Xpantastic!

Hi everyone,

When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded that 
I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I (as 
many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12´s slow enevelopes.

SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel Doidic)
and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:

"Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part of 
designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
 I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for sale in 
Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly 
grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer the 
following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way to 
modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
 I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of 
softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths which 
have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you 
changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes became 
dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed. 
Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or would 
it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the Matrix 
12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, would 
mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all 
IMHO.
 I thank you once again and send you my best
 regards Attila" 

His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as 
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809 
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you could 
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
 The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and 
microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a bit of 
hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2 
milliseconds.
 This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where X 
will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it 
controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
 The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog 
smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and Hold). 
This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor RX14 
on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for the 
VCF frequency control.
 You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 1 M 
Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from about 
7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get more 
discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
 The next fastest times however will still be determined by the 6809 
software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the voice 
and see if that goes toward what you want. 
Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"

OK guys, what do you think?

I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not 
fantastic, but better)
Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same 
thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower value, 
envelopes supposedly become faster.

I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting in a 
faster processor and find someone to recode the software. 

Brainstorming please begin :)

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:52 AM, analogholic <publik@...> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> His answer:
>
> "Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as
> you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
> microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you could
> get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.

Hitachi makes  pin & instruction compatible replacement for the 6809,
but it's clock speed can go up to 3 or 4Mhz.
The 6309 has some additional instructiuons that the 6809 does not
have, but needs to be in a different mode to use them.

I don't think that this would just yield snappier envleopes though. I
fear speeding up the CPU might make many things not work at all.

You may want to run this by Mr Doidic or MArcus to see what their reply is.

It would not change anything adding a faster 6809 and upping the 
speed of the clocking circuit, you would have to change a lot more in 
the circuit to cope with the faster speeds.. it would also create a 
high risk of breaking things. Circuits do not like to be run at a 
faster speed than they were designed for they usually break or dont 
work at all. I would never risk this in such an expensive piece of 
kit.

I personally do not understand this general obsession with making 
envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real world 
the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are 
actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on 
these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to 
actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument. You 
change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.

If you need ridiculously punchy bass, just buy a Moog Source or 
something.

Just wanted to add I'm not being mean...these things come across 
better face to face :o)

Phil...




--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...> 
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:52 AM, analogholic <publik@...> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > His answer:
> >
> > "Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, 
as
> > you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
> > microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you 
could
> > get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be 
done.
> 
> Hitachi makes  pin & instruction compatible replacement for the 
6809,
> but it's clock speed can go up to 3 or 4Mhz.
> The 6309 has some additional instructiuons that the 6809 does not
> have, but needs to be in a different mode to use them.
> 
> I don't think that this would just yield snappier envleopes though. 
I
> fear speeding up the CPU might make many things not work at all.
> 
> You may want to run this by Mr Doidic or MArcus to see what their 
reply is.
>

Hi !

I agree. If you speed up the CPU, all the software generated processes 
speed up too, not only the attack of envelopes.
Eventually, if the envelopes become faster, isn�t it they will be 
shorter also. One of the Xpander/Matrix12 advantages is, the duration of 
an envelope can be very long, especially if  the segments of the 
envelope are modulated.
I also think, all the Lfos would speed up, the track generators and the 
ramps,- their slowest settings would be faster then.
What happens to all the software generated VCAs ? I cannot imagine ...

I have a Roland D550 w/ a Musitronics memory expansion and speed kit as 
also midi-multimode feature.
This results in a faster response on incomming midi notes so the delay 
of notes if playing chord are reduced a lot.
The machine is 4 times faster w/ this kit.
The speed kit speeds up the cpu also, but they burned a completely new 
OS in a eprom on a daughter circuit board which compensates the LFO 
speed as also any other by software generated modulators for soundwise 
compatibility of all the patches for standard D50/550. The kit also 
includes a new quartz and some other new components on the daughter board.

So, I think, without a special modified OS for Xpander/Matrix12, there�s 
no solution to speed anything up without to change the behaviour and 
sound of an Xpander/Matrix12.
Could be a bad result if you cannot use all your patches anymore.


