in this little module?

Would like to have...

I like the output correlation. I like the positive/negative edge 
trigger switch. I like the infinite hold. I like the shifting (ASR), 
especially if it can cascade from one 102 to another 102. I would 
also like to have all outputs be able to sample/hold a unique value 
when not in ASR mode.

Would not object to having...

Additional white/pink/random outputs, but not at the expense of the 
S&H capabilities.

Don't need...

Quantizing. A440 reference tone (just kidding).

Question for Paul S. posted to the group because I believe other 
people will want to know this too.

Last December/January there was a lot of talk about a new digital S&H 
module. Whatever became of this in light of the new AudioEngine 
grande scheme? Is the 102 still on the "todo" list? It wasn't listed 
in your "Status of discussed future modules list" message from July 
3, 2006.

I was initially disappointed that the MOTM-450 Fixed Filter Bank was 
shelved, but am now thinking maybe this is a good thing. The 
disadvantage of the 450 is the "fixed" filters. More useful would be 
a programmable parametric EQ with a variable number of bands where 
each band's Fc, Q, and gain can be set, stored, and recalled. This 
would be much more useful than a fixed filter bank for synthesizing 
vocal formants and resonant cavities. Voltage control might be 
difficult due to the large number of parameters involved (modulating 
frequency, resonance, and gain for each band would require a whole 
lotta jacks, but perhaps these could be controlled via MIDI CCs 
instead).

Is this something that can be done with the new AudioEngine core? Or 
would we be better off with some off the shelf EQ from some other 
company?

Ok, ScottJ's idea is a great one, and sure, I appreciate the 
possibilities
of the AudioEngine about as well as anybody -- I'm a (digital) computer
scientist after all, three decades now. But the buzz on this list is 
starting
to scare me.

I hope that Paul S doesn't abandon the great world of Analog Audio
entirely. That's why I got into this hobby and what I love about it. 
Yes,
actually, I think here in the 21st century the most practical way to get
any desired audio result is by computing it digitally. But to me, that 
just
is Not As Much Fun.

Paul, say it ain't so!

skw

On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:

> I was initially disappointed that the MOTM-450 Fixed Filter Bank was
>  shelved, but am now thinking maybe this is a good thing. The
>  disadvantage of the 450 is the "fixed" filters. More useful would be
>  a programmable parametric EQ with a variable number of bands where
>  each band's Fc, Q, and gain can be set, stored, and recalled. This
>  would be much more useful than a fixed filter bank for synthesizing
>  vocal formants and resonant cavities. Voltage control might be
>  difficult due to the large number of parameters involved (modulating
>  frequency, resonance, and gain for each band would require a whole
>  lotta jacks, but perhaps these could be controlled via MIDI CCs
>  instead).
>
>  Is this something that can be done with the new AudioEngine core? Or
>  would we be better off with some off the shelf EQ from some other
>  company?
>
>  
>

Try the Moogerfooger MURF.  It is essentially an animated Filter Bank.
Sound quality and useability is superb.  

As for a programmable parametric equalizer, here's a concept from about 26
years ago:  http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/328rpg1.html :-)

You can do anything with the AudioEngine core, but it won't be analog.  I'd
propose that its greatest value is in modules that are difficult to do with
analog:  Granular synthesis, low noise vocoder with 30+ bands, long
echos/delays/tape loops, etc.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Scott Juskiw
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 12:04 PM
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [motm] Replacement for MOTM-450
> 
> I was initially disappointed that the MOTM-450 Fixed Filter Bank was
> shelved, but am now thinking maybe this is a good thing. The
> disadvantage of the 450 is the "fixed" filters. More useful would be
> a programmable parametric EQ with a variable number of bands where
> each band's Fc, Q, and gain can be set, stored, and recalled. This
> would be much more useful than a fixed filter bank for synthesizing
> vocal formants and resonant cavities. Voltage control might be
> difficult due to the large number of parameters involved (modulating
> frequency, resonance, and gain for each band would require a whole
> lotta jacks, but perhaps these could be controlled via MIDI CCs
> instead).
> 
> Is this something that can be done with the new AudioEngine core? Or
> would we be better off with some off the shelf EQ from some other
> company?
>

I was looking back at some of Kenneth Elhardt's patches and notes 
where he uses 15 and 31 band equalizers to synthesize resonant 
cavities. I figured an AudioEngine version of that would be much 
smaller than it's analogue equivalent.

