MOTM

Okay, I've touched this subject before, but I'd like to give 
it another try. 

As you might remember, I love the 2600 for its features, but 
especially for its more or less nasty sound. I just read a 
review of the Alesis Ion (a err.... non-analog synth ;), 
that models a couple of vintage filters, one of them being 
the ARP filter. The reviewer is happy with the results. 

So it looks like it is possible to suggest the 2600's sound 
with only a filter. If that is possible, I'd really like to 
have a MOTM format 2600 filter. Any suggestions?

As a side note, I'm confused about the whole 2600 filter 
sound. Afaik, the best sounding 2600's were the ones with 
the Moog ladder filter built it, later to be replaced with 
Arp's own design. If we're talking about that tipical 
(nasal, nasty) 2600 sound, are we talking about the moog 
versions or about the later versions with ARP's own filter? 
I can't imagine a moog filter being nasal and nasty...

Cheers!
Robert

a) the "nasal and nasty" one is the ARP design

b) wait and first hear the upcoming SEM filter. Like the ARP, it is a typical, cheesy
state-variable filter with "bad" op amps (LM741s, etc). In general, SVFs are not as
"plesant-sounding" as other filter types. This is why I haven't had one in the line until the
MOTM-480, and then only because that one is unique.

The design is done and the schematic is entered into the pcb system. I plan to do the prorotype
layout over Christmas 'break'.

Paul S.

On Saturday 25 October 2003 16:04, Paul Schreiber wrote:
> a) the "nasal and nasty" one is the ARP design

Ah, so I probably wouldn't like the 'better' sounding 
2600's. The difference in sound between the earlier and 
later 2600 revisions must be overwhelming, I assume.

> b) wait and first hear the upcoming SEM filter. Like the
> ARP, it is a typical, cheesy state-variable filter with
> "bad" op amps (LM741s, etc). In general, SVFs are not as
> "plesant-sounding" as other filter types. This is why I
> haven't had one in the line until the MOTM-480, and then
> only because that one is unique.
>
> The design is done and the schematic is entered into the
> pcb system. I plan to do the prorotype layout over
> Christmas 'break'.

Great news Paul. The more MOTM filters the better.
Could you add an 'ARP mode' switch please? ;)

- Robert

Paul wrote:

>wait and first hear the upcoming SEM filter. Like the ARP, it is a 
typical,cheesy state-variable filter with "bad" op amps (LM741s, 
etc).<

I'm sorry, did you say 741's?
 
Doesn't this go against the MOTM "CD quality" philosophy?  There is 
no way a filter based on 741's etc. is going to be quiet. If you are 
going to go that route, I have a 741 phaser design you'll just 
love. :-)

Maybe it would be a good idea to give each module a quietness rating.

johnm

> >wait and first hear the upcoming SEM filter. Like the ARP, it is a
> typical,cheesy state-variable filter with "bad" op amps (LM741s,
> etc).<
>
> I'm sorry, did you say 741's?
>
> Doesn't this go against the MOTM "CD quality" philosophy?  There is
> no way a filter based on 741's etc. is going to be quiet. If you are
> going to go that route, I have a 741 phaser design you'll just
> love. :-)


Hi John,

Yes of course there's a 741 inside, and it's crucial for the sound.

My philosophy of making circuits "as good as possible" when I
contribute them to MOTM can mean entirely different things:

For the "universal" 4pole LPF (M-440) the goal was to have
lowest noise, lowest CV feedthru, clean self oscillation over
the whole range, etc. (And some of the SSM2040-typical
side effects, too, which belong into the next category.)

For a "specialized" 4pole LPF like the M-490 (early-Moog
style VCF), the goal was to come as close to that Moog
Modular VCF as the "uVCF" concept allows. This means
*no* self oscillation at low frequencies, and even more,
this means an acurate emulation of the harmonic distortion
vs. frequency under all conditions.

These are very different design goals, and it was fun to
work on both of them, as different as they are.

The upcoming SEM-style State Variable Filter belongs
in to the second category for sure. (It will have a few
extras above the original, but I won't tell before Paul
officially announces this.) This 741 is part of the sound,
and even more, in that particular circuit it's used to
_compensate_ some unwanted effects that would
otherwise be caused in other parts of the circuit.