Tony Cappellini schrieb:

>
>
> Hitachi makes pin & instruction compatible replacement for the 6809,
> but it's clock speed can go up to 3 or 4Mhz.
> The 6309 has some additional instructiuons that the 6809 does not
> have, but needs to be in a different mode to use them.
>
> I don't think that this would just yield snappier envleopes though. I
> fear speeding up the CPU might make many things not work at all.
>
> You may want to run this by Mr Doidic or MArcus to see what their 
> reply is.
>
>

It would not change anything adding a faster 6809 and upping the
speed of the clocking circuit, you would have to change a lot more in
the circuit to cope with the faster speeds.. it would also create a
high risk of breaking things. Circuits do not like to be run at a
faster speed than they were designed for they usually break or dont
work at all. I would never risk this in such an expensive piece of
kit.

I personally do not understand this general obsession with making
envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real world
the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are
actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on
these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to
actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument. You
change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.

If you need ridiculously punchy bass, just buy a Moog Source or
something.

Just wanted to add I'm not being mean...these things come across
better face to face :o)

Phil...

BTW

I know a guy who has the source code for the Xpander, if anyone is
bored and wants to rewrite the OS over a weekend. ;-)
(I don't think he wants to give it away though)

There was talk that Neil Bradley (the guy who engineered Europa for
the Jupiter 6) would look into this, but Europa ended up taking too
much time.

I personally do not understand this general obsession with making
>
> envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real world
> the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are
> actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on
> these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to
> actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument. You
> change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.


One does not need a scope to experience the slow envelopes on the
Xpander, it is plainly audible.
The same goes for the OB8.

Wow, 

I´m personally not "obsessed" with faster envelopes on my Matrix 12, I 
rather get reminded of it whenever I play it, don´t need a scope for 
that. It´s so fxxing great, but would be even greater with faster 
envelopes IMHO.

I have some really fast machines like the P5 and the Minimoog D, so 
it´s not like I have to get the M12 faster.

None of the machines I have are "perfect", in fact I have mods thought 
out for most of them, but that´s the way I am I guess :)
I´m gonna syncmod the Mini next...hope that´s not like cursing in 
church :)

When I have the time, I will start out by change the resistors on one 
of the voiceboards like Mr Doidic suggested. After all, it worked out 
on the SE-1. 

Cheerio







--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...> 
wrote:
>
> I personally do not understand this general obsession with making
> >
> > envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real 
world
> > the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are
> > actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on
> > these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to
> > actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument. 
You

> > change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.
> 
> 
> One does not need a scope to experience the slow envelopes on the
> Xpander, it is plainly audible.
> The same goes for the OB8.
>

Hi,

Wow, I am impressed that Michel Doidic even reponded to this after 25 
years. He obviously pulled out the schematics and gave it some 
thought. Very kind of him. And thanks to analogholic for having the 
guts to try. I am planning to overhaul (re-battary and recap) my M12
soon. I might try this mod on one of my voices. I will report back If 
I do.

Karl 

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "analogholic" <publik@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> 
> When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded 
that 
> I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I 
(as 
> many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12´s slow enevelopes.
> 
> SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel 
Doidic)
> and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:
> 
> "Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part 
of 
> designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
>  I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for sale 
in 
> Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly 
> grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer 
the 
> following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way 
to 
> modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
>  I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of 
> softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths which 
> have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you 
> changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes 
became 
> dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed. 
> Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or would 
> it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the 
Matrix 
> 12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, would 
> mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all 
> IMHO.
>  I thank you once again and send you my best
>  regards Attila" 
> 
> His answer:
> 
> "Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as 
> you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809 
> microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you 
could 
> get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
>  The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and 
> microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a bit 
of 
> hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2 
> milliseconds.
>  This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where X 
> will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it 
> controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
>  The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog 
> smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and 
Hold). 
> This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor 
RX14 
> on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for 
the 
> VCF frequency control.
>  You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 1 
M 
> Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from 
about 
> 7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get 
more 
> discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
>  The next fastest times however will still be determined by the 
6809 
> software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the 
voice 
> and see if that goes toward what you want. 
> Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"
> 
> OK guys, what do you think?
> 
> I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not 
> fantastic, but better)
> Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same 
> thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower 
value, 
> envelopes supposedly become faster.
> 
> I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting in 
a 

