Yahoo Groups archive
Messages
Page 29 of 56 · 2773 messages matched
2008-09-29 by ezra buchla
i'd like to be able to get longer envelopes from the 281e also. the current behavior, where modulated ramp times saturate at 10 seconds, seems like a mistake. its on my list but my list is long. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:22 AM, mritenburg wrote: > I'm not responding to take issu
2008-09-29 by ezra buchla
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > Looking at pictures of the original 259, it also stopped at 7040 Hz. Maybe > Ezra knows why the oscillator doesn't go beyond 7040. don's idea of a useful musical range. actually in the 259 there's crazy hybrid timbre circu
2008-09-29 by Thomas Buckler
Looking at pictures of the original 259, it also stopped at 7040 Hz. Maybe Ezra knows why the oscillator doesn't go beyond 7040. Looks like the 258 went to 20 KHz. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-09-29 by ezra buchla
>> 261e's fundamental frequency is set to the top of its range, it can >> still generate harmonics above the fundamental. >> > > Via the waveshaper, yeah? If I had one beef with the 259e/261e it would be > the FM in the > higher frequency range. Set the fundamental to 6000 hz and
2008-09-29 by ezra buchla
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 wrote: > can you
2008-09-29 by ezra buchla
hi > As far as I understood it, the main conceptual difference between the > 259e and the 261e is that the 259e's sound generation path is all > digital (modulator osc, principal osc and waveshaper are digital), > whereas in the 261e has a hybrid sound generation path with the >
2008-09-29 by Igor Medeiros
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 le
2008-09-29 by Damon Menne
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" wrote: > >Talking in Hz doesn't make sense because sensory JND's vary as a >function of the frequency.
2008-09-29 by Damon Menne
milton babbitt worked with this relatively niche technique as well... I believe oliveros had a bit to say about it in an issue of the rensselaer polytechnic (there are gems in this publication, strange and fascinating institution as well) for me the most versatile implementation
2008-09-29 by kkonkkrete
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
2008-09-29 by Thomas Buckler
Indeed she did. Mnemonics I-V being her first compositions with ultra high frequency. She would set her oscillators beyond the hearing range and then use line amplifiers to amplify the difference tones of those oscillators. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:56 PM, don hassler wrote: > >
2008-09-29 by don hassler
Pauline Oliveros made great use of super high frequencies: http://www.pogus.com/21012.html As for the high-frequency discussion: This could come quite handy when your target audience are Rin-Tin-Tin, Lassie, Benjie, Snoopy, Spuds McEnzie and the Taco Bell chihuahua... . ;-P [Non-
2008-09-28 by Chris Muir
On Sep 28, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Jan-Hinnerk Helms wrote: > ...the 261e has a hybrid sound generation path with the > modulator and principal oscillator still being digital and the > waveshaper being analog. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is also my understanding. > I tried o
2008-09-28 by cuari7
>>>I am looking forward to investigating the > FM capabilities of the Buchla-flavored Zeroscillator.
2008-09-28 by don hassler
Louder than words! --- On Sun, 9/28/08, vgermuse wrote: > From: vgermuse > Subject: [200e] 259e-261e knob twiddling > To: 200e@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, September 28, 2008, 5:55 PM > Just another Sunday afternoon in the studio. . . > http://homepage.mac.com/toddbarton/buchl
2008-09-28 by don hassler
I believe you are correct in that the 261e uses an analog circuit to achieve wave shaping, & I believe the other points to be a question of the sample rate & bit resolution of the circuits and software behind the 200e. I think it bears repeating, I love both the 261e and 259e. No
2008-09-28 by vgermuse
Just another Sunday afternoon in the studio. . . http://homepage.mac.com/toddbarton/buchlaExplors/iMovieTheater24.html best, vgermuse
2008-09-28 by Jan-Hinnerk Helms
Beware: winding post... As far as I understood it, the main conceptual difference between the 259e and the 261e is that the 259e's sound generation path is all digital (modulator osc, principal osc and waveshaper are digital), whereas in the 261e has a hybrid sound generation pat
2008-09-28 by Chris Muir
On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > subtract scales and octaves from your analysis. I'll try, but it's hard. Octaves and scales evolved pretty much as a direct result of the way humans perceive sound. Doublings in frequency are built into the human perceptual sy
2008-09-28 by Thomas Buckler
Oops, I meant Chris, not Christ. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-09-28 by don hassler
That raises another question, namely user modification of firmware(assuming one could steer clear of damaging stuff) Yasi at one point very early on asked if anyone had created their own 259e wavetables, for instance. --- On Sun, 9/28/08, Thomas Buckler wrote: > From: Thomas Buck
2008-09-28 by Chris Muir
On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > Christ, take octaves out of the way and just think about Hertz. Take your deity out of the way and just think about human perception. -C Chris Muir cbm@well.com http://www.xfade.com
2008-09-28 by Thomas Buckler
subtract scales and octaves from your analysis. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Chris Muir wrote: > > On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > > Chris, thanks for all the data, but it doesn't really answer my > > question. > > I was hoping to re-frame your question.
