Nick Copeland wrote:
> > > Just 128 steps for filter cutoff for an oscillating emphasis does not
> > > work well
> > > if it needs to be tuned exactly to an VCO/DCO, it is basically
> never in tune
> >
> > This is wrong.
> >
> > The number of bits in a parameter is unrelated to where and what some
> > filter is or is not tuned to.
> >
> Why not?
>
> Perhaps we are referring to different things. I was talking about the
> number of
> steps in a filter cutoff parameter - if you only have 7 bits in the
> filter cutoff setting
> then you can only select 127 discrete cutoff frequencies. If you
> overdrive the filter
> emphasis then it should turn into something close to a sinewave
> oscillator at the
> frequency of the cutoff - the steps in the frequencies become audible
> which was a
> ongoing complaint against these systems. The issue is that if you want
> to detune
> the filter oscillating frequencies by a 0.1 HZ to get some phasing
> then you are out
> of luck since the cutoff steps are too big. The same is true if you
> want to use this
> filter as an extra oscillator (something that a lot of people did on
> the big synths to
> get hammond sounds) then it doesn't tune that well,especially at the
> higher
> frequencies where the filter was used as if it were another drawbar.
>
> It doesn't mean the synth will not sound good, there are just some
> things that it
> will not be able to do.
>
> Regards, nick.
Indeed a B3 emulated by an Oberheim Matrix-1000 might be no good choice,
OTOH because of the automation, you won't have any synth with a good B3
emulation to change 20 parameters during a song, while for any
"synthetic" sound e.g. from an Oberheim Matrix-1000 you might wish to
change a lot of parameters during a song and changing filter parameters
for "synthetic" sounds 128 steps are enough.
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Mar 22 20:15:10 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 22 2010 - 20:15:10 EET