Thanks for reminding me about the MURF, I had forgotten about that 
one. And thanks for the wavemakers link, that one's new to me.

>Try the Moogerfooger MURF.  It is essentially an animated Filter Bank.
>Sound quality and useability is superb. 
>
>As for a programmable parametric equalizer, here's a concept from about 26
>years ago:  http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/328rpg1.html :-)
>
>You can do anything with the AudioEngine core, but it won't be analog.  I'd
>propose that its greatest value is in modules that are difficult to do with
>analog:  Granular synthesis, low noise vocoder with 30+ bands, long
>echos/delays/tape loops, etc.
>

Scott Juskiw wrote:

> Thanks for reminding me about the MURF, I had forgotten about that 
> one. And thanks for the wavemakers link, that one's new to me.

Oakley made a FFB too. Let's hope that's part of the new PCB run.

I will continue to use analog where it makes sense, and the AudioEngine
likewise.

Please don't get the impression I am "abandoning" analog design. I'm just
*adding* digital stuff. Few folks have complained about the digital
MOTM-650 :)

Filters will always sound better in analog.

Paul S.

I have been vocal in the past about a S&H module with cascading S&H's
and trigger delays, etc.  THis could be easily (I think) accomplished
with the Audio Engine and would make for some fun and varied CV
goodness.  COunt me in on at least one of these.

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:

>
> Question for Paul S. posted to the group because I believe other 
> people will want to know this too.
> 
> Last December/January there was a lot of talk about a new digital S&H 
> module. Whatever became of this in light of the new AudioEngine 
> grande scheme? Is the 102 still on the "todo" list? It wasn't listed 
> in your "Status of discussed future modules list" message from July 
> 3, 2006.
>

On Jul 9, 2006, at 4:01 PM, synth1@... wrote:

> Filters will always sound better in analog.
>

True, although sometimes digital makes possible response curves
that are difficult or expensive to do in analog.  For instance, how  
about
a clone of the Xpander filter with voltage-controlled curve selection?

Actually, I like the idea of an analog parametric EQ module... I don't have
a mixer with a really good EQ on it but a couple channels of decent EQ could
come in handy, especially if there's no filter bank.

					...Craig

> -----Original Message-----
> From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Scott Juskiw
> Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 12:58 PM
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] Replacement for MOTM-450
> 
> I was looking back at some of Kenneth Elhardt's patches and 
> notes where he uses 15 and 31 band equalizers to synthesize 
> resonant cavities. I figured an AudioEngine version of that 
> would be much smaller than it's analogue equivalent.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me about the MURF, I had forgotten about 
> that one. And thanks for the wavemakers link, that one's new to me.
> 
> >Try the Moogerfooger MURF.  It is essentially an animated 
> Filter Bank.
> >Sound quality and useability is superb. 
> >
> >As for a programmable parametric equalizer, here's a concept 
> from about 
> >26 years ago:  http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/328rpg1.html :-)
> >
> >You can do anything with the AudioEngine core, but it won't 
> be analog.  
> >I'd propose that its greatest value is in modules that are 
> difficult to 
> >do with
> >analog:  Granular synthesis, low noise vocoder with 30+ bands, long 
> >echos/delays/tape loops, etc.
> >
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Scott Juskiw writes:
>>I was initially disappointed that the MOTM-450 Fixed Filter Bank was
shelved, but am now thinking maybe this is a good thing....<<

Now is the time when I must yet again remind those involved in this thread
that everything you ever wanted already exists as long as you don't need it
to look like an motm module.  Analog Systems and Doepfer have all kinds of
stuff, from the AS Vocal Phase filter to the Trautonium filters.  Cynthia's
bandpass filters modules looks useful if you don't need VC.  Cwejman now has
a fully voltage controlled analog parametric EQ.  The EAR group that Peter
Grenader is involved in also has something similar.  Regular old graphic and
parametric EQs can be turned into filter banks with the invert one channel
and mix method.  And then if you really want to go wild, pick up a used Nord
Micro Modular dirt cheap, and you can patch up and create variable filter
banks and EQs with all parameters controllable from midi and with analog I/O
to patch into you motm.  There's your AudioEngine right there.

>>I was looking back at some of Kenneth Elhardt's patches and notes where he
uses 15 and 31 band equalizers to synthesize resonant cavities.<<

I usually use EQ within a patch, but I use lowpass and bandpass filters, and
parametric EQ to get resonant cavity type stuff since those allow strong
resonances to be set.  Even the motm 410 gets used at times in there.