2008-09-28 by Chris Muir
On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:27 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > Chris, thanks for all the data, but it doesn't really answer my > question. I was hoping to re-frame your question. Earlier, you said: > It just makes no sense to me why roughly 2/3s, the majority of > possible > pitches, are
2008-09-28 by Thomas Buckler
Christ, take octaves out of the way and just think about Hertz. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Chris Muir wrote: > > > On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > > I came up with a third by dividing 21,000 by 3. > > This is a fairly bogus method, IMO. Human hearing p
2008-09-28 by Chris Muir
On Sep 28, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > I came up with a third by dividing 21,000 by 3. This is a fairly bogus method, IMO. Human hearing perception is not linear. The highest octave of human hearing is from roughly 10,000 Hz to roughly 20,000 Hz. This is certainly
2008-09-28 by Thomas Buckler
Chris, thanks for all the data, but it doesn't really answer my question. Hassler, I was thinking along the same lines you mentioned, about sample rate being the possible culprit for the boundary. Perhaps I'll look around for an HP 200-C by Hewlett-Packard. On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 a
2008-09-28 by Chris Muir
Wow, did that table come out badly. Here's another try: Note MIDI Hz Note C-1 0 8.18 Below pitch hearing E0 16 20.60 Bottom of pitch perception, for most people A0 21 27.50 Lowest quoted 200e fundamental A8 117 7040.00 Highest quoted 200e fundamental G9 127 12543.85 Highest MIDI
2008-09-28 by Thomas Buckler
I came up with a third by dividing 21,000 by 3. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-09-28 by Chris Muir
On Sep 28, 2008, at 6:14 AM, Thomas Buckler wrote: > It's not a superfluous question. It's completely valid.27.5 Hz to > 7040 Hz > is roughly a third of what the human ear can detect. I don't know where you came up with the range of 27.5 Hz to 7040 Hz as being a third of the rang
2008-09-28 by tmeade1974
--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir wrote: > > If a > 261e's fundamental frequency is set to the top of its range, it can > still generate harmonics above the fundamental. > Via the waveshaper, yeah? If I had one beef with the 259e/261e it would be the FM in the higher freque
2008-09-28 by A C
All i am trying to say, in different words, is that you might change your mind on what is a limitation when you get your system . I too had questions and issues i thought were limitations before receiving mine, but most of them became somehow either forgivable or not as limiting
2008-09-28 by imabadbadkat96
True, but acoustic instruments will produce harmonics well above the fundamental tones in their playing range. To me, the 259e always sounded a bit dull in the high end compared to other modular oscs I own. It didn't seem to have the same sparkle. I now wonder if it's because of
2008-09-28 by mritenburg
I'm not responding to take issue with your opinions. Your opinions are valid as yours. I would, however, like to point out that 24 minute envelopes (12 minute rise/12 minute fall) are possible on the 249 and 16 minute on the 250. These times are potentially much longer when multi
2008-09-28 by don hassler
Okay...I hesitate to respond, because I really don't know, but I suspect the limitations of frequency range is based on the hardware architecture. Perhaps in terms of required sample rate for the harmonics produced? I'd also be interested in knowing the control rates. Anyway, I c
2008-09-28 by Thomas Buckler
It's not a superfluous question. It's completely valid.27.5 Hz to 7040 Hz is roughly a third of what the human ear can detect. It just makes no sense to me why roughly 2/3s, the majority of possible pitches, are inaccessible to the composer. I'm not trying to judge whether or not
2008-09-28 by cuari7
