From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!willday Sat Jul 6 17:36:47 PDT 1991 Article: 19210 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!willday From: willday@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Will Day) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Analog Synths Message-ID: <1991Jun28.195443.14940@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 28 Jun 91 19:54:43 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 28 I'm looking into getting an analog synth. That is, not necessarily a VCO, but the same sort of analog synthesis/filters and controls (knobs, etc). I've seen for sale in the paper the following items: Juno 106, $200 JX-3P, $275 JX-8P, $375 Matrix-6, $395 I looked at a Juno-106 a few months ago, but I don't remember exactly what it was like, except that it did have a DCO. I've played with a Jupiter 6 at a local store, and it's very impressive. I believe it is 6-note polyphonic, and bi-timbral in split or layer mode. It doesn't seem to be velocity sensitive, or aftertouch. It has knobs, sliders, and buttons to control everything, including an arpegiator, but I didn't see chorus. It also had midi ports. I would buy this, except that the store wants $550.. How do these other four synths compare to the Jupiter 6? Does the JXP mean "Jupiter" or are they called something else? Thanks, will /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |\\\\ /////\\ "Well, looks like || _ ___ | | William A. Day \\ it's University || ___\ | angerine| |day@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu. \\ of Illinois!" || \\|_|o __ | |willday@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu. \\ || /_\ \/ |_)ream | |wad41076@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu. \\ _Risky Business_|| / | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!five Sat Jul 6 17:37:09 PDT 1991 Article: 19389 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!five From: five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (skinny puppy) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analog Synths Message-ID: Date: 6 Jul 91 07:01:10 GMT References: <1991Jun28.195443.14940@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB Lines: 46 willday@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Will Day) writes: > I'm looking into getting an analog synth. That is, not necessarily > a VCO, but the same sort of analog synthesis/filters and controls > (knobs, etc). I've seen for sale in the paper the following items: > Juno 106, $200 > JX-3P, $275 > JX-8P, $375 > Matrix-6, $395 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hi Will. I'm not sure about the JX-3P, but the M6; JX-8P and Juno 106 all have DCO's. The Juno has some VERY nice sounds in it. I've got one sitting in the studio behind me. $200 US is a pretty good price for it. The JX-8P is a MUCH better/more capable machine than the 106. It's also only 6 Voices, but there are 2 real DCO's in it, unlike the 106's Single DCO with a Square wave Sub-oscillator. The Matrix 6 is probably the most capable of the 4. Probably? No. DEFINATELY the most capable. I had one for about 2 months, but had to return it for the lack of multi-timbrality that I faced at the time. (I'm looking at buying it back, as it is for sale once again). The DCO's in this machine give it a real nice shine! Imagine really good sounding REAL analog, with a little bit of twinkle in the sound. It also goes some incredible FM type sounds. If you're looking for REAL Analog, get the Jupiter 6!!! By all means! We had one of those in our band for 1 1/2 years, until our breakup. Two VCO's with Multiple waveforms, which can be turned on at the SAME TIME! And one of the VCO's can be used as a 3rd LFO!! In Unison mode, this machine can produce Bass sounds that would almost make a Minimoog owner green with envy! As to velocity/aftertouch, the M6 and 8P both have Velocity. The 8P has aftertouch. The 106 has neither, and the 3P I am not sure. Hope this helps! Five --- (skinny puppy) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64 E-mail: five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8 From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!cvl!waksman Sat Jul 6 17:37:30 PDT 1991 Article: 19398 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!cvl!waksman From: waksman@cvl.umd.edu (Adlai Waksman) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analog Synths Message-ID: <5002@cvl.umd.edu> Date: 6 Jul 91 23:42:05 GMT References: <1991Jun28.195443.14940@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Reply-To: waksman@cvl.UUCP (Adlai Waksman) Organization: Center for Automation Research, Univ. of Md. Lines: 21 >I'm not sure about the JX-3P, but the M6; JX-8P and Juno 106 all have >DCO's. The JX-3P has DCO's as well. >As to velocity/aftertouch, the M6 and 8P both have Velocity. The 8P has >aftertouch. The 106 has neither, and the 3P I am not sure. The 3P has neither. The Matrix-6 does have aftertouch (and release velocity!). >Hope this helps! > >Five -- __________________________________________________________________Adlai Waksman ...The Universe is thronged with fire and light, (waksman@cvl.umd.edu) And we but smaller suns, which, skinned, trapped and kept Enshrined in blood and precious bones, hold back the night. (Ray Bradbury) From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!jte Mon Jul 8 15:57:46 PDT 1991 Article: 19448 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!jte From: jte@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jeff Eldredge) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: revision to my last post (was Re: Analog Synths) Message-ID: <1991Jul8.185046.23851@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 8 Jul 91 18:50:46 GMT Organization: Columbia University Lines: 19 In article <1991Jul8.154804.31133@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> jte@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jeff Eldredge) writes: >In article five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (skinny puppy) writes: >> >>I'm not sure about the JX-3P, but the M6; JX-8P and Juno 106 all have >>DCO's. > >are you sure about this? you're the one with the Juno 106, but i >thought they had VCF's, like the Juno 60 (which i believe is >non-MIDI). if this is so, then there is good reason to get a Juno 106 >instead of one of the JX series. i was a bit asleep on this one (they DO indeed all have DCO's). nonetheless, i believe the Juno 106 DOES have VCF's while the JX series does not. and this makes a difference in terms of getting a classic "analog" type sound. how the MKS-80 (Super Jupiter rack) fits into this argument, i'm not sure (another DCO/VCF combination??)