From Peter Grenader Sent Wed, Sep 15th 2004, 00:54
From Peter Grenader Sent Wed, Sep 15th 2004, 00:54
I guess it is symantics we're talking about here. Usually (excuse the liberal use of this word) when people refer to 'fat' they are speaking about the phasing that is caused by analog drift of two or more independent VCOs, however stable they may be or tightly tuned to one another. This is what I understand people are speaking about when they say 'fat'. They are not phase locked to one another, hence the drift and the 'fat'. If one was to sync them together via a sync input, they will become phase locked to one another in that the cores of each VCO are reset by the same pulse, and this is why they no longer sound as fat. Using one VCO and even million different waveshape outputs of that VCO, they are all phase locked to each other because the signal is coming from a single core which is resetting at the same time. They may not be in phase relationship to each other however - meaning each waveform may start at a different time and usually if they are out of phase relationship are are out by 90 degrees to one another. But they are of the same period - one cycle in each waveform is exactly the same duration as the other. This will not allow for fatness in the manner which I understood is to mean. You can do things to make them appear to be phasing - pulse width modulation being on of the tricks commonly used. By using a frequency divider as an audio modifier you will get more sound, more harmonics over a broader range and it will sound much fuller, but the phasing I associate with my definition of fat will not be there. If can't be - dividers are just that - they take an input and divide it by two mathematically down a series of flip flops - which works like a black jack dealer dealing to two players. In effect, one cycle goes to one output (Q), the next to the other output (Q not). So if you tap off the Q outs only you get - divide by two. Not 2.1, 2.2 or any other fraction that would in fact cause this phasing or drift. Hope this clears up what I was speaking about. Respectfully submitted, - P Matthew Ritenburg wrote: > > --- Peter Grenader <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxx-xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > >> Neither the A-110 or any other analog VCO can be >> thought of as x number of >> VCOs in unison, with X being the waveforms available >> at different ports. >> > > I totally disagree with that. Here we go in an > argument of symantics. You can create four voices > from one four wave vco, if each of the voices is on > the same note in the same octave, or, on the same note > in different octaves, and then played, they are by > dictionary definition in unison. If you mix all those > wave forms together you will have a "fatter sounding" > wave than if you used any single wave alone. > > That "unison sound" which is a convention of synthesis > is a different matter all together. As we all know > that "unison sound" fattens up the sound by variations > is phase between individual VCOs and drift. > > Sorry if my liberal use of the word unison has upset > any purists. I was just sharing with kurt the tricks > I used to get more out of a single vco. Didn't mean > to ruffle and feathers. > > Matthew >