These old designers of now-vintage circuits -
Moog, Oberheim, and all the others - have been
very clever to make the best of the components
they had at the time. If we want to emulate such
circuits today, we have more choices, but
it needs a lot of analysing to decide where a
"modern" component will bring improovement
without negative side effects, and where just
using the "vintage components" is the best
thing you can do. There is no general answer
for this - it depends on the circuit.

JH.

On Sunday 26 October 2003 15:37, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> I am pondering an ARP 4072-type, 4-pole lowpass clone
> (with added VC resonance). This was used in the later
> "orange-faced" 2600s, and uses LM3900 Norton amplifiers.
> A ghastly part designed to be the world's cheapest quad
> op amp for use in Delco automotive electronics (and used
> extensively in Serge modules). However, it's that part
> that creates the 'bubbly, gurply, reed' sound.

YYYYYYYEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :))))

Consider one sold Paul.

- Robert

On Sunday 26 October 2003 16:05, Paul Schreiber wrote:
> > YYYYYYYEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :))))
> >
> > Consider one sold Paul.
>
> OK, need 34 more to break even :)

That's too many for one system. ;)

- Robert

>
> Doesn't this go against the MOTM "CD quality" philosophy?  There is
> no way a filter based on 741's etc. is going to be quiet.

Not necessarily true.

a) it depends *where and how* the '741 is used in the circuit. In the SEM filter, it's used in
the resonance feedback portion. So, not in the audio 'path' per se.

b) Noise is annoying only if you can hear it. Now, in today's uber-quiet CD world, it's certainly
*easier* to hear noise. The Audio Precision test set I use to look at stuff can show this. But,
just because it measures "bad", doesn't make it *objectionable*. The MOTM-480 CS-80 filter
measures the noise floor 12dB HIGHER than the MOTM-440. Yet, no beta testers have even mentioned
it, even though I specifically asked them to "listen for noise".

c) The MOTM-440 is the only "clean" VCF in the line. The MOTM-420 uses 4558 op amps, because they
have a distinctive sound associated with synths of the '80s. Side-by-side with the '440, and on a
GOOD playback system (like my Event 20/20bas monitors, no Mackie mixer in the chain), the '440
has much better 'slam' (transient response in lower frequencies) and clearer overall sound..

The Moog 904A clone MOTM-490 is very quiet (as is the original Moog).

I am pondering an ARP 4072-type, 4-pole lowpass clone (with added VC resonance). This was used in
the later "orange-faced" 2600s, and uses LM3900 Norton amplifiers. A ghastly part designed to be
the world's cheapest quad op amp for use in Delco automotive electronics (and used extensively in
Serge modules). However, it's that part that creates the 'bubbly, gurply, reed' sound.

Paul S.

I am pondering an ARP 4072-type, 4-pole lowpass clone (with added VC
resonance). This was used in
the later "orange-faced" 2600s, and uses LM3900 Norton amplifiers. A ghastly
part designed to be
the world's cheapest quad op amp for use in Delco automotive electronics
(and used extensively in
Serge modules). However, it's that part that creates the 'bubbly, gurply,
reed' sound.

Paul S.



I have to admit, I'd also buy a few of these...

Regards, Markk

> 
> YYYYYYYEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :))))
> 
> Consider one sold Paul.

OK, need 34 more to break even :)

Paul S.

On Sunday 26 October 2003 17:01, Les Mizzell wrote:
> Uhhh...buy the Modcan one and get the stooges to do a
> panel conversion?
>
> http://www.modcan.com/modhtml/4075.html

Ah, I wasn't aware of this one, good tip. 
Is it possible to convert a banana module into a MOTM one? 
Does it need some tweaks on the board?

Anyway, I'd still prefer Paul's one (hint, hint), but it's 
good to know there's an alternative available. :)

- Robert

Count me in to! That's two in Holland, considering our population vs.
the US's this is going to be quite a profitable module!

Krimo

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert van der Kamp [mailto:robnet@...] 
Sent: zondag 26 oktober 2003 14:51
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: MOTM format ARP 2600 filter?

