Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-03-31 23:28 UTC

Thread

Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-03 by Paul Schreiber

Some my recall ~ 1yr ago there was discussion about a MOTM-102 Noise/S&H
module (some wanted just the S&H part).

I am in the process of finishing the 'design in my head' (well, also the
schematic!) and this is where the module is right now. The intent of the
module is two-fold:

a) this will *replace* the MOTM-101 as parts are getting hard/expensive to
find looking out 2-5yrs from now.
b) I want to add more 'bells & whistles' and take advantage of SMT ICs
available

To get this out of the way early on: this is a digital module :) It uses a
60Mhz 32-bit ARM uP connected to serial ADC and DACs. But let's check out
the current feature list:

a) I am dropping the Vibrato section of the '101, and replacing it with a
tunable noise source (there are still White/Pink/Slow Random)
----- Now, should I *drop* Slow Random, and instead have Internal Clock Out?
I am leaning this way myself as this is missing from the '101. See later
features).

b) The current single in/out analog S&H circuitry is replaced with a
4-section output (cascade, also called an ASR). The S&H function is through
a 14-bit A/D D/A path, meaning no "droop".

c) the time delay *between* taps can be set by a panel pot from 0 (typical
ASR to 256). So, at maximum, there are 1024 clock between the input being
sampled, and that voltage appearing on the output of Tap #4.

d) early calculations have indicated that the S&H code can be clock at a
*minimum* of 1Khz. So, at max tap setting, you can get a 1sec delay. Now,
this is not a "delay line" per se, but certainly you can sample an ADSR EG
output and get a series (sort of like an arpeggiator) of time-delayed EGs
out. Yo can also take the 4 outputs to a MOTM-830 mixer, and then shove THAT
back into the input and get no telling sort of stuff out. We may be able to
double that, running up to a 2Khz S&H clocking speed.

e) there is not output lag function like in the '101

f) there is a pot (not an input CV, no room) to set a couple of quantizing
scales. We don't have a lot of room in the ARM's Flash for 256 14-bit scales
:) We can stick 4-6 scales in there. Suggestions for *which* scales needed.
Note: this module is NOT intended to be a general-purpose quantizer. That is
another module altogether. Rather, this is specifically to quantize the S&H
output. As in the '101, the default S&H input is Pink Noise (no patchcord
inserted into the S&H IN jack).

g) lastly, there is a *new* feature, enabled by recent high-speed memory
technology. We will be able to *record and playback* the data into the S&H
"engine". There is enough memory to record 16 *seconds* at 1Khz clocking.
Note that the *input* is recorded, not the 4 tap outputs. So, you can record
and X clock rate, and play back at *any* clock and tap setting! You can also
loop the recorded data. I though this would be a simple "CV recorder" but
again not *intended* to be something like the Modcan. Rather, something to
'fool around with'.

Thoughts?

Paul S.

RE: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-03 by Greg James

Paul,

I'd like to be able to trigger the "record" and "playback" by a CV gate?
That would be very interesting.

-Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Paul Schreiber
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:32 PM
To: MOTM List
Subject: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module


Some my recall ~ 1yr ago there was discussion about a MOTM-102 Noise/S&H
module (some wanted just the S&H part).

I am in the process of finishing the 'design in my head' (well, also the
schematic!) and this is where the module is right now. The intent of the
module is two-fold:

a) this will *replace* the MOTM-101 as parts are getting hard/expensive to
find looking out 2-5yrs from now.
b) I want to add more 'bells & whistles' and take advantage of SMT ICs
available

To get this out of the way early on: this is a digital module :) It uses a
60Mhz 32-bit ARM uP connected to serial ADC and DACs. But let's check out
the current feature list:

a) I am dropping the Vibrato section of the '101, and replacing it with a
tunable noise source (there are still White/Pink/Slow Random)
----- Now, should I *drop* Slow Random, and instead have Internal Clock Out?
I am leaning this way myself as this is missing from the '101. See later
features).

b) The current single in/out analog S&H circuitry is replaced with a
4-section output (cascade, also called an ASR). The S&H function is through
a 14-bit A/D D/A path, meaning no "droop".

c) the time delay *between* taps can be set by a panel pot from 0 (typical
ASR to 256). So, at maximum, there are 1024 clock between the input being
sampled, and that voltage appearing on the output of Tap #4.