...... /jeff From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!bmaraldo Tue Jul 9 09:18:49 PDT 1991 Article: 19465 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!bmaraldo From: bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Its the filters (Re: Analog Synths) Message-ID: <1991Jul9.074913.6800@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Date: 9 Jul 91 07:49:13 GMT References: <1991Jun28.195443.14940@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: Unit 36 Research Lines: 53 In article five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (skinny puppy) writes: >If you're looking for REAL Analog, get the Jupiter 6!!! By all means! >In Unison mode, this machine can produce Bass sounds that would almost >make a Minimoog owner green with envy! Think of that; 12 oscillators and still not as powerful as a mini in 2 osc mode. Its in the filters, boys and girls. An oscillator is an oscillator but not all filters are made alike. Consider the SH101 with one osc - it come pretty close to a mini (Roland used a Curtis filter and some tricks). Rolands filters have been pretty weak in terms of power. I just bought a System 100 and it is really powerful yet warm and has a single VCO (without sub). This was back in the days when Roland was still fidling. They found a filter they liked (thier own design) and it attributes that clean (ooh!) but weak 'Roland sound'. The SH101 was a departure from the typical Roland filter - its more like an SCI. Korg did the same and, to my ears, Korgs and Rolands are pretty close. Yamaha had their own agenda as well and I can't say I'm a fan. At least Korgs and Rolands have a crispness to them - a 'sheen'. Yamaha analogue gear is, well, boring. Now, Moog blows them all and everyone away with that powerful filter they have. I have run Roland poly gear through the Moog filter (minimoog) and I can add quite a punch to that sheen. Moog mucked about as well (the minimoog filters were discrete) and alternatives sought. Nothing is like a minimoog filter. SCI kept to their Curtis guns and thats a good thing. The Curtis VCFs give a good (ie. musical) balance between power and cleanliness. I prefer the original SSM design. The SSM chip set had more power but not as much warmth as the Curtis counterpart - but the Curtis chips proved more reliable (tell that to my 'never died' rev2). Anyway, SCI products have always been 'classic' and it really is the filters. Obie. I dunno. I am not really an Obie kinda guy. They are hardly ever for sale new or used (not around here). Even back in the '80s they were hard to find, 'Too expensive' the store owners always said. Every time one came up for sale used it had a huge price tag on it. Never bit. I have a Matrix 1000, which I like. I have played with a Matrix 6, Matrix 12, OBX and OBXa. They were all pretty neat. Sounded different then SCI stuff. I haven't a clue as to what the filter exactly are but they certainly do sound warmer than Curtis (are they curtis?), if warmth is what you want. Brett L Maraldo Plexus Productions 'Where analogue meets digital... and wins!' ps. My analogue-to-digital ratio is now 6:1 - very appropriate! :-) -- -------- Unit 36 Research --------- "Alien Technology Today" bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpnmdla!hpsad!smithj Tue Jul 9 15:31:05 PDT 1991 Article: 19484 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpnmdla!hpsad!smithj From: smithj@hpsad.HP.COM (Jim Smith) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: revision to my last post (was Re: Analog Synths) Message-ID: <1680100@hpsad.HP.COM> Date: 9 Jul 91 16:12:10 GMT References: <1991Jul8.185046.23851@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA Lines: 6 The JX-3P has DCO's and VCF's. The VCF's all track very nicely, too. I think the JX-3P has a very nice sound, albeit a simple architecture... - Jim Smith smithj@hpsad.hp.com Yupatupata da yupadupa chickida, Icktang icktang, Ickitack tangdow, Rickitickatar ticka chingtar da. From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!THING.BANYAN.COM!RUSS=PARKER Thu Jul 11 21:38:28 PDT 1991 Article: 19629 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!THING.BANYAN.COM!RUSS=PARKER From: RUSS=PARKER%Washington%Banyan@THING.BANYAN.COM Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: re: revision to my last post (was Re: Analog Synths) Message-ID: <9107111728.AA03345@banyan.com> Date: 9 Jul 91 14:53:29 GMT Sender: "Redistribution of rec.music.synth" Lines: 25 Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Comments: To: SYNTH-L%AUVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU In article <1991Jul8.154804.31133@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> jte@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Jeff Eldredge) writes: >i was a bit asleep on this one (they DO indeed all have DCO's). >nonetheless, i believe the Juno 106 DOES have VCF's while the JX >series does not. and this makes a difference in terms of getting a >classic "analog" type sound. how the MKS-80 (Super Jupiter rack) fits >into this argument, i'm not sure (another DCO/VCF combination??)