Q141, Oscillator aid

[Putte]

I´d like some opinions on and shared experiences from the Q141. Except for the few extra features, is it just a help for the lazy ones?
According to the dotcom homepage, the Q141 should be placed to the right side of the Q106. Can´t the Q141 serve more than one oscillator?

[bwhittington]

I consider that one a waste of space, at least in the context of my own system. The soft sync feature is an invaluable addition at least a few of your oscillators, though, and the Q141 is the simplest way to add that. You do have these two other options to consider to add the feature:

Soft sync mod:
viewtopic.php?t=6918

Bryan B's wonderful Triple Soft Sync module:
viewtopic.php?t=25853

If you don't want to hack your panels and since Bryan B's module is not currently in production, you could also add make your own with a blank panel. Not nearly as pretty as the TSS, but it was a brilliant idea for going about it.

The Q141 serves just one oscillator and is hard-wired from the back. I'd love to hear from someone who really makes use of the waveform selector and attenuator bit. I just don't really get it. Seems like an independent attenuator might have been a more useful feature to a system. But would I pay $58 a pop to add soft sync to a couple of my oscillators if I had no other way to do so (and space wasn't a major issue)? Absolutely.

Cheers,
Brian

[doctorvague]

I have 6 dotcom oscillators and have 2 141's, mostly for variable soft sync, and occasionally I use the waveform selector in my improvs. If space is an issue, go for the soft sync mod Brian linked. If not, a couple of these are nice to have. I personally don't need 6 of them though. In any case, soft sync is a must- it's one of the coolest features of the dotcom oscillator IMO. It sounds like Bryan's add-on might have been a good fit for you. Is he for sure completely sold out of those?

[Christopher W.]

I went out on a limb and bought one with my first batch of oscillators, but to be frank I usually forget to use it. The soft sync is nice, but it's subtle. If that's what you're looking for one or two might be worth a punt, but it's not something I would buy a second time.

Edit: I just realized I typed almost the exact same thing in the link posted by Brian.

[doctorvague]

... The soft sync is nice, but it's subtle. ...

Say what?
Our mileage definitely differs!
I've got a video where I use it quite a bit (not really a demo though) but I can't remember which vid it is.
I often use both of mine cross-sync'd to each other and dialed in to different sweet spots. You can get it where sometimes they lock, sometimes not and sometimes they'll 'search and lock' which is quite interesting and almost portamento-like at times. The only thing I've heard close in the modular world is the Doepfer PLL module which is quite a strange beast indeed.
EDIT- I wanted to add that where this trick really shines is when each osc is playing a different but realted melody. Not so interesting in unison, for obvious reasons I guess. When the oscillators are arguing about who's going to play what note and who's going to sync to who is when things get interesting. Not to anthropomorphize my modular...

[Christopher W.]

Your post has inspired me to give the module another go today.

[bwhittington]

... The soft sync is nice, but it's subtle. ...

Say what?

I've got to agree with that. Subtle is not a word I would have picked to describe the effect. You might give that one just a little bit more time to click, Christopher. You may realize you have an unexplored new frontier within your synth. To me, it is one of the coolest things about the Q106. Perhaps it's time for another round of soft sync videos.

Cheers,
Brian

[doctorvague]

Perhaps it's time for another round of soft sync videos.

Cheers,
Brian

You go first

[doctorvague]

I'm not sure why, but I've found through experience I often find 2 sweet spots for the soft sync knob in any given patch, one around 10:00 and one around 2:00 (like airlines, times are approximate). I rarely use it turned all the way up. The knob and variability is where the magic is, which is the major difference in use between soft and hard sync, at least with this osc design.

[bwhittington]

Perhaps it's time for another round of soft sync videos.

Cheers,
Brian

You go first

When my TSS-1 panel arrives (thanks BryanB!), I might just do that!

