Yahoo Groups archive
Messages
Page 217 of 564 · 28179 messages matched
2008-12-03 by laryn91
1 - A filter is frequency sensitive where a wave shaper is not. The sine converter will perfectly track and always maintain perfect phase alignment with the other VCO waves. No parameters in the converter need to be tracked or changed over the full VCO range. A filter unfortunate
2008-12-03 by Monroe Eskew
I don't get it... If the upgrade just filters the triangle in a better way, then an LPF should do the same work. If your real concern is additive synthesis, then perhaps you should get the digital RS370, or a computer program. Or perhaps use self-oscillation on a filter that has
2008-12-03 by mm123 ah
Hi everyone. We're looking to expand our Doepfer system with more Doepfer and possibly even modulars from other manufacturers (new or vintage, working or non-working). We'd consider buying or trading and have tons of cool stuff for trade. We're most interested in decent sized sys
2008-12-03 by laryn91
No, it's NOT a filter at all. It a non-linear wave shaper. What I don't get is why are some so passionately *against* sine waves? I must violating some unwritten analog commandment here but can't figure out what it is. After all, most vintage modular VCOs had clean sines - what's
2008-12-02 by Chris Muir
On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Brandon Daniel wrote: > What if you just bought a DX7 already? Not really the same thing. Some of the cooler early Buchla stuff from Morton Subotnick relied on a lot of fairly high quality sines out of Buchla 258 oscillators. I see nothing wrong with w
2008-12-02 by Bakis Sirros
ok, i could do that poll. Dieter, any more specific details for the poll? btw, in case there was a modified Sine circuit for the A111 produced, i would be probably not bothered to send my 8 A111's back to doepfer to be 'converted' with the new sine design... it would be much trou
2008-12-02 by laryn91
I wouldn't send mine back to Germany either. But I would buy upgrade boards and wire them in for all my Doepfer oscillators (110, 111, 145, etc.) --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Bakis Sirros wrote: > > ok, i could do that poll. > Dieter, any more specific details for the pol
2008-12-02 by Bakis Sirros
the A111 IS useful for linear FM as it is now. i am using my A111's for linear FM for 8 years now... Bakis Sirros - Parallel Worlds / Interconnected / Memory Geist [Doepfer_a100] group owner www. parallel - worlds - music. com www. myspace. com/ parallelworldsmusic www. myspace.
2008-12-02 by york luethje
Couldn't we just have a poll? My suspicion is that the practical value of very good analogue sine waves will be high for only some. As Dieter posted, an earlier discussion then fizzled out and didn't result in any product modifications. Maybe the discussion has shown there there
2008-12-02 by york luethje
http://www.analoguesystems.co.uk/modules/rs370.htm ________________________________ From: Argitoth To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 5:31:07 PM Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Re: Sine wave discussion - EOD? Couldn't you lock partials if you designed a
2008-12-02 by Brandon Daniel
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Argitoth wrote: > Couldn't you lock partials if you designed a complex clock divider/osc > sync? Actually, what if you designed a module similar to a filterbank, > but produced sines instead of boosting a particular band of > frequencies? What if y
2008-12-02 by Argitoth
Couldn't you lock partials if you designed a complex clock divider/osc sync? Actually, what if you designed a module similar to a filterbank, but produced sines instead of boosting a particular band of frequencies? On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Florian Anwander wrote: > Hi lary
2008-12-02 by Florian Anwander
Hi laryn91 > To the contrary, the A-111 sine is still suitable for subtractive synthesis. To be accurate, > you should say "not suitable for additive synthesis" instead. I think you should turn around and think about another group to bother. You don't understand any word someone
2008-12-02 by york luethje
Couldn't we just have a poll? My suspicion is that the practical value of very good analogue sine waves will be high for only some. As Dieter posted, an earlier discussion then fizzled out and didn't result in any product modifications. Maybe the discussion has shown there there
2008-12-02 by Adam-V
Would it be possible to offer two sine outputs - the existing sine output for those of us who like it's character AND a new improved one for those wanting something more clinical? Cheers, Adam-V --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > There was a similar discussion about 2
2008-12-02 by Monroe Eskew
Couldn't we just use a standard LPF for this? On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:46 AM, James Husted wrote: > The part of this circuit that does the conversion seems pretty > straight ahead and looks simple enough to make as a stan-alone module. > If one was needing to make sines and had a tr
2008-12-02 by Pieter Volger
