200e

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?

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 <thomas.buckler@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: onycha.hazel <thomas.buckler@gmail.com>
> Subject: [200e] 261e or 259e capable of higher frequencies?
> To: 200e@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 11:53 PM
> 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?

hmm,  i'd really like to get outside the hearing range.

On 9/27/08, don hassler <dlh30039@yahoo.com> 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 <thomas.buckler@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > From: onycha.hazel <thomas.buckler@gmail.com>
>  > Subject: [200e] 261e or 259e capable of higher frequencies?
>  > To: 200e@yahoogroups.com
>  > Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 11:53 PM
>  > 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?
>
>

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 <thomas.buckler@gmail.com> wrote:
> hmm,  i'd really like to get outside the hearing range.
>
>
>  On 9/27/08, don hassler <dlh30039@yahoo.com> 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 <thomas.buckler@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >  > From: onycha.hazel <thomas.buckler@gmail.com>
>  >  > Subject: [200e] 261e or 259e capable of higher frequencies?
>  >  > To: 200e@yahoogroups.com
>  >  > Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 11:53 PM
>  >  > 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?
>  >
>  >  
>

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 have been removed]

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 <rlainhart@otownmedia.com
> wrote:

>   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 have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 a whole
> without setting a 7040 Hz boundary for frequency on the mod osc or  
> primary
> osc.




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 have been removed]

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 inaudible speeds for the sake of timbre and whatever other needs.  Again I 
ask, why the limitation of 7040 Hz?  Is there any particular reason for this constraint? 

--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, Richard Lainhart <rlainhart@...> wrote:

>
> 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 a whole
> > without setting a 7040 Hz boundary for frequency on the mod osc or  
> > primary
> > osc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 have been removed]
>

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 music everywhere that have been
done with the 200e.
you can get a fair idea of what can be done with it, from bug noises
to entire tonal droney compositions, to weird out of this world random
rhythm sequences....it's really up to the user.


Also, it is my opinion that the last thing that comes to mind while we
are talking of the 200e as a system is the word "constraint".

I highly recommend you find another user willing to let you play with
it, and judge for yourself!

you will most likely agree that these questions you are asking are
superfluous or just a sign of not wanting to commit (and i can
understand that....it took me a while to take the plunge).

Good luck!

A.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:30 PM, onycha.hazel <thomas.buckler@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 inaudible speeds for the sake of timbre and whatever other needs.  Again I
> ask, why the limitation of 7040 Hz?  Is there any particular reason for this constraint?
>
> --- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, Richard Lainhart <rlainhart@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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 a whole
>> > without setting a 7040 Hz boundary for frequency on the mod osc or
>> > primary
>> > osc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

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 with its physical beauty. 
It is the most beautiful piece of equipment in my studio. However, I 
soon encountered a few peculiarities in it that did not meet my 
personal expectations. These "limitations" were mainly in the 
oscillators (259e). While they are capable of incredibly wild 
timbres, they are also quite noisy, which narrowed the spectrum of 
musical styles I was hoping to get from them. The 261e brought a 
significant improvement of the noise issue, but its main oscillator 
is rather thin (for MY test) and its pitch jitters, especially when 
being fed a control voltage for pitch.
Another limitation for my own personal needs is the fact that the 
281e's lowest frequency (when used as an lfo) is not low enough for 
the kinds of slow, evolving drones I sometimes aim for.  I also would 
like to have a voltage mixer/attenuator that would allow me fine, 
continuous scaling (instead of the stepped, coarse attenuation we get 
from the 210e or the 256e). 

The 200e would be PERFECT (for ME, at least), if the afore mentioned 
issues were changed. In my quest for improvement of these, I have 
acquired a couple of 259's (without the "e"). I have also 
incorporated an M-class Serge scaling/mixing module, which also 
happens to have a dual comparator, so I also get rich, gorgeous PWM 
as a bonus (which I could also get from the 261e, BTW).

