Doepfer

Ingo,

thank you so much for the example! I like the CGS ring module the most. What 
a pity it is not offered assembled. I still have to get the soldering lesson 
#1 before trying to figure it out myself... (Does anybody offer basic 
electronics course in Montreal?)

Regards,

Zoran


>From: "selfoscillate" <synaptic_music@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
>To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: comparing ring modulators
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:38:39 -0000
>
>--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "ilanode" <techmeier@w...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "selfoscillate"
> > <synaptic_music@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > hello antonio,
> > >
> > > the missing lows in #5 are probably because the
> > > cgs real ring is a passive device, the output
> > > loudness is weak on this module.
> >
> > Just want to add that the RRM is known to load the VCOs and thus
> > affecting their performance. The results would be different if the
> > inputs of the RRM were buffered. One could add an Op Amp to each
> > input or (if I'm not mistaken) 2 Analogue Solutions' MX224
> > Mixer/Buffer Modules. Obviously the latter is not very economical.
> > Regards, Ingo
>
>
>i usually use those mx224 buffers in front of the cgs real ring,
>but i didn't in my example, because i wanted to show the
>significant differences of the loudness.
>anyway, if you use those buffers, the output level of
>the cgs real ring is still much lower than on the other
>ring modulators.
>
>best wishes
>
>ingo
>
>
>
>
>
>