Beware the storm that gathers here...

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
User avatar
carbon111
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:15 am
Band: Carbon111
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Post by carbon111 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:43 am

raffor wrote: Wow, your wisdom is amazing...
Dude, you completely missed my point. Its about respect for this forum and the people on it. I was willing to give you the benefit of a doubt but the tone and not-so-thinly-veiled content of your posts here and over on KSS have revealed your intent.
What I did was posting the inside of the DCO and that it is in fact a DCO with a wave accumulator. ...
The core is all analog. Most "DCOs" are analog in nature with a digital clock to help them behave. I have no idea where you're getting these conspiritorial ideas from. Your tone and demeanor mark you as a troll or, worse, a sockpuppet.

Thanks for playing! :hello2:
Best Regards, James
--
My New album "Persephone":

Carbon111 Website: http://www.carbon111.com

Carbon111 Blog: http://carbon111.blogspot.com

raffor
No Longer Registered

Post by raffor » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:21 am

carbon111 wrote:
raffor wrote: Wow, your wisdom is amazing...
Dude, you completely missed my point. Its about respect for this forum and the people on it. I was willing to give you the benefit of a doubt but the tone and not-so-thinly-veiled content of your posts here and over on KSS have revealed your intent.
What I did was posting the inside of the DCO and that it is in fact a DCO with a wave accumulator. ...
The core is all analog. Most "DCOs" are analog in nature. I have no idea where you're getting these conspiritorial ideas from. Your tone and demeanor mark you as a troll or, worse, a sockpuppet.

Thanks for playing! :hello2:
What is wrong with you? What do you define as analog???

A wave accumulator is not an analog oscillator in the sense that something is charged and discharged by controlled voltage. You can think of it as a look-up table that is driven by pulses to create a waveform. Changing the speed of the pulses controlls the pitch. If that is analog to you, you are welcome to call it so. A purist wouldn't agree.

Image

And no, the core is NOT analog nature, not with this design. Or better I doubt Dave is using something like a frequency devider to make it half way analog. I assume the pulses come straight out of the processor in digital precision. :hello2:

User avatar
sizzlemeister
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by sizzlemeister » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:15 am

raffor wrote:
What is wrong with you? What do you define as analog???

A wave accumulator is not an analog oscillator in the sense that something is charged and discharged by controlled voltage. You can think of it as a look-up table that is driven by pulses to create a waveform. Changing the speed of the pulses controlls the pitch. If that is analog to you, you are welcome to call it so. A purist wouldn't agree.

And no, the core is NOT analog nature, not with this design. Or better I doubt Dave is using something like a frequency devider to make it half way analog. I assume the pulses come straight out of the processor in digital precision. :hello2:
This is all very interesting. :roll:

Are you trying to work up a case to sue Dave Smith for false advertising?

Or, where, exactly, are you taking your argument?

User avatar
tallowwaters
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:11 am
Gear: LC-MS/MS
Location: snake's belly in a wagon rut

Post by tallowwaters » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:19 am

sizzlemeister wrote: Or, where, exactly, are you taking your argument?
doesnt matter. i can tell you where it will end though.
Brains can be used like a "stress ball," but only once.

User avatar
sizzlemeister
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by sizzlemeister » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:21 am

tallowwaters wrote:
doesnt matter. i can tell you where it will end though.
A small town in Oklahoma?

User avatar
carbon111
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:15 am
Band: Carbon111
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Post by carbon111 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:40 am

tallowwaters wrote:
sizzlemeister wrote: Or, where, exactly, are you taking your argument?
doesnt matter. i can tell you where it will end though.
It will all end in tears?

We have but fragile hearts. :D
Best Regards, James
--
My New album "Persephone":

Carbon111 Website: http://www.carbon111.com

Carbon111 Blog: http://carbon111.blogspot.com

User avatar
johans121
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:05 pm
Gear: Pro One - PEK - Juno60 - 606 - 777 - MOTM format Modular... and Lots of Effects ‘n stuff analog & digital
Band: Dreams of Psyche
Location: Huntsville, AL

Post by johans121 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:41 am

carbon111 wrote:Also, in addition to a number of hardwired mod sources, including OSC --> Filter Cutoff FM, a third looping envelope and four LFOs, there's four more slots for any combination of these:

The question is "Is this enough for what I want to do with this board?"

A lot of modern VAs have more mod routings but I'd wager they won't sound anything like the Prophet'08. I can't wait to get my hands on one to find out. :D
The Filter FM & four Mod Amount destinations are nice indeed, however I don't think this is a PEK replacing board. Dave was smart, these two boards are made for different markets. It certainly won't be replacing my PEK, however it will probably be replacing some of my other stuff (pending some demo's, of course).

-Jim
Don't feed me Indian, you WILL regret it!

User avatar
sizzlemeister
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by sizzlemeister » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:40 am

johans121 wrote: The Filter FM & four Mod Amount destinations are nice indeed, however I don't think this is a PEK replacing board. Dave was smart, these two boards are made for different markets. It certainly won't be replacing my PEK, however it will probably be replacing some of my other stuff (pending some demo's, of course).

-Jim
Agreed. There is NO WAY this thing replaces a PEK. But, I bet it sounds stellar next to one. Image

User avatar
hyphen nation
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:43 am
Gear: boxes that make noises
Location: sunny northwest

Post by hyphen nation » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:40 am

I can't stand fanboys, but what is going on?

I can't believe how many armchair synth designers are taking a swipe at this thing. It looks to me like Dave Smith, designed a synth that he thought would rock, with the features he thought would rock, at a pricepoint that, while spendy to a lot of people, is pretty amazing...