On the positive side, I have to comment on the 291e resonator, which 
is, in MY opinion, the best resonator available (although I haven't 
yet tried out the Cwejman ones).

So in escence, I love the Buchla, and have no regrets about 
the "commitment" to get it.
You should learn more about all of its features and decide if it 
truly is something that will meet your own needs/expectations. 
Especially if you are forking over 4 or 5-figure chunks o'cash.

Do it now, before the Democrats raise our taxes!!!

(OK, just kidding. Don't wanna get into political diatribes on this 
forum).

;-P


Salutations.....


cuari7

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 the 200e is for me,
I determined that
a month or so ago and sent a check in for one. I'm trying to determine why
the boundary of 7040 Hz
is set on my oscillators.


On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:48 PM, A C <cortini@gmail.com> wrote:

>   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 music everywhere that have been
> done with the 200e.
> you can get a fair idea of what can be done with it, from bug noises
> to entire tonal droney compositions, to weird out of this world random
> rhythm sequences....it's really up to the user.
>
> Also, it is my opinion that the last thing that comes to mind while we
> are talking of the 200e as a system is the word "constraint".
>
> I highly recommend you find another user willing to let you play with
> it, and judge for yourself!
>
> you will most likely agree that these questions you are asking are
> superfluous or just a sign of not wanting to commit (and i can
> understand that....it took me a while to take the plunge).
>
> Good luck!
>
> A.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:30 PM, onycha.hazel <thomas.buckler@gmail.com<thomas.buckler%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > 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 inaudible speeds for the sake of timbre and whatever other
> needs. Again I
> > ask, why the limitation of 7040 Hz? Is there any particular reason for
> this constraint?
> >
> > --- In 200e@yahoogroups.com <200e%40yahoogroups.com>, Richard Lainhart
> <rlainhart@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 a whole
> >> > without setting a 7040 Hz boundary for frequency on the mod osc or
> >> > primary
> >> > osc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 have been removed]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 can certainly empathize with the questions, especially given the Buchla's attraction to unique thinking, rarity which limits one's direct experience prior to purchase, and expense(not to mention being firmware based.)

I personally would not describe my small 200e to be limitless, but everything has limits. I view the instrument to be instead sort of inviting to(maybe certain) different musical approaches, engaging in multiple senses. Thus I think it also helps to consider how it plays, in addition to what sounds it can or can't produce.

If it helps at all, I can easily say that I would very happily and without hesitation repeat my purchase. Instead of meeting my prior expectations, it has helped me set new ones.

Don Hassler


--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Thomas Buckler <thomas.buckler@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Buckler <thomas.buckler@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [200e] Re: 261e or 259e capable of higher frequencies?
> To: 200e@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, September 28, 2008, 9:14 AM
> 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 the 200e is for me,
> I determined that
> a month or so ago and sent a check in for one. I'm
> trying to determine why
> the boundary of 7040 Hz
> is set on my oscillators.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:48 PM, A C
> <cortini@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >   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 music everywhere
> that have been
> > done with the 200e.
> > you can get a fair idea of what can be done with it,
> from bug noises
> > to entire tonal droney compositions, to weird out of
> this world random
> > rhythm sequences....it's really up to the user.
> >
> > Also, it is my opinion that the last thing that comes
> to mind while we
> > are talking of the 200e as a system is the word
> "constraint".
> >
> > I highly recommend you find another user willing to
> let you play with
> > it, and judge for yourself!
> >
> > you will most likely agree that these questions you
> are asking are
> > superfluous or just a sign of not wanting to commit
> (and i can
> > understand that....it took me a while to take the
> plunge).
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > A.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 6:30 PM, onycha.hazel
> <thomas.buckler@gmail.com<thomas.buckler%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> > > 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 inaudible speeds for the sake of
> timbre and whatever other
> > needs. Again I
> > > ask, why the limitation of 7040 Hz? Is there any
> particular reason for
> > this constraint?
> > >
> > > --- In 200e@yahoogroups.com
> <200e%40yahoogroups.com>, Richard Lainhart
> > <rlainhart@...> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 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 a whole
> > >> > without setting a 7040 Hz boundary for
> frequency on the mod osc or
> > >> > primary
> > >> > osc.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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 have been
> removed]
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 
multiplied by an external voltage.

