开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. Xpantastic
  2. Topics

Faster envelopes on Matrix 12/Xpander - Conversation with one of the designers

analogholic
 

Hi everyone,

When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded that
I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I (as
many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12?s slow enevelopes.

SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel Doidic)
and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:

"Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part of
designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for sale in
Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly
grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer the
following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way to
modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of
softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths which
have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you
changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes became
dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed.
Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or would
it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the Matrix
12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, would
mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all
IMHO.
I thank you once again and send you my best
regards Attila"

His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you could
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and
microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a bit of
hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2
milliseconds.
This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where X
will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it
controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog
smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and Hold).
This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor RX14
on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for the
VCF frequency control.
You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 1 M
Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from about
7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get more
discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
The next fastest times however will still be determined by the 6809
software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the voice
and see if that goes toward what you want.
Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"

OK guys, what do you think?

I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not
fantastic, but better)
Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same
thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower value,
envelopes supposedly become faster.

I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting in a
faster processor and find someone to recode the software.

Brainstorming please begin :)
 

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:52 AM, analogholic <publik@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,
His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you could
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
Hitachi makes pin & instruction compatible replacement for the 6809,
but it's clock speed can go up to 3 or 4Mhz.
The 6309 has some additional instructiuons that the 6809 does not
have, but needs to be in a different mode to use them.

I don't think that this would just yield snappier envleopes though. I
fear speeding up the CPU might make many things not work at all.

You may want to run this by Mr Doidic or MArcus to see what their reply is.
eggwheatis
 

It would not change anything adding a faster 6809 and upping the
speed of the clocking circuit, you would have to change a lot more in
the circuit to cope with the faster speeds.. it would also create a
high risk of breaking things. Circuits do not like to be run at a
faster speed than they were designed for they usually break or dont
work at all. I would never risk this in such an expensive piece of
kit.

I personally do not understand this general obsession with making
envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real world
the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are
actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on
these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to
actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument. You
change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.

If you need ridiculously punchy bass, just buy a Moog Source or
something.

Just wanted to add I'm not being mean...these things come across
better face to face :o)

Phil...




--- In xpantastic@..., "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...>
wrote:

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:52 AM, analogholic <publik@...> wrote:
Hi everyone,
His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because,
as
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you
could
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be
done.

Hitachi makes pin & instruction compatible replacement for the
6809,
but it's clock speed can go up to 3 or 4Mhz.
The 6309 has some additional instructiuons that the 6809 does not
have, but needs to be in a different mode to use them.

I don't think that this would just yield snappier envleopes though.
I
fear speeding up the CPU might make many things not work at all.

You may want to run this by Mr Doidic or MArcus to see what their
reply is.
 

开云体育

Hi !

I agree. If you speed up the CPU, all the software generated processes speed up too, not only the attack of envelopes.
Eventually, if the envelopes become faster, isn?t it they will be shorter also. One of the Xpander/Matrix12 advantages is, the duration of an envelope can be very long, especially if? the segments of the envelope are modulated.
I also think, all the Lfos would speed up, the track generators and the ramps,- their slowest settings would be faster then.
What happens to all the software generated VCAs ? I cannot imagine ...

I have a Roland D550 w/ a Musitronics memory expansion and speed kit as also midi-multimode feature.
This results in a faster response on incomming midi notes so the delay of notes if playing chord are reduced a lot.
The machine is 4 times faster w/ this kit.
The speed kit speeds up the cpu also, but they burned a completely new OS in a eprom on a daughter circuit board which compensates the LFO speed as also any other by software generated modulators for soundwise compatibility of all the patches for standard D50/550. The kit also includes a new quartz and some other new components on the daughter board.

So, I think, without a special modified OS for Xpander/Matrix12, there?s no solution to speed anything up without to change the behaviour and sound of an Xpander/Matrix12.
Could be a bad result if you cannot use all your patches anymore.


Tony Cappellini schrieb:


Hitachi makes pin & instruction compatible replacement for the 6809,
but it's clock speed can go up to 3 or 4Mhz.
The 6309 has some additional instructiuons that the 6809 does not
have, but needs to be in a different mode to use them.

