MOTM

Last week I was impressed with all the divergent concepts about how a VC EG 
should work. I have even more respect for Paul's ability to produce a good 
module -- to separate the wheat from the chaff, as they say. 

First, an aside, one thing that occurred to me was that some people wanted a 
VC Lag for a VC AD/AR, but I was intrigued with Hugo's concept of a Peak 
Duration knob (or VC). I thought that, from the users point of view, it might 
be possible to have one control, and a switch to apply the duration knob to 
either a Lag (i.e., preceding the ATTACK stage) or to the Peak portion of the 
envelope. If this module ever gets in to preliminary design, one might want 
to look into this.

Now then, I want a new type of VC EG:
I have a few working VC EGs based on the CEM 3310. I have them set up with 
only one VC input and a reversing attenuator (what else?) which 
simultaneously controls the A, D, R sections of the envelope -- no VC 
sustain. There are several reasons why I chose this arrangement, a 
significant one is panel space. While these are great to use I often find 
myself wanting something that I can't get. So here's my proposal to diy some 
better 3310 based VC EGs:

A MOTM 2U panel 
-- 7 knobs including the basic four A D S R, and three reversing attenuators 
-- VC A, VC D, VC R.
-- 8 jacks including the basic output, trigger, gate and four unattenuated VC 
A, VC D, VC S, VC R inputs as well as one (magical) VC A-D-R input.
-- one manual push button, and one LED to show the EG's output.

I believe I'd rarely use the individual VC inputs (just past experience -- 
too much to deal with). The reason I really like the magical VC A-D-R input 
is that I tend to use my VC EGs with either something like a velocity CV, the 
basic 1V/oct CV output from a keyboard,  or the keyboard pressure CV (from my 
Serge TKB). 

Examples:
With velocity sensitive envelopes, I imagine that I'd like to have the attack 
time decrease as velocity CV increases, but also have the decay time increase 
-- a percussive type use. I can also imagine having both the attack and decay 
times decrease as velocity CV increases -- more of a muted percussion type of 
use.

With the 1V/oct CV, I can imagine having the decay and release times decrease 
as higher notes are played on the keyboard while the attack time remains 
constant -- much like strings behave.

Several ideas come to mind for the TKB.


I thought I'd mention this since all the banter last week made me concentrate 
on what I'd really like to have a VC EG do, and how I could make such a 
device in a reasonable package. I've been waiting to find some project worthy 
of the beautiful MOTM breadboard, and this may be the one. I think Paul may 
have some 3310s available as well(?)

It's probably easier to build a VC EG, than install a radio in truck that 
never had one to begin with -- there's far more steel in a small truck than I 
would've imagined.
JB

Very interesting comments from Ken and John both.  However, unless some
more 3310s magically appear from Doug's garage as the 3340s did, I would be
against using that chip for new module development.  A shame, the 3310
appears to make EG so easy.

Larry H

BTW: Doug *has* found about 5,000 more assorted chips. He plans to run them
through the tester this month.
No word on *which* ones.

Paul S.


----- Original Message -----
From: J. Larry Hendry <jlarryh@...>
To: <motm@onelist.com>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea


> From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
>
> Very interesting comments from Ken and John both.  However, unless some
> more 3310s magically appear from Doug's garage as the 3340s did, I would
be

> against using that chip for new module development.  A shame, the 3310
> appears to make EG so easy.
>
> Larry H
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent
> Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards
> credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative2 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

WoW !!.  Imagine such a find.  :)
LH

----------
> From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
> To: motm@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea
> Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 1:24 PM
> 
> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> 
> BTW: Doug *has* found about 5,000 more assorted chips. He plans to run
them
> through the tester this month.
> No word on *which* ones.
> 
> Paul S.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J. Larry Hendry <jlarryh@...>
> To: <motm@onelist.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 11:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea
> 
> 
> > From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
> >
> > Very interesting comments from Ken and John both.  However, unless some
> > more 3310s magically appear from Doug's garage as the 3340s did, I
would
> be
> > against using that chip for new module development.  A shame, the 3310
> > appears to make EG so easy.
> >
> > Larry H
> >
> >
> > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
----------------------------
> >
> > Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent
> > Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards
> > credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at
> > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative2 ">Click
Here</a>
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
> 
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds.  Get rates as low as 0.0 percent 
> Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. 
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative5 ">Click
Here</a>

> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>

In a message dated 00-02-11 22:51:34 EST, you write:

<< I think Paul may 
 have some 3310s available as well(?) >>



john,
if he doesn`t, i think i have 1 ssm 2056 eg chip and app notes left around 
here somewhere. i`d be glad to donate it to a good cause such as the one you 
describe. let me know.......
best,
dave

I have some 3310s for sale, NOT cheap ($42).

Paul S.

----- Original Message -----
From: <DAVEVOSH@...>
To: <motm@onelist.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea


> From: DAVEVOSH@...
>
> In a message dated 00-02-11 22:51:34 EST, you write:
>
> << I think Paul may
>  have some 3310s available as well(?) >>
>
>
>
> john,
> if he doesn`t, i think i have 1 ssm 2056 eg chip and app notes left around
> here somewhere. i`d be glad to donate it to a good cause such as the one
you

> describe. let me know.......
> best,
> dave
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds.  Get rates as low as 0.0 percent
> Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW.
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative5 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

In a message dated 00-02-12 22:05:36 EST, you write:

<< I have some 3310s for sale, NOT cheap ($42). >>


paul,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
best,
dave

BUT...consider a VC ADSR kit will likely be $149......$42 AIN'T all that
bad!

I also have some SSM2040s for the low price of $65ea

Paul S.

