Yahoo Groups archive

SergeModular

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:13 UTC

Thread

4-Pole filter with 2 VCFQs

4-Pole filter with 2 VCFQs

2007-05-13 by simulacreant

Hi,

I'm having a bit of trouble recreating this patch. Basically, I don't
understand the instructions for implementing the amplitude control.
They say to 'monitor the VCA output by patching to an envelope
detector(I'm using a DTG with signal in) but they don't say where to
patch the inverted output of the envelope detector.

Does anyone have an alternate patch or a differently worded
description of this patch? Try following the directions and let me
know if you figure it out.

Thanks!

Here's the full text:

4-Pole filter, by Harvey Devoe Thornburg

How to get a *killer* 4-pole filter sound from two VCQF's

Required: 2xVCQF, 1 VCA, 1 envelope detector, 1 dual
processor/equivalent (used for offset inversion)

The VCQF is a state-variable 2-pole. Although it has a very nice,
clean sound (great for processing drum loops) it falls short if you
expect that Minimoog/VCS3/TB-303 type sound. By using controlled
feedback around 2 VCQF's in series, you can get a nonlinear filter
that IMHO sounds even better than any of the aforementioned filters.
The patch may seem complicated so it's good to start with an overview.
Clearly, two two-poles in series gives us a four-pole. The problem
with this open-loop series configuration is that you'll get large
amplitude swings when sweeping over a harmonic signal at high Q.
Unless you like this sound, you'd remedy this by using a compressor.
But what can you do about self-oscillation? The trick is to use
feedback to generate Q externally, but control the amplitude of this
feedback by monitoring the overall output amplitude. How is feedback
used to generate Q? We use Moog's old trick of feeding back the
inverted output of the open-loop 4-pole combination. By themselves,
the filters provide 180 degrees of phase shift at the cutoff
frequency. Inverting this generates another 180 degrees of shift,
which regenerates the signal at the cutoff frequency, providing a
resonant peak at that frequency. We get a screeching self-oscillation
at uncontrollable high amplitude. This establishes the need for
external amplitude control. If we can monitor the signal amplitude
somewhere in the feedback path, then we can use a VCA to attenuate the
feedback gain, keeping the "screeching" well-behaved. Now when we
play with If the feedback gain gets too large (>4), this configuration
will go unstable.

Patch:

The input for this configuration will be the regular input
(the "IN") for the first filter. The output will be the LO output of
the second filter. Track the cutoffs of both filters in parallel
(*make them equal at all times*), and set the Q to minimum, since
we're generating the resonance externally. Also if there is a "gain"
knob set this to maximum. (on the VCFX the gain is always set to
maximum). Patch the LO output of the first filter to the input of the
second. Now create the feedback loop. Patch the BAND output of the
second filter to an inverter (use one of the dual processor sections,
with the scaling knob full left). Take the output of the inverter and
run it through a VCA. Patch the output of the VCA to the AGC input of
the first filter, thus closing the loop. It is highly recommended to
use a UAP as the VCA, because we want something capable of large gains
(4x is necessary for self-oscillation). Offset the output of the
second processor section to +5 volts, and patch this to the VC input
of the VCA.

At this point, the only thing left to do is to implement
amplitude control. Monitor the VCA output by patching it to the input
of an envelope detector. Invert the output of the envelope detector
using the processor controlling the VCA. You won't need to do a full
inversion: turn the knob only partially left. Now you should have a
great sounding four-pole filter!!! You can play with the Q control on
the first filter to vary further nuances in the sound. It's best that
the input to this filter be full-amplitude, like a sawtooth or square
wave from NTO.

Re: 4-Pole filter with 2 VCFQs

2007-05-13 by paradigmshiftbeats

"Invert the output of the envelope detector using the processor
controlling the VCA."

To directly answer your question, the envelope output is patched to
the feedback VCA (through the processor, which in Harvey's patch
instructions had already been patched to the feedback VCA)

To elaborate, the output of a processor is connected to the VC input
of the VCA in the feedback loop. The input to that processor comes
from the envelope detector and, in addition to inverting that input
using one of the bipolar attenuators, the offset control is set to
+5v so that the feedback VCA is fully open except when the envelope
detector is active, reducing feedback amplitude to keep the overall
gain from getting out of hand. You may need to play with the amount
of the processor inversion to get the behavior to suit your taste.

Hope this helps!

