Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:35 UTC

Thread

MOTM-480 resonance

MOTM-480 resonance

2002-07-12 by groovyshaman@snet.net

I just finished listening to the MOTM-480 sound bites - wow!  (I know, a
week late and a dollar short.)   Lots of nice resonance, nearly self-osc.  I
know Paul has indicated this module will not self-oscillate, but it sounds
nearly there.  I've never had the chance to play with a CS-80, alas, but I
have read that its filter does not self-osc.  So I'm wondering, does the 480
closely match the resonance capability of the CS-80, or are we getting more
res for "free"?

George

Re: [motm] MOTM-480 resonance

2002-07-13 by The Old Crow

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 groovyshaman@... wrote:

> I just finished listening to the MOTM-480 sound bites - wow!  (I know, a
> week late and a dollar short.)   Lots of nice resonance, nearly self-osc.  I
> know Paul has indicated this module will not self-oscillate, but it sounds
> nearly there.  I've never had the chance to play with a CS-80, alas, but I
> have read that its filter does not self-osc.  So I'm wondering, does the 480
> closely match the resonance capability of the CS-80, or are we getting more
> res for "free"?

  The filters can't resonate as they have feedback limiting components in
the circuit specifically to prevent oscillation.  I suppose one could
build the circuit board without the six feedback limiting networks around
the six 'cells' (four filter stages, two resonance control stages).  
Someone once asked if a "self-osc/non-self-osc" switchable mode could be
done:  in theory it is possible, but in practice it would be cumbersome as
all six networks would have to be disconnected, and the resulting extra
circuit traces to cell nodes from analog switches might start to affect
the response.

  Since the actual CS-80 filter circuits are linear CV response and MOTM 
is exponential response, changes were made to the CV front end so as to 
provide expo response for the frequencies and resonances.  On a 
CS-50/60/80, there are separate frequency and resonance controls for the 
high-pass and low-pass filters.  There are also "global" frequency (called 
'brightness' on a CS instrument) and resonance controls on the CS 
machines.  These are provided for on the MOTM-480 as the 1V/Oct input that 
affects both the HP and LP filters simultaneously and the resonance CV 
input affects both HP and LP resonance simultaneously.

  The CS VCF filter resonance controls provide about 80% of the resonance 
range for the HP and LP filters.  On a CS machine, setting these to 
maximum and then using the global resonance control allows for the 
remaining 20% of resonance range to be used.  On the MOTM-480, setting the 
individual resonance controls to maximum provides the 80%-of-range, and 
applying some (positive) control voltage to the resonance CV jack provides 
the remaining 20%.  I think the maximum "Q factor" is 15 or so (and the 
minimum around 0.5).

  The MOTM-480 resonance is the same as the CS-80's.  Just try the "funky" 
tone selectors (that is, presets literally labeled 'Funky 1' to 'Funky 
4') on a CS-80.  Or, listen to the Vangelis track "Chung Kuo" from the 
China album at around 1 minute into the piece--the low-frequency notes are 
all done using one of the "funky" presets with aftertouch control of 
filter frequency.  In fact, listen to the entire track for a 
nearly-all-CS80 experience.


Crow
/**/

Re: [motm] MOTM-480 resonance

2002-07-14 by groovyshaman@snet.net

Thanks Crow for the excellent details.
Let me see of I got it:

The freq and res pots affect their respective parameters by 0 to 80%.
The 1V/Oct and Res inputs affect both filters respective parameters by 0 to
20%.

One other thing, what is the useable input voltage ranges for the Res In and
1V/Oct In jacks?

George

----- Original Message -----
From: The Old Crow <oldcrow@...>
To: motm group <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-480 resonance


> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 groovyshaman@... wrote:
>
> > I just finished listening to the MOTM-480 sound bites - wow!  (I know, a
> > week late and a dollar short.)   Lots of nice resonance, nearly
self-osc.  I
> > know Paul has indicated this module will not self-oscillate, but it
sounds
> > nearly there.  I've never had the chance to play with a CS-80, alas, but
I
> > have read that its filter does not self-osc.  So I'm wondering, does the
480
> > closely match the resonance capability of the CS-80, or are we getting
more
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > res for "free"?
>
>   The filters can't resonate as they have feedback limiting components in
> the circuit specifically to prevent oscillation.  I suppose one could
> build the circuit board without the six feedback limiting networks around
> the six 'cells' (four filter stages, two resonance control stages).
> Someone once asked if a "self-osc/non-self-osc" switchable mode could be
> done:  in theory it is possible, but in practice it would be cumbersome as
> all six networks would have to be disconnected, and the resulting extra
> circuit traces to cell nodes from analog switches might start to affect
> the response.
>
>   Since the actual CS-80 filter circuits are linear CV response and MOTM
> is exponential response, changes were made to the CV front end so as to
> provide expo response for the frequencies and resonances.  On a
> CS-50/60/80, there are separate frequency and resonance controls for the
> high-pass and low-pass filters.  There are also "global" frequency (called
> 'brightness' on a CS instrument) and resonance controls on the CS
> machines.  These are provided for on the MOTM-480 as the 1V/Oct input that
> affects both the HP and LP filters simultaneously and the resonance CV
> input affects both HP and LP resonance simultaneously.
>
>   The CS VCF filter resonance controls provide about 80% of the resonance
> range for the HP and LP filters.  On a CS machine, setting these to
> maximum and then using the global resonance control allows for the
> remaining 20% of resonance range to be used.  On the MOTM-480, setting the
> individual resonance controls to maximum provides the 80%-of-range, and
> applying some (positive) control voltage to the resonance CV jack provides
> the remaining 20%.  I think the maximum "Q factor" is 15 or so (and the
> minimum around 0.5).
>
>   The MOTM-480 resonance is the same as the CS-80's.  Just try the "funky"
> tone selectors (that is, presets literally labeled 'Funky 1' to 'Funky
> 4') on a CS-80.  Or, listen to the Vangelis track "Chung Kuo" from the
> China album at around 1 minute into the piece--the low-frequency notes are
> all done using one of the "funky" presets with aftertouch control of
> filter frequency.  In fact, listen to the entire track for a
> nearly-all-CS80 experience.
>
>
> Crow
> /**/

Re: [motm] MOTM-480 resonance

2002-07-14 by The Old Crow

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 groovyshaman@... wrote:

> The freq and res pots affect their respective parameters by 0 to 80%.
> The 1V/Oct and Res inputs affect both filters respective parameters by 0 to
> 20%.
> 
> One other thing, what is the useable input voltage ranges for the Res In and
> 1V/Oct In jacks?

  The frequency knobs cover the full range.  The resonance knobs cover 80% 
of full range.  The 1V/oct and res CV jacks can also provide full range.  
This is what is different from an actual CS-80 as we have a module and not 
a normalized synth filter.  The FM jack along with its reversing 
attenuator is sort of like the CS 'global brilliance' lever.

  All CV inputs will accept the typical modular 0 to 10V.

Crow
/**/

Background Info on MOTM VCO's??

2002-08-16 by Black_Man_Music@yahoo.com

I have some questions for some of the old-timers with
regards to design decisions made with the VCO's.

1) Abscence of 'octave switches'... organ stops...
whatever you want to call them. I know I have used an
analog synth sometime in the distant past that didn't
have them and used the MOTM style coarse control knob.
Not really an issue, just curious and I think I have a
good idea why this was done.

2) Semi-tone range of the fine-tune control. 11
semi-tones?? I know I've never used a synth w/ this
wide range. And this is annoying. Especially if you
happen to accidentally graze one, I find myself (on
some patches) having to pull out the tuner to get them
in tune again.

IMHO, Larry Hendry's VCO mods should become the
standard. Being an 'assembled' person, unfortunately
they were not an option.

Thanks!




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com

Re: [motm] Background Info on MOTM VCO's??

2002-08-16 by Paul Schreiber

.
>
> 1) Abscence of 'octave switches'... organ stops...
> whatever you want to call them. I know I have used an
> analog synth sometime in the distant past that didn't
> have them and used the MOTM style coarse control knob.
> Not really an issue, just curious and I think I have a
> good idea why this was done.

The #1 failure mechanism on the Moog modular are the rotary switches. Also, having these switches
in kits present many problems with proper wiring.

The MOTM-300 attempts to eliminate all potential sources of drift. The cermet pots just do a
better job than discrete resistors (not taking anything away from Larry's Octave Switcher Stooge
module).

If you are switching octaves, the FINE tuning must also be 1 octave of you have the potential of
"dead zones" where you just can't tune to a certain pitch.




>
> 2) Semi-tone range of the fine-tune control. 11
> semi-tones?? I know I've never used a synth w/ this
> wide range.