...... The MKS-80 Super Jupiter is a true VCO/VCF/VCA synthesizer. It is not a digital synth with analog filters like the other MKS systems, the JXs, and the Junos. Russ My Super Jupiter is my favorite toy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russ Parker | Mail: rdp@Banyan.Com | Old computers Sr. Systems Engineer | CompuServe: 76336,2047 | never die on Banyan Systems, Inc. | 11250 Waples Mill Road, Suite 190 | their own. Federal Region Office | Fairfax, VA 22030 | They need to (703) 691-0220 | "Networking. Without Limits." | be killed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!drb Fri Jul 12 17:18:12 PDT 1991 Article: 19656 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!brunix!cs.brown.edu!drb From: drb@cs.brown.edu (Dan Bornstein) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analog Synths Message-ID: <80647@brunix.UUCP> Date: 12 Jul 91 23:48:36 GMT References: <1991Jul7.203556.20432@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@brunix.UUCP Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept. Lines: 14 In article , five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (skinny puppy) writes: >The JX3P and the Juno106 are the only 2 out of the 4 that have >knobs/sliders. The JX-8P has an external controller, I believe called >the >PG-300 that you can pick up for a relatively low price, somewhere in the >world. Actually, the knobs and sliders on a JX3P also come from an "external controller", the PG-200. For those who have a JX3P but not the PG-200, Roland was kind enough to stencil in a picture of the programmer for broke little kids (like me) to drool on until they could cough up enough dough to buy one. -dan drb@cs.brown.edu From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!five Fri Jul 12 17:18:34 PDT 1991 Article: 19655 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!five From: five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (skinny puppy) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analog Synths Message-ID: Date: 12 Jul 91 21:45:43 GMT References: <1991Jul7.203556.20432@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB Lines: 23 > > What about controls? I get the impression that of the four, the > Juno-106 is the only one with knobs/sliders, and that the JX and > Matrix just have the now standard small LCD. I have a D-10, and it's > rather difficult to program with that little LCD. I'd like to get > something that I can tweak easily, and try to learn just how > subtractive synthesis works, so at least I have an idea of what I'm > doing when I change a parameter on the D-10. > > will > The JX3P and the Juno106 are the only 2 out of the 4 that have knobs/sliders. The JX-8P has an external controller, I believe called the PG-300 that you can pick up for a relatively low price, somewhere in the world. Five > /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// --- (skinny puppy) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64 E-mail: five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8 From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!vacs.uwp.edu!datta Mon Jul 22 09:42:38 PDT 1991 Article: 19806 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!vacs.uwp.edu!datta From: datta@vacs.uwp.edu (David Datta) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Analogue Synths (why they sound the way they do) Message-ID: <14166@uwm.edu> Date: 19 Jul 91 00:59:23 GMT References: <1232@rosie.NeXT.COM> Sender: news@uwm.edu Reply-To: datta@vacs.uwp.edu (David Datta) Organization: University of Wisconsin - Parkside Lines: 28 (Forwarded message from a friend who doesn't have e-mail access, reply to me and I will forward comments to him.) Having worked with quite a few digital synths over the last several years, and having recently gone back to analogue I have to agree that filtering does play a large role in creation of "that analogue sound". However, it is my firm belief that the major contributor to the warm fat rich quality of the sound is due to analogue oscillators being employed in analog synths. A digital oscillator takes a number of "snapshots" of a wave X number of times per second, this produces jagged waves with varying degrees of resolution. An analogue oscillator, on the other hand, produces a perfectly smooth wave. Playing a single oscillator with a single key would not make this difference apparent. However, with digital synths, two-layered oscillators or more than one note played at a time reveals transient harmonics that are not present in the analogue realm. Sadly, analogue oscillators are very expensive compared to digital and that's why they are not being used now. Hope this helps. - the prodigal son End forwarded message. -- -Dave datta@vacs.uwp.edu. Life is what is going on while you wait for life to happen. From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!wupost!uunet!wri!news Mon Jul 22 09:45:24 PDT 1991 Article: 19898 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!wupost!uunet!wri!news From: Chris Rogers Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analogue Synths (why they sound the way they do) Message-ID: <1991Jul22.160611.10031@wri.com> Date: 22 Jul 91 16:06:11 GMT References: <1232@rosie.NeXT.COM> <14166@uwm.edu> <1991Jul20.011220.1@cc.helsinki.fi> Sender: news@wri.com Reply-To: kevinr@wri.com Organization: Wolfram Research Inc. Lines: 45 >> Having worked with quite a few digital synths over the last several >> years, and having recently gone back to analogue I have to agree that >> filtering does play a large role in creation of "that analogue sound". >> However, it is my firm belief that the major contributor to the warm >> fat rich quality of the sound is due to analogue oscillators being >> employed in analog synths. >> >> A digital oscillator takes a number of "snapshots" of a wave X number >> of times per second, this produces jagged waves with varying degrees of >> resolution. An analogue oscillator, on the other hand, produces a >> perfectly smooth wave. Playing a single oscillator with a single key >> would not make this difference apparent. However, with digital synths, >> two-layered oscillators or more than one note played at a time reveals >> transient harmonics that are not present in the analogue realm. >> > >Aha! This seems to be the same thing I wrote about. Digital synths >usually don't have very large wavetables (512 samples/waveform or so?). >After making wavetables 