MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Maths for envelopes conundrum!
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules  
Author Maths for envelopes conundrum!
deke
I have a serous problem. When I use my Maths, channel 1 and or 4, as an envelope, it sounds too darn good. I have a A-140 and a Pons Asinorum, but they just don't measure up to Maths. Maths makes my modules (Black Wavetable VCO, Plaits, Studio Electronics Oscillation) sound so amazingly good. Fast and snappy, slow and everything in between is just sooooooo much better. The other two kind of pale in comparison. As a result, I end up not using Maths for all the other things it can do, even as a nice simple source of modulation.

Am I missing something with my ADSR/AD modules? Should I get a used Intelijell Quadra for a similar quality and versatility? Another Maths (half joking) or a couple of Contours? Something else?
pieter
I get what you're saying about Maths' envelopes. I have a Quadra and Stages, too, and I'd say Stages comes closest to Maths. I make Quadra snappier using the response curve on the intellijel VCAs, but those are mini pots. Maths is just so damn playable!
LunaticSound
Since the Contour on O Coast sounds just as good as Maths to me, I just ordered the Contours Module as well.
PietroC
I Love my Maths
But A Double Andore MK2 is definitely my favorite DUAL EG / VCA Combo
Expensive but armed to the teeth
Each are different and i would never let go of either

I really enjoy the Optomix but Vactrols / LPG has a specific sound
DAMK2 brings me to where i need to be sound wise and a lot more versatile for my personal sonic ambitions

Got me thinking Never tried the Maths EG Out to DAMK2 CV/IN though
Thanks applause For the inspiration

Cheers Happy Hunting
mritenburg
Maths is awesome, but you should get to know your A-140. Talk about snappy envelopes! The 3 different timing settings allow for super-wide operation. Its not sexy or esoteric like a lot of the flashy newer euro brands, but what it does, it does extremely well. It’s actually one of my favorite euro envelopes.
deke
mritenburg wrote:
Maths is awesome, but you should get to know your A-140. Talk about snappy envelopes! The 3 different timing settings allow for super-wide operation. Its not sexy or esoteric like a lot of the flashy newer euro brands, but what it does, it does extremely well. It’s actually one of my favorite euro envelopes.


I don't want to give up on it. I swear I just tried every setting imaginable with H, M and L, and I seem to be finding things I was not finding before. I have been wanking on it for 30 minutes and I can't stop. Thanks for pushing me!
deke
PietroC wrote:
I Love my Maths
But A Double Andore MK2 is definitely my favorite DUAL EG / VCA Combo
Expensive but armed to the teeth
Each are different and i would never let go of either

I really enjoy the Optomix but Vactrols / LPG has a specific sound
DAMK2 brings me to where i need to be sound wise and a lot more versatile for my personal sonic ambitions

Got me thinking Never tried the Maths EG Out to DAMK2 CV/IN though
Thanks applause For the inspiration

Cheers Happy Hunting


Dude, if I inspired anything, it was via sheer ignorance! :-)
luketeaford
I have the opposite opinion which is why bother with anything else? I have 4 Maths. seriously, i just don't get it
mritenburg
deke wrote:
mritenburg wrote:
Maths is awesome, but you should get to know your A-140. Talk about snappy envelopes! The 3 different timing settings allow for super-wide operation. Its not sexy or esoteric like a lot of the flashy newer euro brands, but what it does, it does extremely well. It’s actually one of my favorite euro envelopes.


I don't want to give up on it. I swear I just tried every setting imaginable with H, M and L, and I seem to be finding things I was not finding before. I have been wanking on it for 30 minutes and I can't stop. Thanks for pushing me!


Set it to H, turn all the knobs to 0. Adjust D to get the snappy attack/delay you want. The A-140 can be so quick in H mode that you can get clicks. If you get clicks and want to get rid of them, just turn A up a little until the clicks go away.

I never us S unless I am triggering notes in real-time with a keyboard and want the length of the envelope to track the length of a key press.