> faster processor and find someone to recode the software. 
> 
> Brainstorming please begin :)
>

Tony Cappellini wrote:
> BTW
>
> I know a guy who has the source code for the Xpander, if anyone is
> bored and wants to rewrite the OS over a weekend. ;-)
> (I don't think he wants to give it away though)
>
> There was talk that Neil Bradley (the guy who engineered Europa for
> the Jupiter 6) would look into this, but Europa ended up taking too
> much time.
>   
Wow!

I'm on a mailing list with Neil Bradley, for reverse engineering software.

Small world.

Jeremy.

Hi All,
I am thinking about trying this, but can anyone really tell the 
difference in one thousandth of a second. It seems like only a scope  
could tell the difference. And looking at the schematics changing 
Rx51 will only affect the VCA in the filter chip. No other 
destinations, sorry. The second mod looks more promising as this is a 
whole string of 1M resistors in the Sample and Hold Circuit. One for 
each Voltage Controlled Input In the Circuit VCO1,PW1,VCO-VOL1,VCO2
etc... This would affect any modulation source used. ENV, LFO and so 
on. As Mr Doidic points out "you may get more discontinuity in the 
shape of the modulation". Maybe some experementation would be in 
order here. My guess is, if this value was too small the S/H cap will 
discharge too rapidly. Causing a bumpy shape to an otherwise smooth
envelope. 
If I do try this I will let yal know.
Karl


--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, William Cason <randycason102@...> 
wrote:
>
> Wow, that's very interesting.  I would love to see faster envelopes 
on my M12; I'm wondering if that mod works for all destinations of 
that env?
>  
> I'm trying to figure out if I have the guts to try it... anyone 
else?
>  
> Randy
> 
> --- On Tue, 9/9/08, analogholic <publik@...> wrote:
> 
> From: analogholic <publik@...>
> Subject: [xpantastic] Faster envelopes on Matrix 12/Xpander - 
Conversation with one of the designers
> To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 4:52 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded 
that 
> I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I 
(as 
> many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12´s slow enevelopes.
> 
> SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel 
Doidic)
> and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:
> 
> "Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part 
of 
> designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
> I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for sale 
in 
> Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly 
> grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer 
the 
> following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way 
to 
> modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
> I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of 
> softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths which 
> have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you 
> changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes 
became 
> dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed. 
> Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or would 
> it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the 
Matrix 
> 12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, would 
> mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all 
> IMHO.
> I thank you once again and send you my best
> regards Attila" 
> 
> His answer:
> 
> "Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as 
> you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809 
> microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you 
could 
> get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
> The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and 
> microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a bit 
of 
> hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2 
> milliseconds.
> This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where X 
> will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it 
> controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
> The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog 
> smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and 
Hold). 
> This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor 
RX14 
> on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for 
the 
> VCF frequency control.
> You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 1 
M 
> Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from 
about 
> 7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get 
more 
> discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
> The next fastest times however will still be determined by the 6809 
> software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the 
voice 
> and see if that goes toward what you want. 
> Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"
> 
> OK guys, what do you think?
> 
> I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not 
> fantastic, but better)
> Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same 
> thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower 
value, 
> envelopes supposedly become faster.
> 
> I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting in 
a 

> faster processor and find someone to recode the software. 
> 
> Brainstorming please begin :)
>

> Hi Karl,

Yeah, I was kind of blown away myself that Doidic answered, since he 
is the president of Line 6! It was a "long shot", but I thought what 
the heck. I think he is very proud of this legendary beast :) (Who 
wouldn´t be?)

And you´re very welcome btw!

