#920

As others have said, WB isn’t perfectly stable. By itself its usually good enough, but if anything is “doing math” to the signal, minor inconsistencies can cause pretty anomalous numbers to happen – hence clock freakout.

1 Like
#921

Curious if anyone with a DPO / FXDF / Control File / RXMX setup can answer a question. I recently picked up a diy 2hp file. It’s passing all 6 DPO inputs to the RXMX, but the FXDF 6th/high input doesn’t seem to be passing signal. If I patch directly from the high FXDF output directly it works fine so I’m guessing it’s a short, but wondered if anyone with a factory file from Control could comment?

#922

The highest FXDF output definitely passes from the Control File to the RxMx, if that’s what you’re asking.

1 Like
#923

Where did you get the DIY File? been wanting one for ages

1 Like
#924

It’s interesting that the Wogglebug clock on its own is reasonably stable, at least to my ear, but clocking Tempi specifically causes very noticeable problems, though Tempi does fine with other sources. Interesting too that in video I linked this specific combo works fine.

🤷 Oh well :slight_smile: thanks for the feedback all.

#925

I guess I wanted make sure I wasn’t missing something obvious.

@Zifor Facebook, the mostly modular group. I can see how it’s a handy module, just bummed this one needs some troubleshooting. Surprised no ones done a more buttoned up clone since only like 40 were made originally?

1 Like
#926

Ah shoot im not on facebook. Is there any info elsewhere?

2 Likes
#927

Listening to the clock output there seems to be a little bit of audio bleed from the rest of the circuit. Also the ‘on’ voltage changes a little from step to step, as well as the timing being a little bit sloppy (though much improved over the Wiard Wogglebug!)

Maybe such minor discrepancies are being amplified by the Tempi, which I assume would be timing the intervals between each gate pulse to calculate its own internal clock in order to do the multiplication. Would be useful to know how other clock multipliers respond to the WB clock.

#928

Not that I’ve found unfortunately. It would be a fairly simple circuit to reverse engineer for someone, I’d think.

1 Like
#929

Interesting bit on the Control File: the only text on the board (except for the header labels and a handwritten serial, mine is 45) is “@whimsicalraps”

Must’ve been a collab! @Galapagoose

1 Like
#930

I just looked at my Control File. Whimsical Raps in the board and 92 scrawled by hand in Sharpie barely visible. It’s a passive simple switch network.

The manual says “Special Gratitude To: Make Noise Co., Whimsical Raps, and Robert Aiki Aubrey Lowe.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2OR9lO-IXPpUWJmUERXOEgzbkU/view

3 Likes
#931

I gave the video I was drawing from a closer look, and think I see a couple things:

  1. The clock tempo from Wogglebug that is driving Tempi and subsequently Rene is fairly quick, which I think masks the jitter. In my own patch, I was running Wogglebug a fair bit slower, and the timing differences were more pronounced.
  2. Clocking Echophon Tempo both directly from Wogglebug and from Tempi with Wogglebug as master makes the jitter very obvious, even at high clock rates. There’s a lot of pitch warble as Echophon apparently tries to adjust its tempo continually.

So, as everyone said, maybe don’t use Wogglebug as an internal clock unless you want that jitter. It’s a shame that you can’t clock Wogglebug from something more solid and then take advantage of that jitter while still being basically tempo-locked at a macro level, but, it is the instrument it is. Thanks all!

2 Likes
#934

Regarding the DIY Control File, I decided against keeping it. The seller was kind enough to refund my money but didn’t want the unit shipped back. I thought I’d offer it here to anyone who would be interested in fixing it or have any other interest?

IMG_1037
IMG_10374032×3024 2.65 MB
IMG_1036
IMG_10364032×3024 2.79 MB

#935

With all due respect to the seller that just looks like… subpar soldering. Probably a bad joint in the offending jack. (I think the faceplate is nice, though.)

#936

Agreed. Seller never used it from what I gather and I have no idea who built it.

#937

Can anyone tell me if the Dynamic gate output on the 0-Ctrl works similarly with Optomix and/or Maths in that if patched to strike/ctrl of the former or Ch 1/4 input of the latter the gates will react similarly to the 0Coasts gate input?

#938

They should work as you’d expect :slight_smile: I’ve often patched the dynamic gate to a Maths input or directly to the CV input on Natural Gate, while using the dynamic envelope output for something else (wavefolder, FM depth, etc.)

If you patch to a trigger input on Maths instead, it isn’t fully dynamic but will only trigger when the strength is above the trigger threshold, which can also be useful.

1 Like
#939

ah i thought there would of been a PCB for it. Cheers

#940

Right thanks. I guess I just got confused by their extolling the Gate input on the 0Coast as something unlike what is found in their other modules.

#941

I’ve just been watching the Tony Rolando ContinuuCon talk again and found the part about the dynamics section particularly interesting too.

I typed the section out as it’s provoked some questions for me and figure it might be interesting for other people reading through this thread too:

“The Buchla instrument shipped with two stage envelopes, which were quite a bit simpler than the four stage envelopes that the Moog instruments shipped with. And my theory behind that, is that it kinda all ties down to the dynamics sections. The Buchla used an element called a vactrol, which is a light dependent resistor that’s mashed up against an LED, and it’s a very gorgeous sounding component, it is very low distortion, it’s wonderful - except that it’s also very slow. And what happens if you patch an ADSR into a low pass gate - that’s the circuit that Buchla used for controlling amplitude that utilised that vactrol element - it basically slurs the whole thing into something that looks like two stages anyhow. So it’s almost like you’re spending the money to put a four stage envelope in an instrument that really cant make use of it. On the other hand, on the East Coast, Bob Moog had developed a transistor based VCA that was very fast and because it was very fast, it was able to respond to the very sharp edges and all four stages of the ADSR envelope.
The really interesting thing to me here, is that the Buchla instrument was designed to be played with sequencers, while on the East Coast the Moog instrument had a black and white organ style keyboard in front of it. It was asking to be played in a way that had sustaining notes and for creating sustaining notes, the ADSR is just infinitely more useful. And so the combination of that fast VCA and the four stage envelope and the keyboard made it a much more humanly played instrument. Where as on the West Coast, the use of the two stage envelope and the really slow gain control element and the sequential controllers made the Buchla instrument more prone to being programmed - machine music essentially.”

So this raises the question — would pairing Make Noise’s Contour with Optomix and not Dynamix essentially be a waste of the virtues of choosing the four stage envelope in the first place? Does anyone here have Contour and Optomix or another vactrol based low pass gate?

@hermbot I’ve been watching your YouTube videos and really enjoyed the Make Noise Low Pass Gate comparison — condiment rating system included — have you used Contour with any of them?

3 Likes