200e

I don't know how many of you have read this or are aware of its
existence but there's an entry for the 200e on Wikipedia. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200e
A few shortcomings and work-arounds are mentioned which I'd like some
updates or clarifications on, if possible. I just thought it would be
worthwhile to get the latest data and to dispel any false notions that
may be derived from that page.  

Here are the two I'm most interested in hearing more about and they
concern the 261e:

1) The bad news is that it is not obvious how to get similarly
good-sounding results by routing the modulation oscillator output
signal into the "fm in" signal input of the 261e (or the 259e for that
matter). Instead of a pleasing FM tone, the sound gets really grainy
as soon as the knob related to the "fm in" input is moved beyond its
zero position. This is very unfortunate, because if this worked as
expected, one could build some complex, but controlled, FM operators.
I have found one work-around which suggests an error in design and/or
implementation: by attenuating the modulation output (which can be
accomplished by routing it through a 210e Control and Signal Router
attenuating the connection a few clicks below unity), results are more
in line with expectations. For now, absent any other information or
known work-arounds, the best way to do conventional and controlled FM
is to use the internal connections, which means that two-operator FM
synthesis is the order of the day.

2) Another source of confusion for me is why, when applying audio-rate
frequency modulation to the principal oscillator, the pitch appears to
go sharp or flat. I'd expect the pitch to remain stable and only the
timbre to change.

Thanks!

Another quick question. The Wikipedia entry states this:
Since control voltages sum when banana plugs are combined, tremelo can
be added to circuits that already have both level and velocity
assigned without using an additional dynamics control circuit.

Is this true? Can control voltages and/or triggers be stacked at input
in the 200e? 

--- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "matthew carpenter"
<matfhew.carpenfer@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I'm interested in the 261e on its own
terms, FM
> performance notwithstanding, and felt that the page could use an
overhaul
> or, at least, some discussion.
> 
> Maybe the ZOe will go some way towards giving you the FM of your
dreams in
> this form factor?
> 
> A couple of quick questions:
> 
> Is the 259e absolutely unobtainable from B&A?
> 
> Has anyone experimented with audio or control signal feedback? Is
this an
> appropriate application of the Router module?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On 4/4/08, Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've done some minor editing on that Wiki entry. I agree that there is
> > some bias in the page. It seems like the person who wrote a lot of it
> > had never used a 200e. Some of it seems to be influenced by the Sound
> > on Sound review, in which the reviewer was trying to review the 200e
> > through his constrained notion of what a synth should be. I really
> > think that the SoS reviewer didn't meet the 200e halfway.
> >
> > That said, I have to basically agree about the FM issues that are
> > pointed out on the wiki page. The pitch change thing is unfortunate.
> > Basically, I think that the 261e is never going to have the FM of my
> > dreams. The internally routed FM is OK, at least until it starts to
> > change pitch (which limits how deeply one can apply dynamic FM unless
> > that specific pitch change is desired.)
> >
> > Luckily, the rest of the 261e waveform generator is pretty darn
> > interesting. The timbre controls are really great, and it has a very
> > wide palette of interesting sounds. It's a really good oscillator,
> > IMO, despite its FM limitations.
> >
> > Perhaps we should all undertake the improvement of the wiki entry?
> >
> > -C
> >
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:08 AM, don hassler wrote:
> > > The phrase that includes"...pleasing FM tone," is a
> > > red flag for me.
> > > I understand what the author is attempting to state,
> > > but by introducing that degree of subjectivity
> > > immediately imposes a certain bias.
> > >
> > > --- Matt Carpenter
<matfhew.carpenfer@...<matfhew.carpenfer%40gmail.com>

> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't know how many of you have read this or are
> > > > aware of its
> > > > existence but there's an entry for the 200e on
> > > > Wikipedia.
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200e
> > > > A few shortcomings and work-arounds are mentioned
> > > > which I'd like some
> > > > updates or clarifications on, if possible. I just
> > > > thought it would be
> > > > worthwhile to get the latest data and to dispel any
> > > > false notions that
> > > > may be derived from that page.
> > > >
> > > > Here are the two I'm most interested in hearing more
> > > > about and they
> > > > concern the 261e:
> > > >
> > > > 1) The bad news is that it is not obvious how to get
> > > > similarly
> > > > good-sounding results by routing the modulation
> > > > oscillator output
> > > > signal into the "fm in" signal input of the 261e (or
> > > > the 259e for that
> > > > matter). Instead of a pleasing FM tone, the sound
> > > > gets really grainy
> > > > as soon as the knob related to the "fm in" input is
> > > > moved beyond its
> > > > zero position. This is very unfortunate, because if
> > > > this worked as
> > > > expected, one could build some complex, but
> > > > controlled, FM operators.
> > > > I have found one work-around which suggests an error
> > > > in design and/or
> > > > implementation: by attenuating the modulation output
> > > > (which can be
> > > > accomplished by routing it through a 210e Control
> > > > and Signal Router
> > > > attenuating the connection a few clicks below
> > > > unity), results are more
> > > > in line with expectations. For now, absent any other
> > > > information or
> > > > known work-arounds, the best way to do conventional
> > > > and controlled FM
> > > > is to use the internal connections, which means that
> > > > two-operator FM
> > > > synthesis is the order of the day.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Another source of confusion for me is why, when
> > > > applying audio-rate
> > > > frequency modulation to the principal oscillator,
> > > > the pitch appears to
> > > > go sharp or flat. I'd expect the pitch to remain
> > > > stable and only the
> > > > timbre to change.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________________
> > > You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of
> > > Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
> > > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Chris Muir
> > cbm@... <cbm%40well.com>
> > http://www.xfade.com
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