Hmmm, yes, I´m thinking about doing a recap myself, since our 
moderator Tiitu did just that not long ago, which reminds me of a 
cool mod he mentioned that supposedly would make this beasts sound 
even better.

But I´m gonna wait a week or so before posting that you can soak the 
envelope mod up first. And I´ll probably wear a raincoat or 
something, just in case rotten tomatoes and eggs come flying :)

Cheerio


> Hi,
> 
> Wow, I am impressed that Michel Doidic even reponded to this after 
25 
> years. He obviously pulled out the schematics and gave it some 
> thought. Very kind of him. And thanks to analogholic for having the 
> guts to try. I am planning to overhaul (re-battary and recap) my M12
> soon. I might try this mod on one of my voices. I will report back 
If 
> I do.
> 
> Karl 
> 
> --- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "analogholic" <publik@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded 
> that 
> > I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I 
> (as 
> > many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12´s slow enevelopes.
> > 
> > SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel 
> Doidic)
> > and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:
> > 
> > "Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part 
> of 
> > designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
> >  I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for 
sale 
> in 
> > Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly 
> > grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer 
> the 
> > following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way 
> to 
> > modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
> >  I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of 
> > softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths 
which 
> > have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you 
> > changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes 
> became 
> > dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed. 
> > Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or 
would 
> > it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the 
> Matrix 
> > 12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, 
would 
> > mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all 
> > IMHO.
> >  I thank you once again and send you my best
> >  regards Attila" 
> > 
> > His answer:
> > 
> > "Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, 
as 
> > you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809 
> > microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you 
> could 
> > get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be 
done.
> >  The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and 
> > microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a 
bit 
> of 
> > hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2 
> > milliseconds.
> >  This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where 
X 
> > will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it 
> > controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
> >  The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog 
> > smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and 
> Hold). 
> > This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor 
> RX14 
> > on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for 
> the 
> > VCF frequency control.
> >  You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 
1 
> M 
> > Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from 
> about 
> > 7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get 
> more 
> > discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
> >  The next fastest times however will still be determined by the 
> 6809 
> > software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the 
> voice 
> > and see if that goes toward what you want. 
> > Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"
> > 
> > OK guys, what do you think?
> > 
> > I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not 
> > fantastic, but better)
> > Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same 
> > thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower 
> value, 
> > envelopes supposedly become faster.
> > 
> > I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting 
in 

> a 
> > faster processor and find someone to recode the software. 
> > 
> > Brainstorming please begin :)
> >
>

Hi PeWe,

My problem is that I´m not a tech by far, but get cool ideas all the 
time...
I got in touch with a tech here in Sweden the other day.

I told him about the "Studio Electronics mod" (which they had on 
their Midimoog/Midimini), where you can sweep the synced Osc with the 
filter envelope ala Prophet 5.

He said, no problem. He´s going to add a switch or two for on/off, 
and a knob for depth.

I´m going to decide if I want to sync both Osc 2 and 3 to Osc 1, or 
just Osc 2.

I can ask him about the Pedal/Modwheel controlling the sync if you 
want.

I sold my Prodigy the other day, where the sync sounds phenomenal.

You know, having Osc 2 synced, while Osc 3 is not, with its natural 
drift, sounds very exciting to me. 

You won´t of course have any LFO then, but that would come from the 
Kenton Pro Solo in that case.

Cheers


--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>
> Hi analogholic !
> 
> I´d be interested in more details of a Minimoog D sync-mod if 
possible.
> I had that in mind since a long time, but couldn´t find a tech who 
could 
> do it the way I imagined.
> I´d like to control the sync-sweep effect by a Moog 1120 CV pedal,- 
not 
> by the mod-wheel or by one of the envelopes.
> The general prob is w/ the Mini,- any device connected to the 
Mini´s 
> CV-inputs adds voltage to the unit. To change that, you´d have to 
> disconnect the device ( pedal).
> It´s somewhat uncomfortable to plug/ unplug a CV-pedal during 
performance.
> So this has to be switchable on/off as a mod source of one of the 
> oscillators frequency/pitch w/ a sync mod installed and hard sync 
> switched to on.
> Prob No. 2,- if the pedal is not in use but still connected,- how 
to 
> reset the oscillators pitch to normal condition and regardless of 
the 
> pedals angle (= setting/position of its pot ) in the moment you´d 
defeat 