On Sunday 26 October 2003 15:37, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> I am pondering an ARP 4072-type, 4-pole lowpass clone
> (with added VC resonance). This was used in the later
> "orange-faced" 2600s, and uses LM3900 Norton amplifiers.
> A ghastly part designed to be the world's cheapest quad
> op amp for use in Delco automotive electronics (and used
> extensively in Serge modules). However, it's that part
> that creates the 'bubbly, gurply, reed' sound.

YYYYYYYEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :))))

Consider one sold Paul.

- Robert




 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Uhhh...buy the Modcan one and get the stooges to do a panel conversion?


http://www.modcan.com/modhtml/4075.html


-- 
Les Mizzell
-------------------------
\ufffdMihi placent, O Pincerna!
  Virent ova! Viret perna!
  Dapem posthac non arcebo.
  Gratum tibi me praebebo.\ufffd

On Sunday 26 October 2003 17:01, Les Mizzell wrote:
> Uhhh...buy the Modcan one and get the stooges to do a
> panel conversion?
>
> http://www.modcan.com/modhtml/4075.html

Ah, I wasn't aware of this one, good tip.
Is it possible to convert a banana module into a MOTM one?
Does it need some tweaks on the board?

Anyway, I'd still prefer Paul's one (hint, hint), but it's
good to know there's an alternative available. :)


uh, no dis-respect to Modcan.... but I too would rather have one made from
Paul... especially since he's possibly offering to go forward with it.

Markk

--- Alan Wagner <Aardvark-mi@...> wrote:
> Make that 33! I\ufffdd buy one :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...]
> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 10:06 AM
> To: robnet@...; motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] Re: MOTM format ARP 2600 filter?
> 
> >
> > YYYYYYYEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :))))
> >
> > Consider one sold Paul.
> 
> OK, need 34 more to break even :)
> 
> Paul S.
> I want one to...
John in Miami
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050322
>
77:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3050
> 9&media=atkins>
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

It is not in our "mission statement" to make a panel for a conversion
project that is direct competition for something Paul has "announced" as a
certain project.  Otherwise, one runs the risk that the initial number
needed to break even will not be achieved and then the module will never be
released and the entire modular community suffers.  It is the great
diversity of stuff available for us all now which makes this such a
beautiful time for modular.

Put me on the list of those that will buy at least on of any filter Paul
chooses to make. I am still learning to appreciate the diversity of
different filters.  And, sometimes the MOTM implementation is better in some
ways than the original it was intended to emulate. The best example IMHO is
the 440.  While it is a LP only, it does that so well as to be MY favorite
MOTM filter.  I never cared much for the Prophet 5.  But, the 440 is one
awesome LP filter.  Congrats to JH and PS on that one !!

However, having said that, I think all filters are different.  So, some day
I hope to see virtually every nice filter of the various manufacturers
available in a MOTM format.

Stooge Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Les Mizzell <lesmizz@...>
Uhhh...buy the Modcan one and get the stooges to do a panel conversion?
http://www.modcan.com/modhtml/4075.html

That was an excellent response, JH, and your points are very well 
taken. I'll address a few things Paul said so as to keep things neat.

>Noise is annoying only if you can hear it. Now, in today's uber-
quiet CD world, it's certainly *easier* to hear noise. The Audio 
Precision test set I use to look at stuff can show this. But,
just because it measures "bad", doesn't make it *objectionable*.<

This is true, but how far do you want to take it?  Would you make 
filters for that Serge, Buchla or Doepfer sound (whatever that is)? 
The more "noisy" modules you add to your product line, the less 
worthy it will be of the "CD quality" claim on the website.

If you were to ask me [and you didn't :-) ) I would caution against 
building modules that are supposed to emulate such-and-such a 
synthesizer. Ideally, a synthesizer isn't supposed to have any kind 
of sound. That is up to the synthesist to create. An ARP filter isn't 
going to automatically create an ARP sound because it is out of the 
context of the total insturment, unless all the other modules emulate 
the 2600, as well as the signal path (which causes people to create 
more or less the same patches, hence a "sound."  That's actually not 
a good thing).