d) early calculations have indicated that the S&H code can be clock at a
*minimum* of 1Khz. So, at max tap setting, you can get a 1sec delay. Now,
this is not a "delay line" per se, but certainly you can sample an ADSR EG
output and get a series (sort of like an arpeggiator) of time-delayed EGs
out. Yo can also take the 4 outputs to a MOTM-830 mixer, and then shove THAT
back into the input and get no telling sort of stuff out. We may be able to
double that, running up to a 2Khz S&H clocking speed.

e) there is not output lag function like in the '101

f) there is a pot (not an input CV, no room) to set a couple of quantizing
scales. We don't have a lot of room in the ARM's Flash for 256 14-bit scales
:) We can stick 4-6 scales in there. Suggestions for *which* scales needed.
Note: this module is NOT intended to be a general-purpose quantizer. That is
another module altogether. Rather, this is specifically to quantize the S&H
output. As in the '101, the default S&H input is Pink Noise (no patchcord
inserted into the S&H IN jack).

g) lastly, there is a *new* feature, enabled by recent high-speed memory
technology. We will be able to *record and playback* the data into the S&H
"engine". There is enough memory to record 16 *seconds* at 1Khz clocking.
Note that the *input* is recorded, not the 4 tap outputs. So, you can record
and X clock rate, and play back at *any* clock and tap setting! You can also
loop the recorded data. I though this would be a simple "CV recorder" but
again not *intended* to be something like the Modcan. Rather, something to
'fool around with'.

Thoughts?

Paul S.




Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-03 by Stephen Drake

Sounds cool! I'll take one.

a - yes, a clock out has been the big missing feature so far. I've never really used the slow out, and don't even really know what it does, so I suppose it won't be missed.

b-d - cool!

e - oh well. I suppose we can muddle through without it somehow. Lag happens.

f - wow! Neat feature. How about 12 notes per octave, 24 per, and the other two I dunno, someone else decide.

g - I'm not even sure I fully comprehend this yet, but it sure sounds like fun to mess with!

Sounds great!

Steve

Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Feb 3, 2008 2:31 PM, Paul Schreiber <synth1@...> wrote:

Some my recall ~ 1yr ago there was discussion about a MOTM-102 Noise/S&H
module (some wanted just the S&H part).

I am in the process of finishing the 'design in my head' (well, also the
schematic!) and this is where the module is right now. The intent of the
module is two-fold:

a) this will *replace* the MOTM-101 as parts are getting hard/expensive to
find looking out 2-5yrs from now.
b) I want to add more 'bells & whistles' and take advantage of SMT ICs
available

To get this out of the way early on: this is a digital module :) It uses a
60Mhz 32-bit ARM uP connected to serial ADC and DACs. But let's check out
the current feature list:

a) I am dropping the Vibrato section of the '101, and replacing it with a
tunable noise source (there are still White/Pink/Slow Random)
----- Now, should I *drop* Slow Random, and instead have Internal Clock Out?
I am leaning this way myself as this is missing from the '101. See later
features).

b) The current single in/out analog S&H circuitry is replaced with a
4-section output (cascade, also called an ASR). The S&H function is through
a 14-bit A/D D/A path, meaning no "droop".

c) the time delay *between* taps can be set by a panel pot from 0 (typical
ASR to 256). So, at maximum, there are 1024 clock between the input being
sampled, and that voltage appearing on the output of Tap #4.

d) early calculations have indicated that the S&H code can be clock at a
*minimum* of 1Khz. So, at max tap setting, you can get a 1sec delay. Now,
this is not a "delay line" per se, but certainly you can sample an ADSR EG
output and get a series (sort of like an arpeggiator) of time-delayed EGs
out. Yo can also take the 4 outputs to a MOTM-830 mixer, and then shove THAT
back into the input and get no telling sort of stuff out. We may be able to
double that, running up to a 2Khz S&H clocking speed.

e) there is not output lag function like in the '101

f) there is a pot (not an input CV, no room) to set a couple of quantizing
scales. We don't have a lot of room in the ARM's Flash for 256 14-bit scales
:) We can stick 4-6 scales in there. Suggestions for *which* scales needed.
Note: this module is NOT intended to be a general-purpose quantizer. That is
another module altogether. Rather, this is specifically to quantize the S&H
output. As in the '101, the default S&H input is Pink Noise (no patchcord
inserted into the S&H IN jack).

g) lastly, there is a *new* feature, enabled by recent high-speed memory
technology. We will be able to *record and playback* the data into the S&H
"engine". There is enough memory to record 16 *seconds* at 1Khz clocking.
Note that the *input* is recorded, not the 4 tap outputs. So, you can record
and X clock rate, and play back at *any* clock and tap setting! You can also
loop the recorded data. I though this would be a simple "CV recorder" but
again not *intended* to be something like the Modcan. Rather, something to
'fool around with'.

