"panel proportions' analogies; (2:(1+(5^.5))):(7x:(76-y)z):(4.25:7= 17:28):(80:80). I mean, 7:76=1U:19, pizzabox (see appended patents pending more proportions' talk) IEC60297:IEC60908, IEC60297:x::x:IEC60908, 1:x::x:x+1"
We come by this caption's image as illustration for an imagination's hope it recently had to fight for. The conflict's transcript makes reference to 2xxe (alphabetize 281e, 256e, 210e), depicted above amidst imaginary friends in a field hoped to bring them closer
...................................................................
RESTATE COMPLETE WITH ERROR
...................................................................
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:04 am
Not owning a 256e yet, hopefully soon, How similar is the 281e OR's to the 256e?
Yahoo.Groups.Buchla.200e #1533 yasi_p@hotmail.com
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:33 pm
wow! what a beautiful question!:
>How similar is the 281e OR's to the 256e?
To be able to answer this at all I have to make a lot of assumptions about what the two 281 subsections that are feeding the maximum-selector-circuit are doing. Searching for what these assumptions could be is a really fun part of thinking about the question. another fun thing is that the question seems to proceed from observed behavior without too much hinderance form theory.
One situation that comes to mind has both subsections set to Decay mode and triggered by a common pulse. If their rise and fall times are set in different ways to the same overall envelope length, then looking at their OR output and turning the associated control could produce results indistinguishable from one of the subsection outputs manipulated with a 256e.
makes me realize I always felt the OR sections' control range was too narrow. now I see one simple reason why: in some situations like the one described above the OR control range could be sensibly doubled by switching the inputs at the end of the present range. And I know there ought to be even more besides. yet more notes towards a 281F I guess
another situation where we find indistinguishable (or nearly so) behaviors in the 281e OR and the 256e is btained by setting the leveled 281e subsection to Release mode and constraining the triggering pulse to last as long as the unleveled subsection's envelope time. Or we could simply trigger the Release mode subsection from the unleveled Decay mode output. In either case we see some kind of dead-band-type behavior at the OR output that could be found with a 256e
begs more: hysteresis-like possibilities for the 256e by using different transfers for rising vs falling inputs. ..extending this to general slope dependent look ups
another thing I love about the prompt: the impossibility of answering in the same spirit it was asked
Yasi CC: PP: errata
Yahoo.Groups.Buchla.200e #1535 amni56@... healyr@tpg.com.au
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:29 pm
Thanks Yasi for the reply....
what I was trying to ask in a very simplistic/naive way was ....to my mind the OR's seem to mix A and B voltage by turning the dial left or right, so therefore isnt that to a small extent what the 256e does? What exactly are breakpoints?
Yahoo.Groups.Buchla.200e #1536 cbm@well.com
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:06 pm
> What exactly are breakpoints?
http://xfade.com/Buchla/256/
Yahoo.Groups.Buchla.200e #1541 verbos2002@yahoo.com verbos@simple-answer.com
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:27 pm
no. The OR section only has a control for the second input. The first input is always at maximum. It is not a crossfader between the 2. AND, the crossfader in the 256e mixes the two signals together, it does not give only the higher of the two. That means if the lower of the 2 signals is moving around, it will make a difference in the output, where as in an OR circuit it would not.
Yahoo.Groups.Buchla.200e #1543 yasi_p@hotmail.com
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:38 pm
> no.
?
shit dog I thought I just said why "no" isn't really I thing to say right here. I often have to say to myself, and now I have to say to you: stop denigrating reality with empty oversimplifications
Yahoo.Groups.Buchla.200e #1544 yasi_p@hotmail.com
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:54 am
ok I try again: cray's two questions on the 256e: is it like the 210e? is it like the 281e's OR section?
I personally feel it's more like the OR section than the 210e (though I say clearly: it really is a personal question. a personable question !). Set up your 281e like how I described earlier: A and B sections triggered together and having about the same total envelope time but doing divergent things during time. the OR section will do some of the things a 256e subsection would do given an input of the same duration. We could imagine the similarity is that in both situations the time stays about the same globaly but in a more localized view the time is getting warped. the 256e is basically like 4 of those with 2 input vc cv crossfaders in front of each section. So besides the crossfaders there's this whole other bending thing happening.
I note here: the time-bending/flopping/flipping is a perceived effect distinct from user-manual texts about what's going on. and even divergent from the front panel markings. Someone hung up on what they think they know might say: "there's no temporal component to the 256e's behavior; time needn't enter into it's description." or even "oughtn't", and as proof read me the front panel legend. But I know how to read. I also know how to hear, and of the two, I like the second. not that reading and hearing should stand for degrees of rigidity, but perhaps you know what I'm getting at
Distinct from the OR section, in the 256e each subsection starts with one input to make the warping things, not two like the OR.
it's the warping that's particular to the 256e-- the crossfader part of the 256e's behavior cray's right in comparing to any old mixer in a general way. BUT again the time attitude is distinct: in a static situation where we're just aiming to get two control signals both effecting some parameter in a particular fixed proportion it doesn't really matter much if we use a 256e or a 210e because we usually have a multiplier at the final parameter input.
In a dynamic situation (time enters) we notice immediately the difference and to mitigate the difference takes a bit of patching (or several coordinated hands: ask Neil Young's tech!). The 256e CAN do a 210e-type mix of 2 inputs, but that's just one of many behaviors that all feel about the same to it
I won't even ask if I'm helping. just make the text pile and let it be searched. I put characters in order.
...................................................................................................
U.S. Patent Appendix: (besides other things- time-code! towards Neill-Nouy)
5,381,949;D356,254;D371,296;5,549,241;5,553,771;5,586,716;5,595,339;D380,152;D380,072;
D380,965;D385,785;5,713,509;5,752,651;D394,388;5,806,755;D400,438;5,833,130;D402,435;
5,881,948;5,918,797;5,961,035;6,016,951;6,065,669;6,070,791;D427,526;6,092,715;D436,533;
6,196,448;6,206,277;6,223,979;6,290,122;6,533,164;6,547,125;6,748,722;6,889,891;6,892,932;
6,922,976;7,007,837;D525,867;D531,898;D538,648
(IEC#'s subsets might yield more of the same)