200e

I was disappointed in the 260e.   It did some interesting things but 
it had some design choices which I didn't understand.   First why 
would the 260e have a pop everytime it made a cycle on continuous 
mode?  This killed the illusion for me.   I asked Don about it but 
didn't really follow his reasoning.   I mean the whole point of a 
sheppard tone generator should be to make a sheppard tone and a 
sheppard tone with a pop every cycle is not convincing.   Maybe it was 
a bug on mine?  Anyone else notice this?


The second thing I missed was a 1v/oct cv input.  The cv in with the 
attenuator set fully open and a 1v/oct source plugged into it only 
covered a small portion of 1 octave.  So it really needed something on 
the order of 3v/oct to play a full octave.  To me I thought this would 
be most interesting, playing something across that octave and having 
the notes appear to constantly rise.   Despite many efforts at gaining 
the 1v/oct source to match the voltage required by the 260e to do this 
I was not able to get a convincing tuning.   I think it could have 
been made simpler for the user by having the attenuated cv in at fully 
open respond to 1 v/oct (1.2v/oct to match the rest of the buchla 200e 
system).   I mean you could always attenuate the signal to cover less 
than 1 octave if you wanted that. 

On the plus side it did some nifty wierd things when you plugged the 
gate out into an envelope and the outputs into a vca or filter and 
used the pulses to do constantly rising falling bleeps.  The eq on it 
was very pleasing as well.

Anyway I found it a one trick pony that couldn't do its trick very 
well.  There is a review of the original 260 on the barberpole yahoo 
group which doesn't mention any of the troubles I had with mine. Maybe 
mine was broken or not calibrated correctly?   I don't know, I 
exchanged it for a second 292e.

> Hi All
> 
> How are people finding the duophonic pitch class generator?  In the 
> keyboard magazine review it was pretty much dismissed without any 
real 
> info "If the 260e wasn't included in the system few musicians would 
> miss it".  Anyone here disagree?

Hi All

How are people finding the duophonic pitch class generator?  In the 
keyboard magazine review it was pretty much dismissed without any real 
info "If the 260e wasn't included in the system few musicians would 
miss it".  Anyone here disagree?

Stewart


		
___________________________________________________________ 
WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html

Maybe it was
> > a bug on mine?  Anyone else notice this?
> 
> I've not noticed this with two that I've worked with.

Hrm interesting,  the keyboard magazine 200e review mentions a similar 
issue on theirs to what I was experiencing so maybe some of the 260e 
modules are buggy?   It doesn't make sense to include a continuous 
mode if it pops every cycle.

260e Duophonic Pitch Class Generator
If the 260e weren't included in the system, few musicians would miss 
it. Its purpose is to produce Shepard tones, an acoustic illusion of a 
tone that rises or falls forever. The module can do this in either 
stepped or continuous fashion, but in continuous mode it glitches, 
which rather destroys the illusion.

Stewart Moroney wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> How are people finding the duophonic pitch class generator?  In the
> keyboard magazine review it was pretty much dismissed without any real
> info "If the 260e wasn't included in the system few musicians would
> miss it".  Anyone here disagree?
> 

This is a very cool module...but, a one trick pony.  It does what it's
supposed to do really well, but how often are you going to want barber pole
type frequency patterns?  The only short comings (IMHO) is the barber
control function was not brought to the faceplate so it can be used as an
external VC for anything else.  It is instead internally 'hardwired' to the
two digital VCOs.  That's where the one trick part comes in.

Now, the two internal digital VCOs,  replete with their internal harmonic
sculpting (the five band EQ) sound really great.  They can be externally
frequency controlled (with the barber function turned off), so they can act
as auxiliary oscillators, but their VC range is only +/- 1 octave.  This
isn't an error - remember these were designed for complimenting a barber
poll algorithm and when you think about it, that's what you need for the
continual 'spiral'. That's the way Don approached it anyway.