Chris

Show quoted textHide quoted text

--- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, "simulacreant"
<matfhew.carpenfer@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a bit of trouble recreating this patch. Basically, I
don't
> understand the instructions for implementing the amplitude control.
> They say to 'monitor the VCA output by patching to an envelope
> detector(I'm using a DTG with signal in) but they don't say where
to
> patch the inverted output of the envelope detector.
>
> Does anyone have an alternate patch or a differently worded
> description of this patch? Try following the directions and let me
> know if you figure it out.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Here's the full text:
>
> 4-Pole filter, by Harvey Devoe Thornburg
>
> How to get a *killer* 4-pole filter sound from two VCQF's
>
> Required: 2xVCQF, 1 VCA, 1 envelope detector, 1 dual
> processor/equivalent (used for offset inversion)
>
> The VCQF is a state-variable 2-pole. Although it has a very
nice,
> clean sound (great for processing drum loops) it falls short if you
> expect that Minimoog/VCS3/TB-303 type sound. By using controlled
> feedback around 2 VCQF's in series, you can get a nonlinear filter
> that IMHO sounds even better than any of the aforementioned
filters.
> The patch may seem complicated so it's good to start with an
overview.
> Clearly, two two-poles in series gives us a four-pole. The problem
> with this open-loop series configuration is that you'll get large
> amplitude swings when sweeping over a harmonic signal at high Q.
> Unless you like this sound, you'd remedy this by using a
compressor.
> But what can you do about self-oscillation? The trick is to use
> feedback to generate Q externally, but control the amplitude of
this
> feedback by monitoring the overall output amplitude. How is
feedback
> used to generate Q? We use Moog's old trick of feeding back the
> inverted output of the open-loop 4-pole combination. By
themselves,
> the filters provide 180 degrees of phase shift at the cutoff
> frequency. Inverting this generates another 180 degrees of shift,
> which regenerates the signal at the cutoff frequency, providing a
> resonant peak at that frequency. We get a screeching self-
oscillation
> at uncontrollable high amplitude. This establishes the need for
> external amplitude control. If we can monitor the signal amplitude
> somewhere in the feedback path, then we can use a VCA to attenuate
the
> feedback gain, keeping the "screeching" well-behaved. Now when we
> play with If the feedback gain gets too large (>4), this
configuration
> will go unstable.
>
> Patch:
>
> The input for this configuration will be the regular input
> (the "IN") for the first filter. The output will be the LO output
of
> the second filter. Track the cutoffs of both filters in parallel
> (*make them equal at all times*), and set the Q to minimum, since
> we're generating the resonance externally. Also if there is
a "gain"
> knob set this to maximum. (on the VCFX the gain is always set to
> maximum). Patch the LO output of the first filter to the input of
the
> second. Now create the feedback loop. Patch the BAND output of the
> second filter to an inverter (use one of the dual processor
sections,
> with the scaling knob full left). Take the output of the inverter
and
> run it through a VCA. Patch the output of the VCA to the AGC
input of
> the first filter, thus closing the loop. It is highly recommended
to
> use a UAP as the VCA, because we want something capable of large
gains
> (4x is necessary for self-oscillation). Offset the output of the
> second processor section to +5 volts, and patch this to the VC
input
> of the VCA.
>
> At this point, the only thing left to do is to implement
> amplitude control. Monitor the VCA output by patching it to the
input
> of an envelope detector. Invert the output of the envelope
detector
> using the processor controlling the VCA. You won't need to do a
full
> inversion: turn the knob only partially left. Now you should have
a
> great sounding four-pole filter!!! You can play with the Q
control on
> the first filter to vary further nuances in the sound. It's best
that
> the input to this filter be full-amplitude, like a sawtooth or
square
> wave from NTO.
>

Re: 4-Pole filter with 2 VCFQs

2007-05-14 by John P

I tried this a few years ago with no luck - glad to hear someone got it
right.
How would you describe the results?

paradigmshiftbeats wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> "Invert the output of the envelope detector using the processor
> controlling the VCA."
>
> To directly answer your question, the envelope output is patched to
> the feedback VCA (through the processor, which in Harvey's patch
> instructions had already been patched to the feedback VCA)
>
> To elaborate, the output of a processor is connected to the VC input
> of the VCA in the feedback loop. The input to that processor comes
> from the envelope detector and, in addition to inverting that input
> using one of the bipolar attenuators, the offset control is set to
> +5v so that the feedback VCA is fully open except when the envelope
> detector is active, reducing feedback amplitude to keep the overall
> gain from getting out of hand. You may need to play with the amount
> of the processor inversion to get the behavior to suit your taste.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Chris
>

--
m/n/m/l
surreal electronic music, sound, noise
http://www.mnmlnoise.com

Re: 4-Pole filter with 2 VCFQs

2007-05-14 by paradigmshiftbeats

--- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, John P <johnp299792@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I tried this a few years ago with no luck - glad to hear someone got
it right.
> How would you describe the results?

I no longer have all the required modules but I tried it a couple of
times when I did and thought it sounded pretty good - still had the
precision typical of the Serge but "deeper" if that makes sense. As I
recall, though, I spun off from that patch into a more complex mix of
various outputs and routings that produced more interesting results.
Typically I find this to be the case when trying to "emulate" other
synth architectures using the Serge - I find the Serge's own way of
doing things quickly becomes more intriguing!

I generally have had more pleasing results using feedback with the
Variable Slope and Variable Bandwidth filters. Now those can really
squelch when you get them going!

Chris

Re: 4-Pole filter with 2 VCFQs

2007-05-14 by matthew carpenter

Thanks for the help. It will be a few days before I get to try this patch, again. As far as I got, however, I can say that I agree with the 'deeper' description. It sounded quite good. I also find myself quickly heading in more 'experimental' directions when starting with an emulative patch rather than leaving it at that.

I haven't had a chance to experiment with feedback and the Variable Bandwidth Filter, yet, but I can corroborate that using feedback with the Variable Slope Filter results in some wild sounds.

If anybody has some neat feedback patches to share, I'd love to try them.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On 5/13/07, paradigmshiftbeats <paradigmshiftbeats@...> wrote:

--- In SergeModular@yahoogroups.com, John P <johnp299792@...> wrote:
>
> I tried this a few years ago with no luck - glad to hear someone got
it right.
> How would you describe the results?

I no longer have all the required modules but I tried it a couple of
times when I did and thought it sounded pretty good - still had the
precision typical of the Serge but "deeper" if that makes sense. As I
recall, though, I spun off from that patch into a more complex mix of
various outputs and routings that produced more interesting results.
Typically I find this to be the case when trying to "emulate" other
synth architectures using the Serge - I find the Serge's own way of
doing things quickly becomes more intriguing!

I generally have had more pleasing results using feedback with the
Variable Slope and Variable Bandwidth filters. Now those can really
squelch when you get them going!

Chris


Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.