8192 (or more) samples long in Csound software >synthesis proram, the results were definitely more "analog" sounding >than I would expect from a normal digital synth. > This talk of jagged waves must really be taken in the light of the Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, which states that one need only sample at twice the frequency as the highest harmonic contained in the source wave. All this jaggedness (on the time axis) is filtered out with lowpass filters anyway. Jaggendness on the amplitude axis is due to number of bits of sampling (8, 12, 16) and limits the dynamic range and signal/noise of the sampled wave. An analog oscillator does NOT produce a perfectly smooth wave. Analog circuitry is also limited in frequency response and SNR the same as digital circuitry is. Luckily, there is more flexibility in digital design, since one can increase these design parameters by higher sampling rates and more sampling bits. Also, this talk about analog and digital filtering is very interesting. A point should be made that digital filters can be designed to approximate to any degree desired, the amplitude and phase response of ANY analog filter. The current digital filters in synths are probably not well designed to approximate exact phase and amplitude characteristics of typical analog synth filters. But they could be made more "analog like" in their sound and freq. response if the designers wanted to. -Chris From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!biostr.washington.edu!kraig Tue Jul 23 17:12:11 PDT 1991 Article: 19947 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!biostr.washington.edu!kraig From: kraig@biostr.washington.edu (Kraig Eno) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analogue Synths (why they sound the way they do) Message-ID: <1991Jul23.154211.5715@biostr.washington.edu> Date: 23 Jul 91 22:58:15 GMT Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu (News) Organization: Univ. of Washington Lines: 36 References: <1232@rosie.NeXT.COM> <14166@uwm.edu> <1991Jul20.011220.1@cc.helsinki.fi> <1991Jul22.160611.10031@wri.com> In article <1991Jul22.160611.10031@wri.com> Chris Rogers writes: > This talk of jagged waves must really be taken in the light of the > Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem, which states that one need only > sample at twice the frequency as the highest harmonic contained in > the source wave. All this jaggedness (on the time axis) is filtered > out with lowpass filters anyway. I believe the theorem is a useful tool in evaluating sample players and CD's, but you can't recreate a good analog synthesizer just by sampling its output wave. To get all the characteristics (like timbre changes and dynamics over time, modified by controller input), you would have to use a digital equivalent of the analog sound creation process. Anything else would by definition be an approximation, and that's why an "analog XXX" patch on any given digital board never quite sounds like we think it should. It may be useful, but it isn't the SAME. The filters only affect the sound coming out AFTER the D/A process, and in the case of trying to ape an analog synth, the basic waveform being fed to the DAC (before any filtering) is the result of a multitude of discrete operations on discrete data -- wavetables. The samples COULD be produced at any arbitrary resolution, but in practice the tables tend to be quite small and there is jaggedness in the process. The stairsteps can be filtered out but the timbre still isn't accurate. If we were really trying to accurately reproduce the sound of a typical analog synth, we'd have to use much higher sampling rates and take a lot more care with the manipulations than are the norm today. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE digital synthesis. It gives us processes that would be impossible to achieve with analog electronics -- the problem is when manufacturers try to make their latest digital doodad "sound like" some old analog synth. However usable the results, it's never going to be the same as the original unless it's a design goal going in -- but that would be pointless, so no one really tries. Kraig Eno, kraig@biostr.washington.edu "Problems generate new knowledge" - M. Usui From ucivax!jarthur!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!an056 Thu Aug 8 17:50:59 PDT 1991 Article: 1807 of rec.music.industrial Path: ucivax!jarthur!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!an056 From: an056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Gregory Winer) Newsgroups: rec.music.industrial Subject: Re: ... Message-ID: <9108080347.AA20516@cwns2.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 8 Aug 91 03:47:47 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: an056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu Lines: 40 Subject: how's a Juno-106 for industrial sounds? "...considering the purchase of an analog synth for the last couple of months, and am wondering if i should jump on this one? what price should one of these go for? i want something that's going to be able to produce some really greasy, obscene noise. is a 106 powerful enough to do anything interesting?" I've got a 106. They're pretty nice for an older synth with decent MIDI implementation. I paid $400 for mine and it was brand new (Seriously! The music store had one still in the box buried in the back of one of their warehouses which they had forgot about!!) I DROOLED over these babies for quite a while when I was going through my "Acid-House" phase. The resonance filter(s) are pretty sweet sounding and I love the way you can use pitch-bend to modulate it. Anyway, in terms of "grit", the Juno isn't really that hot. When you go for really gritty sounds though, you'll probably want a machine with two independantly controllable oscillators otherwise everything will start to sound the same. The Juno really excells in terms of bass sounds though. I haven't found anything short of a mini-moog and a fucked-up TR808 that is as good. I use it primarily for bass lines now. It's got two banks