Author |
Message |
EdisonRex
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
When you said in another thread that we have similar backgrounds, I chuckled. I even chuckled more when I found this thread.
In 1976 I built a very similar beast, using a set of 4016 analog switches with a simple potentiometer padded input and output. Sort of like the 2600's analog switch, but on steroids and driven by a counter instead of a comparator. I think I used a '173 for the counter, but it's been years since I lost my Fairchild Semiconductor CMOS book. I remember I just used a 555 to clock it. 100k pots, 16 of them, bunch of jacks and I threw in some lil bat switches so you could reset the sequencer arbitrarily. The local Radio Shack loved me.
But I don't have pictures. It's a pretty simple circuit. I built it in a keyboard case, it had a blank top so I could drill out the holes for the pots, LEDs and switches and jacks. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18198 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 213
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Great minds think alike. If you are going to go though the trouble of building a sequence, you might as well use analog multiplexers instead of just voltage levels. _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
EdisonRex
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I was always taken by the 2600's analog switch. It was a 2 note sequencer, if you fed it a CV, but it took a signal just as easily. So with the sequencer I reckoned you could always chuck a DC voltage through, but if you had analog switch chips that could do a fair signal (ok, the 4016 wasn't quite an audiophile quality switch, but hey) why not do that. Funny, I threw that assembly away in 1994, in a purge-before-move. It's a pretty simple circuit, easy to replicate though... |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
TonE
Joined: Sep 08, 2009 Posts: 24 Location: Mars
|
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
jksuperstar wrote: | I mean, if I could build my ideal sequencer, it would have an embedded version of KeyKit running in it's core. That could then control an analog mux system like you have, with a program running to respond like your sequencer does, but still be stable like hardware is. And still always be expandable. But that's neither here nor there... | I like your idea of having an embedded version of Keykit running in it's core. It would just replace a computer, a laptop, as a lot of performers seem to prefer hardware against laptops, I do not know the exact reason for that. But why do you think Keykit is not stable as hardware is? When does Keykit get instable, can you give any examples?
Apart from that if Tim Thompson would develop a hardware device, e.g. using the Arduino plattform and put Keykit into its core, offering an interface where you can add new keykit codes ( .k files) to that system like plugins/modules, then he should make very soon a lot of millions, if my name would be Tim Thompson, I would do it. If necessary some Assembler optimizations might be added for getting tighter timing.
But as far as I know he is also registered in this forum, so he might know more details. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Drone
Joined: Feb 06, 2008 Posts: 59 Location: The Great White North
|
Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Nice design Mosc ! That must have taken a lot of time & commitment.
In case anyone wants to attempt some thing similar for non-commercial purposes (equipment sales), & hasn't already done so, check out the midi-box site.
http://www.midibox.org/dokuwiki/ _________________ It is at least ten times more difficult to get a good synthesizer sound than on an acoustic instrument. - Giorgio Moroder |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|