> 281e's lowest frequency (when used as an lfo) is not low enough for 
> the kinds of slow, evolving drones I sometimes aim for.  I also would 
> like to have a voltage mixer/attenuator that would allow me fine, 
> continuous scaling (instead of the stepped, coarse attenuation we get 
> from the 210e or the 256e).

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 the smaller frequency range. But I think we're straying from the original post 
which I believe is to get a technical answer as to why higher frequencies are not possible on 
the 259e and 261e.

Gus

--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:

>
> I was hoping to point out that the PITCH range is pretty wide, at  
> least as wide as acoustic instruments, (snip)
>

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 as i thought they would be.

The only one limitation that bothers me still, is the 281e's speed in
LFO mode, as cuari7 has brought up early: it makes it harder to create
longer envelopes, and forces the user to integrate other modules in
order to achieve that (either 255e or 256e, i am assuming, or
249e/250e as  more complex  envelope generators).

Hope this helps.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:05 AM, cuari7 <cuari7@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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 with its physical beauty.
> It is the most beautiful piece of equipment in my studio. However, I
> soon encountered a few peculiarities in it that did not meet my
> personal expectations. These "limitations" were mainly in the
> oscillators (259e). While they are capable of incredibly wild
> timbres, they are also quite noisy, which narrowed the spectrum of
> musical styles I was hoping to get from them. The 261e brought a
> significant improvement of the noise issue, but its main oscillator
> is rather thin (for MY test) and its pitch jitters, especially when
> being fed a control voltage for pitch.
> Another limitation for my own personal needs is the fact that the
> 281e's lowest frequency (when used as an lfo) is not low enough for
> the kinds of slow, evolving drones I sometimes aim for.  I also would
> like to have a voltage mixer/attenuator that would allow me fine,
> continuous scaling (instead of the stepped, coarse attenuation we get
> from the 210e or the 256e).
>
> The 200e would be PERFECT (for ME, at least), if the afore mentioned
> issues were changed. In my quest for improvement of these, I have
> acquired a couple of 259's (without the "e"). I have also
> incorporated an M-class Serge scaling/mixing module, which also
> happens to have a dual comparator, so I also get rich, gorgeous PWM
> as a bonus (which I could also get from the 261e, BTW).
>
> On the positive side, I have to comment on the 291e resonator, which
> is, in MY opinion, the best resonator available (although I haven't
> yet tried out the Cwejman ones).
>
> So in escence, I love the Buchla, and have no regrets about
> the "commitment" to get it.
> You should learn more about all of its features and decide if it
> truly is something that will meet your own needs/expectations.
> Especially if you are forking over 4 or 5-figure chunks o'cash.
>
> Do it now, before the Democrats raise our taxes!!!
>
> (OK, just kidding. Don't wanna get into political diatribes on this
> forum).
>
> ;-P
>
>
> Salutations.....
>
>
> cuari7
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@...> 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 frequency range.  Set the fundamental to 6000 hz and fm it, the output will clip at 
7040, therefore limiting the rich sidebands you might be used to on "other" synths.

BUT, as many others have pointed out, the 200e invites you to do a lot of different things that 
you would not do on "other" synths.  After using the 200e for a day, you'll be amazed by the 
DESIGN intention instead of mistaking it for limitation.  

--tom

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 range of human hearing. The human ear's range of  
hearing is roughly 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz in a young person, which  
corresponds to about ten octaves, from E0 at 20.60 Hz to E9 at  
21096.16 Hz. It's worth noting that we are talking about the  
fundamental frequency here, not the output frequency range. If a  
261e's fundamental frequency is set to the top of its range, it can  
still generate harmonics above the fundamental.

