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

210e in smaller systems?
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Author 210e in smaller systems?
dkcg
How useful is the 210e in smaller systems? I'm talking like half a 18u case. I'm starting to look at the modules more closely now, even using rackplanner to see what I want.
cbm
From my point of view, the 210e might be more useful in small systems than it is in a large system. It can function as CV attenuators, CV mixers, audio mixers or a matrix mixer.
dkcg
Oh, very cool. I thought it was more like a patchbay than a mixer, I should have read the webpage a little more carefully.

Thanks for clearing that up.
ex_dead_teenager
At first I wasn't that interested in the 210e it seemed kind of cool but ultimatly for larger systems but then as I thought about it the thing is really genius it's a patch matrix, it's two matrix mixers, it's all that CV processing that Chris mentioned above, it's one of those less sexy modules (compared say, to the Shepard Tone Generator or the frequency shifter but it's usefulness is multiplied in that inimitable Buchlidian way that takes function and then explodes it all out of proportion to what might seem reasonable.

That's why I love this instrument so much. Most modular systems will give you what you need and even what you want. Buchla has sort of gone beyond that to giving you stuff you never even would have imagined yourself needing until you fully get your head around it then you realise it's something that's hard to live without.
science
I haven't really researched the 210e heavily, but the more I hear about it, the more it appeals to me. Might have to try to get a hold of someone at B&A soon and talk to them about it.

I remember hearing that there was some hold up with these shipping, though. Does anyone know if that is still the case?
ndkent
I've been waiting for mine since 12/08 but have used someone else's.

I agree that it can be quite useful on a large system or a small one. On a small system you can hope to put all the cables to a few simple patches into it so you are more able to pull off changing your cables connections via the 210e and store to memory.

I'd say the disappointments are you can hear enough stepping to not always want to use it for live tweaks -- your results might vary -- and the often mentioned inability to invert the signal.

I was hoping to get two (I only have 1 on order though) and still might, but in another seeming oversight the card backup apparently only recognizes one per system. So apparently 2 will behave okay but you can't store both on a card.
2012
ndkent wrote:

I was hoping to get two (I only have 1 on order though) and still might, but in another seeming oversight the card backup apparently only recognizes one per system. So apparently 2 will behave okay but you can't store both on a card.


Nicholas,do u mean only settings of one module in a system will be stored in the presets? eek!
ndkent
2012 wrote:
ndkent wrote:

I was hoping to get two (I only have 1 on order though) and still might, but in another seeming oversight the card backup apparently only recognizes one per system. So apparently 2 will behave okay but you can't store both on a card.


Nicholas,do u mean only settings of one module in a system will be stored in the presets? eek!


Just a card limitation.

From what I understand each can access it's own internal memories so they will function , the not so good limitation arises, I've been told, if you want to back the patches off to a card. The card storage apparently has imposed limits of how many of each module can be stored. Maybe there was a justification but others have commented in irony that it was shortsighted to only have a one stored 210e per system limit but have several spaces for several 249es (you know, just in case you happen own a good percent of all the handful that were built).

I'd say the card function is pretty old fashioned overall if you look at other details like it's a slow kludge to back up every memory slot to card (only half get quickly stored per card then you have to manually move everything else to the slots you just stored to store the other half). A one snapshot memory restore is easy enough from card, you just need to perhaps reserve the last internal memory location for card transfer. At least it also functions to update the firmware too.
2012
ok i see,10x for this very detailled explanation.
dkcg
So is the CV processor the only way to invert CVs? The positive voltages only thing about Buchla throws me off with my way of thinking now.

If it almost a completely new different way of thinking about control than in a typical bipolar voltage based system? Things like inverting a CV around 0 volts seem moot. When patching a 200e, instead of thinking of 0 volts as the mean, is it a matter of mentally offsetting everything by 5 volts? hmmm.....
dougcl
dkcg wrote:
So is the CV processor the only way to invert CVs? The positive voltages only thing about Buchla throws me off with my way of thinking now.

If it almost a completely new different way of thinking about control than in a typical bipolar voltage based system? Things like inverting a CV around 0 volts seem moot. When patching a 200e, instead of thinking of 0 volts as the mean, is it a matter of mentally offsetting everything by 5 volts? hmmm.....


Perhaps it is correct to think of cv=0 as full CCW knob setting, and CV=10 as full CW knob setting.
amnesia
i have never needed of miss the 210e
felix
dkcg wrote:
So is the CV processor the only way to invert CVs? The positive voltages only thing about Buchla throws me off with my way of thinking now.

If it almost a completely new different way of thinking about control than in a typical bipolar voltage based system? Things like inverting a CV around 0 volts seem moot. When patching a 200e, instead of thinking of 0 volts as the mean, is it a matter of mentally offsetting everything by 5 volts? hmmm.....

No, in fact you'll find that many of the CV inputs have bipolar attenuators. This is one of the arguments for splitting the CV signal paths from the audio signal paths, since a single bipolar attenuator for an audio input is fairly pointless.

You definitely would want the 256e for handling CV for modules that don't have attenuators on their CV ins (like the 281e).
prscrptn
The 210e is very useful. It's a module that I wish I did not need, but can't live without. The 210e allows you to mix/scale audio/cv and is very useful for small systems without a 227e. Patch recall is nice too! thumbs up
ndkent
>No, in fact you'll find that many of the CV inputs have bipolar attenuators.

agreed.

>This is one of the arguments for splitting the CV signal paths from the audio signal paths, since a single bipolar attenuator for an audio input is fairly pointless.