of patches that are layed out like this: A: 11-18 B: 11-18 21-28 21-28 31-38 31-38 all the way up to 81-88 A and B I must say that I wouldn't trade mine for the world. -- G r e g o r y W i n e r If ya don't like it you can suck N a t i o n o f mah BASS LINE, jerk! T e f l o n S o u l s "Hold your world together" From ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!tukki.jyu.fi!prma Thu Aug 22 14:49:31 PDT 1991 Article: 20929 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!tukki.jyu.fi!prma From: prma@jyu.fi (Petri R M Alanko) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Opinions on old Analog Message-ID: <1991Aug22.184238.20863@jyu.fi> Date: 22 Aug 91 18:42:38 GMT References: <9108221414.AA07780@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL> <1991Aug22.193206.1@cc.helsinki.fi> Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland Lines: 44 In article <1991Aug22.193206.1@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <9108221414.AA07780@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL>, yuen@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (D. Yuen) writes: >> Hey Netfolk, anybody out there with opinions or viewpoints on these >> aging beasties: >> ARP OMNI >> KORG POLYSIX >> ...STUFF DELETED... >Well, I just checked the POLYSIX at a local keyboard store. Nothing >special, IMHO. I can get the same sounds (but without noise and with >MIDI) on my Cheetah MS6 module. > >Actually, I don't understand old Analog gear collectors. I can't figure >out what is so special about most of the old stuff (there are exeptions, >of course). Most have just 2 oscillators, a LFO and resonant lowpass >filters. They all sound about the same to me. ...STUFF DELETED... Well...I personally grew up with "ancient" "dinosaurs", analog - yet even monophonic - synths and perhaps that is reason enough to be a collector...I'm sort of living my childhood again. Besides, as an ex-Cheetah owner (yes, I finally managed to sell it!) I was always annoyed because of its "thin" sound. 24 db/oct filter, but still: thin. Buzzy. My Roland system 100 (by the way: in MY system there are 14 oscillators + 6 lfo's. An in addition to that you should see MY filter bank and MY amplifiers and boy, MY envelope bank looks really gorgeous ;) ) Anyway (back to reality), why to use such an anti-roadable beast? Sound. I spent nights trying to copy the sound of my system to Cheetah. Or Matrix-6R. I didn't manage: too many filters in parallel/serial - just for example. Of course, normal osc1/osc2 - vcf - vca - env -patches could be easily programmed, but what if you wanted to make heavy shit using more modules????? Of course, people do use non-modular stuff...in my current live-setup I have an SH-101. Beast (yes. beast) for basses. If you plug its gate output to clock input and tweak the filter modulation slider. (Remember to select a s/h wave). My oh my - we're talking about a really moving sound. By the way - the whole shit is MIDIfied... I hope you got the idea: sound. The basis of music is SOUND. That's what I'm talking about. Now...where are my tuning potentiometers?????? ;) - prma From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!sgigate!odin!roadkill.esd.sgi.com!bryanj Fri Oct 25 16:38:49 PDT 1991 Article: 23447 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!sgigate!odin!roadkill.esd.sgi.com!bryanj From: bryanj@roadkill.esd.sgi.com (Gints Klimanis) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Oberheim Matrix 1000 Impressions? Message-ID: <1991Oct25.063823.7278@odin.corp.sgi.com> Date: 25 Oct 91 06:38:23 GMT References: <1991Oct24.193949.15670@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News) Reply-To: bryanj@roadkill.esd.sgi.com (Gints Klimanis) Organization: sgi Lines: 49 In article <1991Oct24.193949.15670@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, rost@rgb.dec.com (My name is Brian Rost) writes: |> |> In article , five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (skinny puppy) writes... |> >nsj@Apple.COM (Neal Johnson) writes: |> > |> >If you're looking for Analog, stop looking at the Oberheim Matrix 1000. |> >This machine produces some WONDERFUL sounds, BUT, it's very thin sounding |> >compared to real analog gear. (The 1000 uses DCOs as opposed to VCOs). |> > |> |> Quick question: when is a DCO *not* an analog oscillator? On some synths (like |> a CZ-101) it's pretty obvious, but weren't the early DCOs used on boxes like |> the Juno 6 analog oscillators under digital (vs. control voltage This group has beat this issue to death, and most of those posts converge on the analog filter as the source of the beef. But, then, why do these synths sound fat when the filter is wide open? A better reason that the Matrix 6/1000 sounds cleaner than its older brothers is that is is a low distortion synth. Most of the older puppies output waves packed with harmonic and non-harmonic distortion. Ever wonder why synths with the same filter chip still sound different, or why single oscillator voices on different synths sound different, with the same filter wide open? Why do the lowest notes on the keyboard (whose output would be unscathed by an open low pass filter) still have distinct personalities from manufacturer to manufacturer? The DCO question has to do with pitch stability. The tuning anamolies inherent in the circuitry of synths with oscillators whose pitch wavers tend to change over time and stretch chord tunings. So why does the Matrix-6/R have a tune function on the front panel? The pitch of one or both of the oscillators can be minutely stretched over the keyboard range with a five point curve called a tracking generator. Even the Matrix 6 DCO's drift and beg for recalibration every half hour or s o. I would speculate that the beef has more to do with distortion than with filters or pitch stability. There is grunge caused by the sample&hold components in the Matrix6/1000. Just make the LFO's modulate the pitch of the oscillators at a fast rate or large depth. Those LFO's are generated by the microprocessor, as are the envelope and ramp generators. After cranking