electro-music.com   Dedicated to experimental electro-acoustic
and electronic music
 
    Front Page  |  Articles  |  Radio
 |  Media  |  Forum  |  Wiki  |  Links  |  Store
Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
 FAQFAQ   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   LinksLinks
 RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in  Chat RoomChat Room 
Live streaming at radio.electro-music.com

  host / artist show at your time
  PHOBoS presents Sim Biosys (EM mix)
  PHOBoS Tales of the Golden Teacher
  PHOBoS presents Music by Hrastprogrammer (feat. Terence McKenna)
  Faux Pas Quartet and friends Music From Last Thursday
Please visit the chat
 Forum index » DIY Hardware and Software » Jürgen Haible designs
Dim D
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: Scott Stites
Page 12 of 13 [313 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

What "chipset" would you like to see in a Dim D PCB
Original chips. They are still out there.
76%
 76%  [ 38 ]
Low voltage BBDs - easier to get, probably more noisy. Takes longer to design.
6%
 6%  [ 3 ]
Make a PCB that allows both options. Will be more expensive (more PCB area required!), and will take the longest to design.
14%
 14%  [ 7 ]
Not interested. (Who needs a Dim D? And isn't there another Dim D project on the way?!)
4%
 4%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 50

Author Message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

numbertalk wrote:
Another question - I have decided to go with balanced inputs and outputs. I am unclear on how (or if) I could add an input attenuator. The first thing that comes to mind is a 4-gang pot, but even if I could find one, I've read that using pots with balanced signals is discouraged for risk of disrupting the balance of the signal. Do you have any suggestions? Sounds like shunt attenuators are recommended but the only DIY one I could find is very expensive. Not a huge deal if I can't include one - the only reason I'm being a little stubborn about it is I had a panel made that has a hole drilled and labeled for an input attenuator (oops).

Thanks.


Why do you want attenuators?
The companders allow a big dynamic range without level adjustment ...

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Ah good to know - too bad I didn't realize this before having the panel made. Thanks.

jhaible wrote:
numbertalk wrote:
Another question - I have decided to go with balanced inputs and outputs. I am unclear on how (or if) I could add an input attenuator. The first thing that comes to mind is a 4-gang pot, but even if I could find one, I've read that using pots with balanced signals is discouraged for risk of disrupting the balance of the signal. Do you have any suggestions? Sounds like shunt attenuators are recommended but the only DIY one I could find is very expensive. Not a huge deal if I can't include one - the only reason I'm being a little stubborn about it is I had a panel made that has a hole drilled and labeled for an input attenuator (oops).

Thanks.


Why do you want attenuators?
The companders allow a big dynamic range without level adjustment ...

JH.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

jhaible wrote:
Juno style chorus would be a separate BBD board.
You certainly *could* find a way to do it with the same board as the dim D and a million switches, but that would be messy.


Would you ever consider designing an expansion add-on board to incorporate a Juno chorus mode with this project?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

numbertalk wrote:
jhaible wrote:
Juno style chorus would be a separate BBD board.
You certainly *could* find a way to do it with the same board as the dim D and a million switches, but that would be messy.


Would you ever consider designing an expansion add-on board to incorporate a Juno chorus mode with this project?


I encourage you, or others, to experiment with this, while I'm going on to design the Flanger, Vocoder, and other new stuff. Smile

Seriously: All you need is the BBD board and a set of trimpots for VC Rate and VC depth, and a switch for (Modulation) Phase. Still, the BBDs are longer than in the Juno 6, so it may not be 100% the same. (Check if shorter BBDs are pin-compatible or not!)

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

jhaible wrote:
numbertalk wrote:
jhaible wrote:
Juno style chorus would be a separate BBD board.
You certainly *could* find a way to do it with the same board as the dim D and a million switches, but that would be messy.


Would you ever consider designing an expansion add-on board to incorporate a Juno chorus mode with this project?


I encourage you, or others, to experiment with this, while I'm going on to design the Flanger, Vocoder, and other new stuff. Smile

Seriously: All you need is the BBD board and a set of trimpots for VC Rate and VC depth, and a switch for (Modulation) Phase. Still, the BBDs are longer than in the Juno 6, so it may not be 100% the same. (Check if shorter BBDs are pin-compatible or not!)

JH.


I'm probably not the right person to do this but definitely interested if anyone else works on it and would like to share their work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
whomper



Joined: Dec 15, 2007
Posts: 200
Location: Israel
Audio files: 2

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Hi,

In my dual Dim-D (well, dual BBD that is) module, one of the boards has some clicking sound at every cycle. When replacing the 13600 between the two boards, the clicking sound is present in the other board, which brings me to think it is a matter of the 13600.