Note	MIDI	Freq in 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 range
E9	136*	21096.16	Starting to get into the Dog/Bat range
*Note that this is beyond the range of MIDI notes.

You might want to look at the chart on this page, showing the  
frequency range of a variety of instruments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_acoustics 
   An 88 key grand piano usually goes from A0 27.5 Hz to C8 at 4186.01  
Hz, for example.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I came up with a third by dividing 21,000 by 3.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 range
E9     136* 21096.16  Starting to get into the Dog/Bat range

*Note that this is beyond the range of MIDI notes.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

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 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Buckler <thomas.buckler@gmail.com>wrote:

> I came up with a third by dividing 21,000 by 3.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 not half the range of human  
hearing.

Perceptual units are a much more useful basis for discussion of this  
stuff.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

Christ, take octaves out of the way and just think about Hertz.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Chris Muir <cbm@well.com> 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 perception is not
> linear. The highest octave of human hearing is from roughly 10,000 Hz
> to roughly 20,000 Hz. This is certainly not half the range of human
> hearing.
>
> Perceptual units are a much more useful basis for discussion of this
> stuff.
>
> -C
>
> Chris Muir
> cbm@well.com <cbm%40well.com>
> http://www.xfade.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 inaccessible
> to the composer.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of pitch. (and  
sadly, the pun was intended)

I was hoping to point out that the PITCH range is pretty wide, at  
least as wide as acoustic instruments, and it is only missing about an  
octave and a half off of the high end of human hearing as far as  
fundamental pitches are concerned.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

subtract scales and octaves from your analysis.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Chris Muir <cbm@well.com> 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. Earlier, you said:
>
> > It just makes no sense to me why roughly 2/3s, the majority of
> > possible
> > pitches, are inaccessible
> > to the composer.
>
> This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of pitch. (and
> sadly, the pun was intended)
>
> I was hoping to point out that the PITCH range is pretty wide, at
> least as wide as acoustic instruments, and it is only missing about an
> octave and a half off of the high end of human hearing as far as
> fundamental pitches are concerned.
>
> -C
>
> Chris Muir
> cbm@well.com <cbm%40well.com>
> http://www.xfade.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

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 <thomas.buckler@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Buckler <thomas.buckler@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [200e] Re: 261e or 259e capable of higher frequencies?
> To: 200e@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, September 28, 2008, 2:27 PM
> 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 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Buckler
> <thomas.buckler@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > I came up with a third by dividing 21,000 by 3.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Oops,  I meant Chris, not Christ.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 system, probably because the first  
harmonic of a sound is 2x the base frequency. This means that the  
first harmonic of a sound that has a base frequency of 10,000 Hz, will  
fall at 20,000 Hz.

One way to think about this with the 261e, is that if you get the  
fundamental frequency up to 7040 Hz, the first harmonic is at 14,080  
Hz, and the second harmonic is above the range of human hearing.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

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 path with the  
modulator and principal oscillator still being digital and the  
waveshaper being analog. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I tried out the 261e at NAMM–I know, this is most certainly not the  
best environment to do the qualities of any instrument justice–and  
noticed that when FM'ing the modulator with the principal, and  
gradually increasing the modulator pitch to its top registers, the FM  
result at the principal output turned into some sort of digital noise  
in the upper registers of the modulator. I guess this is a result that  
is to be expected given the digital nature of both modulator and  
principal being digital, right?

Reading Thomas' original post made me recall this NAMM experience.  
Now, if both modulator and principal oscillators were analog, I guess
(a) the FM result were different (no digital noise), and
(b) the ranges of the fundamentals of the oscillators were not limited  
to 7040 Hz. (Assuming that the resolution of the 200e's storage system  
can be scaled to accomodate a wider oscillator frequency range).