Thoughts?

Paul S.

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

Re: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-03 by Richard Brewster

1) Will the internal clock be wide-range and have a CV input? If the
internal clock is voltage-controllable and has a wider range than the
manual clock in the 101, it is worth having its output. Otherwise not.
I normally use an external voltage-controlled clock, like a MOTM-390
LFO, when clocking my 101.

2) Please say more about the tunable noise source. What is tunable, and
what are the controls?

3) I'm trying to understand the delay factor. If this is set to 256 and
the input clock is 256 Hz, does this mean that the outputs change once
per second, or 256 times per second? If the latter, does this mean that
the 2nd tap lags the first by 1 second? The 4th tap would be delayed by
3 seconds here? Maybe you can describe it better.

4) Is the time delay factor voltage-controllable? That would be very cool.

Thanks,

-Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com

Paul Schreiber wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Some my recall ~ 1yr ago there was discussion about a MOTM-102 Noise/S&H
> module (some wanted just the S&H part).
>
> I am in the process of finishing the 'design in my head' (well, also the
> schematic!) and this is where the module is right now. The intent of the
> module is two-fold:
>
> a) this will *replace* the MOTM-101 as parts are getting hard/expensive to
> find looking out 2-5yrs from now.
> b) I want to add more 'bells & whistles' and take advantage of SMT ICs
> available
>
> To get this out of the way early on: this is a digital module :) It uses a
> 60Mhz 32-bit ARM uP connected to serial ADC and DACs. But let's check out
> the current feature list:
>
> a) I am dropping the Vibrato section of the '101, and replacing it with a
> tunable noise source (there are still White/Pink/Slow Random)
> ----- Now, should I *drop* Slow Random, and instead have Internal Clock Out?
> I am leaning this way myself as this is missing from the '101. See later
> features).
>
> b) The current single in/out analog S&H circuitry is replaced with a
> 4-section output (cascade, also called an ASR). The S&H function is through
> a 14-bit A/D D/A path, meaning no "droop".
>
> c) the time delay *between* taps can be set by a panel pot from 0 (typical
> ASR to 256). So, at maximum, there are 1024 clock between the input being
> sampled, and that voltage appearing on the output of Tap #4.
>
> d) early calculations have indicated that the S&H code can be clock at a
> *minimum* of 1Khz. So, at max tap setting, you can get a 1sec delay. Now,
> this is not a "delay line" per se, but certainly you can sample an ADSR EG
> output and get a series (sort of like an arpeggiator) of time-delayed EGs
> out. Yo can also take the 4 outputs to a MOTM-830 mixer, and then shove THAT
> back into the input and get no telling sort of stuff out. We may be able to
> double that, running up to a 2Khz S&H clocking speed.
>
> e) there is not output lag function like in the '101
>
> f) there is a pot (not an input CV, no room) to set a couple of quantizing
> scales. We don't have a lot of room in the ARM's Flash for 256 14-bit scales
> :) We can stick 4-6 scales in there. Suggestions for *which* scales needed.
> Note: this module is NOT intended to be a general-purpose quantizer. That is
> another module altogether. Rather, this is specifically to quantize the S&H
> output. As in the '101, the default S&H input is Pink Noise (no patchcord
> inserted into the S&H IN jack).
>
> g) lastly, there is a *new* feature, enabled by recent high-speed memory
> technology. We will be able to *record and playback* the data into the S&H
> "engine". There is enough memory to record 16 *seconds* at 1Khz clocking.
> Note that the *input* is recorded, not the 4 tap outputs. So, you can record
> and X clock rate, and play back at *any* clock and tap setting! You can also
> loop the recorded data. I though this would be a simple "CV recorder" but
> again not *intended* to be something like the Modcan. Rather, something to
> 'fool around with'.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul S.
>

Re: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-06 by Mark

On 2/3/08, Paul Schreiber put forth:
>a) I am dropping the Vibrato section of the '101, and replacing it with a
>tunable noise source (there are still White/Pink/Slow Random)
>----- Now, should I *drop* Slow Random, and instead have Internal Clock Out?