You can mimic the vactrol ring of a low pass gate by setting a snappy envelope and adding some R to simulate the vactrol response. Before there were low pass gates in euro I would use a low pass filter with the resonance turned all the way down and an A-140 to emulate the low pass gate sound.
resynthesize
i have tried many different envelopes, and maths is still my favorite. nothing else has quite the same shape. check out the erogenous tones radar, that probably comes closest and is my main "utility" envelope generator.
cptnal
Just because Maths can be loads of different things doesn't mean it has to be all those things. Maths is my go-to envelope too for the reasons described. And what I like most about it is it has all the stuff right there to take a step further than being a plain envelope and to make it sing. You have a secondary modulation source, loads of attenuversion, clock division, etc., etc.... In other words it takes something that makes something else go from quiet-to-loud-and-quiet-again, and gives you something you can use to actually craft your sound.

Of course there's more than one way of achieving anything in this game, but my point is the idea that using Maths "just" for envelopes is a waste is a specious one.
southberry
I know what do you mean ... beyond all it can do , Maths is also my favorite enveloppe module. But I also have a A-140 ... which is better suited for "keyboard like" things. When I use a midi keyboard / touch pad to play, I prefer to patch an ADSR . You can do an ADSR with Maths but it's pointless for my pov ... When you play with my hands I always dial all the A/D/S/R parameters to find the sweet spot ... maybe a Contour can do it but if you already have a A_140 I think you don't really need it ...

My solution was to add a Function near my Maths ... it can be a third ENV channel when you send it into Maths ch 2 or 3 wink
I can totally understand why you can have 3 Maths in a 9U system grin
Arneb
deke wrote:
I have a serous problem. When I use my Maths, channel 1 and or 4, as an envelope, it sounds too darn good. I have a A-140 and a Pons Asinorum, but they just don't measure up to Maths. Maths makes my modules (Black Wavetable VCO, Plaits, Studio Electronics Oscillation) sound so amazingly good. Fast and snappy, slow and everything in between is just sooooooo much better. The other two kind of pale in comparison. As a result, I end up not using Maths for all the other things it can do, even as a nice simple source of modulation.

Am I missing something with my ADSR/AD modules? Should I get a used Intelijell Quadra for a similar quality and versatility? Another Maths (half joking) or a couple of Contours? Something else?

If I was in your situation I'd reserve Maths for easily noticeable envelopes and the A-140 and PA for more subtle modulation. Then again I just don't enjoy selling things.
EATyourGUITAR
if I can find the right slew and the right 281 or DUSG clone and a min max circuit and a compact comparator then I can finally ditch maths. I never liked maths even though I like maths.
deke
mritenburg wrote:
deke wrote:
mritenburg wrote:
Maths is awesome, but you should get to know your A-140. Talk about snappy envelopes! The 3 different timing settings allow for super-wide operation. Its not sexy or esoteric like a lot of the flashy newer euro brands, but what it does, it does extremely well. It’s actually one of my favorite euro envelopes.


I don't want to give up on it. I swear I just tried every setting imaginable with H, M and L, and I seem to be finding things I was not finding before. I have been wanking on it for 30 minutes and I can't stop. Thanks for pushing me!


Set it to H, turn all the knobs to 0. Adjust D to get the snappy attack/delay you want. The A-140 can be so quick in H mode that you can get clicks. If you get clicks and want to get rid of them, just turn A up a little until the clicks go away.

I never us S unless I am triggering notes in real-time with a keyboard and want the length of the envelope to track the length of a key press.

You can mimic the vactrol ring of a low pass gate by setting a snappy envelope and adding some R to simulate the vactrol response. Before there were low pass gates in euro I would use a low pass filter with the resonance turned all the way down and an A-140 to emulate the low pass gate sound.


Thanks. I think I was a little dismissive of this and probably and paid less little attention to D and S over A and D and stuck to M mode. I'm running it through my OToole scope and what I am seeing is not what I, in my ignorance, thought it was doing, so this is fun.
deke
cptnal wrote:
Just because Maths can be loads of different things doesn't mean it has to be all those things. Maths is my go-to envelope too for the reasons described. And what I like most about it is it has all the stuff right there to take a step further than being a plain envelope and to make it sing. You have a secondary modulation source, loads of attenuversion, clock division, etc., etc.... In other words it takes something that makes something else go from quiet-to-loud-and-quiet-again, and gives you something you can use to actually craft your sound.

Of course there's more than one way of achieving anything in this game, but my point is the idea that using Maths "just" for envelopes is a waste is a specious one.