I don't think that this would just yield snappier envleopes though. I
fear speeding up the CPU might make many things not work at all.

You may want to run this by Mr Doidic or MArcus to see what their reply is.
 

开云体育

+1 !

eggwheatis schrieb:

It would not change anything adding a faster 6809 and upping the
speed of the clocking circuit, you would have to change a lot more in
the circuit to cope with the faster speeds.. it would also create a
high risk of breaking things. Circuits do not like to be run at a
faster speed than they were designed for they usually break or dont
work at all. I would never risk this in such an expensive piece of
kit.

I personally do not understand this general obsession with making
envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real world
the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are
actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on
these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to
actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument. You
change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.

If you need ridiculously punchy bass, just buy a Moog Source or
something.

Just wanted to add I'm not being mean...these things come across
better face to face :o)

Phil...

?

 

BTW

I know a guy who has the source code for the Xpander, if anyone is
bored and wants to rewrite the OS over a weekend. ;-)
(I don't think he wants to give it away though)

There was talk that Neil Bradley (the guy who engineered Europa for
the Jupiter 6) would look into this, but Europa ended up taking too
much time.
 

I personally do not understand this general obsession with making

envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real world
the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are
actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on
these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to
actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument. You
change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.

One does not need a scope to experience the slow envelopes on the
Xpander, it is plainly audible.
The same goes for the OB8.
analogholic
 

Wow,

I?m personally not "obsessed" with faster envelopes on my Matrix 12, I
rather get reminded of it whenever I play it, don?t need a scope for
that. It?s so fxxing great, but would be even greater with faster
envelopes IMHO.

I have some really fast machines like the P5 and the Minimoog D, so
it?s not like I have to get the M12 faster.

None of the machines I have are "perfect", in fact I have mods thought
out for most of them, but that?s the way I am I guess :)
I?m gonna syncmod the Mini next...hope that?s not like cursing in
church :)

When I have the time, I will start out by change the resistors on one
of the voiceboards like Mr Doidic suggested. After all, it worked out
on the SE-1.

Cheerio







--- In xpantastic@..., "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...>
wrote:

I personally do not understand this general obsession with making

envelopes faster, the Xpander is perfection itself. It the real
world
the basses sound fine, gorgeous in fact, I love them..If you are
actually sitting down with a scope analysing speeds of enevelopes on
these machines, I personally think you've lost it. You need to
actually play it more, write some songs, use it as an instrument.
You
change stuff in it, you will ruin the sound I guarantee it.

One does not need a scope to experience the slow envelopes on the
Xpander, it is plainly audible.
The same goes for the OB8.
 

Hi,

Wow, I am impressed that Michel Doidic even reponded to this after 25
years. He obviously pulled out the schematics and gave it some
thought. Very kind of him. And thanks to analogholic for having the
guts to try. I am planning to overhaul (re-battary and recap) my M12
soon. I might try this mod on one of my voices. I will report back If
I do.

Karl

--- In xpantastic@..., "analogholic" <publik@...> wrote:

Hi everyone,

When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded
that
I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I
(as
many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12?s slow enevelopes.

SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel
Doidic)
and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:

"Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part
of
designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for sale
in
Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly
grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer
the
following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way
to
modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of
softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths which
have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you
changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes
became
dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed.
Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or would
it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the
Matrix
12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, would
mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all
IMHO.
I thank you once again and send you my best
regards Attila"

His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you
could
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and
microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a bit
of
hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2
milliseconds.
This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where X
will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it
controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog
smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and
Hold).
This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor
RX14
on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for
the
VCF frequency control.
You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 1
M
Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from
about
7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get
more
discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
The next fastest times however will still be determined by the
6809
software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the
voice
and see if that goes toward what you want.
Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"

OK guys, what do you think?

I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not
fantastic, but better)
Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same
thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower
value,
envelopes supposedly become faster.

I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting in
a
faster processor and find someone to recode the software.