An internal clock out is a popular and easy mod for the MOTM-101, but
might not be so easy to add to the proposed 102 due to its SMD
design and possible lack of panel space. So, yes, I think it would be better
than a slow random output (which I've never used for its intended
purpose). That way, people with smaller systems don't have to tie up
a 320 or something just to get a clock.

Also, if there is only one noise output with a knob, wouldn't a more
extreme setting be equivalent to slow random??

Perhaps we could get a better description of the user interface -- a
list of all the knobs and jacks.

>c) the time delay *between* taps can be set by a panel pot from 0 (typical
>ASR to 256). So, at maximum, there are 1024 clock between the input being
>sampled, and that voltage appearing on the output of Tap #4.
>
>d) early calculations have indicated that the S&H code can be clock at a
>*minimum* of 1Khz. So, at max tap setting, you can get a 1sec delay.

Could you please explain that again?? For analogue S&H and ASR
modules, the sampling rate is the same as the step clock, where the
delay time is only limited by droop. How does that relate to the
frequency of code clock in this module??

>f) there is a pot (not an input CV, no room) to set a couple of quantizing
>scales. We don't have a lot of room in the ARM's Flash for 256 14-bit scales
>:) We can stick 4-6 scales in there. Suggestions for *which* scales needed.
>Note: this module is NOT intended to be a general-purpose quantizer. That is
>another module altogether. Rather, this is specifically to quantize the S&H
>output. As in the '101, the default S&H input is Pink Noise (no patchcord
>inserted into the S&H IN jack).

That sounds like a nice feature, as the quantized random voltages of
the SH-101 and other synths is a popular sound. It would also make
the "playing chords by loading an ASR" trick much easier. So my
suggestion for four quantize settings would be chromatic, major,
minor, and 6-bit.

On 2/3/08, Richard Brewster put forth:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>3) I'm trying to understand the delay factor. If this is set to 256 and
>the input clock is 256 Hz, does this mean that the outputs change once
>per second, or 256 times per second? If the latter, does this mean that
>the 2nd tap lags the first by 1 second? The 4th tap would be delayed by
>3 seconds here? Maybe you can describe it better.

I don't get it either.

Re: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-06 by Paul Schreiber

> An internal clock out is a popular and easy mod for the MOTM-101, but
> might not be so easy to add to the proposed 102 due to its SMD
> design and possible lack of panel space.

I have decided to replace the dedicated Slow Random output with a CLK OUT
jack.


>
> Also, if there is only one noise output with a knob, wouldn't a more
> extreme setting be equivalent to slow random??

That's the plan :)

> Could you please explain that again?? For analogue S&H and ASR
> modules, the sampling rate is the same as the step clock, where the
> delay time is only limited by droop. How does that relate to the
> frequency of code clock in this module??

First, let's expain what exactly a 'shift register' does.

Everyone has heard of a BBD (bucket-brigade device), and a shift register is
the 'digital' equivalent.

A BBD stores charges, and every clock pulse, every BBD passes it's charge to
the BBD next to it.
A shift register, on every clock, passes it's digital data to the stage
(register) next to it.

So, if I have a 12-stage shift register (or, a BBD with 12 storage cells),
it takes 12 clock pulses for the input
to "appear" at the output. Now every clock pulse, *something* appears at the
output, and what that *something*
is happens to be what state the input was 12 clock pulses *ago*.

What the MOTM-102 does is make a digital equivalent of a BBD chip. Instead
of storing analog voltages as a charge on a capacitor (BBD),
we digitize the signal and store it into internal RAM of the ARM uC. The
software, every time there is a clock pulse (internal or external), samples
the inputs and THEN shoves all the pre-existing samples "down the line", 1
RAM location at a time.

If you are saying to yourself "Hey, isn't that how a digital delay or
reverb works?" you would be correct :)

The typical analog ASR has NO DELAY *between* stages: 1>>2>>3>>4 lets say.
So, if I turn it on and load 0.0V into all 4 stages, it get:
0>>0>>0>>0 at the outputs.