----- Original Message -----

From: <DAVEVOSH@...>
To: <motm@onelist.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea


> From: DAVEVOSH@...
>
> In a message dated 00-02-12 22:05:36 EST, you write:
>
> << I have some 3310s for sale, NOT cheap ($42). >>
>
>
> paul,
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> best,
> dave
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0.0
> percent Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no hidden
> fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the credit you deserve.
> Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative6 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

In a message dated 00-02-12 22:50:06 EST, you write:

<< BUT...consider a VC ADSR kit will likely be $149......$42 AIN'T all that
 bad! >>



paul,
$149 for the module seems reasonable.....must be a perception thing - $42 for 
the ic hit me like "sticker shock" !  given what they were running ages ago, 
i would have guessed maybe $20 tops. boy, am i way out of date! 
i`m almost surprised that a group of enterprising synth makers don`t go in 
together and split the cost and quantities of a chip run - whats that, maybe 
5000 ic`s? between everyone in the business, that might not be too pricey and 
would allow everyone enough chips to start with before deciding whether a 
second run would be worthwhile.......... or am i an optimistic fool?
best,
dave

> i`m almost surprised that a group of enterprising synth makers don`t go in
> together and split the cost and quantities of a chip run - whats that,
maybe
> 5000 ic`s? between everyone in the business, that might not be too pricey
and
> would allow everyone enough chips to start with before deciding whether a
> second run would be worthwhile.......... or am i an optimistic fool?

This topic comes up for discussion every 10 months or so. The answer is,
pony up $48,000
for the retooling of the masks, the new test program, the new fixtures, the
new docs, and
I'll get you $2 VCOs.

Paul S.
waiting for your money

In a message dated 00-02-12 23:44:06 EST, you write:

<< or am i an optimistic fool?
  >>



paul,
i see i was right on the second option.......... :^)
oh well.........
guess i just had to ask, still, given the interest in analog stuff these days 
i have to admit that i`m surprised that curtis or ssm or whoever isn`t still 
producing these ic`s. they don`t solve every problem but they do make the 
basic stuff for an analog modular easier!
like i said, oh well.......
best,
dave

In a message dated 2/12/2000 8:01:44 PM, DAVEVOSH@... writes:

>john,
>if he doesn`t, i think i have 1 ssm 2056 eg chip and app notes left around
>here somewhere. i`d be glad to donate it to a good cause such as the one
>you 
>describe. let me know.......
>best,
>dave

Very generous offer! I'd be more interested in your opinion of my general 
module proposal. Maybe instead I could offer to drill a panel for you, and 
you could build a similar module. I'm also thinking how much such a diy 
module would cost to build:
(from memory)
1) MOTM breadboard = $40
2) MOTM 2U FP = $22 (?)
3) pots = $40 (7 X $5.50 ?)
4) knobs = $13 (7 X $1.70)
5) pushbutton & LED = $8.00
6) jacks = $14 (7 X $2)
7) resistors and capacitors (nothing special) = $15 (guess)
8) semiconductors (a couple of TL074s, maybe some trannies) = $5 (guess)
9) CEM 3310 = $42

Anything else?

I guess about $200 -- not too cheap, but a very useful module. I'll think 
about this, and maybe try and build something in a month or two. I guess I 
need to figure out how to limit the voltages (from the inputs + the initial 
setting knobs) to 5V per stage.

Still thinking!
JB

In a message dated 00-02-13 00:48:32 EST, you write:

<< I'd be more interested in your opinion of my general 
 module proposal. Maybe instead I could offer to drill a panel for you, and 
 you could build a similar module >>



john,
first, your ideas re: vc eg -  they seemed very well considered. the single 
input vc to all parameters ( or just adr as desired) has merit. from my s**** 
days, i used this feature on their adsr eg regularily. in fact, in a less 
deluxe diy version, you might even want to forego the individual stage inputs 
and just have the one "all" input. saves the minimal cost of 4 jacks but also 
saves a fair amount of panel space, especially if you opted for cv 
attenuators, too. that way you`d need : 5 jacks ( gate, trigger(?),vc all, 
+out,-out ) ; 5 pots (a,d,s,r,cv atten. ) ; eg ic; maybe 2 op amp ic`s like 
tlo84;an led; a few resistors and caps. i haven`t built anything in years but 
could probably manage this based on its simplicity on a perf board. i`m way 
out of date so i don`t know what pots, etc. are running these days. i`ll stop 
by radio shack just to get a feel for prices.
secondly, as i`m even more mechanically inept than i am electronically inept, 
i`d be most interested in a drilled front panel. please let me know......
thanks!
best,
dave

In a message dated 00-02-13 00:48:32 EST, you write:

<< 5) pushbutton >>



john,
oops! almost forgot the manual operation pushbutton!
best,
dave

In a message dated 00-02-13 00:48:32 EST, you write:

<< I guess about $200 -- not too cheap, but a very useful module >>


john,
of course, for a diy module, we have the eg ic`s which reduce our cost 
considerably. might be worth doing on that basis. in an earlier email, paul 
estimated $149 for the module. as i look at my d****** stuff, i see i can get 
one assembled and tested for $130 and the rs integrator is about that, too. 
that bears some thinking about, too.......
best,
dave

In a message dated 00-02-13 00:48:32 EST, you write:

<< Still thinking! >>



john,
don`t stop!
 i loved the ideas i see floating around on the list! keeps me thinking and 
dreaming..... :^)
best,
dave

Hi All

Has there been any interest in a collective "gathering" of funds to finance
the re-tooling costs, it would be interesting to see if enough people would
be up for it.

