Oops you are correct, but I was in fact thinking about the VCM. I haven’t used it in a long time and the Euro R*S TWS+ has a similar layout. Thus my confusion.
But … since I was mixing up the two modules, I suppose you cannot accomplish what I said w/ the VCM because all the outputs are bipolar?
But maybe it requires experimentation, because the VCFQ has a Low mode? What does this mean if all the outputs are bipolar?
q_ben
2239
I don’t have a VCM at the moment - slowly working through DIY building a 4u system after selling off my euro - but this is the guide I used when figuring out the module.
The author refers to the black and blue jacks as “audio” and “CV” jacks, I’ve always understood them as representing unipolar and bipolar… The middle section has a blue input jack that is (I think) there to let you put a DC offset to the input to change the symmetry of the folding - this is a common thing to do. You get very different results from a wave folder with an offset input. The output on the middle section is bipolar but I don’t think it’s AC-Coupled looking at the Ken Stone notes. I think it’s a black jack because the result isn’t rectified or offset - so it can be bipolar, but if you feed it a unipolar input into input 2 you’ll get a unipolar output.
I’ve never seen this stated clearly, and maybe it’s not consistent, but at least with these two modules there is some consistency - black (bipolar) inputs are AC coupled to make them consistently bipolar, but black (bipolar) outputs are not. Conversely, blue (cv) inputs can sometimes take negative voltages but are not rectified or offset. But the blue (unipolar) outputs have rectification or offsets to make them consistently unipolar.
1 Like
parlej
2241
Spicy gap there for the big Res EQ reboot?
2 Likes
fart
2242
14 Likes
I kept waiting for Bjork’s vocals to come in. Beautiful work.
3 Likes
Same question. The comparator post had a lot of great info that I hadn’t seen presented well before. Anyone know why it was removed or if it still exists anywhere? I came back to print it out for my notes 
ether
2245
Definitely, if I can find one.
In the meantime it’ll be a dual xADSR, and a GTO 4x4 if that appears.
Dual GTO + Noise 4x4 is in the works.
parlej
2247
Nice! Batchas def opened my eyes with the ADSR…
GTO seems an interesting addition to the ecosystem - hope R*S open the door to those that have adopted 4U via PCB’s, in the spirit of Serge origins.
The future Haible euro ports would be a welcome addition to 4U too!
ether
2248
Yep. When I asked about it RS said “no timeframe”.
Plenty to explore in the meantime:)
trytyke
2249
A great serge performance by Marion Camy-Palou:
22 Likes
ether
2250
Decisions. Decisions.
Fill a 4x4 hole with a WAD of some description, or use that space for something else and have external FX?
I’ve never used a WAD. Closest I’ve come was a Doepfer 4096 stage BBD, which was crunchy and fun, but I think I’m more into clean, digital delays.
And the price of a WAD buys a lot of cool FX.
But I do like a self contained system with a delay in it.
Decisions. Decisions.
comma
2251
hi folks, i have a basic question that has bothered me for some time.
patching a basic limiter in serge: you have an audio source going to a VCA, an envelope follower of that audio source (using DTG etc), an inversion of that follower (using CV Processor etc), and that is then closing the VCA for instance as the audio gets louder.
i see this general approach everywhere, from the Serge Patch Quick Reference (line 51) to youtube videos on feedback patching with Serge, etc.
the end result for me is not always satisfactory, and as I look as this patch I am wondering about the CV inversion section of it. using CV Processor or similar in this way seems to be putting a negative “offset” on the inputted CV (say full CCW, = -5V?) but is not truly inverting the CV. that is, if the audio gets louder, the follower outputs larger CV (say +4V), the Scaling or Dual Processor or similar will not turn that into -4V, it will turn that into something like -1V (assuming full CCW = -5V). and this will only slightly close the VCA but not strongly close the VCA.
to illustrate: to actually invert in the way that is needed for a limiter to work as expected, if given all the functionality below, only the scaling buffer at the bottom of the Active Processor would work as intended, rather than using the rest of the Active Processor, the Dual Processor, or the Scaling Processor:
is that right? am i missing something obvious?
q_ben
2252
I’d see if there is any way to get a version of hale’s LWAD in a compatible format- it looks like a worthy update and even with sourcing a custom panel to fit 4x4 would probably save you $$$ and be more repairable should a something go wrong.
1 Like
It works like this, if the Voltage Processor is patched correctly:
So you can see that, where the red amplitude is high, the blue processed CV keeps the VCA more closed, and vice-versa.
The bottom part of the Active Processor should work the same. I’m not familiar with the other two options.
My main source of dissatisfaction with this patch, is that I don’t think the DUSG makes a great EF.
3 Likes
reading this bit from an eliane radigue interview. does anyone know which serge modules she’s referring to that use ‘horizontal, slightly sloped sliders’?
and here’s the piece discussed afterwards. sublime
2 Likes
q_ben
2256
My best guess is that it’s a mistranslation and that she’s recommending horizontal, sloped panels, not faders. In other words, shifting Serge panel layouts from vertical racks to more ergonomic systems. Interesting to hear this criticism as the ARP 2500 she’s so famous for using was vertical- perhaps this drove the observation.
3 Likes
GrantB
2257
Photos of the Serge system in question on MW
3 Likes
comma
2258
thanks for the helpful graphic! i guess i’m uncertain about the phrase “inverted by voltage processor”, as people seem to be using “inverted” to mean CCW on an attentuverter (like the attentuverters in the scaling processor & dual processor graphic above) but i’m not sure the blue line would be the output of such use (& that it would have a different shape more generally, regardless of offset).
