--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "ilanode" <techmeier@w...> wrote:

I think you guys might have missed Doepfer's "other" ring modulator
in your otherwise exhaustive comparison. The A-133 Polarizer is just
a 4 quadrant multiplier and seems to make a fine balanced modulator.
Just adjust the carrier for the least amount of leakage with no cv
applied, then put the modulator signal into the CV jack. You can vary
it continuously between balanced modulation and ampitude modulation
by turning the knob or applying an offset. To me, the sound seems
most similar to the unmodded A-114, which raises lots of interesting
questions about the effect of DC v. AC coupling, since the A-133 is
clearly DC.

Although it has been a few years since I have played with one, I have
very fond memories of the sound of the Buchla 100 series ring
modulator. Does anybody know what was in this circuit Was there
anything special about it

K

> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , denis goekdag <q-art@g...>
> wrote:
> >
> > it's really easy to assemble one or two cgs ringmods from the
> assembled
> > boards you can buy, just take an 8 hp blindplate, drill 6 8.2mm
> holes
> > for the s6 sockets, hot-glue the two cgs boards to the plate (the
> > transformer's "casing" allow this quite smoothly), wire the
> sockets,
> > done.
> Yes, probably the most simple DIY project around. The most
> complicated part is to get in touch with Ken of CGS at least he has
> never replied to my mails. > :( Ingo
>
> > Am 15.11.2005 um 18:09 schrieb Zoran Bosnjak:
> >
> >
> > > Ingo,
> > >
> > > thank you so much for the example! I like the CGS ring module
> the
> > > most. What
> > > a pity it is not offered assembled. I still have to get the
> soldering
> > > lesson
> > > #1 before trying to figure it out myself... (Does anybody offer
> basic
> > > electronics course in Montreal )
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Zoran
> > >
> > >
> > >> From: "selfoscillate" <synaptic_music@y...>
> > >> Reply-To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > >> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > >> Subject: 1 Re: comparing ring modulators
> > >> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:38:39 -0000
> > >>
> > >> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "ilanode"
<techmeier@w...>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "selfoscillate"
> > >>> <synaptic_music@y...> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> hello antonio,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> the missing lows in #5 are probably because the
> > >>>> cgs real ring is a passive device, the output
> > >>>> loudness is weak on this module.
> > >>>
> > >>> Just want to add that the RRM is known to load the VCOs and
> thus
> > >>> affecting their performance. The results would be different
if
> the
> > >>> inputs of the RRM were buffered. One could add an Op Amp to
> each
> > >>> input or (if I'm not mistaken) 2 Analogue Solutions' MX224
> > >>> Mixer/Buffer Modules. Obviously the latter is not very
> economical.
> > >>> Regards, Ingo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> i usually use those mx224 buffers in front of the cgs real
ring,
> > >> but i didn't in my example, because i wanted to show the
> > >> significant differences of the loudness.
> > >> anyway, if you use those buffers, the output level of
> > >> the cgs real ring is still much lower than on the other
> > >> ring modulators.
> > >>
> > >> best wishes
> > >>
> > >> ingo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>