MOTM

The LFO really is an awesome module.

How many list members decided to switch the  + & - leads for the diode?

I was thinking of adding a rotary switch for a waveform select instead of the jumper. And maybe a "range" switch for 2 different C8 values.

PS - The diode is plenty bright for me.

Mark  T

I got my MOTM LFO kit shortly after Christmas, and the
first thing I tried was controlling a Phaser with the
unsymmetrical Sine waveshape. This is something I wanted
to try for a long time. Even though I have a similar LFO in my
JH-720, this is a "closed" system, so I could not bring that
waveform out easily, and I certainly did not want to dismantle
the Synthesizer for that little experiment. But seldom was I looking
forward so much to one of my own circuits "in the flesh" as
with the MOTM LFO.
So I soldered it together, plugged it into my ARP Quadra Phaser
clone, Sine output of the LFO with shape knob turned fully clockwise.
And there it was, the idiosyncratic "roller coaster" type modulation
which you find in some vintage Phasers.
So, if you have an exponentially controlled (V/Oct) Phaser and
a MOTM VCLFO, it's recommended to try this specific setup.

Happy New Year !

JH.

Thanks JH.  Unfortunately, no voltage controlled phaser on this end yet in
the modular.  Which phaser are you using -- your Neptune perhaps?
Larry H

----- Original Message -----
From: <jhaible@...>
To: <motm@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 7:39 AM
Subject: [motm] LFO


I got my MOTM LFO kit shortly after Christmas, and the
first thing I tried was controlling a Phaser with the
unsymmetrical Sine waveshape. This is something I wanted
to try for a long time. Even though I have a similar LFO in my
JH-720, this is a "closed" system, so I could not bring that
waveform out easily, and I certainly did not want to dismantle
the Synthesizer for that little experiment. But seldom was I looking
forward so much to one of my own circuits "in the flesh" as
with the MOTM LFO.
So I soldered it together, plugged it into my ARP Quadra Phaser
clone, Sine output of the LFO with shape knob turned fully clockwise.
And there it was, the idiosyncratic "roller coaster" type modulation
which you find in some vintage Phasers.
So, if you have an exponentially controlled (V/Oct) Phaser and
a MOTM VCLFO, it's recommended to try this specific setup.

Happy New Year !

JH.

> Thanks JH.  Unfortunately, no voltage controlled phaser on this end yet in
> the modular.  Which phaser are you using -- your Neptune perhaps?

The ARP Quadra Phaser clone.
(See http://home.t-online.de/home/jhaible/hj_sch.html , bottom
of the page, for details.)
But that is just one example for an exponentially controlled
Phaser. I have 2 other ones with exponential (V/Oct) inputs, too:
The Phase-12 (http://home.debitel.net/user/jhaible/jh_phase12_1.jpg)
eventually led to the MAM Phaze2 in a scaled down version
(see http://www.mam-germany.de/produkte/phaze2.html) - but
I don't know if they have kept the external V/Oct input or not.
(If they have not, it should be easy to retrofit (;->))
And the other one is in my JH-3 Modular, with 6 stages switchable
from LPF to APF in pairs and VC slope control.

Well, the point was that exponential CV is a "natural" and inexpensive
way to control a Phaser (just as it is for a VCF), and with the Shape
control of the MOTM VCLFO you can emulate some of the stranger
crop of Phasers with a simple exponential Phaser to some extend.

Next I try it on a VC Flanger.  8-)

JH.

I don't think there are many of us on the list with VC Phasers at the moment. 
It wouldn't be too hard to whip one up from some CEM 3320s, but I seem to 
recall Juergen not recommending these for phaser use -- is that true JH?

JB

In a message dated 1/1/2001 10:26:10 AM, jhaible@... writes:

>> Thanks JH.  Unfortunately, no voltage controlled phaser on this end yet
>in
>> the modular.  Which phaser are you using -- your Neptune perhaps?

In a message dated 1/1/2001 5:49:49 AM, jhaible@... writes:

>I got my MOTM LFO kit shortly after Christmas, and the
>first thing I tried was controlling a Phaser with the
>unsymmetrical Sine waveshape. This is something I wanted
>to try for a long time. 


>And there it was, the idiosyncratic "roller coaster" type modulation
>which you find in some vintage Phasers.
>So, if you have an exponentially controlled (V/Oct) Phaser and
>a MOTM VCLFO, it's recommended to try this specific setup.


Maybe the upcoming MOTM VC Phaser can incorporate a "simple" on board LFO 
which is capable of producing the basic "popular" LFO waveforms (like 
triangle, sine, and "rollycoaster") as this would leave the 320 free to use 
elsewhere.

Hey, I can't let UK Paul dominate the unreasonable future module request list.
JB

But Barlow--you should have at least 10 LFOs! :) I feel like I'm going to
burn out the two I have because I use them so much. 

Anyway, I would much rather leave OUT any internal LFO. I don't like these
mixed modules. I would much rather have each module perform one function.
Even with the 410 I would rather have 3 CV inputs (hey--I'm not complaining
though--I still love it).

But that's just my opinion and other MOTMers rarely agree with that opinion,
so I'll just go back to my corner.

David.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jwbarlow@... [mailto:jwbarlow@...]
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 8:12 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] LFO
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/1/2001 5:49:49 AM, jhaible@... writes:
> 
> >I got my MOTM LFO kit shortly after Christmas, and the
> >first thing I tried was controlling a Phaser with the
> >unsymmetrical Sine waveshape. This is something I wanted
> >to try for a long time. 
> 
> 
> >And there it was, the idiosyncratic "roller coaster" type modulation
> >which you find in some vintage Phasers.
> >So, if you have an exponentially controlled (V/Oct) Phaser and
> >a MOTM VCLFO, it's recommended to try this specific setup.
> 
> 
> Maybe the upcoming MOTM VC Phaser can incorporate a "simple" 
> on board LFO 
> which is capable of producing the basic "popular" LFO waveforms (like 
> triangle, sine, and "rollycoaster") as this would leave the 
> 320 free to use 
> elsewhere.
> 
> Hey, I can't let UK Paul dominate the unreasonable future 
> module request list.
> JB
> 
> 
>