The phrase that includes"...pleasing FM tone," is a
red flag for me.
I understand what the author is attempting to state,
but by introducing that degree of subjectivity
immediately imposes a certain bias.


 --- Matt Carpenter <matfhew.carpenfer@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't know how many of you have read this or are
> aware of its
> existence but there's an entry for the 200e on
> Wikipedia. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200e
> A few shortcomings and work-arounds are mentioned
> which I'd like some
> updates or clarifications on, if possible. I just
> thought it would be
> worthwhile to get the latest data and to dispel any
> false notions that
> may be derived from that page.  
> 
> Here are the two I'm most interested in hearing more
> about and they
> concern the 261e:
> 
> 1) The bad news is that it is not obvious how to get
> similarly
> good-sounding results by routing the modulation
> oscillator output
> signal into the "fm in" signal input of the 261e (or
> the 259e for that
> matter). Instead of a pleasing FM tone, the sound
> gets really grainy
> as soon as the knob related to the "fm in" input is
> moved beyond its
> zero position. This is very unfortunate, because if
> this worked as
> expected, one could build some complex, but
> controlled, FM operators.
> I have found one work-around which suggests an error
> in design and/or
> implementation: by attenuating the modulation output
> (which can be
> accomplished by routing it through a 210e Control
> and Signal Router
> attenuating the connection a few clicks below
> unity), results are more
> in line with expectations. For now, absent any other
> information or
> known work-arounds, the best way to do conventional
> and controlled FM
> is to use the internal connections, which means that
> two-operator FM
> synthesis is the order of the day.
> 
> 2) Another source of confusion for me is why, when
> applying audio-rate
> frequency modulation to the principal oscillator,
> the pitch appears to
> go sharp or flat. I'd expect the pitch to remain
> stable and only the
> timbre to change.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

Yes, that's true. The entry has a bias towards keyboard-oriented
performance, as well, it seems and some of the 'work-arounds' are more like
trying to force the system to conform to a different school of thought,
entirely.

On 4/4/08, don hassler <dlh30039@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   The phrase that includes"...pleasing FM tone," is a
> red flag for me.
> I understand what the author is attempting to state,
> but by introducing that degree of subjectivity
> immediately imposes a certain bias.
>
> --- Matt Carpenter <matfhew.carpenfer@gmail.com<matfhew.carpenfer%40gmail.com>
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I don't know how many of you have read this or are
> > aware of its
> > existence but there's an entry for the 200e on
> > Wikipedia.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200e
> > A few shortcomings and work-arounds are mentioned
> > which I'd like some
> > updates or clarifications on, if possible. I just
> > thought it would be
> > worthwhile to get the latest data and to dispel any
> > false notions that
> > may be derived from that page.
> >
> > Here are the two I'm most interested in hearing more
> > about and they
> > concern the 261e:
> >
> > 1) The bad news is that it is not obvious how to get
> > similarly
> > good-sounding results by routing the modulation
> > oscillator output
> > signal into the "fm in" signal input of the 261e (or
> > the 259e for that
> > matter). Instead of a pleasing FM tone, the sound
> > gets really grainy
> > as soon as the knob related to the "fm in" input is
> > moved beyond its
> > zero position. This is very unfortunate, because if
> > this worked as
> > expected, one could build some complex, but
> > controlled, FM operators.
> > I have found one work-around which suggests an error
> > in design and/or
> > implementation: by attenuating the modulation output
> > (which can be
> > accomplished by routing it through a 210e Control
> > and Signal Router
> > attenuating the connection a few clicks below
> > unity), results are more
> > in line with expectations. For now, absent any other
> > information or
> > known work-arounds, the best way to do conventional
> > and controlled FM
> > is to use the internal connections, which means that
> > two-operator FM
> > synthesis is the order of the day.
> >
> > 2) Another source of confusion for me is why, when
> > applying audio-rate
> > frequency modulation to the principal oscillator,
> > the pitch appears to
> > go sharp or flat. I'd expect the pitch to remain
> > stable and only the
> > timbre to change.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access, No Cost.
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>  
>


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

I've done some minor editing on that Wiki entry. I agree that there is  
some bias in the page. It seems like the person who wrote a lot of it  
had never used a 200e. Some of it seems to be influenced by the Sound  
on Sound review, in which the reviewer was trying to review the 200e  
through his constrained notion of what a synth should be. I really  
think that the SoS reviewer didn't meet the 200e halfway.