I have tried to replace it with a 13700, but it does not work (i.e. no chorus effect) and it gets somewhat hot.

Is the 13700 a replacement for the 13600? Is there any modification needed on the board to accept the 13700?

_________________
Erez Yaary

Home Page: http://www.yaary.com
Buy my CDs at http://www.mellowjet.de
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diablojoy



Joined: Sep 07, 2008
Posts: 795
Location: melbourne australia
Audio files: 11

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

don't suppose you still have any boards left at this late stage ?
missed this one completely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

diablojoy wrote:
don't suppose you still have any boards left at this late stage ?
missed this one completely.


Sure have! As long as they are listed here, they are still avaialble:
http://electro-music.com/forum/post-245197.html#245197

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
lexvortex



Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 155
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Hi JH,

I finished the DimD and it sounds great!! My only concern is the output volume, When I put a 10Vpp standard MOTM osc into it I get a bit less than line level output, and when I put a line level input into it the output is very quiet (I would need a mic amp to bring it to the right level). I built it using the modern opamp and unbalanced output/input. I also included 100k input pots to attenuate the input because I thought the modular would have too hot a signal into the DimD but I don't seem to have a problem with the modulars level being too high even when the pots are fully open, is all this behaviour normal? What should I check for the low level output?

Thanks,
Dave
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

lexvortex wrote:
Hi JH,

I finished the DimD and it sounds great!! My only concern is the output volume, When I put a 10Vpp standard MOTM osc into it I get a bit less than line level output, and when I put a line level input into it the output is very quiet (I would need a mic amp to bring it to the right level). I built it using the modern opamp and unbalanced output/input. I also included 100k input pots to attenuate the input because I thought the modular would have too hot a signal into the DimD but I don't seem to have a problem with the modulars level being too high even when the pots are fully open, is all this behaviour normal? What should I check for the low level output?

Thanks,
Dave


When everything is ok, the output level should be approximately the same as the input level.

If it is not, trace the signal with a scope, stage by stage, from input to output ...

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
electang



Joined: Dec 20, 2007
Posts: 15
Location: fr

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I finished the DimD and audio and mono stereo switch seem to work but there is no modulation sound, presets don't do nothing, by-pass switch has no effect
After checking the usual suspects I found that on both boards I used BF245 C instead of BF245 A. Is the use of BF245 A critical and do I have to replace all BF245 C before checking elsewhere?
Thanks for your help
M
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
haima



Joined: Jul 25, 2008
Posts: 40
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

do you have a "signal tracer probe"?

i.e. some way to follow the audio signal starting at one end to see where your problem might be?

the unit does pass audio though? just no chorus effect? probably a silly question, BUT it is a SUBTLE effect, just want to rule out that you just aren't noticing the effect Smile it's easier to hear on pure tones than on full mixes.

I don't know about the BF245A vs C question - it is possible that the A version is required for the FET switches to work.... but someone with more EE knowledge will have to chime in.

good luck!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

I haven't tried a BF245C, but I specified a BF245A for a reason: The threshold voltages are vastly different.

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
electang



Joined: Dec 20, 2007
Posts: 15
Location: fr

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

"I haven't tried a BF245C, but I specified a BF245A for a reason: The threshold voltages are vastly different."

So I went to the shop bought some A's, had to remove 13 C's, soldered 13 A's and ...
everything went fine Smile
thanks Jurgen, next time I will follow the BOM Confused


"the unit does pass audio though? just no chorus effect? probably a silly question, BUT it is a SUBTLE effect, just want to rule out that you just aren't noticing the effect Smile it's easier to hear on pure tones than on full mixes. "

You 're right ! Now that it's working I can tell it s a very subtle fx but I like it a lot.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
haima



Joined: Jul 25, 2008
Posts: 40
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sun May 23, 2010 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

glad that fixed it!

yes it is a beautiful, subtle effect. i can't wait to put mine in a case and take it to the studio... it's been in a working state on my bench for about a month now - so busy i haven't had time to box it up Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Hi JH,