David Cornutt writes:
>>True, although sometimes digital makes possible response curves that are
difficult or expensive to do in analog.<<

Or IMPOSSIBLE to do in analog.


The 450 fixed filter being shelved seems more to do with Paul S. adhering so
stubornly to those expensive pots and knobs and whatever else, to the point
where anything that uses more than just a few of them becomes so impractical
in terms of price that nobody wants to buy it anymore.  The original
estimated 450 kit price was $190, then it went to $260, then to $380, then
to over $400.  That's why there aren't many potential customers for it.
Maybe for something like the 450 it's time to drop the seeled pots and other
overpriced stuff (I still remember the thread about suppliers screwing MOTM
on part prices, which gets passed on to us) and do it in a practical way.
If you buy a 15 band Doepfer fixed filter bank for $160 assembled, but an
MOTM 8/10 filter bank would cost over $400 in kit form, something is wrong.

-Elhardt

Since Yahoo is losing my posts into some black hole, let me post this again.


Scott Juskiw writes:
>>I was initially disappointed that the MOTM-450 Fixed Filter Bank was
shelved, but am now thinking maybe this is a good thing....<<

Now is the time when I must yet again remind those involved in this thread
that everything you ever wanted already exists as long as you don't need it
to look like an motm module.  Analog Systems and Doepfer have all kinds of
stuff, from the AS Vocal Phase filter to the Trautonium filters.  Cynthia's
bandpass filters modules looks useful if you don't need VC.  Cwejman now has
a fully voltage controlled analog parametric EQ.  The EAR group that Peter
Grenader is involved in also has something similar.  Regular old graphic and
parametric EQs can be turned into filter banks with the invert one channel
and mix method.  And then if you really want to go wild, pick up a used Nord
Micro Modular dirt cheap, and you can patch up and create variable filter
banks and EQs with all parameters controllable from midi and with analog I/O
to patch into you motm.  There's your AudioEngine right there.

>>I was looking back at some of Kenneth Elhardt's patches and notes where he
uses 15 and 31 band equalizers to synthesize resonant cavities.<<

I usually use EQ within a patch, but I use lowpass and bandpass filters, and
parametric EQ to get resonant cavity type stuff since those allow strong
resonances to be set.  Even the motm 410 gets used at times in there.

David Cornutt writes:
>>True, although sometimes digital makes possible response curves that are
difficult or expensive to do in analog.<<

Or IMPOSSIBLE to do in analog.


The 450 fixed filter being shelved seems more to do with Paul S. adhering so
stubornly to those expensive pots and knobs and whatever else, to the point
where anything that uses more than just a few of them becomes so impractical
in terms of price that nobody wants to buy it anymore.  The original
estimated 450 kit price was $190, then it went to $260, then to $380, then
to over $400.  That's why there aren't many potential customers for it.
Maybe for something like the 450 it's time to drop the seeled pots and other
overpriced stuff (I still remember the thread about suppliers screwing MOTM
on part prices, which gets passed on to us) and do it in a practical way.
If you buy a 15 band Doepfer fixed filter bank for $160 assembled, but an
MOTM 8/10 filter bank would cost over $400 in kit form, something is wrong.

-Elhardt

>Perhaps something along the lines of the Cwejman module, but in MOTM format?
>
><http://www.bigcitymusic.com/product.asp?cat=new&pid=1000560>http://www.bigcitymusic.com/product.asp?cat=new&pid=1000560
>

Yeah, something like that, but with 15 or 31 bands, and less than 
$400. I doubt you could do that in analogue, which is why I was 
thinking this would be a good project for the AudioEngine.

Re: [motm] Replacement for MOTM-450Yeah, something like that, but with 15 or 31 
bands, and less than $400. I doubt you could do that in analogue, which is why I 
was thinking this would be a good project for the AudioEngine.


That would require a lot of DSP power. There is no DSP in the AudioEngine per 
se, although you can implement cetain DSP "structures" inside the Xilinx. But 
one MOTM user also happens to be a Xilinx DSP guru :)

Paul S.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Kenneth Elhardt wrote:
> The 450 fixed filter being shelved seems more to do with Paul S. adhering so
> stubornly to those expensive pots and knobs and whatever else, to the point
> where anything that uses more than just a few of them becomes so impractical
> in terms of price that nobody wants to buy it anymore.  The original
> estimated 450 kit price was $190, then it went to $260, then to $380, then
> to over $400.  That's why there aren't many potential customers for it.
> Maybe for something like the 450 it's time to drop the seeled pots and other
> overpriced stuff (I still remember the thread about suppliers screwing MOTM
> on part prices, which gets passed on to us) and do it in a practical way.
> If you buy a 15 band Doepfer fixed filter bank for $160 assembled, but an
> MOTM 8/10 filter bank would cost over $400 in kit form, something is wrong.