On paper, I was kinda "meh" about the Little Phatty, but the thing really is a pleasure to play...

I'm absolutely blown away by some of the absolute arrogance on this thread...I'd love to hear half these pissants say half their critiques in person to Dave Smith. How can realistically debate the merits of a synth only 5 people have played???

User avatar
REwire
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Contact:

Post by REwire » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:43 am

On DCO's vs. VCO's:

I thought all CEM Osc chips were VCO's, like the 3340. But was the 3396, which is what the Evolver / PE8 chips are based on, a VCO or DCO? Did Curtis make both VCO's and DCO's and was one modified from VCO to DCO? Were other CEM based synths considered DCO's? The Matrix1000 sounded pretty nice with it's 3396's. I thought they were much warmer than the 3374's of the Matrix12/Xpander.
Buchla, Serge & Eurorack Modular; EML101; Minimoog; Synthacon; MS20; Nord2; NordG1; PolyEvoRack; MKS80; MKS50; TB303; Electribe EMX1; JV1080
http://www.REwireMusic.com

User avatar
carbon111
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:15 am
Band: Carbon111
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Post by carbon111 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:04 am

REwire wrote:On DCO's vs. VCO's:

I thought all CEM Osc chips were VCO's, like the 3340. But was the 3396, which is what the Evolver / PE8 chips are based on, a VCO or DCO? Did Curtis make both VCO's and DCO's and was one modified from VCO to DCO? Were other CEM based synths considered DCO's? The Matrix1000 sounded pretty nice with it's 3396's. I thought they were much warmer than the 3374's of the Matrix12/Xpander.
Most DCOs used for music synthesizers have an analog core, some moreso than others (and there are some striking exceptions like the Juno106 that uses 8253 digital counters as "DCOs)...most, though, are true hybrid designs with the digital side providing frequency information and the analog side actually producing the sound.

DCOs used for test equipment and scientific apperatus are usually all-digital,.

The oscillator that "rufflo" described has next to no relation to whats inside a Curtis chip...more like the oscillators in my Waldorf Microwave. There is so much misinformation out there as well as confusion between NCOs VCOs, PLLs and DCOs. Don't listen to idiots and don't feed the trolls. Dave Smith has no reason to lie about the oscillator design.
Best Regards, James
--
My New album "Persephone":

Carbon111 Website: http://www.carbon111.com

Carbon111 Blog: http://carbon111.blogspot.com

User avatar
adamstan
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:56 pm
Real name: Adam
Gear: Yamaha 2xDX7II|QY-70|PSR-S750|PSR-2000|TYROS|Electone D85|Electone E50
B5 DIY polysynth
KORG Poly61
Vermona DRM
Solton Programmer 24
LEMA EDD-5
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by adamstan » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:32 am

So is DCO in P08 the integrator synced by the pulses (like in most 80's polys)? If it is - then its certainly analog.
Man with a tape recorder | Living in the '80s ;-)

User avatar
JJQ
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Malmo, east-side

Post by JJQ » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:36 am

Ive been reading this thread from the start, with much pleasure. This is my reflections.

I dont know if raffor has any good point in his argumants but I think he could be a little less judgemental at this early stage...but I have nothing against reading his/heres views.

Im very impressed by the patiens showed by David Bryce.

I dont get excited over new stuff - I think the old ones workes perfectly for me. And I didnt like the MEK or PEK, perhaps to digital. BUT I do like some of the sounds from the P'08, and kind of likes its looks. Actualy lokking foreward to try one.

I think the split-function is great. And lowpassfiltering usualy is enough.
Gear: Minimoog, Mother-32, Roland MC-202, TB-303, (Boss) DR-110, TR-505, TR-808, Alpha Juno 2, Jupiter-8, Oberheim SEM, .com/oakley/moon/mos-lab/STG/Sputnik/MegaOhm-modular & Microbrute

User avatar
xpander
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:15 am
Gear: UltraProteus, Xpander, 200e, Minimoogs, Radias, Prophet VS, PolyEvolver, Arp 2600
Location: los gatos, california
Contact:

Post by xpander » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:20 am

actually, the Juno-106 uses post-CTC waveshaping, at least for the sawtooth.

DCOs:
a digital chip tells a counter-timer chip (also digital) what frequency to work at. this CTC generally outputs a pulse and a sine wave (of wavetable origin) at the frequency it's controlled to work at. these outputs (especially an accurate, square pulse) can then be used in the analog domain for further waveshaping.

it's simple!

jupiter8
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by jupiter8 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:04 am

What i find amusing is some peoples complete lack of logical reasoning.

For example:"Digital envelopes suck.I have one synth with digital envelopes and they are slow and stepped.I have one with analog envelopes that does'nt do that.Hence digital envelopes are slow and stepped"

Ermm....no buddy.All you've proved with that statement is, that particular synths envelope are slow and stepped.Not that it is impossible to do digital envelopes that are fast and not stepped/quantized. All in all you have proved nothing about digital envelopes in general.

Same thing with DCOs. "I have one synth with DCOs.It isn't as "phat" as my other synth with DCOs. DCOs are to stable"

True you can make DCOs very stable if you want to and some people don't like that.On the other hand,how hard do you think it is to program some "analog" drift in a DCO ? A hint:not very.

And i fully expect a couple to come in here and argue (with a complete lack of logical reasoning) : so how come my Juno/Matrix 6/whatever old DCO synth isn't as "phat" as synth XYZ with VCOs ?

Post Reply