Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

Ashe37 wrote:unless you want each voice to sound the same, say, one voice is x dsp load, two voices is going to be between 1.75 and 2x the amount of dsp, 3 voices would be 2.5-3x, etc hence why adding an oscillator to a patch on the Blofeld, Virus, etc, cuts into your polyphony.

The Shruthi really doesn't have a DSP. There's a reason why so many people compare it to an ESQ- because its the 'lo fi samples plus analog filters' method of synthesis. The Shruthi is basically an arduino...

Interesting...ok. So I guess I stand corrected. I guess then it's a toss-up between which is cheaper: chip, or divide down DCOs..

Which follows on Hideaway's detailed comments. But I guess, since I probably can't see the utility of a stringer without the chorus on 100% of the time, sterile oscillators seem less important to me? On the other hand, I guess I CAN see using this with chorus off if there's a decent filter. In which case, a richer osc sound would be important.

Sir Ruff wrote:Which follows on Hideaway's detailed comments. But I guess, since I probably can't see the utility of a stringer without the chorus on 100% of the time, sterile oscillators seem less important to me? On the other hand, I guess I CAN see using this with chorus off if there's a decent filter. In which case, a richer osc sound would be important.

Yes, but wouldn't you want all of those nice things together and not just a compromise??

Sir Ruff wrote:Which follows on Hideaway's detailed comments. But I guess, since I probably can't see the utility of a stringer without the chorus on 100% of the time, sterile oscillators seem less important to me? On the other hand, I guess I CAN see using this with chorus off if there's a decent filter. In which case, a richer osc sound would be important.

which is something that makes me pore over endless filter options and look at how many CA3046es i can get my hands on..

HideawayStudio wrote:

Sir Ruff wrote:Which follows on Hideaway's detailed comments. But I guess, since I probably can't see the utility of a stringer without the chorus on 100% of the time, sterile oscillators seem less important to me? On the other hand, I guess I CAN see using this with chorus off if there's a decent filter. In which case, a richer osc sound would be important.

Yes, but wouldn't you want all of those nice things together and not just a compromise??

Of course! (I'm just thinking of costs)

Ashe37 wrote:

Sir Ruff wrote:Which follows on Hideaway's detailed comments. But I guess, since I probably can't see the utility of a stringer without the chorus on 100% of the time, sterile oscillators seem less important to me? On the other hand, I guess I CAN see using this with chorus off if there's a decent filter. In which case, a richer osc sound would be important.

which is something that makes me pore over endless filter options and look at how many CA3046es i can get my hands on..

Cool to hear you're seriously considering this... I think there would definitely be some interested parties here if you got beyond a prototype

HideawayStudio wrote: If a divide down architecture makes use of 12 discrete free-running top octave oscillators (and better still with independant vibrato LFOs, and even better still, the dividers are discrete) then the story is -very- different... the following divide-down instruments are anything but lifeless... Novachord, Philips Philicorda, Eminent 310U, PS3100 - all use the techniques I've cited to gain wide, detuned, free-running analog goodness -

There is still phase-lock when playing octaves. The occasional lack of movement might be noticeable.
IMO the Solina and the Elkas are more iconic and they use the single master oscillator. The 310U sounds 'better' than the Solina but it may not be as well known outside the Jarre fanbase.

One thing worth considering: players will want to select between violin, viola and cello, at least, and all at the same time. They differ more in terms of octaves than in terms of timbre, so unless there´s an easy way of dividing frequencies, it means more oscs and divider chips circuits to add per note, shall you decide to use old-tech.

And very quickly the idea of coming to this with a price below vintage units has just gone out the window. That said, any of us who's had stringers know that they are often in bad repair. So perhaps $500 for a module that always works and has some options might be the better route than my initial thinking of "must. be. cheap."

redchapterjubilee wrote:And very quickly the idea of coming to this with a price below vintage units has just gone out the window. That said, any of us who's had stringers know that they are often in bad repair. So perhaps $500 for a module that always works and has some options might be the better route than my initial thinking of "must. be. cheap."

If we (Tronographic) end up green-lighting this... (and it would be a while from now) we would work to keep cost as low as possible. $500 would be the target... and keeping things "as analog as possible" is the other target. I'm sure we'll utilize smd and other modern tricks to keep it affordable and small. my partner is the engineer... he's studying the RS-09 schematic.

I loved my RS-09s... but lack of midi, only 44 notes and flakey controls made it impossible to incorporate it into my live rig. In the meantime I've thought of getting a Roland EM-101 and a Boss CE300 to "get close for cheap". The Elkorus is too pricey for it's application... IMHO.

I think next we need to research other stringers... I've only experience with my Crumar Trilogy and the RS-09. Not about to buy a Solina or a Omni. But what are the other important ones?

Moog Opus

Ashe37 wrote:Moog Opus

Had one on a session many years ago... player used the string sound. It was similar in sound to the Crumar IIRC.

Do all or most of these stringers have a "ensemble" section? Which do and which don't?

The Opus is one of the few actual stringers I've played. I thought it sounded nasty, compared to the good sample sets I have of other stringers.

themilford wrote:

redchapterjubilee wrote:my partner is the engineer... he's studying the RS-09 schematic

Talk to Gordon Reid. He's high up in Cedar Audio. More importantly he's a stringer nut, and writes for SOS:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb07/a ... string.htm
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may07/a ... ent310.htm

IMO the RS-09 is not the best stringer. IMO that would be the Eminent, the Hohner/ Logan String Melody II, followed by the Solina (which is an Eminent with fewer chorus LFOs IIRC).

madtheory wrote:The Opus is one of the few actual stringers I've played. I thought it sounded nasty, compared to the good sample sets I have of other stringers.

themilford wrote:

redchapterjubilee wrote:my partner is the engineer... he's studying the RS-09 schematic

Talk to Gordon Reid. He's high up in Cedar Audio. More importantly he's a stringer nut, and writes for SOS:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb07/a ... string.htm
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may07/a ... ent310.htm

IMO the RS-09 is not the best stringer. IMO that would be the Eminent, the Hohner/ Logan String Melody II, followed by the Solina (which is an Eminent with fewer chorus LFOs IIRC).

I'm more concerned with the Ensemble section of the RS-09... the voice section will probably take from the most effective and reproducible... probably a modern take on the Solina since it's so beloved.

themilford wrote:I'm more concerned with the Ensemble section of the RS-09... the voice section will probably take from the most effective and reproducible... probably a modern take on the Solina since it's so beloved.

In this case, note that there were two versions of the RS-09, and my impression is that the first one (with rocker switches) sounded better; I think it used the same chorus as in the RS-101/202.

Sir Ruff wrote:

themilford wrote:I'm more concerned with the Ensemble section of the RS-09... the voice section will probably take from the most effective and reproducible... probably a modern take on the Solina since it's so beloved.

In this case, note that there were two versions of the RS-09, and my impression is that the first one (with rocker switches) sounded better; I think it used the same chorus as in the RS-101/202.

I don't know the actual differences but I've had both and the earlier V.1 sounded MUCH better.

Just reading that article. The Eminent had one master oscillator, but 6 cross modulated delay lines. That's the first key. Even the thinnest sawtooth wave will sound massive through that. The second key is it had individual VCA release for each note.

Do folks here actually like the "paraphonic" thing?