200e

> The waveshaper can make the sound pretty thin at some settings,
> especially with the 'high order' shaper. Adding a little bit of sine
> balances the sound again in a nice way. In fact it would be great to
> have a blend knob directly on the 261.

I can't remember for sure, but I think the Yamaha CS-80 did that... 
useful trick.

I've been analyzing the waveshaping circuitry from the old 259 module 
schematics on the web, and came up with the transfer function and 
have been doing some simulations, and indeed, it sounds a bit 
squelchy without the fundamental added back in.

- Aaron

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Aaron Lanterman, Asst. Prof.       Voice:  404-385-2548
School of Electrical and Comp. Eng.    Fax:    404-894-8363
Georgia Institute of Technology        E-mail: lanterma@ece.gatech.edu
Mail Code 0250                         Web:    users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma
Atlanta, GA 30332                      Office: GCATT 334B

> I've been analyzing the waveshaping circuitry from the old 259 module
> schematics on the web, and came up with the transfer function and
> have been doing some simulations, and indeed, it sounds a bit
> squelchy without the fundamental added back in.

Even though the old 259 and the new 261e is quite different products
one cannot help compare them as the waveshaper is a lookalike, at least
in terminology.
So recently i put the old 259 and the 261e waveshapers side by side
(in a very non academic way, just by ear). Basically i tried to tweak in the
same timbres. Only using symmetry they can be quite close, but the 261e
goes from -5 to +15 of the 259 symmetry shaper. The 259 area of the 261e
is only a small part of the scale. The order knob is even more so, and it
was harder to achieve similar sounds. Side by side the 259 is generally
mellower than the 261e.

Johan