out the better 100 of the 1000 factory presets in this unit (always one to inflate my ego), these level quantization anamolies are easy to pick out. Mike Papa of Oberheim once told me that the pitch stability of the Matrix-1000 was improved over that of the Matrix6. Note the absence of the TUNE button on the 1000 front panel (or the tune function anywhere inside) Also, the LFO grunge has been improved. Ancient-sounding lead patches are produced when all six voices are stacked in unison mode, with one of the two oscillators disabled. The twelve oscillator stack is generally a little too heavy. If you can convince your Oberheim/Gibson dude to let you at the patches for the Matrix-1400 (the 1400 patch expanded version of the 1000 that died before it lived), you will hear quite a different beast. From ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!ric Mon Oct 28 13:17:25 PST 1991 Article: 23512 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!ric From: ric@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (five) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Oberheim Matrix 1000 Impressions? Message-ID: Date: 27 Oct 91 09:10:33 GMT References: <1991Oct24.193949.15670@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Organization: system 6626 BBS, Winnipeg MB Lines: 41 rost@rgb.dec.com (My name is Brian Rost) writes: > > In article , five@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (skinn > >nsj@Apple.COM (Neal Johnson) writes: > > > >If you're looking for Analog, stop looking at the Oberheim Matrix 1000. > >This machine produces some WONDERFUL sounds, BUT, it's very thin sounding > >compared to real analog gear. (The 1000 uses DCOs as opposed to VCOs). > > > > Quick question: when is a DCO *not* an analog oscillator? On some synths (li > a CZ-101) it's pretty obvious, but weren't the early DCOs used on boxes like I can't remember whether the Juno-6 used DCO's or VCO's, but there is a large difference. Digitally Controlled Oscillators use a table of numbers to generate a waveform. Voltage Controlled Oscillators use a Voltage to generate a waveform. With a DCO, the only variation in the waveform that you're going to get is by modulation. With a VCO, the variations that you get, not only include your modulators, but temperature changes, and many other random fluctuations in the voltage level at the oscillator, that cause the sound to be more 'random' or warm. DCOs, to to their nature, can not sound like this. Of course you could pop a random number generator in there, and get some random poop happening every now and then, but this doesn't work. 'Analog' synths, that use DCOs; VCFs; VCAs etc etc (as long as the oscillator is Digital) are called Hybrid synths. Five (Pardon the name change. Having trouble with my other account). > the Juno 6 analog oscillators under digital (vs. control voltage) control? N --- (five) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64 E-mail: ric@sys6626.bison.mb.ca system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8 From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!yfn.ysu.edu!ysub!psuvm!auvm!TWINPEAKS.GSFC.NASA.GOV!XRJDM Tue Nov 5 13:13:12 PST 1991 Article: 23808 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!yfn.ysu.edu!ysub!psuvm!auvm!TWINPEAKS.GSFC.NASA.GOV!XRJDM From: xrjdm@TWINPEAKS.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Joseph D. McMahon) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analog questions/analog answers Message-ID: <9111051507.AA01055@twinpeaks> Date: 5 Nov 91 15:07:43 GMT Sender: "Redistribution of rec.music.synth" Lines: 66 Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Comments: To: SYNTH-L@auvm.american.edu In-Reply-To: <9111051230.AA00982@twinpeaks>; from "SYNTH-L@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU" at Nov 4, 91 11:39 pm > I have several neophyte questions regarding analog synths. OK, let me get my false teeth and cane... :-) > First off, when I think analog synth, I immediately think of William Carlos' > _Switched_On_Bach_ (Columbia, 197X). Is this fair? Obviously, that was an > album featuring a whole bunch of Moog-generated sounds. Is this the > definitive "kind" or "genre" of sound you're going to get out of your > typical analog synth? > In the sense that it is generated by subtractive synthesis techniques, yes. However, a lot of the sound is as much orchestration as it is synthesis - Carlos is one hell of an orchestrator. However, there is far more to it than that. Try to get hold of some of the other older materials; stuff from the Columbia-Princeton Electronic Music Center, the pre-MIDI Tangerine Dream, the instrumental cuts on Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon". > I've heard a lot of analog tech-heads talk about machines that are basically > monophonic--or polyphonic, but only to a limited degree (i.e. max of 4 > voices)--and I was wondering what is so amazingly special about this. :) I > mean, if a digital board can have 32-note polyphony, why can't an analog > board? Well, it can, if you want to pay for it. See, the big difference is that with digital synths, you can easily multiplex hardware. A single CPU can do the calculations to drive an armload of logical oscillators. With analog, if you want it, you gotta have hardware to do it, so analog chip counts (chips? transistors!) are much, much higher. Also, digital circuits are usually driven by very stable crystal oscillators, which are (relatively) insensitive to temperature, humidity, etc. Analog boards have to be tuned and need stabilization circuits to keep them in tune. What you get is a sound which has its own subtle colorations and flavor, unlike a digital synth. Part of what's good about digital synths is that they are very much identical. If I play a piece on my DX-7, it's going to sound the same as it does on yours (if we use the same patches). In early recordings of electronic music (the more abstract stuff), it was actually pretty easy to recognize a given studio by how it sounded. Sort of like being able to identify a violin maker by the tone. That's what