If I apply 1V to the input *and leave it there* for 4 clocks, here is what I
get:

0>>0>>0>>0 a clock occurs!
1>>0>>0>>0 a clock occurs!
1>>1>>0>>0 a clock occurs
1>>1>>1>>0 and so on.......

What makes the MOTM-102 unique is that we can assign a delay (which is
nothing more that *adding stages you don't have access to*) in between the
LAST 3 stages (and with a switch, also to the first stage so that what
follows below does NOT occur!).

So, if I add the case of 1 added stage, I get:

0>>d>>0>>d>>0>>d>>0 when powered up The 'd' is an internal RAM location.

Now, let's assume I have 1V present for 2 clocks, then 2V for 1 clock, then
3V for the rest. OK, here we go!

0>>d>>0>>d>>0>>d>>0 when powered up
1>>d>>0>>d>>0>>d>>0 a clock occurs! (the first 1V is shifted in)
1>>d>>0>>d>>0>>d>>0 a clock occurs! (the second 1V shifted in, the first 1V
is in the 'delay tap')
2>>d>>1>>d>>0>>d>>0 a clock occurs! (now the 2V is in)
3>>d>>1>>d>>0>>d>>0 a clock occurs! (now the 3V is in)
3>>d>>2>>d>>1>>d>>0 a clock occurs!
3>>d>>3>>d>>1>>d>>0 a clock occurs!
3>>d>>3>>d>>2>>d>>1 a clock occurs!
3>>d>>3>>d>>3>>d>>1 a clock occurs!
3>>d>>3>>d>>2>>d>>3 and so on..............


Now, what is REALLY interesting (at least to me) is that in this case, there
is *no time* that the input sequence (1V, 1V, 2V, 3V) appears on the 4
outputs! We get close (0V, 1V, 2V, 3V), but due to the interaction of the
delay length versus the number of clocks an input is present, this sort of
thing will occur. See, it's a chaotic shift register (worse that a Psycho
Shift Register?)

Also, if I make a table comparing the outs with no delay (ASR) versus 1-tap
delay, it looks REALLY interesting!

CLOCK OUTPUT ASR OUTPUT 1TAP
1 0,0,0,0 0,0,0,0
2 1,0,0,0 1,0,0,0
3 1,1,0,0 1,0,0,0
4 2,1,1,0 2,1,0,0
5 3,2,1,1 3,1,0,0 <---- look, the ASR
has the proper output, the 1tap is off in the weeds :)
6 3,3,2,1 3,2,1,0 <---- close, but no
cigar
7 3,3,3,2 3,3,1,0
8 3,3,3,3 3,3,2,1
9 3,3,3,3 3,3,3,1
10 3,3,3,3 3,3,3,2
11 3,3,3,3 3,3,3,3

Of course, with NO delay, then this is not an issue: every input is copies
and shifted to an output EVERY clock, so nothing is "lost". This will also
be true if there is a 4th added delay: between the sampling and the first
stage, as so:

d>>0>>d>>0>>d>>0>>d>>0

The exercise is left to the reader that adding the delay in front of stage
#1 "preserves" all of the samples, unlike the example described in chaos
mode. I plan to have a switch labelled NORMAL/CHAOS (for lack of a better
term, open for suggestions) that tells the code how to organize the samples
in RAM.

>
> That sounds like a nice feature, as the quantized random voltages of
> the SH-101 and other synths is a popular sound. It would also make
> the "playing chords by loading an ASR" trick much easier. So my
> suggestion for four quantize settings would be chromatic, major,
> minor, and 6-bit.

I'm going to have a JI scale in there :)

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> On 2/3/08, Richard Brewster put forth:
>>3) I'm trying to understand the delay factor. If this is set to 256 and
>>the input clock is 256 Hz, does this mean that the outputs change once
>>per second, or 256 times per second? If the latter, does this mean that
>>the 2nd tap lags the first by 1 second? The 4th tap would be delayed by
>>3 seconds here? Maybe you can describe it better.

It is more precise to state: the outputs are UPDATED every clock pulse. They
may, or may *not* change,
based on what the data is at the input relative to the time it was sampled.

Paul S.

Re: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-06 by Jason Proctor

the 102 sounds like a CGS gated comparator (maybe my favourite module
of all time) but without the comparator stage - ie the outputs are
analogue.

the delay thing sounds wonky cool, too.