Apart from selling them to D* for loads, the interest in Analogue seems to
be snowballing which could make the collective some profit maybe to fund
more!. (sorry about the Collective bit, too much 7 of 9 (Borg))

On a MOTM note, I have just got one of the 320's finished.  That LED is
great.  Could one be used in the VCEG to change colour with EG's progress?

Regards

Andy

I'd love to see his closet, that he keeps finding boat-loads of rare,
coveted, old chips periodically!



BTW: Doug *has* found about 5,000 more assorted chips. He plans to run
them
through the tester this month.
No word on *which* ones.

In a message dated 2/13/2000 4:19:41 AM, andrew.hartley@... writes:

>Has there been any interest in a collective "gathering" of funds to finance
>the re-tooling costs, it would be interesting to see if enough people would
>be up for it.

This is brought up a lot -- but $50,000 is a lot of money! A big collective 
indeed!

>Apart from selling them to D* for loads, the interest in Analogue seems
>to
>be snowballing which could make the collective some profit maybe to fund
>more!. (sorry about the Collective bit, too much 7 of 9 (Borg))

Resistance is futile? -- it's capacitance that's futile!

>On a MOTM note, I have just got one of the 320's finished.  That LED is
>great.  Could one be used in the VCEG to change colour with EG's progress?

You missed my post: YOU NEED AN LED TO FOLLOW THE OUTPUT OF THE VC EG!!!! 
Don't listen to others (i.e., Bradley) who'll tell you you need a gate in 
LED, where's the fun in that!

How about a small collective which builds some sort of VC EG (diy) module?
JB
RIP Screamin Jay Hawkins & Charles M. Schulz

>Has there been any interest in a collective "gathering" of funds to
finance
the re-tooling costs, it would be interesting to see if enough people
would
be up for it.

Hi Andy and all,

I really do not think that this is a cost effective solution at all. A
VCO does not cost a huge amount to build from op-amps and discretes. The
cost of any module is primarily determined by the amount of knobs and
other hardware. Temp co resistors are easily obtainable from Paul and
others and these give good enough performance.

The CEM3340 although good in its day, has some disadvantages too.
The -5V supply is a pain, although Doug Curtis had good reasons to do
this all those years ago. The sync function is terrible, and the
triangle output always needs to be buffered. I reckon it takes about
twenty minutes to settle in pitch as well, but that could be my PSUs or
the synth housing.

The CEM3310 is again very good, but the attack phase could have been
more linear for a more punchy sound. The reliablilty of the 3310 chip
seems to be worse than the VCO. I must admit to having a small stockpile
of both the 3340 and the 3310 to keep my other DIY synths in order. Even
if Doug has got 5000 3310s in his garage, it does seem a little
problematic in using them in any new design.

Juergen Haible has designed a very nice VCADSR, its on the Synthfool
website, that could easily form part of a more complex VC EG design. Its
performance is excellent and uses only bog standard parts. I built one
of these up, and was very impressed how little board area the design
took up. With a few extra op-amps to sum in CVs you could make up quite
a staggering module.

Regards,

Tony Allgood

http://www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/

In a message dated 2/12/2000 11:12:12 PM, DAVEVOSH@... writes:

>the single
>input vc to all parameters ( or just adr as desired) has merit. from my
>s**** 
>days, i used this feature on their adsr eg regularily. in fact, in a less
>deluxe diy version, you might even want to forego the individual stage
>inputs 

I've never used the Serge VC EG (5 stage as I recall), and didn't remember 
that it had a single VC Slope input. I may have just stolen the idea from 
them and forgotten.

>and just have the one "all" input. saves the minimal cost of 4 jacks but
>also 
>saves a fair amount of panel space, especially if you opted for cv 
>attenuators, too. that way you`d need : 5 jacks ( gate, trigger(?),vc all,
>+out,-out ) ; 5 pots (a,d,s,r,cv atten. ) ; eg ic; maybe 2 op amp ic`s
>like 
>tlo84;an led; a few resistors and caps. 

Well, like Larry said, the individual VC inputs are for "the masses" -- and 
are cheap enough to justify. But there is not enough space to have a - OUT. 
BTW, I think having the VC inputs disconnect the pots (so they can be used as 
attenuators) is the wrong way to go with a VC EG. I find I want to get a good 
envelope setting, then use some CV source to slightly alter it, so you kind 
of need attenuators and initial level pots.

i haven`t built anything in years
>but 
>could probably manage this based on its simplicity on a perf board. i`m
>way 
>out of date so i don`t know what pots, etc. are running these days. i`ll
>stop 
>by radio shack just to get a feel for prices.

The MOTM standard Spectrol pots run about $5.50 each I think, you can get 
some carbon pots for around $0.80 each, but they have 30 degrees less 
rotation, and are kind of nasty in general.

>secondly, as i`m even more mechanically inept than i am electronically
>inept, 
>i`d be most interested in a drilled front panel. please let me know......
>thanks!

If there is some interest, I could drill some panels for several interested 
parties if they were either pre-marked, or we had some common agreement as to 
the hole pattern in the panel.


In a message dated 2/13/2000 12:33:15 AM, DAVEVOSH@... writes:

>and i was surprised to see that they didn`t have a "vc all" input !!! 
>i was surprised as it is easy to do and an inexpensive addition. on the
>brand 
>"D", there even looked to have been sufficient panel space for the additional
>pot/knob and jack. can`t believe they missed it although the "feature"
>is 
>still there if you use a multiple to send the voltage to all the inputs
>simultaneously. kludgey but at least do-able. 

This is because they don't have Barlow working for them! But I do think the 
SUSTAIN level almost always needs to be handled separately from the slope 
parameters, and I often want to handle some of those parameters in opposite 
ways.