When I was considering putting an input attenuator on my circuit you said that I shouldn't need it, that this unit should have a lot of headroom with the compander in the circuit (I'm paraphrasing). I'm noticing, though, that when feeding it the "high" output of my Minimoog D, with all 3 VCOs on 10, I have to back off of the final output level of my mini to about 4 to get it to not distort/be a bit noisy when feeding into my Dim-TD. Is this normal? Not sure offhand what the output level of the mini is offhand, but I'm guessing, for example, that this unit is not geared toward taking in a full 10Vp-p signal straight from a modular, so maybe the high output of the mini with all 3 VCOs cranked is a little too hot for it as well?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Hi JH. Not sure if you missed my previous post but after further investigation it appears there is a problem with my chorus. There's a slight high frequency noise of some sort, in both Dim-D and T modes. I'm going to start debugging tomorrow and in anticipation dug up the documentation and only now noticed the warning not to short pin 2 of the balanced outputs to ground. Well I wired up TRS jacks here and have many times connected TS jacks here. What damage could this have done, if any? Could it be the source of my problem? I built the 'vintage' version.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

numbertalk wrote:
Hi JH. Not sure if you missed my previous post but after further investigation it appears there is a problem with my chorus. There's a slight high frequency noise of some sort, in both Dim-D and T modes. I'm going to start debugging tomorrow and in anticipation dug up the documentation and only now noticed the warning not to short pin 2 of the balanced outputs to ground. Well I wired up TRS jacks here and have many times connected TS jacks here. What damage could this have done, if any? Could it be the source of my problem? I built the 'vintage' version.


Input attenuation:
It will work with many kinds of studio / signal processing levels without level adjustment. For extremely high levels, fro msome synthesizers, just use a resitor divider or a potentiometer.

The noise you described is not normal. This thing should be quiet.
Hard to say if you have damaged anything (I haven't tested mine to destruction), but it seems quite possible.

The output stage of the "vintage" version is just that: a faithful reproduction of the vintage circuit, for those who want it exactly like the original. Personally, I would not design an output stage like this, powerful output stages with just signal inversion (and no auto-balancing). I'd go for short-circuit protected opamp outputs (my unexpensive version), or a transformer output, or an electronic transformer.
If you have damaged that output stage, replacing the power transistors and opamps and the small valued resistors should fix it. Or simply discard the vintage option and go for opamps only.

Can't say if your HF noise has its origin here, though.

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Thanks JH. The more I think about it I would describe it as a distortion of the high frequencies of the signal, rather than a static noise. Going to dig around tonight.

So with the vintage set-up, is it ok to have the TRS balanced outputs and to use a TS cable there/connect to an unbalanced input elsewhere sometimes, or with this setup would I always have to have balanced cable at the output to a balanced input elsewhere?

jhaible wrote:
numbertalk wrote:
Hi JH. Not sure if you missed my previous post but after further investigation it appears there is a problem with my chorus. There's a slight high frequency noise of some sort, in both Dim-D and T modes. I'm going to start debugging tomorrow and in anticipation dug up the documentation and only now noticed the warning not to short pin 2 of the balanced outputs to ground. Well I wired up TRS jacks here and have many times connected TS jacks here. What damage could this have done, if any? Could it be the source of my problem? I built the 'vintage' version.


Input attenuation:
It will work with many kinds of studio / signal processing levels without level adjustment. For extremely high levels, fro msome synthesizers, just use a resitor divider or a potentiometer.

The noise you described is not normal. This thing should be quiet.
Hard to say if you have damaged anything (I haven't tested mine to destruction), but it seems quite possible.

The output stage of the "vintage" version is just that: a faithful reproduction of the vintage circuit, for those who want it exactly like the original. Personally, I would not design an output stage like this, powerful output stages with just signal inversion (and no auto-balancing). I'd go for short-circuit protected opamp outputs (my unexpensive version), or a transformer output, or an electronic transformer.
If you have damaged that output stage, replacing the power transistors and opamps and the small valued resistors should fix it. Or simply discard the vintage option and go for opamps only.

Can't say if your HF noise has its origin here, though.

JH.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

numbertalk wrote:


So with the vintage set-up, is it ok to have the TRS balanced outputs and to use a TS cable there/connect to an unbalanced input elsewhere sometimes,


Quoting from my web page:
"CAUTION: XLRs are not floating balanced outputs - do not connect to unbalanced inputs!"

Certainly using TRS jacks instead of XLRs cries for trouble, as plugging ordinary cables into them already shorts ring to sleeve.

BTW, the drawing how to connect unbalanced cables to the vintage version is here:
http://www.jhaible.de/subtle_chorus/sc_audio_balanced.pdf

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Thanks - looks like it was as simple as the output jacks. Change to TS/unbalanced output and sounds much better. Not a lot (or any until now) with balanced audio in DIY projects - was hoping for the case with some of the newer pro gear that I have where the inputs and outputs don't mind either balanced or unbalanced via TRS jacks.