Brainstorming please begin :)
 

开云体育


Yep, it?s true for both synths,- but that doesn?t make the Xpander or Matrix12 a bad synth. They have other qualitys.
If the Xpander or M12 is the only synth you have, the slow envelopes are a disadvantage, but if there are more synths available to work with,- it?s not so important.
I don?t use the Xpander for bass or very percussive sounds.
The punchiest synths I have are the Minimoog, the MKS80 and the FM-synths ( TX816 / DX7mkII & TG77).

Tony Cappellini schrieb:



One does not need a scope to experience the slow envelopes on the
Xpander, it is plainly audible.
The same goes for the OB8.
 

开云体育

Hi analogholic !

I?d be interested in more details of a Minimoog D sync-mod if possible.
I had that in mind since a long time, but couldn?t find a tech who could do it the way I imagined.
I?d like to control the sync-sweep effect by a Moog 1120 CV pedal,- not by the mod-wheel or by one of the envelopes.
The general prob is w/ the Mini,- any device connected to the Mini?s CV-inputs adds voltage to the unit. To change that, you?d have to disconnect the device ( pedal).
It?s somewhat uncomfortable to plug/ unplug a CV-pedal during performance.
So this has to be switchable on/off as a mod source of one of the oscillators frequency/pitch w/ a sync mod installed and hard sync switched to on.
Prob No. 2,- if the pedal is not in use but still connected,- how to reset the oscillators pitch to normal condition and regardless of the pedals angle (= setting/position of its pot ) in the moment you?d defeat it from the circuitry by a switch ?

Any idea ?





analogholic schrieb:


I?m gonna syncmod the Mini next...hope that?s not like cursing in
church :)


Cheerio

?

 

Tony Cappellini wrote:
BTW

I know a guy who has the source code for the Xpander, if anyone is
bored and wants to rewrite the OS over a weekend. ;-)
(I don't think he wants to give it away though)

There was talk that Neil Bradley (the guy who engineered Europa for
the Jupiter 6) would look into this, but Europa ended up taking too
much time.
Wow!

I'm on a mailing list with Neil Bradley, for reverse engineering software.

Small world.

Jeremy.
 

Wow, that's very interesting.? I would love to see faster envelopes on my M12; I'm wondering if that mod works for all destinations of that env?
?
I'm trying to figure out if I have the guts to try it... anyone else?
?
Randy


--- On Tue, 9/9/08, analogholic wrote:
From: analogholic
Subject: [xpantastic] Faster envelopes on Matrix 12/Xpander - Conversation with one of the designers
To: xpantastic@...
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 4:52 AM

Hi everyone,

When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded that
I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I (as
many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12?s slow enevelopes.

SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel Doidic)
and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:

"Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part of
designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for sale in
Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly
grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer the
following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way to
modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of
softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths which
have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you
changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes became
dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed.
Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or would
it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the Matrix
12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, would
mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all
IMHO.
I thank you once again and send you my best
regards Attila"

His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you could
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and
microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a bit of
hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2
milliseconds.
This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where X
will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it
controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog
smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and Hold).
This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor RX14
on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for the
VCF frequency control.
You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 1 M
Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from about
7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get more
discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
The next fastest times however will still be determined by the 6809
software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the voice
and see if that goes toward what you want.
Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"

OK guys, what do you think?

I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not
fantastic, but better)
Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same
thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower value,
envelopes supposedly become faster.

I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting in a
faster processor and find someone to recode the software.

Brainstorming please begin :)


 

Hi All,
I am thinking about trying this, but can anyone really tell the
difference in one thousandth of a second. It seems like only a scope
could tell the difference. And looking at the schematics changing
Rx51 will only affect the VCA in the filter chip. No other
destinations, sorry. The second mod looks more promising as this is a
whole string of 1M resistors in the Sample and Hold Circuit. One for
each Voltage Controlled Input In the Circuit VCO1,PW1,VCO-VOL1,VCO2
etc... This would affect any modulation source used. ENV, LFO and so
on. As Mr Doidic points out "you may get more discontinuity in the
shape of the modulation". Maybe some experementation would be in
order here. My guess is, if this value was too small the S/H cap will
discharge too rapidly. Causing a bumpy shape to an otherwise smooth
envelope.
If I do try this I will let yal know.
Karl


--- In xpantastic@..., William Cason <randycason102@...>
wrote:

Wow, that's very interesting.? I would love to see faster envelopes
on my M12; I'm wondering if that mod works for all destinations of
that env?
?
I'm trying to figure out if I have the guts to try it... anyone
else?
?
Randy

--- On Tue, 9/9/08, analogholic <publik@...> wrote:

From: analogholic <publik@...>
Subject: [xpantastic] Faster envelopes on Matrix 12/Xpander -
Conversation with one of the designers
To: xpantastic@...
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 4:52 AM






Hi everyone,

When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded
that
I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I
(as
many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12?s slow enevelopes.

SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel
Doidic)
and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:

"Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part
of
designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for sale
in
Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly
grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer
the
following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way
to
modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of
softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths which
have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you
changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes
became
dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed.
Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or would
it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the
Matrix
12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible, would
mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all
IMHO.
I thank you once again and send you my best
regards Attila"

His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because, as
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you
could
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be done.
The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and
microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a bit
of
hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2
milliseconds.
This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where X
will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it
controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog
smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and
Hold).
This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor
RX14
on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for
the
VCF frequency control.
You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original 1
M
Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from
about
7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get
more
discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
The next fastest times however will still be determined by the 6809
software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the
voice
and see if that goes toward what you want.
Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"

OK guys, what do you think?

I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not
fantastic, but better)
Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same
thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower
value,
envelopes supposedly become faster.

I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting in
a
faster processor and find someone to recode the software.

Brainstorming please begin :)
analogholic
 

Hi Karl,
Yeah, I was kind of blown away myself that Doidic answered, since he
is the president of Line 6! It was a "long shot", but I thought what
the heck. I think he is very proud of this legendary beast :) (Who
wouldn?t be?)

And you?re very welcome btw!

Hmmm, yes, I?m thinking about doing a recap myself, since our
moderator Tiitu did just that not long ago, which reminds me of a
cool mod he mentioned that supposedly would make this beasts sound
even better.

But I?m gonna wait a week or so before posting that you can soak the
envelope mod up first. And I?ll probably wear a raincoat or
something, just in case rotten tomatoes and eggs come flying :)

Cheerio


Hi,

Wow, I am impressed that Michel Doidic even reponded to this after
25
years. He obviously pulled out the schematics and gave it some
thought. Very kind of him. And thanks to analogholic for having the
guts to try. I am planning to overhaul (re-battary and recap) my M12
soon. I might try this mod on one of my voices. I will report back
If
I do.

Karl

--- In xpantastic@..., "analogholic" <publik@> wrote:

Hi everyone,

When I read the "percussive like patches"-thread, I was reminded
that
I while ago (when the Matrix 12 was my only analog synth) that I
(as
many others) was a bit frustrated with the M12?s slow enevelopes.

SoI wrote an email to one of the creators of this beast(Michel
Doidic)
and asked what could be done. Here is our conversation:

"Mr Ryle, Mr Doidic, first off I want to thank you for being part
of
designing (among other things) the fantastic Oberheim Matrix 12.
I have the incredible luck to have found one (Matrix 12) for
sale
in
Sweden. Although this is very "off topic", I would be incredibly
grateful and happy if you guys could try (who else could?) answer
the
following question: Do you think it would be possible in some way
to
modify the envelopes of the Matrix 12 to be faster ?
I know they are software envelopes, but today there are a lot of
softEnvs that are snappy, also on at least two analog synths
which
have softwareEnvs (one is Studio Electronics Se-1/x) where if you
changed a resistor on the motherboard, the software envelopes
became
dramatically faster and snappier, almost at Minimoog speed.
Could it be enough to change resistors in the right place, or
would
it be necesarry to recode/reprogram the whole software for the
Matrix
12? I know this a hard question, but a solution,if possible,
would
mean that a fantastic synth would become the greatest of them all
IMHO.
I thank you once again and send you my best
regards Attila"

His answer:

"Hi Attila, To do the job right would be very difficult because,
as
you noticed, the envelopes are generated by the code of the 6809
microprocessor. Short of using a faster 6809 (assuming that you
could
get one) and modifying the code there is not much which can be
done.
The Matrix 6 and 12 were designed about 25 years ago, and
microprocessors where a lot slower back then. There is still a
bit
of
hope however. The fastest time for the envelopes is about 2
milliseconds.
This could be reduce to 1 ms by changing RX51 for the VCA (where
X
will be 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 according to which of the six voice it
controls on each of the two voice boards) from 18K to 9.1K.
The next fastest time is set by the microprocessor and an analog
smoothing filter on the voltage control circuit (= Sample and
Hold).
This time is set not only by the software but also by a resistor
RX14
on each of the main voice PCB for the VCA control and by RX10 for
the
VCF frequency control.
You may want to try reducing these resistors from their original
1
M
Ohm value to let say 500K Ohm. This will reduce that time from
about
7 ms to about 3.5 ms. The draw back however is that you may get
more
discontinuity in the shape of the modulation.
The next fastest times however will still be determined by the
6809
software and that will not change. Give it a try on one of the
voice
and see if that goes toward what you want.
Hope that this helps a bit. Michel Doidic Line 6 CTO"

OK guys, what do you think?

I changed a resistor in my SE-1, and it become snappier (not
fantastic, but better)
Also, the Chroma has a reputaion of very slow envelopes, but same
thing there, if you remove a resistor or change it to a lower
value,
envelopes supposedly become faster.

I would even go so far to check out the possibilities of putting
in
a
faster processor and find someone to recode the software.

Brainstorming please begin :)
analogholic
 

Hi PeWe,

My problem is that I?m not a tech by far, but get cool ideas all the
time...
I got in touch with a tech here in Sweden the other day.

I told him about the "Studio Electronics mod" (which they had on
their Midimoog/Midimini), where you can sweep the synced Osc with the
filter envelope ala Prophet 5.

He said, no problem. He?s going to add a switch or two for on/off,
and a knob for depth.

I?m going to decide if I want to sync both Osc 2 and 3 to Osc 1, or
just Osc 2.

I can ask him about the Pedal/Modwheel controlling the sync if you
want.

I sold my Prodigy the other day, where the sync sounds phenomenal.

You know, having Osc 2 synced, while Osc 3 is not, with its natural
drift, sounds very exciting to me.

You won?t of course have any LFO then, but that would come from the
Kenton Pro Solo in that case.

Cheers


--- In xpantastic@..., PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

Hi analogholic !

I?d be interested in more details of a Minimoog D sync-mod if
possible.
I had that in mind since a long time, but couldn?t find a tech who
could
do it the way I imagined.
I?d like to control the sync-sweep effect by a Moog 1120 CV pedal,-
not
by the mod-wheel or by one of the envelopes.
The general prob is w/ the Mini,- any device connected to the
Mini?s
CV-inputs adds voltage to the unit. To change that, you?d have to
disconnect the device ( pedal).
It?s somewhat uncomfortable to plug/ unplug a CV-pedal during
performance.
So this has to be switchable on/off as a mod source of one of the
oscillators frequency/pitch w/ a sync mod installed and hard sync
switched to on.
Prob No. 2,- if the pedal is not in use but still connected,- how
to
reset the oscillators pitch to normal condition and regardless of
the
pedals angle (= setting/position of its pot ) in the moment you?d
defeat
it from the circuitry by a switch ?

Any idea ?





analogholic schrieb:


I?m gonna syncmod the Mini next...hope that?s not like cursing in
church :)


Cheerio
 

开云体育


Hi !
Are you the one I see in the musicplayerforums too ... ? :-)

Would be a great idea to ask this tech for a sync-mod being controlled by a Moog Model 1120 CV pedal.

NOT the wheel and NOT the envelope as control-sources for the pitch of the synced OSC,- just only the pedal.
OSC 2 synced to OSC 1
sync-sweep-control source (pedal) switchable off/on, sync function switchable off/on (both maybe by footswitches)
OSC pitch-reset to keyboard voltage only if pedal as a control source is defeated by the switch.