If I now take at Cuari7's comments about the quantizing errors at the  
waveform generator's frequency control inputs into account, which led  
to him buying 259 (not 259e) waveform generators, it looks to me that  
there might be a need in the 200e community for yet another Buchla  
waveform generator, one with not only the waveshaper being analog, but  
also the principal and modulator oscillator being analog.

Or am I misinterpreting things here?

Best regards,
Jan-Hinnerk

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.

Not that it is a purely digital limit, rather a digital circuit with multiple 
analog 1/0 demands, which would lead me to think in terms of separate rates for audio versus control where they see fit. It would not surprise me to however find the external audio fm input to be governed differently than the internal (presumed software hardwired) fm connection between a mod osc to carrier, though I don't hear a difference.
Also, to make things more interesting is noticing how a 291e patched to self oscillate responds to audio fm through it's audio fm inputs.

>>>I am looking forward to investigating the  
> FM capabilities of the Buchla-flavored Zeroscillator.<<<


So am I. I have ordered two, but as you know, Cynthia continues her 
familiar pattern of lead-time delays which are SO......ARGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Just check out the Yahoo forum..

I am quite happy with the 259's. I have challenged them with the task 
of playing tonal, melodic music, and boy, do they perform!!! And they 
look awesome, too, but ouch, the price!!!!! You can get 2 261e's and a 
292e for the price of one of these (although I recently saw one being 
sold for $5K. YEAOW!!!).

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

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 out the 261e at NAMM–I know, this is most certainly not the
> best environment to do the qualities of any instrument justice–and
> noticed that when FM'ing the modulator with the principal, and
> gradually increasing the modulator pitch to its top registers, the FM
> result at the principal output turned into some sort of digital noise
> in the upper registers of the modulator. I guess this is a result that
> is to be expected given the digital nature of both modulator and
> principal being digital, right?

Yeah, the FM would have to be done in the digital domain, so the upper  
ranges might be compromised.

I would to see the FM performance of the 261e improved, but I would  
guess that the embedded processor that implements the oscillator is  
running at or near capacity. I am looking forward to investigating the  
FM capabilities of the Buchla-flavored Zeroscillator.


> Now, if both modulator and principal oscillators were analog, I guess
> (a) the FM result were different (no digital noise), and
> (b) the ranges of the fundamentals of the oscillators were not limited
> to 7040 Hz. (Assuming that the resolution of the 200e's storage system
> can be scaled to accomodate a wider oscillator frequency range).

But it would make the waveform generator more expensive, as there  
would need to be high quality pitch DACs, and might make pitch  
tracking somewhat worse. I'm not saying it isn't an interesting idea,  
though.

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

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-text portions of this message have been removed]

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 <dlh30039@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> 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-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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.



--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Buckler" <thomas.buckler@...> wrote:

>
> Christ, take octaves out of the way and just think about Hertz.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Chris Muir <cbm@...> 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 perception is not
> > linear. The highest octave of human hearing is from roughly 10,000 Hz
> > to roughly 20,000 Hz. This is certainly not half the range of human
> > hearing.
> >
> > Perceptual units are a much more useful basis for discussion of this
> > stuff.
> >
> > -C
> >
> > Chris Muir
> > cbm@... <cbm%40well.com>
> > http://www.xfade.com
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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> 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.

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]

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
> modulator and principal oscillator still being digital and the
> waveshaper being analog. Please correct me if I am wrong.

you're right

> I tried out the 261e at NAMM–I know, this is most certainly not the
> best environment to do the qualities of any instrument justice–

right again

and
> noticed that when FM'ing the modulator with the principal, and
> gradually increasing the modulator pitch to its top registers, the FM
> result at the principal output turned into some sort of digital noise
> in the upper registers of the modulator. I guess this is a result that
> is to be expected given the digital nature of both modulator and
> principal being digital, right?

not really. i am sure you were using the audio output jack of the
modulator osc and the FM input jack of the principal osc. this,
unfortunately, produces massive jitter due to the low sampling rate of
the FM input. i don't like it either.

however, the more logical approach to using the mod osc for FM is to
use the internal pitch modulation routing. in this case the modulation
is performed directly in the computer, rather than sending to a DAC,
amplifying, resamplng, and scaling. with internal modulation the new
frequencies are computed on the same processing cycle as the oscs, no
jitter whatsoever. so the digital nature of the sine generation is not
the problem per se; the problem is as usual the interface between the
two domains.