OK, so here's my smelly $0.2 on the whole subject: I was one of the first few to take the plunge and part with a five- figure sum for the promise of something DIFFERENT from the multiple, available conventional analog/modular systems. The first thing it did for me is swoon me wit
2008-09-28 by A C
In my opinion, you should take the time to try the system and actually spend some time with it. At that point, most likely , you will realize that specifications and fact sheets don't mean anything. It will either work for you, or it won't. there are plenty of videos online and m
2008-09-27 by onycha.hazel
in my opinion, an oscillator should oscillate as fast or slow as you would like it, within reason, perhaps even without reason. And a system for designing sound should at least provide oscillations in the entire pitch spectrum (whether the composer is going deaf or not) and even
2008-09-27 by Richard Lainhart
Certainly - supersonic heterodyning comes to mind. My point was that simply the ability to hear up there doesn't necessarily justify the need for the oscillator to go up there. > There would be a beautiful increase in timbre possibilities and a > deeper > language for the 200e as
2008-09-27 by Thomas Buckler
There would be a beautiful increase in timbre possibilities and a deeper language for the 200e as a whole without setting a 7040 Hz boundary for frequency on the mod osc or primary osc. On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Richard Lainhart wrote: > Not for all of us. > > > > and why
2008-09-27 by Richard Lainhart
Not for all of us. > and why stop at 7040? there's a lot more left in the hearing spectrum. Richard Lainhart http://www.otownmedia.com http://www.downloadplatform.com/richard_lainhart http://www.vimeo.com/rlainhart http://www.airglowmusic.com [Non-text portions of this message ha
2008-09-27 by Thomas Buckler
and why stop at 7040? there's a lot more left in the hearing spectrum. How hard would it be to implement the ability to achieve higher frequencies from the 261e? Would it be a firmware change, or something more complicated? On 9/27/08, Thomas Buckler wrote: > hmm, i'd really like
2008-09-27 by Thomas Buckler
hmm, i'd really like to get outside the hearing range. On 9/27/08, don hassler wrote: > > > > > > > I find all 4 on my 259/261e's to top out pretty much at the indicated 7040 > hz mark. > > --- On Fri, 9/26/08, onycha.hazel wrote: > > > From: onycha.hazel > > Subject: [200e] 261e
2008-09-27 by don hassler
I find all 4 on my 259/261e's to top out pretty much at the indicated 7040 hz mark. --- On Fri, 9/26/08, onycha.hazel wrote: > From: onycha.hazel > Subject: [200e] 261e or 259e capable of higher frequencies? > To: 200e@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 11:53 PM
2008-09-27 by onycha.hazel
are the oscillators (mod or primary) on the 261e (or 259e) capable of producing frequencies beyond the hearing range? If not, what reasons for exclusion?
2008-09-24 by damon
i want the upic source so i can port it to the ipod touch. On Sep 24, 2008, at 3:37 PM, cyaarsoil wrote: > Damon, > I got the Xenakis sorted already, and just found I could get the Knuth > through inter library loan, so I'm set for a while, but thanks for the > generosity all the
2008-09-24 by cyaarsoil
Damon, I got the Xenakis sorted already, and just found I could get the Knuth through inter library loan, so I'm set for a while, but thanks for the generosity all the same! will report, but who knows when, Yasi
2008-09-23 by JB
Yes, i like them too, as they take up so little space and look sharp at the same time 2008/9/23 xartdigital : > Regardless, > > The Buchla style switchcraft are the best 1/8 I have ever used. > Thanks all at B&A for not cutting corners and supplying us with the > best! > > > > >
2008-09-23 by ezra buchla
yeah, $5 if you buy 1000... haha that's the reason for the markup, btw (which i think is like $2): don ends up having to drop a lot of cash on a huge number of cables and kinda guess how many are going to be needed. so he loses money in the end, usually, because we end up with li