I was extremely impressed with the 440. If anything, the next filter 
should be a highpass filter of that quality. For bandpass, you would 
just use the two filters in parallel.


>The MOTM-480 CS-80 filter measures the noise floor 12dB HIGHER than 
the MOTM-440. Yet, no beta testers
have even mentioned it, even though I specifically asked them 
to "listen for noise".<

It is rather quiet, though certainly no 440. But that's all I'll say 
for now...


>However, it's that part that creates the 'bubbly, gurply, reed' 
sound.<

Well, at least Robert Rich will buy one.  Wait, that's "glorp."

johnm

Make that 33 :)

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:

> > 
> > YYYYYYYEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :))))
> > 
> > Consider one sold Paul.
> 
> OK, need 34 more to break even :)
> 
> Paul S.

Well, no offense to Modcan, but I'd rather have Paul's...

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Les Mizzell <lesmizz@s...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Uhhh...buy the Modcan one and get the stooges to do a panel 
conversion?

> 
> 
> http://www.modcan.com/modhtml/4075.html
> 
> 
> -- 
> Les Mizzell
> -------------------------
> "Mihi placent, O Pincerna!
>   Virent ova! Viret perna!
>   Dapem posthac non arcebo.
>   Gratum tibi me praebebo."

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: konkuro <konkuro@...>
> If you were to ask me [and you didn't :-) ) I would caution against
building modules that are supposed to emulate such-and-such a synthesizer.
Ideally, a synthesizer isn't supposed to have any kind of sound. That is up
to the synthesist to create.

Spoken completely from a synthesist point of view with little reguard for
the marketing aspect.  While I am more of a nuts and bolts person myself, I
certianly understand that the finest product may never be available for
purchase if marketing is ignored.

> I was extremely impressed with the 440.

Me too.  And to support one aspect of your argument, I will say I couldn't
care less what it was designed to emulate.  But, some people who buy this
stuff just might. :-)

Larry H

> The more "noisy" modules you add to your product line, the less
> worthy it will be of the "CD quality" claim on the website.

I sort of understand your point, but not entirely. "noisy" and "CD quality"
are not mutually exclusive. Many people make CDs of noisy equipment. Is a
recording of a Buchla system automatically not "CD quality"? Or of an ARP
2600? If so, then a great number of CDs in my collection must not be "CD
quality".

Maybe you would be happy if modules that deliberately emulate certain
"noisy" equipment were identified as such in Paul's marketing literature?
 
> Ideally, a synthesizer isn't supposed to have any kind
> of sound. That is up to the synthesist to create.

Ideally and theoretically, yes, but that implies that the synthesist's tools
are capable of creating any sound. That hasn't yet been achieved.

It is also difficult to create "character" with tools that do not innately
have the desired character. The 420, 440, and 490 filters all have different
character. It would be difficult to make one sound like the other two.
Unless Paul (et al) can design and build some sort of meta-filter that can
take on the character of all of the various filters that we (synthesists)
know and love, it seems entirely reasonable to create new modules that
specifically capture certain character found in other equipment. This is
particularly true of equipment that is no longer in production and less
reliable than MOTM products, such as almost everything built by ARP.

--Adam
(who admits to having a special place in his heart for the 2600 because it
was the first synth he ever used, and yes, he'd probably buy a 2600-style
MOTM filter)

I'm in for at least one, so that makes it 33!

Tobias Enhus

Paul Schreiber wrote:

> >
> > YYYYYYYEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :))))
> >
> > Consider one sold Paul.
>
> OK, need 34 more to break even :)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here 
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032277:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&media=atkins> 
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
>
> I was extremely impressed with the 440. If anything, the next filter 
> should be a highpass filter of that quality. For bandpass, you would 
> just use the two filters in parallel.