> Reading Thomas' original post made me recall this NAMM experience.
> Now, if both modulator and principal oscillators were analog, I guess
> (a) the FM result were different (no digital noise), and
> (b) the ranges of the fundamentals of the oscillators were not limited
> to 7040 Hz. (Assuming that the resolution of the 200e's storage system
> can be scaled to accomodate a wider oscillator frequency range).

that would be a radically different instrument. don's logic when he
designed the 200e was that there are plenty of pure-analog oscillators
available in the world already; he very much wanted the perfect recall
capabilities of the new system with the ability to interface with the
CV world. if you want a 258 clone or a 259 kit or a zeroscillator,
they are obtainable.

> If I now take at Cuari7's comments about the quantizing errors at the
> waveform generator's frequency control inputs into account, which led
> to him buying 259 (not 259e) waveform generators, it looks to me that
> there might be a need in the 200e community for yet another Buchla
> waveform generator, one with not only the waveshaper being analog, but
> also the principal and modulator oscillator being analog.


see above

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]
>
>

>> 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 fm it, the output
> will clip at
> 7040, therefore limiting the rich sidebands you might be used to on "other"
> synths.

that's just not true. there is no frequency domain "clipping" at 7k.
the 261e primary osc only produces fundamentals up to a certain
frequency (its not actually 7040 despite the silkscreen; try
listening); this is indeed due to processor limitations; of course we
actually have to compute the waveform thousands of times faster than
the fundamental in order to produce a clean sinewave input to the
waveshaper. we could produce faster fundamentals but they would begin
life with artifacts even before waveshaping, and you would not like
that (or maybe you would...?)

anyway, the waveform is actually being computed at 50k or 100k or
something, so pitch modulation will still produce high-frequency
sidebands. use the internal pitch modulation to avoid jitter. i'm
sorry abuot the external FM inputl; it's not useful for high frequency
stuff.... sorry sorry. personally i'm used to being able to process
arbitrary signals with FM, but i find that the 291e scratches this
itch.

and yes, of course, of course, everything after the 261e sinewave is
analog, and the harmonic content added by waveshaping proceeds towards
the infinite for as far as you might care to take your analysis....

-eb

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]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Thomas Buckler
<thomas.buckler@gmail.com> 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 circuitry, maybe it would go bonkers if you tried
to clock all the CMOS stuff any faster

> Looks like the 258 went to 20 KHz.

yep... but you have to take all those labels with a large chunk of
salt, each module was calibrated (or rather not really calibrated) to
wildly different places.... my 258's certainly don't go to 20k.

>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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 <mritenburg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> multiplied by an external voltage.
>
>> 281e's lowest frequency (when used as an lfo) is not low enough for
>> the kinds of slow, evolving drones I sometimes aim for. I also would
>> like to have a voltage mixer/attenuator that would allow me fine,
>> continuous scaling (instead of the stepped, coarse attenuation we get
>> from the 210e or the 256e).
>
>

Sorry for my misunderstanding.  I was basing that assessment by observing the pitch 
modulation in the low frequency mode of the mod osc.  It does clip at the top.
--tom

--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:

>
> >> 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 fm it, the output
> > will clip at
> > 7040, therefore limiting the rich sidebands you might be used to on "other"
> > synths.
> 
> that's just not true. there is no frequency domain "clipping" at 7k.
> the 261e primary osc only produces fundamentals up to a certain
> frequency (its not actually 7040 despite the silkscreen; try
> listening); this is indeed due to processor limitations; of course we
> actually have to compute the waveform thousands of times faster than
> the fundamental in order to produce a clean sinewave input to the
> waveshaper. we could produce faster fundamentals but they would begin
> life with artifacts even before waveshaping, and you would not like
> that (or maybe you would...?)
> 
> anyway, the waveform is actually being computed at 50k or 100k or
> something, so pitch modulation will still produce high-frequency
> sidebands. use the internal pitch modulation to avoid jitter. i'm
> sorry abuot the external FM inputl; it's not useful for high frequency
> stuff.... sorry sorry. personally i'm used to being able to process
> arbitrary signals with FM, but i find that the 291e scratches this
> itch.
> 
> and yes, of course, of course, everything after the 261e sinewave is
> analog, and the harmonic content added by waveshaping proceeds towards
> the infinite for as far as you might care to take your analysis....
> 
> -eb
>

yes, the fundamental frequency of the principal oscillator is capped.
i'm not sure if its actually 7040 hz or not;
but to give some context, that would be an A 3 octaves above the A
above the treble clef. rather high for a musical instrument.
i personally can't hear anything at all above 11khz or so: sinewaves
or harmonics. too much rockin out.

but what i was saying is that capping the fundamental (even capping
the upper limit of fundamentals produced by FM excursion) does not
limit the frequencies created by sidebands in modulation synthesis.
those sidebands will encounter limits imposed by our processor speed,
which is orders of magnitude above the limits of hearing.

anyway, the design of the 261e potentially circumvents the method of
harmonic FM synthesis by incorporating a sweet harmonic waveshaper.
the parameters of waveshaping can themselves be modulated at audio
rates (again, use the internal mod osc to avoid jitter, if you want).
the possibilities become extreme.

pauline used radio test oscaillators for her early pieces; these can
still be found quite cheap if you wish to employ heterodyning
techniques.
but for many years it has been normal practice to restrict musical
tone generators to the designer's idea of a musical range.
goes for old buchlas, dx7's, whatever.
musical means arbitrary, in this case you get don buchla's idea of a
musically useful range of fundamental pitches... oh well.

here's some raw 261e staz, real quick, for fun...
http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/mp3/ttwwoossiixxoonnee.mp3

peace,

ez b

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:06 PM, tmeade1974 <tmeade1974@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry for my misunderstanding. I was basing that assessment by observing the
> pitch
> modulation in the low frequency mode of the mod osc. It does clip at the
> top.
> --tom
>
> --- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>>
>> >> 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 fm it, the
>> > output
>> > will clip at
>> > 7040, therefore limiting the rich sidebands you might be used to on
>> > "other"
>> > synths.
>>
>> that's just not true. there is no frequency domain "clipping" at 7k.
>> the 261e primary osc only produces fundamentals up to a certain
>> frequency (its not actually 7040 despite the silkscreen; try
>> listening); this is indeed due to processor limitations; of course we
>> actually have to compute the waveform thousands of times faster than
>> the fundamental in order to produce a clean sinewave input to the
>> waveshaper. we could produce faster fundamentals but they would begin
>> life with artifacts even before waveshaping, and you would not like
>> that (or maybe you would...?)
>>
>> anyway, the waveform is actually being computed at 50k or 100k or
>> something, so pitch modulation will still produce high-frequency
>> sidebands. use the internal pitch modulation to avoid jitter. i'm
>> sorry abuot the external FM inputl; it's not useful for high frequency
>> stuff.... sorry sorry. personally i'm used to being able to process
>> arbitrary signals with FM, but i find that the 291e scratches this
>> itch.
>>
>> and yes, of course, of course, everything after the 261e sinewave is
>> analog, and the harmonic content added by waveshaping proceeds towards
>> the infinite for as far as you might care to take your analysis....
>>
>> -eb
>>
>
>