[EDIT: Whoopsie, edited by mistake]

[kindredlost]

If I were to go full out on the Q106 auxiliary modules, I'd definitely go for the TSS from BryanB (or make one) instead of the Q141, unless you only have one Q106. To find out about the soft sync, do the Linear Freq to Soft Sync modification first. It is entirely reversible and only takes a minute or so to affect. Once you decide you like soft sync (or not) then it will be evident how much you want to invest in a secondary module.

Sort of OT but to me the Q161 is more useful than the Q141. The Q161 osc mixer is really just a Q112 4-channel mixer in disguise and the Q112 is actually a little cheaper. The difference is a bundle of patch cords on the outside verses wired from behind and the neat front panel of the Q161.

I agree with BWhittington about the Q141. Not essential unless you have no other way to make soft sync work on the Q106. If you have more than one Q106 then BryanB's TSS is quite handy. I have a couple of them and love 'em.

BTW, here is another soft sync verses hard sync video. The soft sync in this demo is done with the Linear Frequency -to- Soft Sync modification on the Q106.

[video][/video]

[nerdware]

The TSS option depends on 2 things: #1 a panel run and #2 some basic DIY skills. Until there's another run, the TSS will only be an option for people who already have one.

However, I'd be happier if the Q141 had an offset knob instead of an attenuator knob. Wouldn't that be more useful? Is there a way to mod it for offset control? Then the pulse out could be a sub-octave square wave.

Anyway, I've never been too keen on linear modulation on analogue VCOs. Too many problems to be a serious synthesis tool unless your oscillators are digital, which changes the whole nature of the game.

So I may someday try the simple soft-sync mod, as that requires no additional hardware and no real DIY skills. Even a complete hardware fool like me can move a couple of connectors from one pair of PCB headers to another.

[bwhittington]

Anyway, I've never been too keen on linear modulation on analogue VCOs. Too many problems to be a serious synthesis tool unless your oscillators are digital, which changes the whole nature of the game.

I don't understand. Given the link, I guess you must mean linear FM, not all linear modulation? But even then, "too many problems to be a serious synthesis tool" is a pretty sweeping statement. I guess I'm not following what you mean.

Cheers,
Brian

[nerdware]

Anyway, I've never been too keen on linear modulation on analogue VCOs. Too many problems to be a serious synthesis tool unless your oscillators are digital, which changes the whole nature of the game.

I don't understand. Given the link, I guess you must mean linear FM, not all linear modulation? But even then, "too many problems to be a serious synthesis tool" is a pretty sweeping statement. I guess I'm not following what you mean.

I knew someone would ask me that! Yes, I meant FM. At audio rates. Now I think about it, I did use some linear EG mod a few months ago.

Unfortunately the article I linked to doesn't go into details about the problems with linear FM with analogue. I didn't want to get heavily into that here, but since you asked...

There are several main problems. One is hinted at by the article. The reason Yamaha used phase mod instead of FM is that you get a subtly but significantly different effect with FM that introduces an offset. Another problem is that most analogue VCOs can't run backwards. You also need very stable and accurate tracking between carriers and modulators. Hint: the DX7 voices each had six oscillators and a feedback path. That's like having 6 sets of ZO, Q108 and Q109 per voice. Even a modest FM patch would require a Q106, Q108 ZO, and a Q109 to get close to a Yamaha 2-op synth like Adlib card.

So analogue FM is ok for making bell-like and other inharmonic tones, but pretty poor for more general synthesis. You need accurate and rock stable harmonic tuning for that. Then you can sweep the mod index and get filter-like changes in timbre, but without the resonance and phase effects of filters. Use a big enough oscillator stack and you can make some pretty tasty sounds.

As I said earlier, that's an entirely different game. That's why I'd prefer to have soft-sync on a VCO than linear FM, and I'm happy that the Q106 gives me that choice.

[oblis]

There are several main problems. One is hinted at by the article. The reason Yamaha used phase mod instead of FM is that you get a subtly but significantly different effect with FM that introduces an offset.

Not to derail further , but for my own further education in synthesis (of which I'm still a noob )...I thought that linear FM was the method to introduce sidebands which doesn't change the carrier frequency, unlike exp FM which does shift the carrier frequency.