I guess I fell into that line of thinking or imagined peer judgement. Why? I have no idea. The logic (no pun intended) of my thinking was absurd. "Hey, I really really love what this module does for my sound, please tell me why I shouldn't use it like that and use something else."
starthief
I've tried several envelopes in my modular journey, but I really feel like Make Noise nails it. Maths, Function, Contour, all three just feel perfect.
droningspaghettimonster
the new klavis quadigy has the most advanced control over shape/time i've seen in a envelope module, the interface is genius and the price very good. i've not received it yet but i'm hoping to make it replace my maths for other duties.
lisa
I’ve said it at least ten times before but these threads keep popping up so here we go (cool): Maths is a fine envelope generator but if you only use it for envelopes it’s rather expensive and big. There are better options.
insoul8
How do you guys feel about the Frap Tools Falistri when compared to Maths / DUSG / Rampage?
deke
lisa wrote:
I’ve said it at least ten times before but these threads keep popping up so here we go (cool): Maths is a fine envelope generator but if you only use it for envelopes it’s rather expensive and big. There are better options.


Okay, that was a question in my post. What options do you recommend?
damase
watching the verbos youtube videos opened me up to a few more uses of the sustain stage in their multi envelope... like to patch a periodic gate from sequencer in to sustain vca input, providing another groovy/rhythmic level shift that can be dialed in subtle

i did like maths for envelopes a lot as well but it is a jack of all trades and the multi envelope is focused on envelopes. so its less flexible but more immediate for getting interesting shapes in that context.
lisa
deke wrote:
Okay, that was a question in my post. What options do you recommend?

True, I was really answering some other folks in the thread rather than your original post.

As you suggested yourself, I’d go for two of Joranalogue Contour 1. Cheaper and smaller but all the envelope generator power of Maths.
suboptimal
At one point I had four Maths. I still have two, and have experimented with lots of different EGs over the years in the meantime. I recently re-acquired a Double Andore mk1, which I've been deeply happy with as a significantly different EG than the Maths. Lots of useful and interesting shapes there, though it's significantly more complex due to the wavetable approach.

With EGs, the pairing with the VCA is vital. In my first time with the Double Andore I didn't appreciate the utility of having integrated and therefore matched VCAs. It's not strictly necessary - I have a bunch of Intellijel uVCAs and find I can dial in lots of variation with those and Maths, but there are times when this combination doesn't get as snappy as the DA can.

TLDR: Don't forget to explore VCAs.
Rost + Licht
I found that Maths is especially beautiful on "opening" sustained sounds like pads or morphagene drones from a closed snappy chord to an really sweet decay. Combined with an LPG (I use the Metasonix) it gets nicely round in tone and just pleasent to the ear. Something about the precise fast envolopes of maths makes everything your combine with it detailed it seems for me.

I havent explored the many possibilites besides basic Patching and Gate extraction that much with Maths yet. Does anyone have an idea for extracting information you can use somewhere else in the patch from an Envelope for lets say an abstract Techno element? Something in the sense of an Comparator.
Would like to combine it with my Stages and O&C so that there is a useful dialogue between those.

Any hints much appreciated!
chachi
yeah I feel the same way, love maths and function, and I feel wasteful using maths as just envelopes but it sounds so good. i guess i could just buy four Functions and then feel like i’m not wasting space and functionality. but then why not just have that functionality around just in case? at least that’s what i tell myself.
EATyourGUITAR
chachi wrote:
yeah I feel the same way, love maths and function, and I feel wasteful using maths as just envelopes but it sounds so good. i guess i could just buy four Functions and then feel like i’m not wasting space and functionality. but then why not just have that functionality around just in case? at least that’s what i tell myself.


Disting will do the missing utilities but it will only do one at a time and you also have to grab the manual everytime to set it up. Cold mac is big and expensive. Still looking for something myself.
mritenburg
EATyourGUITAR wrote:
chachi wrote:
yeah I feel the same way, love maths and function, and I feel wasteful using maths as just envelopes but it sounds so good. i guess i could just buy four Functions and then feel like i’m not wasting space and functionality. but then why not just have that functionality around just in case? at least that’s what i tell myself.


Disting will do the missing utilities but it will only do one at a time and you also have to grab the manual everytime to set it up. Cold mac is big and expensive. Still looking for something myself.


