Another thought
2005-12-31 by Paul Schreiber
I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 outputs, but they are 14-bit. Paul S.
Thread
Another thought
Re: [motm] Another thought
2005-12-31 by Scott K Warren
Hey, it's *MOTM* we're talking about! Give me the 14-bit accuracy and don't worry about the $100. If I want cheap stuff, well, I know where to get it. Seriously, I would value the ability to infinitely hold pitch cv's with no compromises. One man's opinion, skw
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Dec 30, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Paul Schreiber wrote: > I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 outputs, but they > are > 14-bit. > > Paul S. > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > Label > Cd music label > Independent music label > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > ▪ Visit your group "motm" on the web. > > ▪ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > ▪ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > >
RE: [motm] Another thought
2005-12-31 by John Loffink
Agreed. Aren't the 820 VC Lag and 700 VC Router pitch accuracy in that range also, for the very same reason? John Loffink The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site http://www.wavemakers-synth.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Scott K Warren Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 8:06 PM To: MOTM litserv Subject: Re: [motm] Another thought Hey, it's *MOTM* we're talking about! Give me the 14-bit accuracy and don't worry about the $100. If I want cheap stuff, well, I know where to get it. Seriously, I would value the ability to infinitely hold pitch cv's with no compromises. One man's opinion, skw On Dec 30, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Paul Schreiber wrote: I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 outputs, but they are 14-bit. Paul S. SPONSORED LINKS Label Cd music label Independent music label YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS ? Visit your group "motm" on the web. ? To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [motm] Another thought
2005-12-31 by Paul Haneberg
My personal preference would be to split this thing up at this point. Make a noise source with multiple types of noise outputs including the uncertainty source. Make a S&H ASR module and a quantizer module. I'd rather have several lower cost modules than a really expensive single module, and I like the idea of splitting things up and making them more modular. The alternative would possibly push this thing beyond 2U unless some of the functions were left out. I also agree with Moe about noise sources. If you take two sources and pan one left and one right it will sound different than one source panned center. Having equal energy distributions do not make two sources sound the same at a given moment in time. Paul H. ----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 7:59 PM Subject: [motm] Another thought >I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 outputs, but they are > 14-bit. > > Paul S. > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
RE: [motm] Another thought
2005-12-31 by Adam Schabtach
FWIW: I agree that: 1) using several noise sources sounds different than using one noise source in several places 2) you shouldn't have to buy a ring mod every time you buy a VCA 3) splitting functionality to create two less-expensive modules is more desirable than creating one module that does everything. Just my $0.02 worth, of course. --Adam
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Haneberg [mailto:phaneber@...] > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 7:50 PM > To: motm@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [motm] Another thought > > My personal preference would be to split this thing up at this point. > Make a noise source with multiple types of noise outputs including the > uncertainty source. > Make a S&H ASR module and > a quantizer module. > I'd rather have several lower cost modules than a really expensive single > module, and I like the idea of splitting things up and making them more > modular. > > The alternative would possibly push this thing beyond 2U unless some of > the > functions were left out. > > I also agree with Moe about noise sources. If you take two sources and > pan > one left and one right it will sound different than one source panned > center. Having equal energy distributions do not make two sources sound > the > same at a given moment in time. > > Paul H. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 7:59 PM > Subject: [motm] Another thought > > > >I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 outputs, but they > are > > 14-bit. > > > > Paul S. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
RE: [motm] Another thought
2005-12-31 by Dave Halliday
And if Paul does it this way, it would be nice to have the noise module have several sources of uncertainty. I like using several random low freq. signals to add a just a bit of randomness to filters and the VCOs. A very small amount adds a nice depth to a voice. I built my own low-freq random source but a real MOTM unit would be a nice addition. Dave
