200e

this is a pretty weird idea given that the 291e is a bandpass filter.
FM on a bandpass filter, even a narrow one, doesn't have the same
sideband characteristics etc., it's way messier. but very cool in its
own right.

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Igor Medeiros <igormpc@gmail.com> wrote:
> can you get higher frequencies using 291e in FM mode?
> wikipedia about it:
>
> The 291e also supports frequency modulation of each input which makes it
> possible to build both simple and complex FM operators. The fm circuit of
> the 291e is different than that of the 259e and 261e and less prone to
> aliasing. Combined with a 210e, the 291e supports the following FM algorithm
> constructs:
>
> - *M -> C* This is the basic FM operator, where the ratio of M and C are
> simple integers, usually N:1, but can be whatever you choose. The 291e can
> provide three such operators.
> - *(M1 + M2) -> C* A complex parallel FM operator (requires a 210e to sum
> the modulation signals). The 291e can provide three such operators.
> - *M1 -> M2 -> C* A complex series of FM operators. This requires two
> 291e inputs.
> - *(M1 + M2) -> M3 -> C* A more complex series of FM operators. This
> requires two 291e inputs.
> - *M1 -> (M2 + M3) -> C* A more complex series of FM operators. This
> requires two 291e inputs.
> - *M1 -> M2 -> M3 -> C* Requires all three 291e inputs. This basic
> algorithm has numerous variations as M1, M2, and M3 can each be summed (or
> not) with additional modulation inputs.
>
> Thus a 291e can be a powerful FM workstation independent of its filtering
> abilities.
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Damon Menne <damon@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> i meant to comment on this but got lost in thinking about my selfish
>> playing about! ;-]
>>
>> this is dead on and i agree 100%
>>
>> On Monday, September 29, 2008, at 01:21AM, "kkonkkrete" <
>> kkonkkrete@yahoo.co.uk <kkonkkrete%40yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Talking in Hz doesn't make sense because sensory JND's vary as a
>> >function of the frequency. That's not a musical claim, it's just a
>> >statement about the hair cells and basilar membrane in your cochlea.
>> >So although +/-1 Hz is way above your frequency discrimination
>> >threshold at 50 Hz, it is way below your frequency discrimination
>> >threshold at 5000 Hz. Discussions of the range of human hearing
>> >should be conducted in physiological (not physical) units. So in my
>> >opinion, I don't think there is any meaningful sense in which 7kHz -
>> >20kHz is 1/3 of the range of human hearing.
>>
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>