Delayed vibrato …best method ?.

System 55 • System 35 • Model 15
User avatar
analogmonster
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:50 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Delayed vibrato …best method ?.

Post by analogmonster » Tue Dec 24, 2024 7:31 am

sdwillingham wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2024 5:36 pm Good point to check whether the Q158 is DC coupled, though I don’t know why you would expect that it isn’t. Even the primitive Moog 902 is DC coupled.
'Cause I know more VCA circuits from different brands or DIY which are AC coupled than DC coupled. But I might be wrong in this case.
sdwillingham wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2024 5:36 pm But supposing it is DC capable, it covers the two VCAs plus mixer part of your description of a ‘morpher’. And it also has handy knobs to condition the CV(s) in a complementary way. It can be a cross-fader for audio or CV, which is the basis for a morphing patch, and it simplifies a lot of the patchwork.
Yes, and these are good capabilities already.
sdwillingham wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2024 5:36 pm As for the controlling CV, two envelopes and a trigger delay are one good method among several others. I wouldn’t see much value in hard wiring those into a module. Often one simple envelope or an LFO could control the cross-fade/morph amount.
Sure. It is a more philosophical question, and a question how much do you love patch cables and walls of modules. Do you normalize a modular setup by drilling down everything to generic basic functions or do you combine generic modular functions in modules to de-normalize a modular setup for convenience reasons. I see advantages and disadvantages for both approaches. You can split up a VCO into 3 sub functions (a controller, an exponentiator and an oscillator) for instance (indeed I saw circuits and module concepts which do that) or a vocoder into a bunch of fixed filter banks, envelope follower modules and VCAs (Wendy Carlos did that, AFAIK), but most modules are somehow de-normalized. How much you combine to a real module is somewhere in between.

sdwillingham
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:42 pm

Re: Delayed vibrato …best method ?.

Post by sdwillingham » Wed Dec 25, 2024 6:46 pm

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement. I think I favor a higher degree of normalization in a modular than most. In this case, I would definitely normalize two envelopes and a trigger delay together. (Actually part of my plan for the MOS-Lab cabinet I recently purchased.) and I like the integration of the mentioned Q158.

Overall, I lean away from putting too much under one front panel, as it often becomes too tempting in larger modules to pack more knobs and jacks into a tighter space. In other words, to put 4MU worth of interface into 3MU space.

But it’s totally a matter of taste.

Post Reply