>did you say you had a s**** tkb ? then the individual inputs might have
>some 
>value to you if you used the 4 output voltages to control the 4 parameters
>giving you 16 selectable, preset envelope contours as one simple example.

Or any four bank sequencer or CV source. Good point!

JB

In a message dated 00-02-13 13:04:48 EST, you write:

<< I've never used the Serge VC EG (5 stage as I recall), and didn't remember 
 that it had a single VC Slope input.  >>



john,
it didn`t - vc of a,d,s,r  and a vc all input on my old KEG. new version also 
offers a gate delay control, i think.
best,
dave

In a message dated 00-02-13 13:04:48 EST, you write:

<< you can get 
 some carbon pots for around $0.80 each, but they have 30 degrees less 
 rotation, and are kind of nasty in general. >>


john,
yeah, but in my case for a "one off" unit, i`d probably go with the less 
expensive pots for cost reasons. i know, thata heretical but, hey, i`m poor!
best,
dave

In a message dated 00-02-13 13:04:48 EST, you write:

<< we had some common agreement as to 
 the hole pattern in the panel. >>


john,
agian, for a "one off" like i`d be doing ( as i only have one eg chip left ), 
i`d take a panel in whatever format was available and adapt to it as needed. 
i`m not dogmatic about it.
best,
dave

I, too, am really startled by the fact that a few people don't want VC on
the Sustain. Why eliminate it? It seems very important to me to control the
aspect of the envelope (whether used with a VCA, VCF, whatever) that is held
through the longest part of the tone! It's a big part of the expression; no
one's made clear to me why it should be left off...! 

I sent a post last week daydreaming about a 1-input-for-velocity-CV jack,
but it was never intended to replace the other 4 CV jacks, just add a
'global' one that could handle the ADSR parameters from an easy single
voltage, with customizing controls.

Then it was pointed out that, if you had a VCADSR with all four CV
parameters available, and you also had a [1u!] 4-GANGED (I know people on
this list hate that for some inexplicable reason) reversible attenuator
module, you could have the same thing in a more flexible, modular fashion.
There would be 4 ins & 4 outs on the attenuator module, but if no plugs were
inserted into Ins 2, 3, & 4, In #1 would cascade down and give you 4
independent phase reversible attenuation outputs based on the one input
without having to waste a multiple (which no one seems to want to gang,
eiether...weird).

These could feed into the VCADSR parameters, allowing a single Velocity CV
feed from the MIDI->CV converter to easily and independently affect all of
the envelope stages without any loss of modularity. I like that idea a lot.

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	David Bivins [mailto:dbivins@...]
		Sent:	Monday, February 14, 2000 1:34 PM
		To:	motm@onelist.com
		Subject:	RE: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea

		Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the
contour
		generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the whole reason
I've posted
		about the VC EG at all, because I've been dying for easily
VC-ed contours. I
		need them....I'm just curious: why does it seem like so many
people don't want full
		control in their modules? When I first brought up the idea
of a fully VC-ed
		contour generator to an individual, his response is "why
would you want
		that?" Now, with this fancy contour generator being talked
about at length,
		some people are fans of a single input that would affect
each stage in a
		flexible and somewhat predictable (in that hopefully you can
predict how you
		set it up!) way, and those same people seem to think that
the individual VC
		inputs are not so necessary. I'm not being critical--I
understand that some
		of you have had this feature in other modular systems and
either didn't find
		it all that useful or found it too cumbersome. But it's
there if you ever do
		want to use it (the feature--singular).

Hey man, I'm with you. Maximum flexibility, within reason. I guess everybody
has a different perception of what "reason" is. For me, the idea of a single
CV input, normalled to A,D, and R inputs, which individually feed reversible
attenuators, is exactly right. Maximum flexibility when you want it, or ease
of use when that's sufficient. Add VCed delay and peak hold, and that's all
I could ask. (OK, OK Barlow - an led on the output instead of the gate input
geesh kwitcha whining<g>).

I guess my definition of "unreasonable" would be the 8U wide microprocessor
controlled zillion breakpoint drawn by hand infinite rotary encoded $400 EG.

To you determined DIYers, I second Tony A's suggestion to check out JH's
very nice VC DADSR design. I've been thinking of trying one after I get my
sequencer going. Here's a link:

http://www.synthfool.com/diy/hj_vc_hadsr.html

Dave Bradley
Principal Software Engineer
Engineering Animation, Inc.
daveb@...

>
> From: "David Bivins" <dbivins@...>
>
> Hey all,
>
> My entire reason for building this modular is to have as many modulation
> routings as possible--maximum flexibility no matter how rarely I use some
> features. Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the contour
> generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the whole reason I've posted
> about the VC EG at all, because I've been dying for easily VC-ed
> contours. I
> need them.
>
> I'm just curious: why does it seem like so many people don't want full
> control in their modules?
>

So how do you get 4 pots and 8 jacks on a 1U module????

Dave Bradley
Principal Software Engineer
Engineering Animation, Inc.
daveb@...

> > Then it was pointed out that, if you had a VCADSR with all four CV
> > parameters available, and you also had a [1u!] 4-GANGED (I know
> people on
> > this list hate that for some inexplicable reason) reversible attenuator
> > module, you could have the same thing in a more flexible,
> modular fashion.
> > There would be 4 ins & 4 outs on the attenuator module, but if no
> > plugs were
> > inserted into Ins 2, 3, & 4, In #1 would cascade down and give you 4
> > independent phase reversible attenuation outputs based on the one input
> > without having to waste a multiple (which no one seems to want to gang,
> > eiether...weird).
> >
> > These could feed into the VCADSR parameters, allowing a single
> Velocity CV
> > feed from the MIDI->CV converter to easily and independently
> affect all of
> > the envelope stages without any loss of modularity. I like that
> > idea a lot.
> >
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent
> Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards
> credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative2 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

I was just thinking about that at lunch.