This sounds like a good idea to me (a really high quality, 4 pole high 
pass as a companion to the 440.)  I guess I need to two of these - to 
go along with the two 440s I have :)


I like the Arp filter idea too - but I only need one of those.


seth

Adam S. wrote:

>I sort of understand your point, but not entirely. "noisy" and "CD 
quality" are not mutually exclusive. Many people make CDs of noisy 
equipment. Is a recording of a Buchla system automatically not "CD 
quality"? Or of an ARP 2600? If so, then a great number of CDs in my 
collection must not be "CD quality".<

By your argument, however, EVERY synth could market itself as being 
of "CD Quality."  It that is the case, then Synthtech's claim has no 
merit, as it could be argued that CD Quality lies in the way the 
recording is made and not in the design of the modules.

johnm

> By your argument, however, EVERY synth could market itself as being
> of "CD Quality."  It that is the case, then Synthtech's claim has no
> merit, as it could be argued that CD Quality lies in the way the
> recording is made and not in the design of the modules.

Well, yes. Given the extremely wide range of quality of recordings pressed
on CDs that I have heard, IMHO the term "CD quality" has very little
meaning. It can be literally interpreted to mean a PCM-encoded stereo audio
signal, using a 16-bit word depth and a 44.1kHz sampling rate, but clearly
this interpretation does not apply literally to analog synthesizer modules.
It can be more loosely interpreted to mean a signal-to-noise ratio,
frequency response, and/or dynamic range that this encoding format is
(theoretically) capable of capturing and reproducing; but variations in both
the recording and encoding process and the reproduction process (i.e., the
player) move those numbers away from their theoretical values.

I recognize that "CD quality" has become a marketing term which carries
certain connotations, but as a technical description it doesn't mean a whole
lot to me when applied to a synthesizer module.

--Adam

I just think Paul wanted to avoid saying something like 96dB dynamic 
range, which is far less marketable to the same audience of prospective 
buyers.  (eg, the ones that go, "duuuh whats a dB?" ;)

Crow

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Adam Schabtach wrote:

> I recognize that "CD quality" has become a marketing term which carries
> certain connotations, but as a technical description it doesn't mean a
> whole lot to me when applied to a synthesizer module.

Not really on topic, but maybe amusing:

In Germany we had a big advertising for BASF compact cassettes
in the last days before Minidisc, and finally CDRs, took over.
With much ado, their message was
"very close to the CD - 99.9% noise-free !!"
Sounds impressive, but if you assume they were right,
and do the maths, this means just 60dB SNR.

Not that the musical instruments business would be better:
The Moog/Bode Frequency shifter was advertised as having
less than 0.1% of noise. Once again, that's just 60dB.
(Not bad for a FS, btw.)

Oh and one last thing: I prefer a *good* (new, heavy-vinyl)
LP to a CD any time. But if I'd talk about "LP quality", no one
would know what I mean.

JH.


-----Urspr\ufffdngliche Nachricht-----
Von: The Old Crow <oldcrow@...>
An: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2003 01:09
Betreff: Re: [motm] Re: MOTM format ARP 2600 filter?

>
>   I just think Paul wanted to avoid saying something like 96dB dynamic
> range, which is far less marketable to the same audience of prospective
> buyers.  (eg, the ones that go, "duuuh whats a dB?" ;)
>
> Crow
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Adam Schabtach wrote:
>
> > I recognize that "CD quality" has become a marketing term which carries
> > certain connotations, but as a technical description it doesn't mean a
> > whole lot to me when applied to a synthesizer module.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> I recognize that "CD quality" has become a marketing term which carries
> certain connotations, but as a technical description it doesn't mean a whole
> lot to me when applied to a synthesizer module.

Lots of other terms that have become meaningless:

RISC
Digital Ready (speakers)
64 bit CPU
32 bit CPU
Wi-Fi

And a myriad of others...

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley             Will work for modules
Synthcom Systems, Inc.
ICQ #29402898

On Oct 27, 2003, at 4:39 PM, Neil Bradley wrote:

>> I recognize that "CD quality" has become a marketing term which 
>> carries
>> certain connotations, but as a technical description it doesn't mean 
>> a whole
>> lot to me when applied to a synthesizer module.
>
> Lots of other terms that have become meaningless:
>
> RISC
> Digital Ready (speakers)
> 64 bit CPU
> 32 bit CPU
> Wi-Fi

Especially when applied to synth modules! ^_^

(I always thought "CD Quality" meant "sounds bad.")

--mikes