By mixing inverted signals you can achieve new filter responses as well as substantially change feedback behavior on a single audio in.

p.s. though it's not "e" series, don't forget the still available 255's CV processing.
dougcl
ndkent wrote:
>No, in fact you'll find that many of the CV inputs have bipolar attenuators.

agreed.

>This is one of the arguments for splitting the CV signal paths from the audio signal paths, since a single bipolar attenuator for an audio input is fairly pointless.

By mixing inverted signals you can achieve new filter responses as well as substantially change feedback behavior on a single audio in.

p.s. though it's not "e" series, don't forget the still available 255's CV processing.


Is the 210e the only way to subract one cv from another?
cbm
dougcl wrote:
Is the 210e the only way to subract one cv from another?

The 210e cannot do this; in fact I'm not coming up with a way to do this with 200e modules. Mark Verbos' 254 processor can do it, and the 257 could do it. It's funny, I've had a 200e for quite a while, and have never noticed this inability before this thread. I guess once you start working in unipolar world, you just work a little differently.
dougcl
cbm wrote:

The 210e cannot do this; in fact I'm not coming up with a way to do this with 200e modules. Mark Verbos' 254 processor can do it, and the 257 could do it. It's funny, I've had a 200e for quite a while, and have never noticed this inability before this thread. I guess once you start working in unipolar world, you just work a little differently.


As one cv increases, you might want to mix it with another that is increasing so that the result, while positive (unipolar), represents the difference in the signals. If the difference in the signals tries to go negative, it would just hit the bottom rail (zero) and stay there, until the result went positive again. This is similar to a sum that exceeds the upper limit. So I'm not sure that unipolar I/O should preclude the possibility of expressing the difference in signals. I think this can be done without ever allowing a negative value on any of the cv inputs or outputs. It would be really nice to know if the 210e is really not capable of doing this. It looks like it is, based on the <0 and >0 labels. Doesn't this knob determine the contribution of the cv to the mix? So doesn't <0 imply that the cv input will subtract from the others?
cbm
dougcl wrote:
So I'm not sure that unipolar I/O should preclude the possibility of expressing the difference in signals. I think this can be done without ever allowing a negative value on any of the cv inputs or outputs.

I understand why one might want this, and I agree that if there was a CV processor designed with this in mind, it could certainly happen without the output needing to go negative (although it would have to go negative internally.) I don't think that any of the current 200e generation modules allow for this, though I would love to be proven wrong about this.

Quote:
It would be really nice to know if the 210e is really not capable of doing this. It looks like it is, based on the <0 and >0 labels. Doesn't this knob determine the contribution of the cv to the mix? So doesn't <0 imply that the cv input will subtract from the others?

The <0 label is wrong. It does not go negative. The 210e really cannot do this.
dougcl
cbm wrote:

The <0 label is wrong. It does not go negative. The 210e really cannot do this.


Weird. Thanks for the info.
dkcg
cbm wrote:
I guess once you start working in unipolar world, you just work a little differently.


This is interesting, so, is the best way to think of how patching in Buchland is EVERYTHING is additive? Which would include adding inverted signals instead of subtracting a negative signal?

If so, this way of thinking would clear up half my confusion with how to patch a 200e.
dougcl
dkcg wrote:

This is interesting, so, is the best way to think of how patching in Buchland is EVERYTHING is additive? Which would include adding inverted signals instead of subtracting a negative signal?

If so, this way of thinking would clear up half my confusion with how to patch a 200e.


Unfortunately, it sounds as though there is no such thing as an inverted signal, if what cbm says is correct. All signals are positive, and they may only be added. Differences cannot be calculated. It's hard to believe.
dkcg
Wouldn't the inverse of say this CV where the base is 0volts, and the peak is 10 volts:
_____/\______

Be kinda like this where the lowest point is 0 volts and the highest be 10 volts:

------v--------- <---supposed to look like a reflection of the diagram up top.

I haven't sat in front of one yet, but I get the feeling everything is a modulator, and the voltages determine how much modulation do you want? ending up additive in philosphy. same with the oscillator and their modulation oscillators. Sheer uninformed guess on my part. I have a feeling once you sit in front of one, and get a feel for how to modulate CVs and audio, it makes sense. The philosophy behind how to synthesize seems to be really interesting.
dougcl
The problem (if you want to call it that) is when you want to combine (mix) two signals. The sum and the difference are two different concepts. If differences are not allowed, mixing will always lead to an increase on the output. Mixing to create a decrease is not possible. This has nothing to do with the unipolarity of the I/O, so it's good to keep these things separate.
dkcg
dougcl wrote:
The problem (if you want to call it that) is when you want to combine (mix) two signals. The sum and the difference are two different concepts. If differences are not allowed, mixing will always lead to an increase on the output. Mixing to create a decrease is not possible. This has nothing to do with the unipolarity of the I/O, so it's good to keep these things separate.


Ah...ok i totally see your point now. Couldn't you just think in terms of a permanent offset in voltage and just think of the mean as 5 volts or whatever you like. Biggest difference would be that you have a clip at 0 volts all the time. I think the only thing I really use big voltage jumps of more than 5 volts is envelopes or a big jump in frequency to try to squeeze two "voices" out of one patch. Anyone in downtown LA have a 200e and wanna let me come over and play it a bit? Don't make me drive all the way out to Pomona. applause
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Buchla, EMS & Serge Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Page 1 of 2
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group