> it from the circuitry by a switch ?
> 
> Any idea ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> analogholic schrieb:
> >
> >
> > I´m gonna syncmod the Mini next...hope that´s not like cursing in
> > church :)
> >
> >
> > Cheerio
> >
> >
>

Yeah, I hang at Musicplayer among other places.

Sorry, I misread you. Ok, only from the pedal.

In return, you might check how I can get my pitchwheel springloaded 
in the Mini with a range of 2 semitones (If you didn´t already answer 
that already at Musicplayer:)...)

Cheers


--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi !
> Are you the one I see in the musicplayerforums too ... ? :-)
> 
> Would be a great idea to ask this tech for a sync-mod being 
controlled 
> by a Moog Model 1120 CV pedal.
> 
> NOT the wheel and NOT the envelope as control-sources for the pitch 
of 
> the synced OSC,- just only the pedal.
> OSC 2 synced to OSC 1
> sync-sweep-control source (pedal) switchable off/on, sync function 
> switchable off/on (both maybe by footswitches)
> OSC pitch-reset to keyboard voltage only if pedal as a control 
source is 
> defeated by the switch.
> 
> We had a sync function in our "Midimuck" ( = racked Minimoog) in 
1989, 
> http://www.synrise.de/docs/types/m/midimuck.htm-
> This could be controlled by Midi CC #4,- but w/ a real mini it has 
to be 
> a CV pedal.
>  
> I only have a fronpanel of the Midimuck left over unfortunally. The 
> tech  from the past is unavailable and I cannot find the hand drawn 
> schematics.
> There is probably 1 prototype working in a studio,- I´ll ask the 
owner 
> if the machine is there or trashed meanwhile, if not, if it´s 
working 
> and if I can have a look into it. It was done w/ original Minimoog 
> circuit boards.
> 
> B.t.w., - I had such a mod also for the Prophet 5 in the 80th/90th,-
 
> CV-pedal controlled the sync via the polymod and was switchable too.
> Was another story because of bypassing the Z80 proc and cutting 
lanes 
> ond so on ...
> 
> let me know please
> 
> good luck
> 
> PeWe
> 
> 
> 
> analogholic schrieb:
> >
> > Hi PeWe,
> >
> > My problem is that I´m not a tech by far, but get cool ideas all 
the

> > time...
> > I got in touch with a tech here in Sweden the other day.
> >
> >
> > I can ask him about the Pedal/Modwheel controlling the sync if you
> > want.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > -
> >
>

Ref. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/xpantastic/conversations/messages/608

The Matrix-12 owned by the Swedish band named Ace of Base in the past was brought by me to Finland in Oct 6, 2007 from Göteborg, where it had been used and serviced in a music studio called Ljudlabbet, the owner of which was Daniel Saxlid. He was selling the M12 because of moving to Los Angeles. He also told me that it should be possible to speed up the envelopes, as described above.

You may find Daniel at https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-saxlid-746a93a/.

The same M12 was later (i.e., in 11.5.2015) acquired by Aake Otsala at http://www.suneffects.fi/.

I think that Aake might have been in contact with e.g. Daniel regarding to the modifications etc.

Regards,

Tiitu

This was discussed on the forum some time ago. If I remember right, it was a hardware mod to the sample and hold circuits of the multiplexer. And was completelyin theory. I do not know of anyone who tried this mod. A search through the archives may yield the original thread.
Best
Karl 

    On Saturday, May 13, 2017 5:48 AM, "akva@... [xpantastic]" <xpantastic@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

     PS. Those chromatic keyboards shown in the photo are manufactured by http://www.master-production.com/acc_keyb.htm in Italy.