200e

Looking at the 210 I am wondering what you get from the CV outputs if 
you gang/mix/scale a bunch of CV inputs; site says they are "OR'd" and 
assumption is that the one with the highest voltage is sent but if they 
are all fluctuating/changing do they jumpa around at the output?

As for the audio, did I see somone say the resolution is not such that 
it works well for mixing of audio. As I look to expand my tiny system I 
am looking to get the most out of each module.

Also, anyone have (2) 281's in a small system? I could see all sorts of 
uses as clocks, LFO's etc and combined with a SOU and possibly the Quad 
CV Processor a whole host of whacky CV outputs created.

--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:
>
> 
> The resolution is not the greatest, or maybe it's just that the curve  
> is not great for audio, and it is a little noisy. FWIW, I'm using the  
> audio section mostly as a matrix mixer for effects sends. It's a  
> useful module, even with these issues, though.
> 

The noise issue is being/has been addressed.  Along with it, I want to give Don an extra 
special thank you for looking into it and sorting it out.

Can't wait to check out the new modules.

Merry christmas!

--tom

On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:59 PM, derwskee wrote:
> Looking at the 210 I am wondering what you get from the CV outputs if
> you gang/mix/scale a bunch of CV inputs; site says they are "OR'd" and
> assumption is that the one with the highest voltage is sent but if  
> they
> are all fluctuating/changing do they jumpa around at the output?

The site is wrong. The CVs are really mixed, not ORed.


> As for the audio, did I see somone say the resolution is not such that
> it works well for mixing of audio. As I look to expand my tiny  
> system I
> am looking to get the most out of each module.

The resolution is not the greatest, or maybe it's just that the curve  
is not great for audio, and it is a little noisy. FWIW, I'm using the  
audio section mostly as a matrix mixer for effects sends. It's a  
useful module, even with these issues, though.


> Also, anyone have (2) 281's in a small system? I could see all sorts  
> of
> uses as clocks, LFO's etc and combined with a SOU and possibly the  
> Quad
> CV Processor a whole host of whacky CV outputs created.


I have two, and wish I had room and funds for another. A 281 section  
is also makes a good pulse delay.

- C

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

Do you know how the issue was addressed?  Was it a board revision or 
software?


> 
> The noise issue is being/has been addressed.  Along with it, I want 
to give Don an extra 
> special thank you for looking into it and sorting it out.

I believe it was both.  
--tom



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

>
> Do you know how the issue was addressed?  Was it a board revision or 
> software?
> 
> 
> > 
> > The noise issue is being/has been addressed.  Along with it, I want 
> to give Don an extra 
> > special thank you for looking into it and sorting it out.
>

wow, yahoo and google are really battling it out in this text editing
window.... it's all being treated as a bug block of "something", so i guess
i can't quote...

- yes, that is a massive error on the website (jeez...)... the 210e CV
inputs are sampled and MIXED in software, of course (audio inputs aren't
sampleed, they are fed through a VCA array). OR'ing is what happens when you
just touch CV wires together.

- yes, the "resolution" issue just refers to the chosen step size of the
encoder. this (and the curve - it is already logarithmic BTW) can be very,
very easily changed (it's just an infinite encoder that steps through a
table), but it's of course a tradeoff between fine resolution and having to
dial the thing around a lot to get to the maximum value. now that you can
toggle between unity gain and zero, maybe we should reconsider the step size
(opinions/suggestions to 200e_beta, please).

- there is a more or less noticeable buzzy noise cause by leakage from the
datastream which drives the LED grid. don is working on this right now and
has made plenty of progress; there is hope that only a firmware update will
be required (but i'm not sure of the final verdict on that yet.)

- other than the buzz, i don't think the VCA's are particularly noisy except
of course if you overdrive them (which can be fun, too.)

-eb


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

Will the 250e fit in front of the225e midi cables extension PCB?

Reason I ask is moving the modules about I have unstuck the nut that the 
screw goes into to hold the faceplate in so now I just have a 
hole...should I solder the nut back in or super glue?
>

Not owning a 256e yet, hopefully soon, How similar is the 281e OR's to 
the 256e?

>
>

wow! what a beautiful question!:
>How similar is the 281e OR's to the 256e?

To be able to answer this at all I have to make a lot of assumptions about what the two 
281e subsections that are feeding the maximum-selector-circuit are doing. Searching for 
what these assumptions could be is a really fun part of thinking about the question. 
another fun thing is that the question seems to proceed from observed behavior without 
too much hinderance form theory.