Check out the TipTop Miso. It has 4 channels that do all kinds of voltage processing: scaling/mixing/inversion/cross-fading, etc. and all for $99.
Foghorn
The only difference between Maths and most envelope generators is the Exponential/Linear knob.
What people are calling "snappy" is simply an exponential response.
Function has an Exponential/Linear knob on it as does the Joranalogue Contour module and I am sure that a few others do.
Most envelope generators unfortunately lean more towards linear response curves.
The 2hp envelope has an exponential/linear switch, but no variable curve knob.
Tinrs "Edgecutter" has a knob called curvature, which I believe is the same function as Make Noises Exponential/Linear knob.


Foghorn
mother misty
Foghorn wrote:
The only difference between Maths and most envelope generators is the Exponential/Linear knob.
What people are calling "snappy" is simply an exponential response.


I think there's more to it than that, according to Make Noise the knob goes from Logarithmic to Linear to Exponentional to "Hyper-Exponentional".
I'm not really sure what 'Hyper-Exponentional' exactly is, but i would love to see some scopes of that.
felix le chat
Foghorn wrote:
The only difference between Maths and most envelope generators is the Exponential/Linear knob.
What people are calling "snappy" is simply an exponential response.

Actually many envelopes have logarithmic attack, exponential decay and exponential release (see the Doepfer A-140 or the FC System X envelope, for example)

Quote:
Function has an Exponential/Linear knob on it as does the Joranalogue Contour module and I am sure that a few others do.

Yes, for example the Richter/Wiard/Malekko Envelator, the Serge VCS clones, the Doepfer A-141-2 (with 3 short cables), even the Analogue Systems RS-60, and many others I am not aware about.
Any envelope with attack CV, decay CV and release CV inputs can have variable shapes on the corresponding stages. Sometimes you need to add multiples and attenuators/inverters though, if they are not built-in
Foghorn
mother misty wrote:

I think there's more to it than that, according to Make Noise the knob goes from Logarithmic to Linear to Exponentional to "Hyper-Exponentional".
I'm not really sure what 'Hyper-Exponentional' exactly is, but i would love to see some scopes of that.


Cool, I was unaware of the log response available on Make Noise function generators.

And, "Hyper-Exponentional"...well ???

Foghorn

EDIT: (made when there were 6 posts after this one)
I achieved my intention for the first post I made in this thread.
That is, having the thread use the correct terminology rather than "snappy"

No disrespect to anyone who used the term snappy in this thread, it is just not a complete descriptor.
EATyourGUITAR
The log mode on an ADSR is not the same as log on maths. Caps will charge an discharge with a log curve but it changes when you are charging or discharging a cap. Log mode on maths is a reversible waveshaper. Every x maps to a unique f(x) and every f(f(x))' = x. You could in theory route an exponential curve out of one maths into another maths and perform a log function in the correct amount to get a linear slope from a non-linear one. ADSR will look like log attack and exponential release if we are using the same language we use to describe maths curves. Then to make it more confusing, there are all these permutations of log ADSR into Lin or exponential VCA.

Just remember that a contour can replace maths but a ADSR can NOT replace maths entirely unless you only need a small subset of what maths can do.
EATyourGUITAR
felix le chat wrote:

Any envelope with attack CV, decay CV and release CV inputs can have variable shapes on the corresponding stages. Sometimes you need to add multiples and attenuators/inverters though, if they are not built-in


Yes a linear ADSR with CV A CV R can do the same as maths if you can invert and offset and attenuate. Good luck. That is the patch from hell.
pieter
Caps don't charge with a log curve, but with an exponential curve (just inverted and offset).

I have never measured the "log" curve on maths, but I suspect it is also an inverted and offset exponential curve.
EATyourGUITAR
mritenburg wrote:

Check out the TipTop Miso. It has 4 channels that do all kinds of voltage processing: scaling/mixing/inversion/cross-fading, etc. and all for $99.


This does not do comparator or min max so it is pretty useless at replacing disting or maths. Thanks anyway.
EATyourGUITAR
pieter wrote:
Caps don't charge with a log curve, but with an exponential curve (just inverted and offset).

I have never measured the "log" curve on maths, but I suspect it is also an inverted and offset exponential curve.


Caps suck more current when they start charging when the voltage potential of the power supply is very far away from the voltage measured across the capacitor. When the cap is charged %99 of the way then the voltage of the supply is almost identical to the voltage across the cap. The voltage drop is 1/inf and the rate or charging is 1/inf. Compare to when we first started charging the current was Vsupply*Rout(supply impedance).

