Doepfer

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Bakis Sirros 
<synth_freak_2000@y...> wrote:
> dieter says:
> "We (actually Christian Assall) looked at the A-149-1
> concerning Peter's comments. Christian modified the
> module so that the rising edge triggers the random
> voltages as described in the manual. We could not
> duplicate that the A-149-1 triggers on both the rising
> and falling edge of the trigger signal. Christian also
> separated the upper and lower section of the module so
> that 2 independent shift registers are used now. Even
> though there is no significant difference from our
> point of view we carried out the modification as it
> was not a big problem. Of course the random behaviour
> is somehow different for both versions but one could
> not really say what is the difference. In the first
> case one common shift register is used and the advance
> to the next random state is triggered by both trigger
> inputs. But the random CV outputs are updated only for
> the module section from which the trigger comes. In
> the second case a separate shift register is used for
> each module section and the shift register advances to
> the next state if the corresponding trigger occurs.
> The outputs voltages are random in both cases but
> somehow different if you compare both versions. But it
> is impossible to find out if one version is "more" or
> "better" random than the other one. But to emulate the
> behaviour of the original Buchla module it is true
> that 2 separate shift registers are the right
> solution.


well, i don't really care about the difference, as long as
the difference is marginal. anyway, it would be interesting
to hear, if we can modify the a149/1, just in case that
somebody wants to do it. any details?



> Christian is also about to put the finishing touches
> to the A-154 and he/we are not sure in some details.
> If it comes to the details it is not so easy to decide
> how the module should work. E.g. which pendulum type
> he should offer ? Should the first/last step played
> twice or only once (MAQ users will know the
> difference). In the first case the rhythmical
> structure remains the same by changing the running
> mode but the first resp. last step is played twice. In
> the second pendulum mode the first/last step is only
> played once.


hmm mode 1 looks more logical to me, but if i really
had to choose one of the modes, i would be in trouble.



> And: should the CV addressed mode be triggered by the
> clock or be completely independent of the clock ? We
> tend to the clock triggered version. To obtain a
> apparently clock independent operation one has simply
> to increase the clock tempo (e.g. 100Hz).


i would also go for the triggered version.


> Another "problem": What if first step CV is higher
> than last step CV ? Should the running mode be
> inverted  (in case that backward mode is selected the
> sequence would run forward in this case) ? Or the step
> be fixed e.g. at the first step CV if first step CV is
> higher than last step CV ?


both sounds good. i think i would prefer that the sequence
plays backwards when first step cv is bigger than last step cv.
if somebody wants the sequence to stay at first step cv,
a max/min module could be used for this.


> A lot of questions, I know. I think we will simply
> make the decision what happens under these unusual
> conditions. If desired we could offer an update later
> if it turns out later that another solution would be
> better.


as long as it is easy to update the unit, it is ok.
if we need to solder, an update is not that good ;-)


best wishes

ingo