Re: [motm] Finalizing the (new) MOTM-102 module

2008-02-07 by Mark

On 2/6/08, Paul Schreiber put forth:
> > Could you please explain that again?? For analogue S&H and ASR
> > modules, the sampling rate is the same as the step clock, where the
> > delay time is only limited by droop. How does that relate to the
> > frequency of code clock in this module??
>
>First, let's expain what exactly a 'shift register' does.

Thank you for enplaning that. While I understand how a shift
register works, you said the "S&H code can be clock at a *minimum* of
1Khz". That's 60,000 BPM. Which leads to believe that either this
clock driving the "code" is different than the sampling rate, or you
meant something else. Hence my confusion. By "minimum" do you
actually mean maximum, that at a minimum, the fastest it can be
clocked is 1,000 times per second??

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>The typical analog ASR has NO DELAY *between* stages: 1>>2>>3>>4 lets say.

What I meant by "delay" in an analogue ASR is equal to the period of
the clock. A typical use for an ASR is a gate or trigger delay --
when the input goes high, it doesn't appear at whichever output until
that many clock edges later. Too long a "delay" and the cap will
discharge.

stooge cable troubles

2008-02-26 by Mark

Speaking of things branded "Synthesis Technology", has anyone else
had any problems with the patch cables Larry sold a few years back??

It seems that most of the ones I bought are no longer working
properly. Since jiggling the cable against the jack often restores
the signal, at least temporarily, my guess is that their solder
connections have gone bad. In contrast, I have a large number of
1/4" cables from Clark, ProCo, and Markertek -- all of which are
older and have seen much more use -- without any problems.

I'm not trying to blame anyone here. I'm sure Larry had the absolute
best intentions, and did not build these cables himself. However, I
would like to get an idea if this is a common problem, and what I can
do to solve it.

The solder joints don't look particularly cold -- they are smooth and
shiny. So I'm thinking that perhaps they were assembled with the
wrong kind of flux?? That means the difference between being able to
simply re-heat them, and having to completely de-solder and re-solder
them.


Thanks :)

Re: [motm] stooge cable troubles

2008-02-26 by Scott

I had one cable where the signal was permanently shorted to ground,
but Larry replaced it right away (that was one cable out of 144).
Occasionally I'll find a cable that seems to exhibit a short to ground
(symptom goes away when I wiggle it), but in every one of those cases
I've noticed that one of the jack's outer connector/collar was loose
and the problem goes away as soon as I tighten up the connector.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 26-Feb-08, at 8:03 AM, Mark wrote:

>
> Speaking of things branded "Synthesis Technology", has anyone else
> had any problems with the patch cables Larry sold a few years back??
>
> It seems that most of the ones I bought are no longer working
> properly. Since jiggling the cable against the jack often restores
> the signal, at least temporarily, my guess is that their solder
> connections have gone bad. In contrast, I have a large number of
> 1/4" cables from Clark, ProCo, and Markertek -- all of which are
> older and have seen much more use -- without any problems.
>
> I'm not trying to blame anyone here. I'm sure Larry had the absolute
> best intentions, and did not build these cables himself. However, I
> would like to get an idea if this is a common problem, and what I can
> do to solve it.
>
> The solder joints don't look particularly cold -- they are smooth and
> shiny. So I'm thinking that perhaps they were assembled with the
> wrong kind of flux?? That means the difference between being able to
> simply re-heat them, and having to completely de-solder and re-solder
> them.
>
>
> Thanks :)
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [motm] stooge cable troubles

2008-02-26 by Ti_

One easy way to take care of the outer collar always getting loose is to use that teflon plumbers tape around the threads. I've got a number of cables I bought that just can't seem to stay screwed on otherwise. Also, it could be slight differences in the actual size of the plug and maybe the stooge plugs were just small enough that the don't get a solid connection with the jack, in which case you could just ever so slightly bend the jack connections in just a bit. I got some "clearance" guitar cables from Guitar Center once, took them home and the plugs wouldn't even fit into a 1/4" jack! They were just big enough that you couldn't see the difference with the naked eye, but they sure don't work for S%#t.
~Tim

Scott <scott@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
I had one cable where the signal was permanently shorted to ground,
but Larry replaced it right away (that was one cable out of 144).
Occasionally I'll find a cable that seems to exhibit a short to ground
(symptom goes away when I wiggle it), but in every one of those cases
I've noticed that one of the jack's outer connector/collar was loose
and the problem goes away as soon as I tighten up the connector.