Maybe it would have to go 2u after all. Then you have all that blank panel
space to the left of the four pots. What to do, what to do... I know!
(someone will yell) Let's put four LEDs there!

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Dave Bradley [mailto:daveb@...]
		Sent:	Monday, February 14, 2000 12:26 PM
		To:	motm@onelist.com
		Subject:	RE: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea

		From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>

		So how do you get 4 pots and 8 jacks on a 1U module????

Hey all,

My entire reason for building this modular is to have as many modulation
routings as possible--maximum flexibility no matter how rarely I use some
features. Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the contour
generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the whole reason I've posted
about the VC EG at all, because I've been dying for easily VC-ed contours. I
need them.

I'm just curious: why does it seem like so many people don't want full
control in their modules? When I first brought up the idea of a fully VC-ed
contour generator to an individual, his response is "why would you want
that?" Now, with this fancy contour generator being talked about at length,
some people are fans of a single input that would affect each stage in a
flexible and somewhat predictable (in that hopefully you can predict how you
set it up!) way, and those same people seem to think that the individual VC
inputs are not so necessary. I'm not being critical--I understand that some
of you have had this feature in other modular systems and either didn't find
it all that useful or found it too cumbersome. But it's there if you ever do
want to use it (the feature--singular).

I always speak up when I fear a feature is on the chopping block for cost or
simplicity purposes. I don't care--build it so it's there. Unfortunately I
don't spend as much on MOTM as I should to have these bitching rights, but I
really don't care if a control feature drives up costs if it means I'm going
to get something with maximum flexibility.

I'm truly just curious--I'm not down on anyone. No angry responses please.

David.

> Well, like Larry said, the individual VC inputs are for "the
> masses" -- and
> are cheap enough to justify.

Word! This is something worth pursuing for me.

> Then it was pointed out that, if you had a VCADSR with all four CV
> parameters available, and you also had a [1u!] 4-GANGED (I know people on
> this list hate that for some inexplicable reason) reversible attenuator
> module, you could have the same thing in a more flexible, modular fashion.
> There would be 4 ins & 4 outs on the attenuator module, but if no
> plugs were
> inserted into Ins 2, 3, & 4, In #1 would cascade down and give you 4
> independent phase reversible attenuation outputs based on the one input
> without having to waste a multiple (which no one seems to want to gang,
> eiether...weird).
>
> These could feed into the VCADSR parameters, allowing a single Velocity CV
> feed from the MIDI->CV converter to easily and independently affect all of
> the envelope stages without any loss of modularity. I like that
> idea a lot.
>

You could get a triple reversible attenuator (3 pots, 6 jax) on a 1U panel.
I'd rather do that, cause then you could get 6 in a 2U space.

Moe

>
> From: "Tkacs, Ken" <Ken.Tkacs@...>
>
>
> I was just thinking about that at lunch.
>
> Maybe it would have to go 2u after all. Then you have all that blank panel
> space to the left of the four pots. What to do, what to do... I know!
> (someone will yell) Let's put four LEDs there!
>
>
> 		From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
>
> 		So how do you get 4 pots and 8 jacks on a 1U module????
>

"Dave Bradley" SEZ
>
> You could get a triple reversible attenuator (3 pots, 6 jax) on a 1U
panel.
> I'd rather do that, cause then you could get 6 in a 2U space.
>

I think what Dave sez here can be corollaried (how's that for a neologism?)
to the EG discussion.
There's the issue of price & panel real estate vs. features.  I think the
reason people have been bandying
about so many ideas for vc eg's with limited features is to keep the price
low & to fit the unit int a 1U space.

The more ideas I hear on this EG topic, the more I like almost all of them.
But at the same time, I'd probably
buy more simple 1U vc EG's than fancy 2U suckers.  When I look at these
ideas, I try to think of what would
be the coolest feature set one could fit into 1U.  Of course, that's just my
take on it.

tomr

Geesh, I love this list.  I hope that no one in incorrectly interpreting
any of my questions like "Why would you want that?  or  What would you do
with that?"  I would like to go on record as saying, "I want every
feature." At the same time, I want to admit ignorance and say I don't know
what I will do with half of it.  So occasionally I will ask the innocent
BUT born from true lack of understanding "WHY?"  I am truly trying to learn
from you guys that do KNOW why.

From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
My entire reason for building this modular is to have
as many modulation routings as possible--maximum
flexibility no matter how rarely I use some features. 
Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the
contour generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the
whole reason I've posted about the VC EG at all,
because I've been dying for easily VC-ed contours. I
need them.

I'm just curious: why does it seem like so many people
don't want full control in their modules? When I first brought
up the idea of a fully VC-ed contour generator to an individual,
his response is "why would you want that?" Now, with this
fancy contour generator being talked about at length, some
people are fans of a single input that would affect each stage
in a flexible and somewhat predictable (in that hopefully you
can predict how you set it up!) way, and those same people
seem to think that the individual VC inputs are not so
necessary. I'm not being critical--
------------
From: "Tkacs, Ken" <Ken.Tkacs@...>

I, too, am really startled by the fact that a few people don't
want VC on the Sustain. Why eliminate it? It seems very
important to me to control the aspect of the envelope (whether
used with a VCA, VCF, whatever) that is held through the
longest part of the tone! It's a big part of the expression; no
one's made clear to me why it should be left off...! 
------------------
From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>

Hey man, I'm with you. Maximum flexibility, within reason. 
I guess everybody has a different perception of what "reason"
is. For me, the idea of a single CV input, normalled to A,D, 
and R inputs, which individually feed reversible attenuators, 
is exactly right. Maximum flexibility when you want it, or ease
of use when that's sufficient. Add VCed delay and peak hold,
and that's all I could ask. (OK, OK Barlow - an led on the
output instead of the gate input geesh kwitcha whining<g>).