One situation that comes to mind has both subsections set to Decay mode and triggered 
by a common pulse. If their rise and fall times are set in different ways to the same overall 
envelope length, then looking at their OR output and turning the associated control could 
produce results indistinguishable from one of the subsection outputs manipulated with a 
256e.

makes me realize I always felt the OR sections' control range was too narrow. now I see 
one simple reason why: in some situations like the one described above the OR control 
range could be sensibly doubled by switching the inputs at the end of the present range. 
And I know there ought to be even more besides. yet more notes towards a 281F I guess

another situation where we find indistinguishable (or nearly so) behaviors in the 281e OR 
and the 256e is obtained by setting the leveled 281e subsection to Release mode and 
constraining the triggering pulse to last as long as the unleveled subsection's envelope 
time. Or we could simply trigger the Release mode subsection from the unleveled Decay 
mode output. In either case we see some kind of dead-band-type behavior at the OR 
output that could be found with a 256e

begs more: hysteresis-like possibilities for the 256e by using different transfers for rising 
vs falling inputs. ..extending this to general slope dependent look ups

another thing I love about the prompt: the impossibility of answering in the same spirit it 
was asked

Yasi Perera

Thanks Yasi for the reply....

what I was trying to ask in a very simplistic/naive way was ....to my 
mind the OR's seem to mix A and B voltage by turning the dial left or 
right, so therefore isnt that to a small extent what the 256e does?
What exactly are breakpoints? 

>
>

On Jan 10, 2009, at 6:29 PM, amnesia wrote:

> What exactly are breakpoints?


http://xfade.com/Buchla/256/

- C

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

no. The OR section only has a control for the second input. The first
input is always at maximum. It is not a crossfader between the 2. AND,
the crossfader in the 256e mixes the two signals together, it does not
give only the higher of the two. That means if the lower of the 2
signals is moving around, it will make a difference in the output,
where as in an OR circuit it would not.

Mark



--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, amnesia <amni56@...> wrote:

>
> Thanks Yasi for the reply....
> 
> what I was trying to ask in a very simplistic/naive way was ....to my 
> mind the OR's seem to mix A and B voltage by turning the dial left or 
> right, so therefore isnt that to a small extent what the 256e does?
> What exactly are breakpoints? 
> 
> >
> >
>

> no.
?
shit dog I thought I just said why "no" isn't really I thing to say 
right here. I often have to say to myself, and now I have to say to 
you: stop denigrating reality with empty oversimplifications

ok I try again: cray's two questions on the 256e: is it like the 210e?
is it like the 281e's OR section?

I personally feel it's more like the OR section than the 210e (though
I say clearly: it really is a personal question. a personable question
!). Set up your 281e like how I described earlier: A and B sections
triggered together and having about the same total envelope time but
doing divergent things during time. the OR section will do some of the
things a 256e subsection would do given an input of the same duration.
We could imagine the similarity is that in both situations the time
stays about the same globaly but in a more localized view the time is
getting warped. the 256e is basically like 4 of those with 2 input vc
cv crossfaders in front of each section. So besides the crossfaders
there's this whole other bending thing happening.

I note here: the time-bending/flopping/flipping is a perceived effect
distinct from user-manual texts about what's going on. and even
divergent from the front panel markings. Someone hung up on what they
think they know might say: "there's no temporal component to the
256e's behavior; time needn't enter into it's description." or even
"oughtn't", and as proof read me the front panel legend.
But I know how to read. I also know how to hear, and of the two, I
like the second. not that reading and hearing should stand for degrees
of rigidity, but perhaps you know what I'm getting at

Distinct from the OR section, in the 256e each subsection starts with
one input to make the warping things, not two like the OR.

it's the warping that's particular to the 256e-- the crossfader part
of the 256e's behavior cray's right in comparing to any old mixer in a
general way. BUT again the time attitude is distinct: in a static
situation where we're just aiming to get two control signals both
effecting some parameter in a particular fixed proportion it doesn't
really matter much if we use a 256e or a 210e because we usually have
a multiplier at the final parameter input.

In a dynamic situation (time enters) we notice immediately the
difference and to mitigate the difference takes a bit of patching (or
several coordinated hands: ask Neil Young's tech!). The 256e CAN do a
210e-type mix of 2 inputs, but that's just one of many behaviors that
all feel about the same to it

I won't even ask if I'm helping. just make the text pile and let it be
searched. I put characters in order.