See above.


> And this is annoying. Especially if you
> happen to accidentally graze one, I find myself (on
> some patches) having to pull out the tuner to get them
> in tune again.
>
> IMHO, Larry Hendry's VCO mods should become the
> standard. Being an 'assembled' person, unfortunately
> they were not an option.

The FINE tuning is set on the '300 by a 3.32M resistor. I can change this to a 4.7M if you
request it. This will "tighten up" the spread by 3.32/4.7 or 30% (say from 11 to 8 semitones).

Paul S.

Re: Background Info on MOTM VCO's??

2002-08-16 by mmarsh100

and furthermore, Stooge Larry's module, cool as it is (I have one), 
won't help you if you bump a knob.  You have to be in tune first, 
then use the octave/step switches...

I seem to remember a mod discussed that narrowed the range of the 
FINE control.  Was it Stooge Moe that discussed this?  

BTW, even if you are not a builder, it's probably an easy part(s?) 
replacement.

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> .
> >
> > 1) Abscence of 'octave switches'... organ stops...
> > whatever you want to call them. I know I have used an
> > analog synth sometime in the distant past that didn't
> > have them and used the MOTM style coarse control knob.
> > Not really an issue, just curious and I think I have a
> > good idea why this was done.
> 
> The #1 failure mechanism on the Moog modular are the rotary 
switches. Also, having these switches
> in kits present many problems with proper wiring.
> 
> The MOTM-300 attempts to eliminate all potential sources of drift. 
The cermet pots just do a
> better job than discrete resistors (not taking anything away from 
Larry's Octave Switcher Stooge
> module).
> 
> If you are switching octaves, the FINE tuning must also be 1 
octave of you have the potential of
> "dead zones" where you just can't tune to a certain pitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 2) Semi-tone range of the fine-tune control. 11
> > semi-tones?? I know I've never used a synth w/ this
> > wide range.
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> > And this is annoying. Especially if you
> > happen to accidentally graze one, I find myself (on
> > some patches) having to pull out the tuner to get them
> > in tune again.
> >
> > IMHO, Larry Hendry's VCO mods should become the
> > standard. Being an 'assembled' person, unfortunately
> > they were not an option.
> 
> The FINE tuning is set on the '300 by a 3.32M resistor. I can 
change this to a 4.7M if you
> request it. This will "tighten up" the spread by 3.32/4.7 or 30% 
(say from 11 to 8 semitones).
> 
> Paul S.

Re: Background Info on MOTM VCO's??

2002-08-16 by mmarsh100

and furthermore, Stooge Larry's module, cool as it is (I have one), 
won't help you if you bump a knob.  You have to be in tune first, 
then use the octave/step switches...

I seem to remember a mod discussed that narrowed the range of the 
FINE control.  Was it Stooge Moe that discussed this?  

BTW, even if you are not a builder, it's probably an easy part(s?) 
replacement.

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> .
> >
> > 1) Abscence of 'octave switches'... organ stops...
> > whatever you want to call them. I know I have used an
> > analog synth sometime in the distant past that didn't
> > have them and used the MOTM style coarse control knob.
> > Not really an issue, just curious and I think I have a
> > good idea why this was done.
> 
> The #1 failure mechanism on the Moog modular are the rotary 
switches. Also, having these switches
> in kits present many problems with proper wiring.
> 
> The MOTM-300 attempts to eliminate all potential sources of drift. 
The cermet pots just do a
> better job than discrete resistors (not taking anything away from 
Larry's Octave Switcher Stooge
> module).
> 
> If you are switching octaves, the FINE tuning must also be 1 
octave of you have the potential of
> "dead zones" where you just can't tune to a certain pitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 2) Semi-tone range of the fine-tune control. 11
> > semi-tones?? I know I've never used a synth w/ this
> > wide range.
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> > And this is annoying. Especially if you
> > happen to accidentally graze one, I find myself (on
> > some patches) having to pull out the tuner to get them
> > in tune again.
> >
> > IMHO, Larry Hendry's VCO mods should become the
> > standard. Being an 'assembled' person, unfortunately
> > they were not an option.
> 
> The FINE tuning is set on the '300 by a 3.32M resistor. I can 
change this to a 4.7M if you
> request it. This will "tighten up" the spread by 3.32/4.7 or 30% 
(say from 11 to 8 semitones).
> 
> Paul S.

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.