LH: This comment concerning Barlow is my favorite quote of the day.  Thanks
Dave....

From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
I guess my definition of "unreasonable" would be the 8U wide microprocessor
controlled zillion breakpoint drawn by hand infinite rotary encoded $400
EG.

I agree 100%.  Actually, I "might" draw the line in the sand a little
before that <snicker>. 

From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
I always speak up when I fear a feature is on the chopping
block for cost or simplicity purposes. I don't care--build it
so it's there.

LH: Speak you mind.  I do (and suspect all others as well) appreciate
hearing from everyone on this list.  I have learned a lot here from you
guys with some modular experience.

From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
Unfortunately I don't spend as much on MOTM as I
should to have these bitching rights, but I really don't
care if a control feature drives up costs if it means I'm
going to get something with maximum flexibility.

LH: Well, you have got to put aside all those other luxuries you have been
wasting money on like food, rent, and a car.  Pony up and buy some more
<grin>.
 
From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
I'm truly just curious--I'm not down on anyone.
No angry responses please.

LH:  Your note didn't come across that way to me.  No room on motm for
flamers. (only stupid stooges - well, maybe one of them might be 1/2
smart).

Larry (I ain't the smart stooge) Hendry
Well, I have been called a smart-ass.  Is that the same as smart?

> From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
> 
> So how do you get 4 pots and 8 jacks on a 1U module????

Oh come one Dave, even I know this one -- Make it 2 U wide.  You will have
to ask tougher questions than that.

LH

In a message dated 00-02-14 11:34:23 EST, you write:

<< I'm just curious: why does it seem like so many people don't want full
 control in their modules? When I first brought up the idea of a fully VC-ed
 contour generator to an individual, his response is "why would you want
 that?" >>



david,
i don`t think we are "against" individual inputs so much as we were in favor 
of making sure there was a single input that would let you control / scale 
the respective times. i know in the past, i`ve found this single input more 
"friendly" than all the individual inputs. on the other hand, i was also able 
to use the individual inputs with the sequencer / touch kybd / controller 
that system had to allow me to set up 16 eg "presets" and be able to switch 
among them in various ways. both approaches have merit. i know that the next 
eg i buy from d****** is going to be their vc model and it uses the 
individual inputs only. to get the vc all effect will actually require extra 
patching and a multiple. in the best of all worlds, both options would be 
available ala s****. possibly, too, the issue arises due to considerations 
about panel space and the cost of adding additional controls that may seem to 
be of minimal use. notwithstanding, i agree that more options are better than 
fewer!
best,
dave v.

In a message dated 00-02-14 12:10:33 EST, you write:

<< 
 I guess my definition of "unreasonable" would be the 8U wide microprocessor
 controlled zillion breakpoint drawn by hand infinite rotary encoded $400 EG.
  >>



dave,
gee, i don`t know......... besides a flock of simpler eg`s one like you`ve 
described here might be just the thing to round out a big modular.......
best,
dave v.

First, hello to Tony (master of the 303) A. maybe you can answer last weeks 
question about a 303 audio output being used as a GATE signal?

In a message dated 2/14/2000 10:10:03 AM, daveb@... writes:

>For me, the idea of a single
>CV input, normalled to A,D, and R inputs, which individually feed reversible
>attenuators, is exactly right. 

WHAT'S THIS! Barlow and Bradley in agreement (along with Hendry)!!?? Man! It 
must be Valentine's Day -- I can feel the love across the continent.

(OK, OK Barlow - an led on the output instead of the gate
>input
>geesh kwitcha whining<g>).

Better idea! How about future MOTM modules (with LEDs) have a jumper labeled 
BAR and BRA. In the first position the LED monitors the output, in the second 
it blinks off and on with the input. Just think of the debate the labels 
would cause in the distant future!

John (the love fest on the MOTM list is just about to end) Barlow

>I, too, am really startled by the fact that a few people don't want VC
>on
>the Sustain. Why eliminate it? It seems very important to me to control
>the
>aspect of the envelope (whether used with a VCA, VCF, whatever) that is
>held
>through the longest part of the tone! It's a big part of the expression;
>no
>one's made clear to me why it should be left off...! 


Just to make it clear that I've NEVER said this (i.e., I've always wanted to 
include a VC sustain input -- as well as separate VC A, VC D, VC R inputs) 
I've excerpted several of my previous posts below.

In a message dated 2/11/2000 8:51:33 PM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>-- 8 jacks including the basic output, trigger, gate and four unattenuated
>VC 
>A, VC D, VC S, VC R inputs as well as one (magical) VC A-D-R input.



In a message dated 2/11/2000 9:56:31 PM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>I agree! I may have underemphasized what I consider the important part
>of my 
>proposed 3310 module -- the SINGLE VC A, VC D, VC R, INPUT and the associated
>
>THREE reversing attenuators. I consider the four unattenuated VC inputs
>to be 
>much less interesting or useful. 
>



In a message dated 2/12/2000 9:50:37 AM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>Why no VC sustain? But there IS VC sustain! A single unattenuated VC sustain
>input (along with one each of VC A, VC D, VC R), but I also find VC sustain
>much less interesting than changing the slopes of envelopes -- fine for
>the 
>hoi poloi, but the sophisticated, martini swilling modular user needs more
>sub
>tle VC EGs.