sorry, you are right. my fault! laryn91 schrieb: > > That's in the A-110 info page - NOT the A-111. Right? > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > , Pieter Volger wrote: > > > > RTFM > > > > "_Technical remarks: > > _The core of the A-110 is a sawtooth oscillator (in contrast t
2008-12-02 by James Husted
The part of this circuit that does the conversion seems pretty straight ahead and looks simple enough to make as a stan-alone module. If one was needing to make sines and had a triangle VCO already (that made a decent Triangle wave) then a converter module would work fine - a bit
2008-12-02 by yahoo@doepfer.de
> And probably why vendors like Doepfer put no engineering effort into sines - customers > want fat unstable waves - not precise thin waves! We will put efforts into sines and we already have ! We have the existing A-143-9 quadrature oscillator which has probably a more perfect s
2008-12-02 by yahoo@doepfer.de
You find my answers written inline. Best wishes Dieter Doepfer > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von laryn91 > Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Dezember 2008 17:20 > An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > B
2008-12-02 by ph@comcast.net
-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "laryn91" > > And we will point out in the module information and user's guide of A-110 > > and A-111 that the sine outputs should be called more precisely "sine-like". > > Dieter, > > It's probably just me, but where d
2008-12-02 by laryn91
Sorry, I missed the "will" part :-p I had this link to the Aries VCO in one of the posts on this (endless) thread. This is an excellent tri-to-sine converter (I can't hear any additional overtones). Better than the more common 3080 converter and significantly better than your dio
2008-12-02 by laryn91
Not sure why you found it relevant to quote the A-110 manual. My post below refers to the A-111. --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Pieter Volger wrote: > > RTFM > > "_Technical remarks: > _The core of the A-110 is a sawtooth oscillator (in contrast to the > A-111-1 , which is
2008-12-02 by Pieter Volger
RTFM "_Technical remarks: _The core of the A-110 is a sawtooth oscillator (in contrast to the A-111-1 , which is based on a triangle oscillator). The other waveforms are derived from the sawtooth by internal waveform converters. As the sawtooth reset (i.e. the back-to-zero slope)
2008-12-02 by laryn91
That's in the A-110 info page - NOT the A-111. Right? --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Pieter Volger wrote: > > RTFM > > "_Technical remarks: > _The core of the A-110 is a sawtooth oscillator (in contrast to the > A-111-1 , which is based on a triangle > oscillator). The othe
2008-12-02 by laryn91
> as for that sine, no one cared about that poor sine wave until about 10 > years ago. Many synths don't offer it, even Blacet wasn't going to include The analog sine actually has a more prominent roll in EM history than that. In the 40's and 50', most oscillators in studios were
2008-12-02 by Alex Pearson
Great post Dieter, and for the record I love that my A-143-9 doesn't have temperature compensation. It makes for very organic changes over long periods. On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:26 AM, wrote: > I will not participate in the emotional discussion about sine waves but > want > to me
2008-12-02 by laryn91
> And we will point out in the module information and user's guide of A-110 > and A-111 that the sine outputs should be called more precisely "sine-like". Dieter, It's probably just me, but where do you point that out for the A-111? In my A-111 manual you say just the opposite: "
2008-12-02 by Derek Holzer
I get a fairly useful range using the circuit I provided the link for. My next step will be to rig up some voltage control as well, maybe with vactrols or maybe just with CV or PWM to a transistor. But yes, the motor stalls at a certain point, and I would say that the response is
2008-12-02 by yahoo@doepfer.de
> Hi Dieter, > > thanks for the advice. The PWM-based circuit that Derek mentioned > should help overcome that "offset" voltage in the motor, right? (as in > such a pulse-based circuit, you always apply the full 12V > voltage.....just not all the time). > > Basically the idea is
2008-12-02 by Denis Gökdag
Hi Dieter, thanks for the advice. The PWM-based circuit that Derek mentioned should help overcome that "offset" voltage in the motor, right? (as in such a pulse-based circuit, you always apply the full 12V voltage.....just not all the time). Basically the idea is to use a CV to m
2008-12-02 by Denis Gökdag
Hey Derek, excellent advice....thanks :-) PWM makes a lot of sense, and that circuit looks like i may actually be able to get that soldered *grin* What are you dong with those tape motors? Cheers, d On Dec 1, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Derek Holzer wrote: > Ooooooorrrrrrr....... use the P
2008-12-02 by yahoo@doepfer.de
> Hi all, > > i want to build myself a little VC electro motor, you know, one of > these little model-plane 12V motors but with VC RPM. It's not supposed > to track V/oct cleanly, just be somewhat predictably controllable via > a CV. > > I'm not much of an electronics genius, but
2008-12-02 by yahoo@doepfer.de