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Haneberg [mailto:phaneber@...] > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 6:50 PM > To: motm@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [motm] Another thought > > > My personal preference would be to split this thing up at this point. > Make a noise source with multiple types of noise outputs > including the > uncertainty source. > Make a S&H ASR module and > a quantizer module. > I'd rather have several lower cost modules than a really > expensive single > module, and I like the idea of splitting things up and making > them more > modular. > > The alternative would possibly push this thing beyond 2U > unless some of the > functions were left out. > > I also agree with Moe about noise sources. If you take two > sources and pan > one left and one right it will sound different than one source panned > center. Having equal energy distributions do not make two > sources sound the > same at a given moment in time. > > Paul H. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> > To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 7:59 PM > Subject: [motm] Another thought > > > >I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 > outputs, but they are > > 14-bit. > > > > Paul S. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Know an art & music fan? Make a donation in their honor this > holiday season! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/VwqHaC/.VHMAA/n1hLAA/VpLolB/TM > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------~-> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > >
Re: Another thought
2005-12-31 by Mike Marsh
If it could be cascaded to another 102, then three outs is fine. I'd pay the $50 for 14 bit. Actually, I'd pay $100 for it and more outputs, too, but I recognize that that might not be the sweet spot. --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@s...> wrote: > > I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 outputs, but they are
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 14-bit. > > Paul S. >
Re: Another thought
2006-01-01 by strohs56k
Am I wrong on this or did someone state that the "source of uncertainty" works by feeding noise into a S&H and mixing a portion of the S&H output back into the input. This is the "correlation" knob and the more feedback the less of a step that occurs when the S&H is clocked. Right? As such, I don't see how you can "split up" these modules if this features is to be included. It seems like we end up with several modules with the same basic circuitry inside and so we pay for the expensive AD/DA converters several times over. Of the features talked about thus far, I think the high resolution converters and multiple outputs are very desirable. (Seems like 4 outputs is about right.) If the big selling point is "no droop" on the S&H outputs it seems very desirable that we can process pitch CVs in addition to noise sources. Other features that seem useful to me are the clock polarity switch and the correlation knob to feed some of the output back to the input. Could a second switch choose which S&H output the feedback comes from? (Say, first tap or last tap. Or if we end up with 3 outputs, a 3 position switch could select between the three taps?) Would it make much difference which tap the feedback comes from? Most people seem to think the noise source does not needed to be included in this module. I think I agree. Seems like a really high quality S&H with those few extras makes the most sense. seth --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote: > > My personal preference would be to split this thing up at this point. > Make a noise source with multiple types of noise outputs including the > uncertainty source. > Make a S&H ASR module and > a quantizer module. > I'd rather have several lower cost modules than a really expensive single > module, and I like the idea of splitting things up and making them more > modular. > > The alternative would possibly push this thing beyond 2U unless some of the > functions were left out. > > I also agree with Moe about noise sources. If you take two sources and pan > one left and one right it will sound different than one source panned > center. Having equal energy distributions do not make two sources sound the > same at a given moment in time. > > Paul H. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@s...> > To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 7:59 PM > Subject: [motm] Another thought > > > >I caould do a $50 retail difference by only having 3 outputs, but they are
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > 14-bit. > > > > Paul S. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: [motm] Re: Another thought
2006-01-02 by John Loffink
S&H Correlation is typically implemented as a lag circuit prior to the sample and hold. This restricts the range of S&H over time, or correlation. John Loffink The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site http://www.wavemakers-synth.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message----- > From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of > strohs56k > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 5:57 PM > To: motm@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [motm] Re: Another thought > > > Am I wrong on this or did someone state that the "source of > uncertainty" works by feeding noise into a S&H and mixing a portion of > the S&H output back into the input. This is the "correlation" knob > and the more feedback the less of a step that occurs when the S&H is > clocked. Right? As such, I don't see how you can "split up" these > modules if this features is to be included. It seems like we end up > with several modules with the same basic circuitry inside and so we > pay for the expensive AD/DA converters several times over. > > Of the features talked about thus far, I think the high resolution > converters and multiple outputs are very desirable. (Seems like 4 > outputs is about right.) If the big selling point is "no droop" on > the S&H outputs it seems very desirable that we can process pitch CVs > in addition to noise sources. > > Other features that seem useful to me are the clock polarity switch > and the correlation knob to feed some of the output back to the input. > Could a second switch choose which S&H output the feedback comes > from? (Say, first tap or last tap. Or if we end up with 3 outputs, a > 3 position switch could select between the three taps?) Would it make > much difference which tap the feedback comes from? > > Most people seem to think the noise source does not needed to be > included in this module. I think I agree. Seems like a really high > quality S&H with those few extras makes the most sense. > > seth > >