In a message dated 2/13/2000 11:04:49 AM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>Well, like Larry said, the individual VC inputs are for "the masses" --
>and 
>are cheap enough to justify.

But I do think
>the 
>SUSTAIN level almost always needs to be handled separately from the slope
>parameters, and I often want to handle some of those parameters in opposite
>ways.

Others will use their VC EGs different than I would, but I still like the 
basic idea.
JB

In a message dated 2/14/2000 9:34:32 AM, dbivins@... writes:
<Edited for your enjoyment:>
>I'm truly just curious--I'm not down on anyone. No angry responses please.


Thank you Dave! And in that same spirit, let me just say that any comments I 
make in response to posts I've received today about certain list members' 
intelligence, literacy, or questionable parentage should be taken as my way 
of trying to improve future MOTM modules -- for everyone's benefit of course!

>My entire reason for building this modular is to have as many modulation
>routings as possible--maximum flexibility no matter how rarely I use some
>features. Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the contour
>generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the whole reason I've posted
>about the VC EG at all, because I've been dying for easily VC-ed contours.
>I
>need them.


BREADBOARD -- As the subject line says, I hope to breadboard this module on 
the MOTM protoboard within the next month or so. I'll report back to the list 
if it is warranted. If anyone would like to experiment along with me (Dave V. 
Hendry, Bradley?) in this venture please contact me. Since Paul has the 3310s 
available, we could do this rather easily. I will look at JH's VC ADSR 
(thanks Tony), but I don't want to relive my recent ADSR set back.

FLEXIBILITY -- My dream modular would absolutely have maximum flexibility, 
but more along the lines of the EMu modulars (with lots of mixing inputs for 
each module) than the Moog concept (having to buy lots of mixing modules to 
scatter around your system since there is usually only one VC input per 
function). I like the idea of having separate VC inputs for the A D S R, but 
I know I'd use the VC slope input (and associated processing attenuators) 
about 70% of the time. I couldn't justify the expense of having another four 
attenuators for each of the individual inputs.

Now, with this fancy contour generator being talked about at length,
>some people are fans of a single input that would affect each stage in
>a
>flexible and somewhat predictable (in that hopefully you can predict how
>you
>set it up!) way, and those same people seem to think that the individual
>VC
>inputs are not so necessary. 


See my last post! These inputs have their uses, but the VC slope input would 
be far more useful to me I know.

I'm not being critical--I understand that
>some
>of you have had this feature in other modular systems and either didn't
>find
>it all that useful or found it too cumbersome. But it's there if you ever
>do
>want to use it (the feature--singular).

>I always speak up when I fear a feature is on the chopping block for cost
>or
>simplicity purposes. I don't care--build it so it's there. Unfortunately
>I
>don't spend as much on MOTM as I should to have these bitching rights,
>but I
>really don't care if a control feature drives up costs if it means I'm
>going
>to get something with maximum flexibility.

I absolutely agree!! Although I do think that often a useful and simple 
addition to a module is warranted by particular uses -- e.g., the LFOs in the 
410. Keep up the bitching! It'll keep everyone honest, or at least thinking.

John (BTW, your mother wears combat boots!) Barlow

> From: JWBarlow@...
> 
> BREADBOARD -- As the subject line says, I hope to
> breadboard this module on the MOTM protoboard within
> the next month or so. I'll report back to the list if it is 
> warranted. If anyone would like to experiment along
> with me (Dave V. Hendry, Bradley?) in this venture
> please contact me.

Not me, I have this joystick, some reversing attenuators, and VCAs on my
DIY list and not enough time to get to any of it.

LH

In a message dated 00-02-14 23:00:31 EST, you write:

<< If anyone would like to experiment along with me (Dave V. 
 Hendry, Bradley?) in this venture please contact me.  >>



john,
allowing for the fact that the chip i have on hand is an old ssm rather than 
a cem, i`m game. the completeness of the functions in the chip make it pretty 
easy to kludge up an eg with ( whatever ) vc inputs. just to be a 
"troublemaker" ( and to keep things simple so as to not strain my limited 
construction abilities ), maybe i`ll just have the homebrew one have a "vc 
all" input. that way, since my next purchase of a commercial eg module will 
have individual vc inputs, it`ll give me a testbed to contrast and compare 
how useful i find each type of setup.
what do you think ?
best,
dave

> JWBarlow@... pontificates for awhile then sez:

> BREADBOARD -- As the subject line says, I hope to breadboard this
> module on
> the MOTM protoboard within the next month or so. I'll report back
> to the list
> if it is warranted. If anyone would like to experiment along with
> me (Dave V.
> Hendry, Bradley?) in this venture please contact me. Since Paul
> has the 3310s
> available, we could do this rather easily. I will look at JH's VC ADSR
> (thanks Tony), but I don't want to relive my recent ADSR set back.
>

I'm interested, but right now I'm concentrating all my DIY energy on
SuperMoe, my step sequencer project. As of this weekend, it's alive! Well,
it WAS alive until I tried to insert some bypass caps while the circuit was
running, and I shorted out the 5V regulator in my power supply, which
promptly blew chunks.

When I get around to playing with EGs, I will definitely build up JH's
circuit. It is already set up for complete voltage control of everything,
with no user controls. You just need to hang a summing node with the initial
rate and attenuators on each input, then you're in business.

Unfortunately for you, JW, the led is on the gate, not the output. This
could be the first test of the BAR/BRA switch (ROFLMAO!)

