200e

Anyone has any mp3 examples of the 297 ?

thanks!

--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "carlosbecker" <bushwick@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone has any mp3 examples of the 297 ?
> 
> thanks!
>


Check here:

www.myspace.com/thefukawis

Go to 200e Test track.

Lotsa 297/285/258V and Eardrill Pendulum/Ratchet

March of the Fukawis also has loads of 297.

Guido

Okay, here's new 200e stuff of mine, all self playing showing off the 291e as sound source, in tandem with the 292e.
In all but one,  I also have a 261e just sitting there, feeding in the all in of the 291e.
The patch has outputs of elements  AB and C of the 291e going to an input of 291e, then going back to their respective input for feedback.
It has the second output of the 292e being sent to the each elements neighbor mod input. D of the 292e feeds all of the 291e mod in.
Then
291e has each stage set to varying settings, per each element.
Then
the 266e, being clocked from one of the 281e gens, controls 250e.
250e, because it can do a 0 volt, then CV stage addresses the 291e.
Couple other things join in the act, 259e and 261e mod osc are fm'ing a pair of the elements, I have a few other stray things like that happening.
You can download the archive here:
http://www.donhassler.com/DSM-IV,Self-Playing,Menshealthissues.zip
	 
	
	








	


	
	


      

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

I know Ezra has addressed the issue of the external fm inputs on the 259e/261e being subject to jitter error. I'd really love to use those inputs in the same way the internal works.Especially in a cross coupled config, this would truly fulfill I think much of what many are missing in the 259s.
Am I correct in understanding the issue has something to do with the sample rate of the source signal not matching up with the external in?Is this something that can be modified? Or would it require a complete redesign?

	
	 
	
	




	




	
	


	
	
	





      

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

>>>>>Is this something that can be modified? Or would it require a complete redesign?<<<<<<


I think this is something that should either be corrected or simply eliminated as an available "feature", but leaving it unchanged is just a significant source of frustration and dissapointment for some of us.