Sub Oscillators in the System 100

[@moogfooger]

Undoubtably the best video I have seen on KZbin. You have clarified a very mysterious pair of modules to the "laymen" . The pairing of the gates and the 297 - and + voltages is an ingenious system. Much like the voltage processor in the ARP 2600. A CV machine indeed! I look forward to experimenting. Thanks Cheers

[@raysubject]

my brain exploded trying to understand that AND/NOR madness 😂 you are genius

[@nxn-analogxanalog5739]

These are by far the nerdiest patches I've seen! Thank you so much for the great explanation of the schematics and logic. BTW, I don't have any doubts, that you could also patch a Z80 processor with your System 100 ;-)

[@pawnotdaw4559]

I dunno how you worked this out, but blimey well done!

[@hoagy_ytfc]

I'd have done a naive approach of feeding the same CV into two oscillators, one on (say) 16' any-waveform and the other on 8' square-waveform. Clearly I'm missing something about why that's not equivalent to what you were trying to achieve... I suspect what I'm missing is the oscillators being in perfect phase sync?

[@synthesizer83]

Yes, thats it basically. Apart from that, you receive pretty much the desired effect of a sub osc with your approach. But „by definition“, a sub osc should be phase syncd.

[@jasonb2089]

Very interesting, thanks for putting the time/research into this. I've been using technique #2 with my system 100 to create a "sub oscillator." I understand why it's not an actual sub oscillator, but I'm wondering how much of a sonic difference there is between, say, 2 and 4 after you've had them both patched up, all other settings being equal, thoughts? I'll get around to A/Bing them myself.

[@MrMarcLaflamme]

I don't think there is a sonic difference but definitely with a true sub-osc generator you don't need to worry about tuning two separate modules together. It will always follow the main osc.

[@synthesizer83]

Actually patch #2 is more flexible as you can change the waveform of the "sub oscillator", while patch #4 always gives a square wave. However, patch #2 "wastes" a full VCO just for creating the sub octave (or, whatever offset you want).

[@nicholasfaith8999]

Can you recommend any reading to get my head around using these modules for Logic? I've been looking and could find nothing

[@dustop3r]

Following Jason Bs question: Are there any sonic/musical differences between patch #2 and patch #4? I have plenty of oscillators and use patch #2 to get "sub-oscillators", easier to patch :).

[@synthesizer83]

In fact patch 2 gives you more flexibility, because you can change the waveform of the "sub oscillator". The S&H based patch #4 always gives a square wave.

[@simonburns1055]

where you get the wooden box from or your make it yourself?

[@synthesizer83]

It's just a Doepfer LowCost rack. They also have a DIY version.

[@simonburns1055]

thanks

[@BartdeBoisblanc]

synthe sizer83 looks like you were running into a race condition between the two nor gates until the threshold of both inputs is just right.

[@synthesizer83]

Yep, that was even easier than getting it tuned correctly...

[@seansnyder7744]

What's the name of that oscilloscope module?

[@juhunet]

VPME - ZeroScope

[@seansnyder7744]

@@juhunet thanks!