When we discharge it is similar but inverted. The voltage drop across the discharge resistor or switch or transistor is as big as it can be. Caps charge and discharge fast then slow. These are logarithmic functions of time T. You can increase T to anything but the current flowing in or out will converge to 0. Exponential functions are divergent so we calibrate them in synthesizers to never clip even under the worst scenario. Hyper exponential maths is simply beyond normal operating range. Once max current is reached it is effectively clipped. This also puts the knee way down on the scope.
pieter
Most of what you say is correct, except the bit that they are logarithmic functions. They are exponential functions. See e.g. here: https://electronicspani.com/charging-and-discharging-of-capacitor/
EATyourGUITAR
pieter wrote:
Most of what you say is correct, except the bit that they are logarithmic functions. They are exponential functions. See e.g. here: https://electronicspani.com/charging-and-discharging-of-capacitor/


In mathematics, log and exponent are closely related. It all depends on perspective. The inverse of an exponential function is a log function. There are two solutions to every exponential function but ignoring that, they are two sides of the same thing. In synthesizer terminology, an exponential function maps x to (x/5v)^2 for 0<x<5v. And -((x/5v)^2) for -5v<x<0 specifically. This is the definition. It all depends on your domain and your definition. Even in electronics, you have to define what it is you are describing such as Vin = f(Vout). Or the inverse function which is log for exp or exp for log.
felix le chat
EATyourGUITAR wrote:
Yes a linear ADSR with CV A CV R can do the same as maths if you can invert and offset and attenuate. Good luck. That is the patch from hell.

Why is it the patch from hell? Doesn't the Maths, VCS, Joranalogue Contour or Envelator work exactly this way?

I need one or two ADSR envelopes and thought about the A-141-2 because of the variable shapes functionality (which is described here: http://www.doepfer.de/a1412.htm)
Is there a reason why it would be difficult or impossible to use, compared to the Envelator, for example?
pieter
The potential of a discharging capacitor C over a resistor R (starting from V0) is

V(t) = V0 exp(–t/RC) .

This is an exponential decay.

Similarly, the potential of a charging capacitor is

V(t) = V0 (1 – exp(–t/RC)) .

The logarithm is the inverse of the exponential function (defined over the positive numbers only, if you do not extend it further to all complex numbers via analytic continuation). The logarithmic function does not accurately describe the voltage of the charging/discharging capacitor.
huffnPuff
pieter wrote:
The potential of a discharging capacitor C over a resistor R (starting from V0) is

V(t) = V0 exp(–t/RC) .

This is an exponential decay.

Similarly, the potential of a charging capacitor is

V(t) = V0 (1 – exp(–t/RC)) .

The logarithm is the inverse of the exponential function (defined over the positive numbers only, if you do not extend it further to all complex numbers via analytic continuation). The logarithmic function does not accurately describe the voltage of the charging/discharging capacitor.


Yes, quoting to echo this. It made me scratch my head until I realized just that - an exoonential envelope is exponential on both sides, though might be looking at the graph and thinking the falling side looks like a logarithmic function - it isn't. Well explained, thanks.

Yeah whatever the technical reason Maths is my go-to envelope. I have a Function too because three's a crowd.
pugix
A few questions for those using Maths for envelopes.

1) Do you use both sections to get ADSR? Or each separately to get two AD envelopes?

2) What curves are you typically dialing in?

3) Do you self-patch the Maths to get different curves?

4) Especially: What VCAs are you using, and what are their response curves like?

Thanks,
huffnPuff
1) It works great this way but I seldom see the need. I don't play keys.
2) I dial to taste, often somewhere between exponential and linear. Whatever sounds good.
3) It extends the range either way. Or you could (cross) patch an offset which is useful when you need an extra long or short envelope.
4) Practically all the VCAs I currently have on my rack are linear so the curve shaping comes from the envelope but it doesn't have to be this way as is implied by the question.

The best sounding VCAs I currently have are the ones on the Cwejman mixer (fast, quiet and clean but distortion sounds very harsh) and the Twiggy (very fast and clean but somewhat lower output). They sound great with whatever envelope I happen to be using. I don't find that I need, in the context of my system, to carefuly match the envelope generator and the VCA.
felix le chat
pugix wrote:
A few questions for those using Maths for envelopes.