you get, a more "lively" and less predictable sound. > If you run an analog board through a digital effects unit, do you lose its > "character"? Well, if you run the sound of a guitar through a digital processor, do you lose its character? Depends on how you define that. If you mean, "do you lose the more organic basic nature of the sound", I'd say no. I suppose there are some Echoplex die-hards out there, though. :-) > > As regards that "character", can't you approximate an analog synth's inherent > variations in its VCO's with, for example, a digital synth with vector > synthesis? > > p.s. if "variation" in an analog synth's timbre is its distinguishing > characteristic and the feature which makes it holy to some people :), why do > those same people still not see digital + some-kind-of-waveshaping-or-vector > synthesis as a viable alternative? Digital obviously *must* have evolved for > *some* reason.... Digital evolved because of the dropping prices of digital vs. analog circuits, and because this allowed musicians to get something that they wanted for a long time: reproducible settings! I did a piece on Micromoog about 10 years back that now only exists as a recording. The settings on the Micro that I used are gone. With a digital synth, I could have saved the settings, stored them, and then recorded the performance via MIDI and reproduced it again on the equipment whenever I wanted. But since this was analog, it's gone. I might be able to come close again, but I couldn't duplicate the patches. With analog, there's no MIDI, and no real way to store this information. (I'm disregarding hybrids for the moment; we're talking old Moog modulars and ARP 2600's here). From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!metlay Thu Nov 7 12:12:22 PST 1991 Article: 23866 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!metlay From: metlay+@cs.cmu.edu (Mike Metlay) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analog questions Summary: Analog answers! Message-ID: <1991Nov06.235321.159472@cs.cmu.edu> Date: 6 Nov 91 23:53:21 GMT References: <15457.2915da2f@amherst.edu> Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon Lines: 83 Nntp-Posting-Host: organ.music.cs.cmu.edu In article <15457.2915da2f@amherst.edu> ljnelson@amherst.edu writes: >I have several neophyte questions regarding analog synths. Great! I have some neophyte answers for you. |-> >I'm pretty clear on digital synths, FM synthesis, etc., but I want to learn a >lot more about the analog side of things. Hmm. Can you explain FM to me if I explain analog to you? The most I can get out of Dean Swan is "But it's SIMPLE, you moron!" Well, not really. >First off, when I think analog synth, I immediately think of William Carlos' >_Switched_On_Bach_ (Columbia, 197X). Is this fair? Obviously, that was an >album featuring a whole bunch of Moog-generated sounds. Is this the definitive >"kind" or "genre" of sound you're going to get out of your typical analog >synth? Eek, kind of an interesting start. OK, first of all, let me be the first to point out that it's WALTER Carlos, not William, and that he is nowadays WENDY Carlos, having had a sex change (that should be a FAQ on this group). His Switched-On Bach was a seminal record in the early exposure of the public to the analog synthesizer, but I'd hardly lump all analog sounds into that boat. Analog is capable of a vast range of sonorities, of which Carlos tapped only a small bit. >Or is it even fair to assume that such a "typical" beast exists? No, it isn't. If I claimed that all sample players were alike, all you young whelps would fasten your sharp little teeth in my ankles. >I've heard a lot of analog tech-heads talk about machines that are basically >monophonic--or polyphonic, but only to a limited degree (i.e. max of 4 >voices)--and I was wondering what is so amazingly special about this. :) I >mean, if a digital board can have 32-note polyphony, why can't an analog board? >(Told you these were neophyte questions.) A perfectly reasonable one, nevertheless. Analog voices generally require discrete chips for oscillators, filters, etc, and don't use LSI technology. You're limited to a small number of voices because the hardware for a lot of them would weigh a ton and generate a lot of heat. Ask any Polymoog owner. >If you run an analog board through a digital effects unit, do you lose its >"character"? Nope. >As regards that "character", can't you approximate an analog synth's inherent >variations in its VCO's with, for example, a digital synth with vector >synthesis? People have tried, but I've never been that convinced of the results. The Roland D-70 does a halfdecent job of it, sort of. >Finally, what companies besides Oberheim are still making analog synths (oh >yeah, and PPG of course--thanks, Captain :)) today, and what if anything has >improved in 15 years? Today's analog synths have MIDI, which improves interfaceability. They also have more stable oscillators and better tuning routines, so they don't drift all over the place. Cheetah makes an analog synth, along the lines of the MAtrix-1000. But there aren't many others, except the modular companies like Serge.... >p.s. if "variation" in an analog synth's timbre is its distinguishing >characteristic and the feature which makes it holy to some people :), why do >those same people still not see digital + some-kind-of-waveshaping-or-vector >synthesis as a viable alternative? Digital obviously *must* have evolved for >*some* reason.... Nobody in their right mind claims that "variation" is the only hallmark of analog synthesis sounding the way it does. The chips and the interaction between them produces sounds that cannot be duplicated (yet, admittedly) in the digital domain. You can't make anything sound quite like a MINImoog because nothing is WIRED like a Mini. Digital evolved to give consumers more for less, but "more" is not necessarily "better." -- metlay | Synthesizers exist, despite sampling fads, the leader of the gang, er, Team| to create sounds that don't exist on Earth. | After all, elephants can be photographed, metlay@organ.music.cs.cmu.edu | but a dragon can only be painted.... From ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL!JROSSI Thu Nov 7 12:19:33 PST 1991 Article: 23874 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL!JROSSI From: JROSSI@EAGLE.