Nick Copeland wrote: > > > Just 128 steps for filter cutoff for an oscillating emphasis does not > > > work well > > > if it needs to be tuned exactly to an VCO/DCO, it is basically > never in tune > > > > This is wrong. > > > > The number of bits in a parameter is unrelated to where and what some > > filter is or is not tuned to. > > > Why not? > > Perhaps we are referring to different things. I was talking about the > number of > steps in a filter cutoff parameter - if you only have 7 bits in the > filter cutoff setting > then you can only select 127 discrete cutoff frequencies. If you > overdrive the filter > emphasis then it should turn into something close to a sinewave > oscillator at the > frequency of the cutoff - the steps in the frequencies become audible > which was a > ongoing complaint against these systems. The issue is that if you want > to detune > the filter oscillating frequencies by a 0.1 HZ to get some phasing > then you are out > of luck since the cutoff steps are too big. The same is true if you > want to use this > filter as an extra oscillator (something that a lot of people did on > the big synths to > get hammond sounds) then it doesn't tune that well,especially at the > higher > frequencies where the filter was used as if it were another drawbar. > > It doesn't mean the synth will not sound good, there are just some > things that it > will not be able to do. > > Regards, nick.
Indeed a B3 emulated by an Oberheim Matrix-1000 might be no good choice, OTOH because of the automation, you won't have any synth with a good B3 emulation to change 20 parameters during a song, while for any "synthetic" sound e.g. from an Oberheim Matrix-1000 you might wish to change a lot of parameters during a song and changing filter parameters for "synthetic" sounds 128 steps are enough. Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