Moe

In a message dated 02/15/2000 10:49:12 AM, daveb@... writes:

<< I'm interested, but right now I'm concentrating all my DIY energy on

SuperMoe, my step sequencer project. >>

Ok Dave, tell more!  Any time I hear "step" and "sequencer" in the same 
sentence I'm interested.

Ivan

Yeah, I'm kinda partial to 1U modules myself. Also, with a utility module
like this, keeping it cheap is better because you can buy lots that way.

I'm halfway through drawing up the 2U right now...

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Dave Bradley [mailto:daveb@...]
		Sent:	Monday, February 14, 2000 2:24 PM
		To:	motm@onelist.com
		Subject:	RE: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea

		From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>

		You could get a triple reversible attenuator (3 pots, 6 jax)
on a 1U panel.
		I'd rather do that, cause then you could get 6 in a 2U
space.

I wasn't pointing any fingers! I was too busy typing with them!  :-) 

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	JWBarlow@... [mailto:JWBarlow@...]
		Sent:	Monday, February 14, 2000 10:39 PM
		To:	motm@onelist.com
		Subject:	Re: [motm] VC EG (breadboard) -- new idea



		Just to make it clear that I've NEVER said this ...

Hey Dave, list,

Thanks for the feedback on my grouchy post. The following is what I'm
concerned about (from Dave V's post):

"possibly, too, the issue arises due to considerations about panel space and
the cost of adding additional controls that may seem to be of minimal use.
notwithstanding, i agree that more options are better than fewer!"

This seems to come up a lot. I understand that Paul needs to be able to sell
some of these things, and therefore he can't have ultra-expensive (and
LED-heavy [j/k!]) designs for each module.

I hate sounding redundant (yeah, right, ask my friends), but "additional
controls that may seem to be of minimal use" are the only reason for me to
build this modular. I already have synthesizers that are soup to nuts in
sound creation (most of us do I'm sure), have some neat modulation
capabilities, and even have esoteric functions unique to that particular
instrument. But most of them do not have many "additional controls that may
seem to be of minimal use" (well, there is that 'sequencer' on my Moog
Source...). I'm all about minimal use!

A lot of the music I work on involves symmetrical or accumulative sequence
approaches. The overall structures, including tempi, the pitches, even the
timbres are based on relationships within the overall context of the piece
rather than a stylistic choice of "key" or anything else. My inspiration for
these pieces comes mostly from the instruments and coordinators themselves.
In other words, if I had an DADSR contour generator with VC for each stage,
I might sequence the changes to each stage in relation to each other as well
as in relation to other components of the sound making system (studio). In
fact, I've been dying to do just that (which is why I've had such a big
mouth on this issue). Perhaps some would look down their noses at me, but I
don't start with music in my head and find the appropriate instruments to
realize that music. I start with the tools and bang the sticks and rocks
together until I start finding some interesting relationships that are worth
developing (in my oh-so humble opinion).

And THAT'S why David's building a modular. If I were willing to compromise
on features, hell, I'd just buy Doepfer stuff. For the same cost that I have
in the MOTM right now, around $1300, I could have a pretty neat system with
a lot more ins and outs. But I evaluated and chose MOTM for its features,
ergonomics, and quality. Though a lot of the cost goes into the latter two
(large, heavy face plates, high-quality components and design), my money's
going for the features. And for a new case, oh, and more patch cords, but
those are separate issues.

Should be working,

David.

In a message dated 00-02-15 15:49:34 EST, you write:

<< 
 A lot of the music I work on involves symmetrical or accumulative sequence
 approaches. The overall structures, including tempi, the pitches, even the
 timbres are based on relationships within the overall context of the piece
 rather than a stylistic choice of "key" or anything else. My inspiration for
 these pieces comes mostly from the instruments and coordinators themselves.
 In other words, if I had an DADSR contour generator with VC for each stage,
 I might sequence the changes to each stage in relation to each other as well
 as in relation to other components of the sound making system (studio). In
 fact, I've been dying to do just that (which is why I've had such a big
 mouth on this issue). Perhaps some would look down their noses at me, but I
 don't start with music in my head and find the appropriate instruments to
 realize that music. I start with the tools and bang the sticks and rocks
 together until I start finding some interesting relationships that are worth
 developing (in my oh-so humble opinion). >>




dave,
i seriously like your description of your working methods and particularily 
the last sentence relates very well to my own view on playing with sound.
i concede the point about full breadth of controls from the point of 
conceptual integrity and the need to be able to get into the nooks and 
crannies of a sound. usually, i`m the "blue sky" guy, not the one talking 
about cost and panel space!!!!  thats what i get for trying to be practical 
for once....... :^) ..... still, it probably does bear keeping in mind that 
paul does have to sell these things and that no one will be happy with every 
choice every time. thats one of the things i see as admirable about motm, the 
breadth of discussion about a module before things are "cast in stone ( 
silicon - ? )".
and, ( sorry, paul! ), i just bought my first motm module to add to my 
d****** synth. i went with them based on the breadth of their line of 
available modules. my modest 3 1/2 panel system grows by a module about every 
6 weeks or so and when i finally sit down and do our taxes, i`ll have some 
serious thinking to do about how to use my half. the motm unit sounds great 
and is obviously well designed but the brand "d" has worked very well for me 
and i`m pleased with it. haven`t decided what to get to add when the time 
comes and i`ll be agonizing over it. 
best,
dave v.

Hi All

>From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
>
>So how do you get 4 pots and 8 jacks on a 1U module????
>
>Dave Bradley
>Principal Software Engineer
>Engineering Animation, Inc.
>daveb@...

One idea may be to have a 1U extender panel with the extra pots/jacks and
yes LED's on it.  This could be wired to a header on the main unit and give
the increased functionality if required.

Regards

Andy

andrew.hartley@...