We had a sync function in our "Midimuck" ( = racked Minimoog) in 1989, -
This could be controlled by Midi CC #4,- but w/ a real mini it has to be a CV pedal.
?
I only have a fronpanel of the Midimuck left over unfortunally. The tech? from the past is unavailable and I cannot find the hand drawn schematics.
There is probably 1 prototype working in a studio,- I?ll ask the owner if the machine is there or trashed meanwhile, if not, if it?s working and if I can have a look into it. It was done w/ original Minimoog circuit boards.

B.t.w., - I had such a mod also for the Prophet 5 in the 80th/90th,- CV-pedal controlled the sync via the polymod and was switchable too.
Was another story because of bypassing the Z80 proc and cutting lanes ond so on ...

let me know please

good luck

PeWe



analogholic schrieb:

Hi PeWe,

My problem is that I?m not a tech by far, but get cool ideas all the
time...
I got in touch with a tech here in Sweden the other day.


I can ask him about the Pedal/Modwheel controlling the sync if you
want.



Cheers

-
analogholic
 

Yeah, I hang at Musicplayer among other places.

Sorry, I misread you. Ok, only from the pedal.

In return, you might check how I can get my pitchwheel springloaded
in the Mini with a range of 2 semitones (If you didn?t already answer
that already at Musicplayer:)...)

Cheers


--- In xpantastic@..., PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:


Hi !
Are you the one I see in the musicplayerforums too ... ? :-)

Would be a great idea to ask this tech for a sync-mod being
controlled
by a Moog Model 1120 CV pedal.

NOT the wheel and NOT the envelope as control-sources for the pitch
of
the synced OSC,- just only the pedal.
OSC 2 synced to OSC 1
sync-sweep-control source (pedal) switchable off/on, sync function
switchable off/on (both maybe by footswitches)
OSC pitch-reset to keyboard voltage only if pedal as a control
source is
defeated by the switch.

We had a sync function in our "Midimuck" ( = racked Minimoog) in
1989,

This could be controlled by Midi CC #4,- but w/ a real mini it has
to be
a CV pedal.

I only have a fronpanel of the Midimuck left over unfortunally. The
tech from the past is unavailable and I cannot find the hand drawn
schematics.
There is probably 1 prototype working in a studio,- I?ll ask the
owner
if the machine is there or trashed meanwhile, if not, if it?s
working
and if I can have a look into it. It was done w/ original Minimoog
circuit boards.

B.t.w., - I had such a mod also for the Prophet 5 in the 80th/90th,-
CV-pedal controlled the sync via the polymod and was switchable too.
Was another story because of bypassing the Z80 proc and cutting
lanes
ond so on ...

let me know please

good luck

PeWe



analogholic schrieb:

Hi PeWe,

My problem is that I?m not a tech by far, but get cool ideas all
the
time...
I got in touch with a tech here in Sweden the other day.


I can ask him about the Pedal/Modwheel controlling the sync if you
want.



Cheers

-
 

开云体育

Yep,- it was me.
If I come across this site I?ve seen ( I believe) some time ago,- I post a link.
AFAIR, - the main prob is:
You?re able to find spring loaded mechanisms for PB wheels,- but for the Minimmog you have to use it?s original pot.
Eventually it works w/ a complete set of wheels/mechanics/pot replacement for a Voyager.
I don?t know the specs of the pot used for PB in the Voyager ..

just an idea

PeWe


analogholic schrieb:

Yeah, I hang at Musicplayer among other places.

Sorry, I misread you. Ok, only from the pedal.

In return, you might check how I can get my pitchwheel springloaded
in the Mini with a range of 2 semitones (If you didn?t already answer
that already at Musicplayer:)...)

Cheers

?

 

Ref. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/xpantastic/conversations/messages/608

?

The Matrix-12 owned by the Swedish band named Ace of Base in the past was brought by me to Finland in Oct 6, 2007 from G?teborg, where it had been used and serviced in a music studio called Ljudlabbet, the owner of which was Daniel Saxlid. He was selling the M12 because of moving to Los Angeles. He also told me that it should be possible to speed up the envelopes, as described above.

?

You may find Daniel at?https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-saxlid-746a93a/.

?

The same M12 was later (i.e., in 11.5.2015) acquired by Aake Otsala at .


I think that Aake might have been in contact with e.g. Daniel regarding to the modifications etc.

?

Regards,

Tiitu

1 - 20 of 24