I have the first version of the Maths, I use it as envelopes but also many other things, including lots of basic utility stuff (small system)

Quote:
1) Do you use both sections to get ADSR? Or each separately to get two AD envelopes?

Normally as AD or AR because I have 2 ADSR modules.
I have also used the Maths as dual ADR envelope

Quote:
2) What curves are you typically dialing in?

No typical curve, I use what fits the sound and the rhythm best (I usually compensate the time when changing the curve)

Quote:
3) Do you self-patch the Maths to get different curves?

Yes, for getting different attack and decay curve shapes (when required)

Quote:
4) Especially: What VCAs are you using, and what are their response curves like?

I have mostly linear VCAs, some of them can be set to exponential, but anyway I take VCA curve in account when setting the envelope curves (see 2) )
felix le chat
double post sorry, please delete
luketeaford
pugix wrote:
A few questions for those using Maths for envelopes.

1) Do you use both sections to get ADSR? Or each separately to get two AD envelopes?

2) What curves are you typically dialing in?

3) Do you self-patch the Maths to get different curves?

4) Especially: What VCAs are you using, and what are their response curves like?

Thanks,


1) Yes, but also I use them independently and make all kinds of other envelope shapes including "trapezoid", delayed lfo, complex envelope with one side retriggering and possibly modulating the other side.

2) Love it for those snappy envelopes, but I make all kinds of shapes with it.

3) Yes! (Feeding attenuverted channel back into its rise or fall counteracts the variresponse so you can make log rise and exp fall envelopes if I am not mistaken)

4) Nowadays almost all make noise VCAs/LPGs, but I can manage to tune most VCAs to desirable responses with it. Moddemix shuts off near zero so needs a little extra tail for some patches. You can get away with 0 rise with the LPGs but it's nice to add a little attack for other VCAs to prevent a click.
electricanada
Foghorn wrote:
The only difference between Maths and most envelope generators is the Exponential/Linear knob.
What people are calling "snappy" is simply an exponential response.
Function has an Exponential/Linear knob on it as does the Joranalogue Contour module and I am sure that a few others do.
Most envelope generators unfortunately lean more towards linear response curves.
The 2hp envelope has an exponential/linear switch, but no variable curve knob.
Tinrs "Edgecutter" has a knob called curvature, which I believe is the same function as Make Noises Exponential/Linear knob.


Foghorn


Check the A171-2. It has CV control over exp/Lin.
EATyourGUITAR
pieter wrote:
The potential of a discharging capacitor C over a resistor R (starting from V0) is

V(t) = V0 exp(–t/RC) .

This is an exponential decay.

Similarly, the potential of a charging capacitor is

V(t) = V0 (1 – exp(–t/RC)) .

The logarithm is the inverse of the exponential function (defined over the positive numbers only, if you do not extend it further to all complex numbers via analytic continuation). The logarithmic function does not accurately describe the voltage of the charging/discharging capacitor.


I just realized that you are correct. I found my mistake. I was thinking about a different function that comes from four quadrant multipliers and analog computers. those circuits do not have any variation over time. they can compute log/lin/exp. the ADSR, the MATHS shapes... these are all time functions related to charging a capacitor. I see it now. Maths will also give you both since it has bipolar voltage controlled current sources charging a capacitor. an old school ADSR will just give you exponential time functions with the R being similar to the inverted level shifted voltage curve of the A.
deke
lisa wrote:
deke wrote:
Okay, that was a question in my post. What options do you recommend?

True, I was really answering some other folks in the thread rather than your original post.

As you suggested yourself, I’d go for two of Joranalogue Contour 1. Cheaper and smaller but all the envelope generator power of Maths.


Thank you! I’ve been at this for about 2 years now. I think I took envelopes for granted if that makes any sense. It’s easy to get caught up in so much else and not fully explore something so fundamental. Now that I am paying more attention to them, I’m getting so much more out of my oscillators and enjoying it.