I will not participate in the emotional discussion about sine waves but want to mention some technical details (some of these have been already mentioned earlier): All standard VCO circuits I know are based on a sawtooth or triangle core. When the sine wave is derived from one of
2008-12-02 by p. hendricks
On 12/1/08 11:01 PM, "Argitoth" wrote: > Analog sines can be perfect enough as proven by some of > the modules out now and in production, nothing more needs to be said. if it's perfect, digital is much more efficient/cheaper and more perfect. > All we need now is good 1v/oct for
2008-12-02 by Argitoth
p. hendricks, Analog sines can be perfect enough as proven by some of the modules out now and in production, nothing more needs to be said. All we need now is good 1v/oct for whatever modules are producing those sines. On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:53 PM, p. hendricks wrote: > On 12/
2008-12-02 by p. hendricks
On 12/1/08 11:23 AM, "Argitoth" wrote: > ... I don't understand why people can't accept the fact some of us > desire perfection. Duke Ellington: "If it sounds good, it IS good." perfect anything doesn't mean it sounds good, it just all will sound the same, plenty of great pre-amp
2008-12-01 by ph@comcast.net
-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Argitoth > ... I don't understand why people can't accept the fact some of us > desire perfection. I understand, go and enjoy it. I prefer analog myself. -p
2008-12-01 by Argitoth
... I don't understand why people can't accept the fact some of us desire perfection. On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM, achtung_999 wrote: > I don't intend to be a 'confrontational' poster. Have never been in this > board but this thread has too much people talking past eachother.
2008-12-01 by achtung_999
I don't intend to be a 'confrontational' poster. Have never been in this board but this thread has too much people talking past eachother.I'm off this thread, have fun splitting hairs. On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:14 PM, laryn91 wrote: > I agree. My professional expertise is in speec
2008-12-01 by york luethje
Additive synthesis? Why, I'd NEVER heard of that! What a cool concept. You mean one can construct sounds by adding, rather than substracting? Fascinating. A whole new world just opened up for me. Thank you! Thank you! ________________________________ From: laryn91 To: Doepfer_a10
2008-12-01 by achtung_999
Thanks for that Chris.I know of some very good systems myself too. Try SPEAR: http://www.klingbeil.com/spear/ But the aim of my message was to find out why these people are on one hand hammering on a true scientificly perfect sine wave generator and then on the other hand ignore
2008-12-01 by laryn91
I'm actually agreeing with you. I was referring to the common argument since a pure sine is not possible, so the crappy 10%-20% THD sines from Deopfer, Tip Top, ASys etc. should be good enough for us. Maybe try to do better since it's been known for 40 years that it's easy and si
2008-12-01 by Chris Muir
On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:03 AM, achtung_999 wrote: > I think it is rather extremely naïve that you think you can model > natural > sounds with additive synthesis.History has proven that many people > thought > it was possible but failed in the end. There have a number of pretty good
2008-12-01 by achtung_999
You are really trolling eh? Maybe you should open up and try to see what people are trying to tell you. As you read on the bottom I have nothing against additive synthesis as a creative tool. But scientificly additive synthesis does not make sense in the analog domain. Unless you
2008-12-01 by achtung_999
Go on be naive. On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:19 PM, laryn91 wrote: > You must fall into this group: > > > " I'm guessing you're either unfamiliar with or never > > designed sounds > > using Additive Synthesis. " > > I and many others successfully use Additive techniques on our analog
2008-12-01 by laryn91
I agree. My professional expertise is in speech research and speech synthesis and studies have shown the human ear cannot distinguish static phase relationships in a monophonic signal. BTW, looking at many of the posts for this thread (not yours), I notice arguments are often ext
2008-12-01 by achtung_999
"For example, if you wanted to create a sound similar in character and dynamics of a flute, you could probably make a pretty good one controlling 3 or 4 sine wave oscillators as the excitation. There are many sources for info on the web about Additive Synthesis if you're interest
2008-12-01 by Derek Holzer
Ooooooorrrrrrr....... use the PWM out of one of your oscillators to control the MOSFET transistor directly. That would be the most simple solution, then you could get rid of everything to the left of R9 in that schematic, as that is the part which makes the square wave PWM. In th
2008-12-01 by Derek Holzer
I've been using this PWM circuit to run motors: http://solorb.com/elect/pwm/pwm1/ Main thing is to use a transistor to do the actual PWM instead of running too much current through the opamps themselves. You could replace the potentiometer for the PWM with a vactrol of some sort