That said, I have to basically agree about the FM issues that are  
pointed out on the wiki page. The pitch change thing is unfortunate.  
Basically, I think that the 261e is never going to have the FM of my  
dreams. The internally routed FM is OK, at least until it starts to  
change pitch (which limits how deeply one can apply dynamic FM unless  
that specific pitch change is desired.)

Luckily, the rest of the 261e waveform generator is pretty darn  
interesting. The timbre controls are really great, and it has a very  
wide palette of interesting sounds. It's a really good oscillator,  
IMO, despite its FM limitations.

Perhaps we should all undertake the improvement of the wiki entry?

-C

On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:08 AM, don hassler wrote:
> The phrase that includes"...pleasing FM tone," is a
> red flag for me.
> I understand what the author is attempting to state,
> but by introducing that degree of subjectivity
> immediately imposes a certain bias.
>
> --- Matt Carpenter <matfhew.carpenfer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't know how many of you have read this or are
> > aware of its
> > existence but there's an entry for the 200e on
> > Wikipedia.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200e
> > A few shortcomings and work-arounds are mentioned
> > which I'd like some
> > updates or clarifications on, if possible. I just
> > thought it would be
> > worthwhile to get the latest data and to dispel any
> > false notions that
> > may be derived from that page.
> >
> > Here are the two I'm most interested in hearing more
> > about and they
> > concern the 261e:
> >
> > 1) The bad news is that it is not obvious how to get
> > similarly
> > good-sounding results by routing the modulation
> > oscillator output
> > signal into the "fm in" signal input of the 261e (or
> > the 259e for that
> > matter). Instead of a pleasing FM tone, the sound
> > gets really grainy
> > as soon as the knob related to the "fm in" input is
> > moved beyond its
> > zero position. This is very unfortunate, because if
> > this worked as
> > expected, one could build some complex, but
> > controlled, FM operators.
> > I have found one work-around which suggests an error
> > in design and/or
> > implementation: by attenuating the modulation output
> > (which can be
> > accomplished by routing it through a 210e Control
> > and Signal Router
> > attenuating the connection a few clicks below
> > unity), results are more
> > in line with expectations. For now, absent any other
> > information or
> > known work-arounds, the best way to do conventional
> > and controlled FM
> > is to use the internal connections, which means that
> > two-operator FM
> > synthesis is the order of the day.
> >
> > 2) Another source of confusion for me is why, when
> > applying audio-rate
> > frequency modulation to the principal oscillator,
> > the pitch appears to
> > go sharp or flat. I'd expect the pitch to remain
> > stable and only the
> > timbre to change.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of  
> Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>
> 

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

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm interested in the 261e on its own terms, FM
performance notwithstanding, and felt that the page could use an overhaul
or, at least, some discussion.

Maybe the ZOe will go some way towards giving you the FM of your dreams in
this form factor?

A couple of quick questions:

Is the 259e absolutely unobtainable from B&A?

Has anyone experimented with audio or control signal feedback? Is this an
appropriate application of the Router module?

Thanks.