That stuborness is one of the reasons I'm a motm customer. It's the 
commitment to signal path quality. Sure, I could get the doepfer modules, 
but sometimes I don't like hearing my clock line/powersupply/evening news 
in my signal path.

I'd rather paul ditched a module than his principles, they're what I spend 
the bucks for, if they weren't I'd still have a doepfer.

For all your low cost knob needs there's dotCom, they make a fine fixed 
filter bank:
   http://synthesizers.com/q127.html

--mikest

- what he said! I'd like to see a single space/single band MOTM parametric EQ - simulated 
inductor/FDNR, etc. - SMT/assembled and not too expensive? :-) Like the L and H bands 
on the Speck ASC:

http://www.speck.com/asc/asc_2.shtml

Barry S.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Mike Estee <squeeker@...> wrote:

> That stuborness is one of the reasons I'm a motm customer. It's the 
> commitment to signal path quality. Sure, I could get the doepfer modules, 
> but sometimes I don't like hearing my clock line/powersupply/evening news 
> in my signal path.
> 
> I'd rather paul ditched a module than his principles, they're what I spend 
> the bucks for, if they weren't I'd still have a doepfer.
> 
> For all your low cost knob needs there's dotCom, they make a fine fixed 
> filter bank: http://synthesizers.com/q127.html
> 
> --mikest

Mike Estee writes:
>>That stuborness is one of the reasons I'm a motm customer. It's the
commitment to signal path quality. Sure, I could get the doepfer modules,
but sometimes I don't like hearing my clock line/powersupply/evening news
in my signal path. I'd rather paul ditched a module than his principles.<<

It's not the electronics part that I'm talking about.  As Paul said, that's
only about %25 of the cost.  It's expensive knobs and pots, or whatever is
pushing the thing to the point where people don't want to spend the money.
Tony from Encore Electronics for instance, puts 15 pots and knobs on the UEG
using a completely different system, and it seems like maybe a better way to
go for higher knobcount type stuff.  And a lot faster to build to boot.
Won't need to go 3U wide either even at 15 or more bands, which is what I
think the 450 should have been to begin with. (If the 450 was going to be
3U, can't remember).  Paul has already ditched some of his principles by
going fracrack, so let's maybe continue that trend a bit further. :-)

-Elhardt

This is all MOOT, 
Paul can do what ever he wants to do, it is his idea
and business.  I for one am on a budget for my modular
needs, this is why I went kits.  Even at kit prices
the dot com stuff is much cheaper... but so is the
quality.  Myself I prefer the MOTM and I will stay
Motm, if the prices get too steep for me I just will
have to buy less and be more choosey than I am now.
In my business (commercial Photographer) I get people
who say I am very expensive and I am compared to the
average shooter.  But you get what you pay for.  I am
an artist just like some of the musicians on this
list, dont you hate to be chisseled?  So why are you
busting Pauls Balls?????  oh that rhymed.

And Ken... what is going on with your patch book
series?????

I for one enjoyed it.

John

--- Kenneth Elhardt <elhardt@...> wrote:

> Mike Estee writes:
> >>That stuborness is one of the reasons I'm a motm
> customer. It's the
> commitment to signal path quality. Sure, I could get
> the doepfer modules,
> but sometimes I don't like hearing my clock
> line/powersupply/evening news
> in my signal path. I'd rather paul ditched a module
> than his principles.<<
> 
> It's not the electronics part that I'm talking
> about.  As Paul said, that's
> only about %25 of the cost.  It's expensive knobs
> and pots, or whatever is
> pushing the thing to the point where people don't
> want to spend the money.
> Tony from Encore Electronics for instance, puts 15
> pots and knobs on the UEG
> using a completely different system, and it seems
> like maybe a better way to
> go for higher knobcount type stuff.  And a lot
> faster to build to boot.
> Won't need to go 3U wide either even at 15 or more
> bands, which is what I
> think the 450 should have been to begin with. (If
> the 450 was going to be
> 3U, can't remember).  Paul has already ditched some
> of his principles by
> going fracrack, so let's maybe continue that trend a
> bit further. :-)
> 
> -Elhardt
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com