A little while ago I obtained a stack of old electronic instrument paperwork which I’ve been sorting through and am planning to scan. To start with, this is a single sheet giving what seems to be an update for the Armon “A61S-A492-K4009-ARMONPIANO”. I’m not clear whether that’s one or three separate models. The update is for a revision to a tone generator board, now AR-27. It’s undated but I’d guess late-70s. Perhaps this will be of interest to someone?
For some years I’ve been writing the Quasimidi 309’s full name as Rave-0-Lution with a zero in the middle rather than a capital O, which I’ve never liked but had somehow believed it was the original. But it struck me earlier that I can’t remember why I thought that, so I should check. And I realised that I can’t tell the difference at a glance between the O (presumably) in LUTION and the 0 (presumably) in 309 anyway, let alone decide which of them the middle character matches.
I do have a PDF of the manual but it’s a scan. As it happens I’ve had the font — Serpentine Bold Italic (PS Type 1) since about the time Quasimidi made this and it’s a good bet that they had the same font, as it was part of a Freehand package at the time if I recall. So I looked at them on screen to see if there’s a difference and couldn’t see any. So I put them one atop the other in Illustrator with colours mixed, and, yes, there’s a difference, but to be honest it’s so slight that it might as well not be there.
I never much liked this font though I probably used it for odd jobs around that time once or twice as we weren’t spoiled for choice. (Nor were Quasimidi.) But this isn’t what I’d call good design. Perhaps this package is traced from the originals, and the originals were identical? In which case I shouldn’t bother asking if it’s a zero and just use the O? I took close up shots of the middle character and the O as printed on the Q309 to compare, and put the one atop the other in Photoshop. There’s less of a difference here than between the font outlines, but still, there is a difference, and most of the differences are in the same places, which I think is a smaller difference than you’d expect from lithographic printing on brushed aluminium anyway. (In both images the majuscule O is in green and the zero (?) is in red.)
I’m not completely certain one way or the other, but I’m feeling free to write it as Rave-O-lution rather than Rave-zero-lution in future.
Posted under Musical Technology at . Last updated 2024-09-17 21:43.
I got this, ready built, because I needed a simple switching function for another Eurorack module and it was being sold cheaper than any actual switching module or combination that should do it, and hey another sequencer will always be handy. So here’s some notes:
There’s no start / stop button(s) or input(s). It can be stopped by plugging a dummy plug into the clock input but that’s yer lot. This seriously restricts its utility because you can’t easily get it to work in sync with other devices or even start it manually at a desired time. (But it occurs to me that you could mount a switch on the end of a dummy plug?)
The sequencer doesn’t seem to respond to V‑Trig signals at the clock input in the way I’d like; that is, it resets to 0V but most input sources I use start high. Inverting the input fixes that, but it then starts out of step so anything it’s controlling may need to be reset to the previous step.
The clock input is a bit finicky in other ways; not all clock signals will drive it; perhaps it needs a slightly higher voltage. The Doepfer dividers manage it, some other modules don’t. (This is independent of polarity.)
Sometimes it steps the outputs without stepping the LEDs but I haven’t worked out how that was happening, and by the time I got it to work it wasn’t happening any more.
There is a manual available from Erica but it’s a build-it manual and is very short on actual functional description of the finished module, so all the above points had to be worked out slowly and uncertainly rather than just read, and remain a little tentative.
With that worked out, it’s doing the job as intended but if I’m going to use it for the usual range of purposes one might use a sequencer, a useful mod might be to put a switch on the internal clock signal. And a reset switch to start it high if need be. For the time being I’m using an external inverter on the input.
My MS‑10 has been behaving a little poorly recently, with the EG release time fluctuating to a gradually growing degree. So I’m going to have a look at it. First, have a look at the service manual as this failure seems likely to be a misbehaving capacitor. And yes, there’s a 6µ8 Tantalum cap (C35) on the release stage, so that’s the main suspect. I hear some bad things about Tantalums, but I’ve never had one fail before. Anyhow, I did have the thing apart for cleaning when I got it but didn’t take the PCBs out as it involves a fair bit of unscrewing things. So this is my first look at the relevant board (KLM-126c).
(Picture taken after repair.)
Checking C35 in-circuit, difficult to be certain but nothing obvious wrong.
The SQ‑64 is a simple-looking but rather complicated digital sequencer which can receive and send CV/Gate/Trigger, Korg Sync, and MIDI signals, which is intrinsically a 64-step sequencer and which can chain sequences etc. It’s handy for translating analogue timing signals and setting up sequences for MIDI devices which can’t take a simple external clock, and so on. It has some limitations as a controller of analogue synthesisers however, but that’s not the topic today.
This SQ‑64 was I think bought new about two years ago, not long after they came out, and has developed a fault, so I’m going to investigate. The fault is that the eighth top row sequence button is activating intermittently without being pressed, which adds unintended gates to a sequence and prevents the user accessing additional functions in some modes because this button is interpreted as being pressed and having priority over other things, somehow.
I managed to lay my hands on a secondhand Behringer 2600 ‘Gray Meanie’. I’ve never been fortunate enough to have a go on an original ARP . . . any original ARP . . . but from what I’ve seen and heard this seems to be sonically quite close to the original, but smaller, 19″ rackmountable, and even when new, significantly cheaper than any of the older or more recent clones of the ARP 2600. And it has some extra features. So they are perhaps becoming popular.
There are more reviews and videos of the different versions of this than I can count; so many that I’d never get time to play the thing if I watched them all. So I’m not going to cover the detail, just note a few things that come up and see how it works out.
[...]
Once past the first hump or two of working out which things have to be turned up to make sounds, this synth seems to have lots of things waiting to be found. Still, after a couple of days with it, I’m a little disappointed to have not found more. Compared to other synths . . . but that doesn’t mean there’s no more there; it’s just how to get at it. In particular the Ring Mod is surprisingly uninteresting compared to others I’ve used; but maybe there’s more options I haven’t tried. The combination of the three VCOs synced is very interesting though. I also find that it’s capable of making some very nice bass tones which don’t reproduce well on small speakers. For which reason, this first sample video I’m doing is best listened to with good headphones or perhaps a PA.
original drawing by Armon c.1970s