On 26-Feb-08, at 8:03 AM, Mark wrote:

>
> Speaking of things branded "Synthesis Technology", has anyone else
> had any problems with the patch cables Larry sold a few years back??
>
> It seems that most of the ones I bought are no longer working
> properly. Since jiggling the cable against the jack often restores
> the signal, at least temporarily, my guess is that their solder
> connections have gone bad. In contrast, I have a large number of
> 1/4" cables from Clark, ProCo, and Markertek -- all of which are
> older and have seen much more use -- without any problems.
>
> I'm not trying to blame anyone here. I'm sure Larry had the absolute
> best intentions, and did not build these cables himself. However, I
> would like to get an idea if this is a common problem, and what I can
> do to solve it.
>
> The solder joints don't look particularly cold -- they are smooth and
> shiny. So I'm thinking that perhaps they were assembled with the
> wrong kind of flux?? That means the difference between being able to
> simply re-heat them, and having to completely de-solder and re-solder
> them.
>
>
> Thanks :)
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Re: stooge cable troubles

2008-02-26 by Koos Fockens

The problem of loose collars is quite common I find. I have several Stooge cables that
came from Stooge Industries, they do have a tendency to go loose. A tiny drop of thread
locker does the trick , and will make sure there is enough thread exposed so that the
collars are grounded.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott <scott@...> wrote:
>
> I had one cable where the signal was permanently shorted to ground,
> but Larry replaced it right away (that was one cable out of 144).
> Occasionally I'll find a cable that seems to exhibit a short to ground
> (symptom goes away when I wiggle it), but in every one of those cases
> I've noticed that one of the jack's outer connector/collar was loose
> and the problem goes away as soon as I tighten up the connector.
>
> On 26-Feb-08, at 8:03 AM, Mark wrote:
>
> >
> > Speaking of things branded "Synthesis Technology", has anyone else
> > had any problems with the patch cables Larry sold a few years back??
> >
> > It seems that most of the ones I bought are no longer working
> > properly. Since jiggling the cable against the jack often restores
> > the signal, at least temporarily, my guess is that their solder
> > connections have gone bad. In contrast, I have a large number of
> > 1/4" cables from Clark, ProCo, and Markertek -- all of which are
> > older and have seen much more use -- without any problems.
> >
> > I'm not trying to blame anyone here. I'm sure Larry had the absolute
> > best intentions, and did not build these cables himself. However, I
> > would like to get an idea if this is a common problem, and what I can
> > do to solve it.
> >
> > The solder joints don't look particularly cold -- they are smooth and
> > shiny. So I'm thinking that perhaps they were assembled with the
> > wrong kind of flux?? That means the difference between being able to
> > simply re-heat them, and having to completely de-solder and re-solder
> > them.
> >
> >
> > Thanks :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [motm] stooge cable troubles

2008-02-27 by Richard Brewster

I wrapped all my Stooge cable threads with Teflon tape to stop them
coming loose. Works like a charm. No problems otherwise.

Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com

Ti_ wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> One easy way to take care of the outer collar always getting loose is
> to use that teflon plumbers tape around the threads.

Re: [motm] stooge cable troubles

2008-02-27 by Dave Bradley

I've never had any cable problems with my several dozen stooge cables.
It is always important to unplug each cable by holding the plug
barrel. If you pull on the wire instead, shame on you.

I have however noticed that the plug diameter seems to be a bit
slimmer than the corresponding switchcraft plug. So the connection
with certain loose jacks could be a bit tenuous.

Re: stooge cable troubles

2008-02-27 by RRossen

Yeah, I’ve had problems with the stooge cables too, intermittent and all. The Teflon tape and/or LocTite will definitely work for the loose collars but really should have nothing to do with the cables being electrically intermittent. The soldering looks fine but I’m thinking that perhaps the heat from soldering the braided shield has melted through partially to the inner conductor?!?! It is a pain – especially when in the middle of patching up the next ultimate new sound! I’ve been going thru the process of hitting all the cables and the module jacks with DeoxIT -D5 (expensive, but works great) – as all connections seem to have a slight oxidation process continually occurring.

