MOTM

Here are 4 "identical" demos of the MOTM-520 Cloud Generator hardware. The
difference is the waveform used. In all cases the audio is unfiltered and
mono. The MP3 encoding is 64K, so the overall dynamic range/brightness is
somewhat compressed. But you will get the general idea.

Sounds are from turning the front panel controls (Pitch, Spread, Chaos).

www.synthtech.com/m520/saw_demo.mp3

www.synthtech.com/m520/tri_demo.mp3

www.synthtech.com/m520/sqr_demo.mp3

www.synthtech.com/m520/sine_demo.mp3

Let me know what you think!

Paul S>

My favorites are the sine and the saw. In fact I like the saw much
better than the square. I've always liked sawtooth animation and this
is super. I wonder what a 1/8 duty cycle pulse would sound like,
compared to the square. Would the PWM input be applicable to any
waveform but the square/pulse? If not, that would be a reason for
keeping the square wave.

Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com

Paul Schreiber wrote:

> Here are 4 "identical" demos of the MOTM-520 Cloud Generator hardware. The
> difference is the waveform used. In all cases the audio is unfiltered and
> mono. The MP3 encoding is 64K, so the overall dynamic range/brightness is
> somewhat compressed. But you will get the general idea.
>
> Sounds are from turning the front panel controls (Pitch, Spread, Chaos).
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/saw_demo.mp3
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/tri_demo.mp3
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/sqr_demo.mp3
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/sine_demo.mp3
>
> Let me know what you think!
>
> Paul S>
>
>

>Here are 4 "identical" demos of the MOTM-520 Cloud Generator hardware.
>Let me know what you think!

I like it, sounds a lot like my doomsday machine, which doesn't
surprise me since they both perform a similar operation. You can't
beat the sound of a bunch of oscillators in near, but not exact,
pitch.

My God - it's full of stars!

Love them all. Implement them all. However.

Reminds me why I'm building a doomsday machine.

When can I order one of these?

Steve

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Drake
sduck409@...
makeme1witheverything@...

It has been a long time coming. 2002 remember the page
being updated to show the front panel... and that was
a year after I heard a sample on CD at NAMM of the
concept for the module. I for one am quite excited
about it. I love the sine and the saw. I know Rich
didn't seem to thrilled with the square but I can see
use for it in my productions. It is hard to tell them
the chaos control is turned up super high if the
algorhythm stuff I am hearing is encoding of the mp3
or the audio engine. I can already hear enough uses to
not really care either way. It is the slower modulated
sounds which turn my crank the most. I sure wish this
was the Holiday module : )

Thanks for the demos Paul. I was waiting for these
after the recent posts on the list. Will the final 40%
remaining have much effect on the sound overall?

Thomas

--- Paul Schreiber <synth1@...> wrote:

> Here are 4 "identical" demos of the MOTM-520 Cloud
> Generator hardware. The
> difference is the waveform used. In all cases the
> audio is unfiltered and
> mono. The MP3 encoding is 64K, so the overall
> dynamic range/brightness is
> somewhat compressed. But you will get the general
> idea.
>
> Sounds are from turning the front panel controls
> (Pitch, Spread, Chaos).
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/saw_demo.mp3
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/tri_demo.mp3
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/sqr_demo.mp3
>
> www.synthtech.com/m520/sine_demo.mp3
>
> Let me know what you think!
>
> Paul S>
>
>

Thomas White
Natural Rhythm
www.naturalrhythmmusic.com




____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/

On Aug 11, 2007, at 10:51 , Paul Schreiber wrote:

> Here are 4 "identical" demos of the MOTM-520 Cloud Generator
> hardware. The
> difference is the waveform used. In all cases the audio is
> unfiltered and
> mono. The MP3 encoding is 64K, so the overall dynamic range/
> brightness is
> somewhat compressed. But you will get the general idea.
> Let me know what you think!

Love the saw, square and tri demos. The sine demo didn't impress me
much until later in the piece.
Very interesting module. Being digital though, I'm not sure yet if
they can give me the impression of a couple of '300s squeezed into a
single module.

- Robert

> It has been a long time coming. 2002 remember the page
> being updated to show the front panel... and that was
> a year after I heard a sample on CD at NAMM of the
> concept for the module.

a) I have too much in the assembled backlog to make this for Christmas.
There are still several people waiting and I just don't have the bandwidth
:(

b) teh initial design was thrown out the window in 2003 because
I waited for Xilinx to release the Spartan 3E FPGAs. Which is
a good thing.

> I love the sine and the saw. I know Rich
> didn't seem to thrilled with the square but I can see
> use for it in my productions.

He is a sine guy :) I like the sawtooth myself.

> It is hard to tell them
> the chaos control is turned up super high if the
> algorhythm stuff I am hearing is encoding of the mp3
> or the audio engine. I can already hear enough uses to
> not really care either way. It is the slower modulated
> sounds which turn my crank the most. I sure wish this
> was the Holiday module : )

The LFOs/noise modulation/spread ratios are all parameters
that are "hard coded" by arbitrary. I think the *very slow* rate
needs to be like 1 cycle/min or such. We will have to tweak
these once the real HW is here.

There is some phase jitter in these recordings, plus they
are at 64KBS. The 'real audio' is quite a bit...errr...more dramatic.

>
> Thanks for the demos Paul. I was waiting for these
> after the recent posts on the list. Will the final 40%
> remaining have much effect on the sound overall?
>

Mainly adding all the features (like CV of pitch!) and allowing
for the expansion connector interface.

Paul S.

Paul Schreiber wrote:

> There is some phase jitter in these recordings, plus they
> are at 64KBS. The 'real audio' is quite a bit...errr...more dramatic.
>

Good point. An MP3, especially through computer speakers, can give only
a rough idea of the sound. Square waves are especially prone to
sampling error, and maybe that's why I didn't like the square wave demo
so much. 192K BPS fixed rate with high quality encoding is better for
the Internet.

Can you post some better recordings, Paul? I'd like to play them
through my Mackie HR-824s.

Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com

At 04:48 AM 8/12/2007, Paul Schreiber wrote:

>He is a sine guy :) I like the sawtooth myself.

I hate to break it to you, but you are going to have to wait for the
expansion module for the sawtooth waves. ;-P
--
john

(Is the plural form "sawteeth"?)


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.15/949 - Release Date: 8/12/2007 11:03 AM