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Analog Questions Message-ID: <9111070253.AA23659@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 5 Nov 91 17:16:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 49 The main reason why digital synths have mondo-polyphony is because it is cheap to do it, and it doesn't occupy much real estate. Take the DX-7 for example. Since the TX-7 has an identical voice structure, it seems apparent that the whole 16 Voice 6-OP FM hardware fits on a card less than 10" square. Contrast that with the size of the main Xpander circuit card which takes up about 30" by 12" to accomplish its 6 voices. Also, since the Xpander is a digitally controlled analog synth, it is very highly integrated when compared to, say, the old Oberheim 4-voice. Since the Xpander uses a computer to generate some of its control, it makes its guts much less expansive. Unfortunately, when you are talking about true analog synths (with VCOs) you are generally necessitating the incorporation of at least VCO, VCF, and VCA chips. Since these functions currently come in only discrete packages (although Curtis does make an integrated DCO, VCF, VCA chip which Oberheim uses at least in the Matrix-1000), you have 3 chips and the support circuitry necessary for a voice for every voice. Obviously, you need a microprocessor to control the voices and, perhaps, to generat envlopes and LFO control voltages. By the time you have added it all up, you have a good size hardware investment plus whatever ergonomic packaging is necessary such that the synth becomes both large and expensive. Another reason for the lack of polyphony in analog synths is that you really don't nead it. Sure, you might agree that having more than 6 analog voices available at once for one sound might be a lot, but wonder about the multitimbral considerations and wouldn't 24 be a lot better. As it turns out this is probably not the case. A few analog voices go a long way. In today's studio, I don't think people take a lot of time to use analog synths to mimic sounds where samplers are obviously called for. Similarly, digital synths (while usually more wimpy) can produce enough interesting textures to enable them to be used in a lot of other situations somebody might have been inspired to use an analog synth 20 years ago. What this leaves is that set of sounds for which only an analog synth will do. Remarkably, I have not had a problem filling my analog need with just one solitary Xpander. In fact, if not used in a judicious manner, too many analog sounds can turn a mix to mud rather quickly. I have found that I seldom use any of my quasi-anlog equipment (MKS-50, EX-8000) so I have sold them because my Matrix 6R, gives me more than enough DCO voicing by itself. On the other hand, I am picking up a MicroWave because it has an entirely different character than any other synth I have ever heard. It is possible, after the metlay demonstration, that I will probably not worry too much about the filters, the digital part of the uW, sounds quite good on its own using only the wavetables. So, I guess what I am saying is that people dont need more than 8 or so analog voices and even less if multi-timbral considerations are not taken into account. In a word, EXPENSE. Not only would there be only a very limited niche for a many-voiced analog synth, it would be incredibly expensive and bulky as well. John 3 From ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!utzoo!telly!problem!intacc!zerobeat Fri Nov 8 14:59:26 PST 1991 Article: 23936 of rec.music.synth Path: ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!utzoo!telly!problem!intacc!zerobeat From: zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) Newsgroups: rec.music.synth Subject: Re: Oberheim Matrix 1000 Impressions? Message-ID: <1991Nov7.073202.957@intacc.uucp> Date: 7 Nov 91 07:32:02 GMT Organization: Inter/Access Artists' Centre Toronto Lines: 47 In article ric@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (five) writes: > >Digitally Controlled Oscillators use a table of numbers to generate a >Awaveform. Nope. Not quite. The key word here is 'controlled'. A DCO is (or has always been) an analog oscillator under digital control. The fact that it is under digital control has nothing to do with the sound quality. However, in the early 80's when digital control of analog circuits became feasible, those analog circuits tended to be of a thinner quality generally than the Minimoogs and Prophets of yesterdecade. A Digital Oscillator is of course a digital oscillator. On modern digital synths the word 'digital' is generally deleted and they just call them 'oscillators' since every iota of the machine is digital anyway. >Voltage Controlled Oscillators use a Voltage to generate a waveform. > Well yes that is true, but you may be confused as to what the word 'Voltage' refers to in VCO. Yes an analog oscillator is just an ac voltage too, but it is in turn Controlled by an analog Voltage whether it be a keyboard,lfo, envelope, or audiorate voltage etc. >With a DCO, the only variation in the waveform that you're going to get >is by modulation. > So therefore it follows that a DCO can 'suffer' from all the things that a VCO can, although the more modern DCO is built more steadily with less drift. (read below paragraph) >With a VCO, the variations that you get, not only include your >modulators, but temperature changes, and many other random fluctuations >in the voltage level at the oscillator, that cause the sound to be more >'random' or warm. DCOs, to to their nature, can not sound like this. Of >course you could pop a random number generator in there, and get some >random poop happening every now and then, but this doesn't work. > By now you (the reader of this) should know that the above statement about DCOs is incorrect. ferenc