[Christopher W.]

Okay, after an afternoon playing around I freely admit that my first post in this thread is equal parts nonsense, balderdash, poppycock and hogwash. As my wife would say in a moment of unvarnished bluntness, "Yer talkin' pish, ye nugget."

Disregard everything I've said about Soft Sync up to this point.

Instead, kindly focus your eyes on this humble offering:


[video][/video]

[nerdware]

Yes, you get sidebands. I don't understand the deep technical issues, but I think I can see why phase mod is different from freq mod. It's small but significant to the sidebands.

Since this is a thread about sync, I'm tempted to compare it to the different sync techniques and how they differ, and also how different waveforms work with them. My first experience of sync was with the Digisound 80 VCOs, which have three kinds of sync, none of them using attenuators! I never did properly understand them. Maybe now I have a scope, I can get a clue.

In a similar way, I suspect a spectrascope may be needed to fully appreciate the differences between phase and frequency mod. I've always wanted to see a visual display of the sidebands moving as the mod index changes. OTOH an oscilloscope should be sufficient for showing the effects of subtle FM. If I still had my DX11, I could maybe do a comparison. Instead I'd have to use Csound instruments from the FM chapter in the Csound book. That has an excellent explanation of the issues, but you'd have to buy the book to read it. Unless I dig it out and re-read it, I'll have difficulty making a sensible attempt at an explanation. Sorry, but for now this is the best I can do.

[bwhittington]

Nice video, Mr. Winkels!

Cheers,
Brian

[voicetospirit]

I would like to see a soft sync mod that allowed control modulation, seems like that would be fun.

[kindredlost]

Although not exactly a cv, essentially that is what the pot is in line for with the Q106 modification. You are using the Linear Frequency pot as an attenuating device for the soft sync input which comes in through the Linear Frequency jack. Send your cv through an amplifier or signal processor for further fine tuning before reaching the Q106.

[7thDanSound]

Very nice video Chris! I really like the sequence to but I must admit I'm quite at a loss as to what's going on in the video There's a basic sequence and then a doubled one on top? And how many synced oscillators are there?

Well executed at any rate and the new camera seems to work fine! Now if I only could get going and myself one too...

[voicetospirit]

It would just be sweet to add a LFO, I think that would be fun. Scrubbing the pot is fine too, but I would like to set two of them up on auto pilot with LFOs.

[Christopher W.]

Very nice video Chris! I really like the sequence to but I must admit I'm quite at a loss as to what's going on in the video There's a basic sequence and then a doubled one on top? And how many synced oscillators are there?

Well executed at any rate and the new camera seems to work fine! Now if I only could get going and myself one too...

Thanks, Nik. I will admit it is a little sonically cluttered because of the multitap delay that's switched on a few seconds into the video. That's probably what's giving it the doubled effect that you hear, but it also makes it a little more "propulsive" to my ears so I left it in. I was thinking of playing it manually but I ran into two problems. One, it sounded like I was trying to play Pink Floyd very badly (a la "One Of These Days"). Also I was lacking a third arm to play, tweak, and simultaneously hold the camera. I didn't want to run down to the basement and dig my tripod out from two years of accumulated stuff because that would have meant getting my wife's gimlet eye.

So what you're hearing is one master oscillator, one slaved one, and (when I turn up the fifth knob on the mixer) a third oscillator that's imparting some audio-rate FM to the slave (though that third VCO isn't actually imparting any sound to the mix itself). All three are being driven by a single 1x8 stage on the Q119 through the quantizer so they track pretty much in unison even though only one is using Sync.

[7thDanSound]

No I liked the double thing, didn't quite understand where it came from at first though! Thanks for explaining everything!

[nerdware]

The TSS option depends on 2 things: #1 a panel run and #2 some basic DIY skills.

Aha, I was wrong about #2. You could order an assembled module for $90. I'd forgotten that! Sorry.

Until there's another run, the TSS will only be an option for people who already have one.

This important message was brought to you by The Coalition For Stating The Bleedin' Obvious.