Re: [motm] Re: Another thought
2006-01-02 by jwbarlow@aol.com
In a message dated 1/1/2006 4:50:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jloffink@... writes: S&H Correlation is typically implemented as a lag circuit prior to the sample and hold. I haven't kept up with all the permutations of this module, but I'm a big fan of this correlation feature and think that it should be a VC function too. JB
Re: [motm] Re: Another thought
2006-01-02 by Richard Brewster
Correlation is done by mixing some of the present output of the S&H back with the input. You need a bit of lag between the output and the input to the mixer, so that the old output voltage holds for a moment as the sample occurs. That is because the output will change at the instant of the sample and you need the old output for a few milliseconds for your mix. You can patch this up with any S&H that has a lag following it. The MOTM-101 has a lag section. To try this, patch your random signal (say the Pink Out of the 101) into a mixer, patch the mixer out to the S&H input, and patch the output of the S&H to another input on the mixer. If you patch the S&H out to the FM input of a VCO it will be easy to monitor the effect. As you mix more of the output back to the input, the excursions from one sample to the next will be smaller. (There must be a mathematical formula for this.) The correlation feature is provided in the Oakley S&H, and that's what I am asking for in a new MOTM S&H. You could add a DC-coupled VCA in the feedback loop. But I don't think it would be terribly useful, due to the fact that the effect of the correlation is subtle. The output is still random, but it has a different pattern. I find just being able to dial it up with a knob is plenty. Adding more VC inputs to this proposal would push it toward a 2U size, and most people seem to prefer 1U. You can always patch a VC feedback loop. -Richard Brewster jwbarlow@... wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> In a message dated 1/1/2006 4:50:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > jloffink@... writes: > > S&H Correlation is typically implemented as a lag circuit prior to the > sample and hold. > > I haven't kept up with all the permutations of this module, but I'm a > big fan of this correlation feature and think that it should be a VC > function too. > > JB
RE: [motm] Re: Another thought
2006-01-02 by John Loffink
> As you mix more of the output back to the > input, the excursions from one sample to the next will be smaller. > (There must be a mathematical formula for this.) Yn = A*Yn-1 + B where B is the random sample ...otherwise known as an Infinite Impulse Response Digital Filter, also referred to as a recursive transversal filter. While the implementation is different, the result is the same as simple lag applied to the input of the S&H. Both are filtering, one analog, one digital. Both give the same result, correlation of the samples to a more confined set of values. As A increases in the above equation, the S&H output will approach a steady state output. Taking the analog lag example, as more lag is applied to the sample B, the S&H output will approachy a steady state output as well. John Loffink The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site http://www.wavemakers-synth.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message----- > From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of > Richard Brewster > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 9:15 PM > To: jwbarlow@... > Cc: motm@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Another thought > > Correlation is done by mixing some of the present output of the S&H back > with the input. You need a bit of lag between the output and the input > to the mixer, so that the old output voltage holds for a moment as the > sample occurs. That is because the output will change at the instant of > the sample and you need the old output for a few milliseconds for your > mix. You can patch this up with any S&H that has a lag following it. > The MOTM-101 has a lag section. To try this, patch your random signal > (say the Pink Out of the 101) into a mixer, patch the mixer out to the > S&H input, and patch the output of the S&H to another input on the > mixer. If you patch the S&H out to the FM input of a VCO it will be > easy to monitor the effect. As you mix more of the output back to the > input, the excursions from one sample to the next will be smaller. > (There must be a mathematical formula for this.) The correlation > feature is provided in the Oakley S&H, and that's what I am asking for > in a new MOTM S&H. > > You could add a DC-coupled VCA in the feedback loop. But I don't think > it would be terribly useful, due to the fact that the effect of the > correlation is subtle. The output is still random, but it has a > different pattern. I find just being able to dial it up with a knob is > plenty. Adding more VC inputs to this proposal would push it toward a > 2U size, and most people seem to prefer 1U. You can always patch a VC > feedback loop. > > -Richard Brewster > > jwbarlow@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/1/2006 4:50:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > > jloffink@... writes: > > > > S&H Correlation is typically implemented as a lag circuit prior to > the > > sample and hold. > > > > I haven't kept up with all the permutations of this module, but I'm a