Doepfer

Hello Scott,

Am 07.11.2017 um 14:53 schrieb 'Scott Rogers' scott@scottfromcanada.com 
[Doepfer_a100]:
> Can you provide examples of instruments that work that way? I know of none.
>
> In the 39 years I have been playing synthesizers I have not seen a single
> example of this before now. I have synthesizers made as early as 1973 (Korg
> 700, Roland SH-1000, Polymoog, Arp Axxe-1975), Late 70s (Yamaha CS-10, 15,
> 20m, 40m, Roland Sh-2, Korg MS-10), and some that are brand new (Roland
> SE-02, Korg Arp Odyssey, Korg MS-20mini, DSI Tetra, Mopho and REV 2) and
> many in between. None of them behave in this manner.
Mostly each of them might do so ;-). To test it easily, make attack and 
release slow and repeat the note faster than the release rate but don't 
make the notes as long as the attacktime is. Especially I remember it as 
a feature that players, who came from the monophonic only era, loved at 
the Polymoog in opposite to all other polysynths with roundrobbing 
algorithms.


> And I can't see any point to setting the time settings to zero which
> effectively makes it a gate.
But you should try it at least. It will allow you to track and may be 
understand the behaviour.

> I find it very difficult to believe that
> someone would design an envelope generator that could not actually be used
> as an envelope generator!
They work as envelope generators. But you might never have cared for it, 
and you might be "spoiled" by polysynths, where you do not experience it 
due to the usually used round robbing algorithms of the voice 
assignment, that prevents that an envelope is invoked twice. Also most 
computed envelopes in modern synths - even monophonic ones - might not 
behave like that (for example the envelopes in the JX.-3P do not, though 
in the default algorithm repeated keystrokes on the same notes play the 
same voice).

> This certainly does not solve the problem.
The zero-time test will not solve the problem but it will help you to 
understand the cause.

Florian

-- 
http://www.florian-anwander.de