On 4/4/08, Chris Muir <cbm@well.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've done some minor editing on that Wiki entry. I agree that there is
> some bias in the page. It seems like the person who wrote a lot of it
> had never used a 200e. Some of it seems to be influenced by the Sound
> on Sound review, in which the reviewer was trying to review the 200e
> through his constrained notion of what a synth should be. I really
> think that the SoS reviewer didn't meet the 200e halfway.
>
> That said, I have to basically agree about the FM issues that are
> pointed out on the wiki page. The pitch change thing is unfortunate.
> Basically, I think that the 261e is never going to have the FM of my
> dreams. The internally routed FM is OK, at least until it starts to
> change pitch (which limits how deeply one can apply dynamic FM unless
> that specific pitch change is desired.)
>
> Luckily, the rest of the 261e waveform generator is pretty darn
> interesting. The timbre controls are really great, and it has a very
> wide palette of interesting sounds. It's a really good oscillator,
> IMO, despite its FM limitations.
>
> Perhaps we should all undertake the improvement of the wiki entry?
>
> -C
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 10:08 AM, don hassler wrote:
> > The phrase that includes"...pleasing FM tone," is a
> > red flag for me.
> > I understand what the author is attempting to state,
> > but by introducing that degree of subjectivity
> > immediately imposes a certain bias.
> >
> > --- Matt Carpenter <matfhew.carpenfer@gmail.com<matfhew.carpenfer%40gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know how many of you have read this or are
> > > aware of its
> > > existence but there's an entry for the 200e on
> > > Wikipedia.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200e
> > > A few shortcomings and work-arounds are mentioned
> > > which I'd like some
> > > updates or clarifications on, if possible. I just
> > > thought it would be
> > > worthwhile to get the latest data and to dispel any
> > > false notions that
> > > may be derived from that page.
> > >
> > > Here are the two I'm most interested in hearing more
> > > about and they
> > > concern the 261e:
> > >
> > > 1) The bad news is that it is not obvious how to get
> > > similarly
> > > good-sounding results by routing the modulation
> > > oscillator output
> > > signal into the "fm in" signal input of the 261e (or
> > > the 259e for that
> > > matter). Instead of a pleasing FM tone, the sound
> > > gets really grainy
> > > as soon as the knob related to the "fm in" input is
> > > moved beyond its
> > > zero position. This is very unfortunate, because if
> > > this worked as
> > > expected, one could build some complex, but
> > > controlled, FM operators.
> > > I have found one work-around which suggests an error
> > > in design and/or
> > > implementation: by attenuating the modulation output
> > > (which can be
> > > accomplished by routing it through a 210e Control
> > > and Signal Router
> > > attenuating the connection a few clicks below
> > > unity), results are more
> > > in line with expectations. For now, absent any other
> > > information or
> > > known work-arounds, the best way to do conventional
> > > and controlled FM
> > > is to use the internal connections, which means that
> > > two-operator FM
> > > synthesis is the order of the day.
> > >
> > > 2) Another source of confusion for me is why, when
> > > applying audio-rate
> > > frequency modulation to the principal oscillator,
> > > the pitch appears to
> > > go sharp or flat. I'd expect the pitch to remain
> > > stable and only the
> > > timbre to change.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of
> > Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
> > http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
> >
> >
>
> Chris Muir
> cbm@well.com <cbm%40well.com>
> http://www.xfade.com
>
>  
>


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

On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Matt Carpenter wrote:
> Is this true? Can control voltages and/or triggers be stacked at input
> in the 200e?


I didn't notice this part. I don't think that that's true, at least  
I've never done it..


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

In fact, they cannot, and the entry is incorrect. I tried it early on  
with my system. You can mult a CV on output by stacking jacks, but you  
can't sum them on input by stacking.




> > Is this true? Can control voltages and/or triggers be stacked at  
> input
> > in the 200e?
>
> I didn't notice this part. I don't think that that's true, at least
> I've never done it..




Richard Lainhart
http://www.otownmedia.com
http://www.downloadplatform.com/richard_lainhart
http://www.airglowmusic.com






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

Is this correct? I can't speak definitively on the 200e, but in the
original 200, generally (not always!) trigger outputs are a diode
hanging in space. That means that they can be plugged together as a
passive OR. In other words they can all stack on an input. That is
true of the pulse outs on a 246, 248, 221, 219, 280 and 281. Oh and my
pulser... ;)

Mark








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

>
> In fact, they cannot, and the entry is incorrect. I tried it early on  
> with my system. You can mult a CV on output by stacking jacks, but you  
> can't sum them on input by stacking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > Is this true? Can control voltages and/or triggers be stacked at  
> > input
> > > in the 200e?
> >
> > I didn't notice this part. I don't think that that's true, at least
> > I've never done it..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Lainhart
> http://www.otownmedia.com
> http://www.downloadplatform.com/richard_lainhart
> http://www.airglowmusic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

what you're saying is generally true on the 200e as well. you should
get an OR- like behavior with stacked pulses.

but the post you're quoting was talking about cv's, and wondering if
they sum on inputs, which they do not.

yasi's post from 2005 remains relevant:
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/200e/message/47

eb

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Mark Verbos <verbos2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is this correct? I can't speak definitively on the 200e, but in the
> original 200, generally (not always!) trigger outputs are a diode
> hanging in space. That means that they can be plugged together as a
> passive OR. In other words they can all stack on an input. That is
> true of the pulse outs on a 246, 248, 221, 219, 280 and 281. Oh and my
> pulser... ;)
>
> Mark
>
> --- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, Richard Lainhart <rlainhart@...> wrote:
>>
>> In fact, they cannot, and the entry is incorrect. I tried it early on
>> with my system. You can mult a CV on output by stacking jacks, but you
>> can't sum them on input by stacking.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Is this true? Can control voltages and/or triggers be stacked at
>> > input
>> > > in the 200e?
>> >
>> > I didn't notice this part. I don't think that that's true, at least
>> > I've never done it..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Lainhart
>> http://www.otownmedia.com
>> http://www.downloadplatform.com/richard_lainhart
>> http://www.airglowmusic.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>