It is was me buying, unless I had a surplus of panel space and caysh ($),
I'd pass on this guy and put the 255 in it's slot.  But that's me.

- P

The 255, instead of the 256e?


On 20 Nov 2005, at 17:24, Peter Grenader wrote:
>
>  It is was me buying, unless I had a surplus of panel space and caysh 
> ($),
>  I'd pass on this guy and put the 255 in it's slot.  But that's me.

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

wiardmodular wrote:

> I was disappointed in the 260e.   It did some interesting things but
> it had some design choices which I didn't understand.   First why
> would the 260e have a pop everytime it made a cycle on continuous
> mode?  This killed the illusion for me.   I asked Don about it but
> didn't really follow his reasoning.   I mean the whole point of a
> sheppard tone generator should be to make a sheppard tone and a
> sheppard tone with a pop every cycle is not convincing.   Maybe it was
> a bug on mine?  Anyone else notice this?

I've not noticed this with two that I've worked with.
> 
> 
> The second thing I missed was a 1v/oct cv input.

The cv in with the   attenuator set fully open and a 1v/oct source plugged
into it only 
> covered a small portion of 1 octave.  So it really needed something on
> the order of 3v/oct to play a full octave.

Tempered keyboard tracking you mean?  Yeah, that would makes sense. As you
mention, the Buchla is not a 1v/oct machine, more on the order of about
1.2(ish) volts per octave - and that's on any module he's made. But having
the ability to track a keyboard (no matter what voltage is required to do
that) when the attenuator is locked into a certain position (like full CW
for instance) is a sold concern. If the inputs on the 260 aren't scaled as
such that's really weird, especially cause the faceplate graphics for the
internal barber pole addresses standard western semitones in its
nomenclature. hmmm...



  To me I thought this would

> be most interesting, playing something across that octave and having
> the notes appear to constantly rise.   Despite many efforts at gaining
> the 1v/oct source to match the voltage required by the 260e to do this
> I was not able to get a convincing tuning.   I think it could have
> been made simpler for the user by having the attenuated cv in at fully
> open respond to 1 v/oct (1.2v/oct to match the rest of the buchla 200e
> system).   I mean you could always attenuate the signal to cover less
> than 1 octave if you wanted that.
> 
> On the plus side it did some nifty wierd things when you plugged the
> gate out into an envelope and the outputs into a vca or filter and
> used the pulses to do constantly rising falling bleeps.  The eq on it
> was very pleasing as well.
> 
> Anyway I found it a one trick pony that couldn't do its trick very
> well.  There is a review of the original 260 on the barberpole yahoo
> group which doesn't mention any of the troubles I had with mine. Maybe
> mine was broken or not calibrated correctly?   I don't know, I
> exchanged it for a second 292e.
> 
>> Hi All
>> 
>> How are people finding the duophonic pitch class generator?  In the
>> keyboard magazine review it was pretty much dismissed without any
> real 
>> info "If the 260e wasn't included in the system few musicians would
>> miss it".  Anyone here disagree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Shit - i meant a 256.  my bad.  the 255 is fine, but i wouldn't ever need 8
slews.


Stewart Moroney wrote:

> The 255, instead of the 256e?
> 
> 
> On 20 Nov 2005, at 17:24, Peter Grenader wrote:
>> 
>> It is was me buying, unless I had a surplus of panel space and caysh
>> ($),
>> I'd pass on this guy and put the 255 in it's slot.  But that's me.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Thats what I thought.  I'm moving towards getting a 256e for stage 2 of 
my 200e (I'm only 1/2 filling a cabinet to start with).  Creating 
complex modulations from feeding the output of 1 of the 256e sections 
into another sounds like it could have lots.


On 20 Nov 2005, at 17:56, Peter Grenader wrote:

> Shit - i meant a 256.  my bad.  the 255 is fine, but i wouldn't ever 
> need 8
>  slews.


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