I wonder how the ASys rs290 sampler would do with this task. It has a very
high sample rate. There's nothing in the description about recording CV's
though.

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Guy Drieghe D. < guy@... > wrote:

>
> Exactly what I have been saying before, James.
>
> According to a bunch of engineers and DSP programmers I spoke to over
> the last couple of years, it is not hard at all to develop such a
> device. Sampling rate and resolution are not the big issue anymore,
> although hi-end AD/DA's are still exponentially more expensive than
> their 8- or 16bit counterparts. 96k/24b is what I heard most as a
> feasible figure, but higher would still be better. And this is exactly
> what Volta solved so brilliantly (in all its simplicity): just use
> your DAW's sampling rate. If your system can pull 192kHz @ 24b...
> perfect; but you'd still do fine with a more regular setting of 44/24...
>
> What most of the tech guys I spoke with saw as a bigger challenge
> (read: problem), is the software. The GUI and such... And again, I
> feel that Volta approached this quite well. Simple, but effective, and
> apparently also rather flexible (did anyone see its amazing quadrature
> LFO yet -- http://motu-volta.blogspot.com/ )
>
> As you already said, James, other hardware is going to follow soon,
> most likely as a more dedicated device instead of "just" a DC-capable
> audio interface. And I reckon the accompanying software is going to
> follow soon too, once people are getting used to this new paradigm in
> modular control, and will provide feedback and propose enhancements to
> the manufacturers.
>
> Well, at least I hope so.
> I also kinda hope Dieter is having sleepless nights over this ;-)
>
> _g
>
>
> On 27 Jan 2009, at 02:36, James Husted wrote:
> > I don't think it would be very hard to modify a typical Audio A/D
> > converter design to do the job needed here. Remove the AC coupling,
> > change the input scale to handle +/-5 Volts and keep it sampling at
> > 96k and 24bits. My math has never been my strong suit but I imagine
> > 24bits should cover a 10volt swing pretty easily with the resolution
> > needed, and 96kHz should be fine enough timing wise. This could almost
> > be done with an adaptor that precision scaled the analog +/-5V down to
> > a range that a typical computer A/D could handle (and of course do the
> > opposite for the output) and you could then use any interface that
> > wasn't AC coupled (hard to find apparently). In any case I can't see
> > it being that hard for a company to make a A/D converter that can
> > sample modular CV ranges at the speed that typical audio interfaces do
> > now and shoot the info to a DAW in a format it could understand. Like
> > I've said before on this list - if the Volta take off you will see a
> > hardware solution very soon after. It is not like they have to invent
> > something from the ground floor.
> > -James
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:17 PM, achtung_999 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would say that 22.5 KHZ would already be quite sufficient for
> > > > > tracking CV,
> > > > > everything above that is luxery.
> > > > >
> > > > Oh no, certainly not. I'd say 44KHz or thereabouts is the absolute
> > > > minimum... I leave the math explanation to the math-oriented
> > > people in
> > > > here. My coffee has already worn out...
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I know that. And that still does not answer my question really..
> > > Let's say we have an pseudo-ideal CV> digital converter. It would
> > > work from
> > > 0 volts to anything, so no upper limit. (Just assume this..)
> > > I would shift the CV up by the amount it needs to have the most
> > > extreme
> > > negative amplitude point to be 0 volts.
> > > Let's assume this is 5 volts. My device now tracks it nicely and
> > > records it
> > > in whichever imaginative software format we might think of.
> > > I now would like to use this signal to drive my modular.
> > > I would take the output from the software via my reverse device and
> > > shift
> > > the resulting voltages down 5 volts..
> > >
> > > In my opinion this would not be different than the original signal.
> > > would
> > > it
> > > Sorry if I was unclear about this.
> > > And yes, I know it's a hassle ;-)
> > >
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]