Also, I wanted to check, the Dim T mode will be pretty noisy, right, in the same way that the Tau is, with the APF ladder?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

numbertalk wrote:
Thanks - looks like it was as simple as the output jacks. Change to TS/unbalanced output and sounds much better. Not a lot (or any until now) with balanced audio in DIY projects - was hoping for the case with some of the newer pro gear that I have where the inputs and outputs don't mind either balanced or unbalanced via TRS jacks.

Also, I wanted to check, the Dim T mode will be pretty noisy, right, in the same way that the Tau is, with the APF ladder?


"Modern" balanced outputs are either electronically balanced in a way that they behave like a transformer (tie one output to GND, and the other output will double its voltage!), or, more often, they are very simple and cheap, balancing only the output impedance: that is, just connecting the ring to GND with the same resistor value you find between the tip and the (unbalanced) output amp. The former is great (at least as long as it doesn't clip), the latter is not really a balanced output if you're asking me; it's just an unbalanced output providing balnced impedance for a balanced input making the best of the connection to an unbalanced output.
What Roland did in the Dimension D is a real balanced output, driving the two wires with opposite polarity - but not like a transformer, i. e. not allowing a short of one end of the output. This is why Roland had separate jacks for balanced and unbalanced outputs. And if you're looking at my schemos, I suggest doing the same, for the "vintage" version.
My "modern" version is less critical by far. Same topology as Roland, but no power output stage to drive 600 Ohm loads. Series resistors large enough to allow a short without damage, and still strong enough to drive modern 10kOhm or higher inputs. It's still not recommended to short these outputs, but it won't cause much harm.

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

Thanks for all of the info - good stuff to know.

Also again, wanted to just verify, there will be some noise from the Dim-T chorus, right, just like there is in the Tau Pipe module, from the APF ladder?

jhaible wrote:
numbertalk wrote:
Thanks - looks like it was as simple as the output jacks. Change to TS/unbalanced output and sounds much better. Not a lot (or any until now) with balanced audio in DIY projects - was hoping for the case with some of the newer pro gear that I have where the inputs and outputs don't mind either balanced or unbalanced via TRS jacks.

Also, I wanted to check, the Dim T mode will be pretty noisy, right, in the same way that the Tau is, with the APF ladder?


"Modern" balanced outputs are either electronically balanced in a way that they behave like a transformer (tie one output to GND, and the other output will double its voltage!), or, more often, they are very simple and cheap, balancing only the output impedance: that is, just connecting the ring to GND with the same resistor value you find between the tip and the (unbalanced) output amp. The former is great (at least as long as it doesn't clip), the latter is not really a balanced output if you're asking me; it's just an unbalanced output providing balnced impedance for a balanced input making the best of the connection to an unbalanced output.
What Roland did in the Dimension D is a real balanced output, driving the two wires with opposite polarity - but not like a transformer, i. e. not allowing a short of one end of the output. This is why Roland had separate jacks for balanced and unbalanced outputs. And if you're looking at my schemos, I suggest doing the same, for the "vintage" version.
My "modern" version is less critical by far. Same topology as Roland, but no power output stage to drive 600 Ohm loads. Series resistors large enough to allow a short without damage, and still strong enough to drive modern 10kOhm or higher inputs. It's still not recommended to short these outputs, but it won't cause much harm.

JH.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jhaible



Joined: May 25, 2007
Posts: 2014
Location: Germany
Audio files: 24

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

The Tau is less noisy than BBDs, but the BBD board has heavy companding going on, so the Dim D is less noisy than the Dim T.

I don't recommend the Dim T version on vocals anyway. It's great for CS80-like synthesizer pads, though, IMO.

JH.

_________________
"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mk 11,23f)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
numbertalk



Joined: May 05, 2008
Posts: 980
Location: Austin, TX
Audio files: 5

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote  Mark this post and the followings unread

jhaible wrote:
The Tau is less noisy than BBDs, but the BBD board has heavy companding going on, so the Dim D is less noisy than the Dim T.

I don't recommend the Dim T version on vocals anyway. It's great for CS80-like synthesizer pads, though, IMO.

JH.


Makes sense. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Moderators: Scott Stites
Page 12 of 13 [313 Posts]
View unread posts
View new posts in the last week
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
Mark the topic unread :: View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » DIY Hardware and Software » Jürgen Haible designs
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
e-m mkii

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from
our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.


Forum with support of Syndicator RSS
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Copyright © 2003 through 2009 by electro-music.com - Conditions Of Use