made some points to you about your interpretation of what Rob actually said , wont evolve into that but....
KSS wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:50 pm
I wonder -truly- if there is a communication gap due to perhaps not being a native English speaker? I mean no ill will in asking, I only saw in the copyright thread with mskala that you also misunderstood what he said -at least at first- though it did seem that you came to understand based on your last post there? I couldn't be sure, but it seemed as if you came to understand what he'd been saying all along. Again, absolutely *no* ill will is meant, I have seen how culture and language differences can show up in threads in bad ways.
Of course but it also might be your/mskala deliberate lack of reading comprehension?! Could also be interpreted as a "ego" driven classic
strawman i.e deliberate ill will use of language/refocusing tactics to things outside debate as means to avoid providing evidence for prior
claims while dearly excusing your self its of no ill intent?! So yes, your right it can show up in many bad ways, i dont know, but the
possibilities are there.
Anyhow, your right you/mskala do misunderstand the laws behind patent and copyrights of the simple fact neither been in court dealing
with those issues nor can provide any court evidence of prior successful copyright case despite repeated requests?! And thereafter
you/mskala go into a form of endless "circular argumentation" which courts dont buy into.
With this in mind, the arguments in that thread I would hope to avoid here, as this reply of yours seems to largely miss
the points I was making , and while you seem to have technical ability, you are incorrect about a couple things here.
Not at all, i'm spot on your "imaginary" points and thats the point! Well you already brought it up again so your promises
of trying to avoid it went down the toilet as we both can see here. I get the impression you base your points on personal emotions
about what Rob say and didnt say?! Nothing wrong with such things if at appropriate places yet not in "tech discussions" by
Most importantly, I suggest you read Alan Pearlman's expo patent, which is available at till.com. Go to the ARP patents section.
There you will find that your belief about the reason and result in matching the expo pair is incorrect.
You put words in my mouth i didnt say, thats quite nasty done, i said matching is for more things your claim of one namely:
The matching has only to do with thermal compensation and *not* expo/log conformity.
Else ARP would not had included tempco resistors or bind the 2 trannies together and even epoxy them to slow down
thermal changes as the total blob mass becomes larger (side effect of real intent) besides other folks use ovens.
I also discussed this in the DIY section of MW not too long ago if you want more context. That was in a TTSH build thread,
probably V4. Matching is for thermal compensation, not log conformance. That's straight from the inventor of the circuit, as seen
in the patent. In that other thread, I cite paragraph and line numbers so if you don't want to read looking for it, that thread may
be a good first stop. However, I suggest anyone seeking technical truth *do* take the time to read and understand the various
patents relating to vintage synthesizers. Don Till has at least the moog and ARP collections well sorted.
Its strange because you dont seams to read what ARP said either in your quest for "technical thrutism"! Shouldn't you live as you preach?
You talk about matching in expos which is a general concept then narrows it down into a very specific expo design, thats not honest
"truthfull technical" debating per my standard besides you putting words into my mouth i didnt say.
As Rob also points out the input impedance issue of Alan Perlmans expo as a rather notable drawback of that type of el cheapo
expo which i notice you dont even mention which would be one of your points if you had read Alan Perlmans patents you recommend!?
For the general NPN/PNP 2 tranny expo:
There are 2 temp terms, 1 and 2 both dependent on temperature and predicted by equation but since no ideal transistors exist you need matching.
The current flowing in one diode/(transistor is converted by the other diode/transistor) if you dont match them this conversion
change of slope goes wonky. This vertical shift is much smaller then the horizontal shift.
You need god quality matched decent gain transistors with low Rbe and low leakage placing collector current in between
saturation/starvation range who cause osc to go wonky. If you have different Rbe in each tranny the translation will be wonky.
Quality transistors shall give you a proportional relationship between collector current to the exponential of the base current
according to the standard equation of currents and transistor construction dependent constants. Basically common
base gain and emitter saturation current.
As already pointed out the matching cancels the first grade but not second grade temperature dependencies.
Therefore the circuit works well but contains imperfections that needed to taken care of.
So you can go the route of ovenizing one/two trannies expos but chip distance of sensor and heating may cause issues if not careful
of what you do. But im puzzled you have no knowledge of ovens and NTC/PTC tempco resistors etc.which ARP uses.. this lack of such
basic knowledge makes me wonder! No ill intent here, there just observing.
My post was not -at all- about fat v thin sound. It is about how small engineering changes -intended as upgrades- end up instead
removing the important character and operating characteristics of vintage synths.
Well, you expressed a more emotional rather the tech based reasoning for how cloners dont do to your perception of how it should
be done, which of course can be completely wrong, why clone if you can improve something pretending its a clone was my point.
I do see in your reply here that you do not mind if it no longer is the sound of the original, and that's fine. My post and work is for those who do care about and wish for close similarity in sound and operation to the original.
My point was exactly that, your audience and your self should not buy the B2600 rather build their own clone or buy a original unit,
thats due to the bias into believe B2600 is an absolute clone which is not..
I also think you misunderstood what I was saying about the waveforms, based on your reply that inserting a cap in the feedback would be enough to undo what Rob had done. I probably did not write that clearly enough.
Yes probably however my reply was for the general context, as means to cap'ing all over the place to "funky up" the wave, the core both or all, a very valid case of point.
It seems you didn't notice that Robs claim of improvement 7-8 octaves is *not* an improvement over a typical well cared for 2600. That was part of my point. He's doing things which change the sound for no good result-improvement. We will also have to agree to disagree that "its always better to get wider range as a bonus" because that's the knife in the heart of the reason why clones mostly suck compared to the originals. I have been involved with synths since the late 60's, and find it sad that everyone expects all OSCs to meet huge ranges, when acoustic instruments are revered with extremely limited scope. Trying to make every synth into a be all, do all is the worst thing ever.
Oldness of yours is not a merit in the transgender identity, climate change correct world of GRETA and Soros NGOs , however i do notice you
trying to make a new point by avoiding your previous points/claims, which ofcourse also is sort of dishonest debating technique, but i be
pragmatic and wont evolve into that.
I did notice Robs claim that's why i replied to your statements/claims as it's better to have 14 octave range then 7-8 for obvious FM reasons.
Buts since range extensions (if matching trannies in expos as mentioned) have no significant impact in sound of the B2600 whos not a clone
to begin with nobody cares about the extended range not being as per A2600 , that was my point of your failure of reasoning as you did and
This is really the whole of my point, distilled into one thought: When making a clone, take something from the medical profession's Hippocratic oath, and "first do no harm."
And my point was the B2600 is not a clone, and thats you major mistake and misunderstanding, besides the missunderstanding of matching transistors.
Finally, it is rather funny you suggest I might "build a clone for myself" from one of the 4 available. Later this year you'll see the irony of that statement. I don;t recognize you and don;t remember reading any of your posts before today, so I realize I have only a small understanding of your viewpoints, experience and concerns. Perhaps that is also true for you with me. A reading of my posts might better reflect my own experience, and abilities, especially where ARP are concerned.
There is no irony or ill intended agendas intended or attached with my statements, its just a "point" of the availability of probable choices.
Do people really think Korg2600 is an exact clone? People like to fool themselves. I dont really get it why you so attached to emotions and
ability use of language and persona instead of focusing on the debating of tech as such instead.
Until then, Thank you for your feedback, and I think you will enjoy learning more about how the Alan Pearlman mixed NPN/PNP expo pair work.
Thank you i wish you the same , and please read some more then just Alan Perlman, there are literature out there explaining something called tempco resistors and ovenisation of single/dual/multi exponating transistors. Also dont forget Dr Moog early modular career had very temp sensitive expos.