Let’s just have everything gold plated from now on –eh? Laughs…

Rog

RE: [motm] stooge cable troubles

2008-02-27 by Adam Schabtach

> I've never had any cable problems with my several dozen stooge cables.

Nor have I, FWIW.

--Adam

Re: [motm] stooge cable troubles

2008-03-01 by Mark

On 2/26/08, Scott put forth:
>
>Occasionally I'll find a cable that seems to exhibit a short to ground
>(symptom goes away when I wiggle it), but in every one of those cases
>I've noticed that one of the jack's outer connector/collar was loose
>and the problem goes away as soon as I tighten up the connector.

I haven't tested them to see if it is a short or discontinuous.
Although I can't see how a loose barrel could cause a short, as there
is an inner plastic sleeve that would prevent it from touching the
conductor. While I have noticed that the barrels do indeed tend to
become loose with these cables, tightening them hasn't made a
difference.

On 2/26/08, Ti_ put forth:
>Also, it could be slight differences in the actual size of the plug
>and maybe the stooge plugs were just small enough that the don't get
>a solid connection with the jack, in which case you could just ever
>so slightly bend the jack connections in just a bit.

It could be a faulty connection with the jack, and my jiggling
resulted in a better connection. However, I do not think it is the
fault of the jacks. Firstly, I haven't had problems with any other
plugs. Secondly, I use these cables with more than just my modular.
I use them with my patch bay, mixer, and an assortment of pedals from
around the world.

However, I did receive a private email from someone who had a similar
problem with intermittent cables, and suggested cleaning them first,
as he resoldered a bunch of patchcords before he figured out that was
the problem.

I have noticed that the barrels of these cables tend to show
fingerprints and look dirty very quickly. I don't know if they are
the same metal as the business end of these plugs, but some metals
are more resistant to corrosion than others.

>I got some "clearance" guitar cables from Guitar Center once, took
>them home and the plugs wouldn't even fit into a 1/4" jack! They
>were just big enough that you couldn't see the difference with the
>naked eye, but they sure don't work for S%#t.

They were likely military surplus, as there are numerous different
military specifications for 1/4" jacks that are longer or shorter, or
have a wider or different shaped tip, such as "B gauge" plugs. Long
frame 1/4" jacks are used in some audio patchbays, but do not work
with regular 1/4" jacks.

On 2/26/08, Richard Brewster put forth:
>I wrapped all my Stooge cable threads with Teflon tape to stop them
>coming loose.

That's a good idea. Just don't use so much tape that the barrel is
insulated from the sleeve as that would reduce its function as a
shield. Teflon tape is intended to keep fluids from leaking. The
correct thread locker (not the kind that requires heat to break) or
the application of sufficient torque would also work.

On 2/26/08, Dave Bradley put forth:
>I've never had any cable problems with my several dozen stooge cables.
>It is always important to unplug each cable by holding the plug
>barrel. If you pull on the wire instead, shame on you.

Oh, I wouldn't do that.

>I have however noticed that the plug diameter seems to be a bit
>slimmer than the corresponding switchcraft plug. So the connection
>with certain loose jacks could be a bit tenuous.

I know that Neutrik plugs are just a an eensy bit wider than
Switchcraft plugs, but it hasn't caused any problems. I haven't
quite reached the point where I'm measuring these plugs with a dial
gauge :)

On 2/27/08, RRossen put forth:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>Yeah, I've had problems with the stooge cables too, intermittent and
>all. The Teflon tape and/or LocTite will definitely work for the
>loose collars but really should have nothing to do with the cables
>being electrically intermittent. The soldering looks fine but I'm
>thinking that perhaps the heat from soldering the braided shield has
>melted through partially to the inner conductor?!?! It is a pain -
>especially when in the middle of patching up the next ultimate new
>sound! I've been going thru the process of hitting all the cables
>and the module jacks with DeoxIT -D5 (expensive, but works great) -
>as all connections seem to have a slight oxidation process
>continually occurring.

Clearly, some metals are more inert better than others. I have a
bunch of inexpensive Radio Shack 1/8" cables that I use with Roland
gear, that like these stooge cables, tend to turn very quickly. I
also have a bunch of Neutrik 1/4" plugs -- some of which are almost
20 years old -- that are nickel-plated and have never needed
cleaning. I haven't had any problems with the Switchcraft jacks in
my MOTM either, which are also nickel-plated.


Anyway, thanks to everyone for their response.