From Kenny Balys Sent Sun, Jul 14th 2013, 21:37
From Kenny Balys Sent Sun, Jul 14th 2013, 21:37
Real actual, not made up, numbers.... Maximum Decay Times of some common A. or V.A. synths: Roland SH-101 12.5 seconds Roland SH-09 14 seconds Vermona Mono Lancet 15 seconds Arturia Minibrute 14 seconds Access Virus TI2 42 seconds Waldorf Blofeld 50 seconds Studio Electronics ATC-1 37 seconds Test patch: VCA gated, A:0 D:FULL S:0 R:0, ADSR modulates LPF cutoff 100%, LPF Freq:0, Res:60% to 100% Did not bother measuring the Doepfer ADSR as the timing on that module is pre-cambrian. With total respect and apologies for my silly numbers of yesterday, I still find the decay time on the sub-phatty unsatisfyingly short. Its perhaps my playing style, but the first thing I do on any new synth is dial up my favourite legatto patch and start popping a riff. 10s (or less) decay does not cut it for me. I wonder if this can be changed on the sub-phatty? On 13-07-14 12:16 AM, M V wrote: > I would start fact checking before you just start spewing out numbers: the Jupiter-4 decay is NOT 20 seconds, it's 10 (as stated in the manual, and observed by my own ears). I can't be bothered to look in the manuals, but I'd put money on the 101 and 09 also having 10 second decays. The MC-202 certainly has no more than that... > > And by "classic" I meant, "run of the mill", by which I mean "average", by which I take most decay times to be around 10 seconds. > > > >> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:46:46 +0000 >> From: xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx >> To: xx_xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx >> CC: xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >> Subject: Re: [AH] Moog Sub-Phatty decay time too quick? >> >> >> Oops... sorry the 101 and 09 are right around 20s (not 30s as I wrongly >> stated) >> >> >> >> On 13-07-13 11:33 PM, Kenny Balys wrote: >>> >>> SH-101, SH-09 are at least 30 seconds. ATC-1 is more like 45. Jupiter-4 >>> about 20+. Virus 30+, Vermona at least 20+, Matrix-6 20+, basically it >>> would be easier to list synths that had short decay times. >>> >>> Every one of my modular envelopes does much more. >>> >>> Not sure if any of these fall into the 'classic' category as they are >>> all pretty run of the mill synths. >>> >>> The original Mini had such short envelopes? Nasty. You just saved me a >>> lot of money :) >>> >>> It really comes out when you use the envelope to sweep the filter while >>> playing legatto. >>> >>> This is something I do all the time, so I really notice when an envelope >>> decay time is too short. >>> >>> If this only bothers me, then I guess I am out of luck with the >>> sub-phatty but I cannot think of a single new synth that has this >>> limitation. >>> >>> A phrase of 16 bars at 120 BPM takes (4/4 time) 32 seconds. This is how >>> long a decay time should be in the perfect world. Everything I now own >>> gets me there or pretty close. 10 seconds is not enough. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13-07-13 11:20 PM, M V wrote: >>>> Please name some classic monosynths that have 20 second decay times? >>>> The minimoog only had 10, which I think set that as a standard. >>>> >>>> The only one I can think of with a drastically longer time, off-hand, >>>> is a pro-1 that I had; it had ~20 seconds decay, but another one that >>>> had much less (~15?). Conversely, the former had a shorter attack, >>>> whereas the latter had a longer one... so it was some resistor >>>> difference maybe. But for most of the "common" synths, I think ~10 >>>> seconds is pretty standard. Most Roland stuff is 10 secs. or less. If >>>> that's a "nasty" limitation, I would also consider ONLY 2 oscs, 2 >>>> envs. and 1 LFO equally nasty!:P >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:06:59 +0000 >>>>> From: xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>> To: xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>>>> Subject: [AH] Moog Sub-Phatty decay time too quick? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just tried out the sub-phatty and was disappointed to see the longest >>>>> decay time on the envelope was only 10 seconds. >>>>> >>>>> This is a really nasty limitation. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, you should always be able to squeeze 20+ seconds out of >>>>> the decay. >>>>> >>>>> Am I missing something? >>>> >