I will now return the thread to the electronic engineer gurus.
EATyourGUITAR
if you ditch maths for two functions or two contour, you will possibly want to get this.

http://www.doepfer.de/A172.htm

and maybe this too

http://www.doepfer.de/A167.htm

to replace the middle bottom stuff on maths.

notice the A167 can be used as a comparator and a 2 input mixer +/-offset at the same time! but it also has the hysteresis that maths does not have.

the 172 you could mult the same signal to 1+2 and also 3+4 that way it disables the 0v unpatched inputs. then you have DIY doepfer maths.
Rockin' Banana!
chachi
pugix wrote:

1) Do you use both sections to get ADSR? Or each separately to get two AD envelopes?

2) What curves are you typically dialing in?

3) Do you self-patch the Maths to get different curves?

4) Especially: What VCAs are you using, and what are their response curves like?


1) i sometimes do adsr but mostly just two ADs. i need all the envelopes i can get usually.
2) i’m usually in expo territory if that’s what you mean
3) yes
4) i go from maths into a blacet super VCA which also has variable response and sometimes i’ll get the maths envelope super expo plucky then dial the blacet into expo too to get even pluckier.
MvK
I dont get why people say it's a waste to use Maths "only" for its envelopes. I think ENVs are among the most important parts of a modular.
peripatitis
MvK wrote:
I dont get why people say it's a waste to use Maths "only" for its envelopes. I think ENVs are among the most important parts of a modular.

I agree, it is not as if what it does besides envelopes is so outofthisworld.
Anyway, I am having fun with vermona's fourmative contour (they clearly could have picked an easier name smile )
As far as envelopes go, I am very happy with it and you can adjust the output with jumpers.

I've also found btw maths to have nice curves but ctg's were on another league...
EATyourGUITAR
MvK wrote:
I dont get why people say it's a waste to use Maths "only" for its envelopes. I think ENVs are among the most important parts of a modular.


There is a reason people say this over and over. I know a lot of people have purchased a quadra to substitute maths if they find that they always use maths as an ADSR. It is a 20HP ADSR with a complicated interface given the context of ADSR. They don't buy quadra and sell maths. They keep both and it frees up the maths to do all sorts of stuff. See the manual. I will also share this. Don't buy the quadra expander. Too many HP. The point of quadra is the density.
cptnal
EATyourGUITAR wrote:
I will also share this. Don't buy the quadra expander. Too many HP. The point of quadra is the density.


Respectfully disagree. Mr. Green

I felt I'd been wasting my Quadra until I got the expander.

I'd apply the Muff's rule here - get both. w00t
starthief
To share one of my favorites posts ever from Lines:




To me, Maths is a very good dual envelope generator and a decent unipolar LFO. But it can step up and do several other things when I need/want it to.

Same with Stages -- my primary use of it is for single segment LFOs and decay envelopes.

For me, the real waste would be to buy another envelope generator module just so I could hold Maths and Stages in reserve for grander things.
Alliex
pugix wrote:
1) Do you use both sections to get ADSR? Or each separately to get two AD envelopes?

2) What curves are you typically dialing in?

3) Do you self-patch the Maths to get different curves?

4) Especially: What VCAs are you using, and what are their response curves like?

Thanks,

1) Generally one at a time, but I'm fairly short on these sorts of envelopes until I pick up another module for it.

2)anything from heavily exponential (percussion, keys, etc) to linear (swells, atmospheric sounds) to log (more 'wooshy' sounds)

3) sometimes, yes; sometimes, no

4) WMD/SSF Amplitude if I want a warmer/saturated VCA or want to get the envelope back out after buffering (or mixing with another envelope). Livestock MIR is my go-to VCA (4x2in, +/- outs, lin/exp switch). I love them both.
moremagic
pugix wrote:
A few questions for those using Maths for envelopes.

1) Do you use both sections to get ADSR? Or each separately to get two AD envelopes?

2) What curves are you typically dialing in?

3) Do you self-patch the Maths to get different curves?

4) Especially: What VCAs are you using, and what are their response curves like?

Thanks,
why not get patchy and use it for 2 adsrs?
deke
Since I started this, all the replies helped me understand a few things. 1. It is okay to use a complex tool for simple things. 2. There is a fair amount of info on Maths that can lead a semi noob to feel pressured or question 1. 3. Envelopes are fundamental and if you like the results, so what if it comes from module a b or c. I took all the advice I could here and am now getting much better results with my Doepfer, am using the Pons for some things it is suited for, and happy with Maths for an envelope or even two.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules  
Page 1 of 3
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group