Noise on gate?

I just got yarns yesterday and really like all the scale options. I noticed that streams was picking up the gate as audio for the first split second. I decided to give the gate A listen and there is a audible high pitch frequency coming through. I tested against the gate of a mother 32 and the mother 32s gate did not have this audible Frequency. I was wondering if anyone else has had this problem? I guess it won’t be an issue unless I’m using a gate to directly open a vca as that would introduce unwante amplitude modulation.

I haven’t checked but it’s possible.

I am getting some clicking sounds every time a gate is hit. However I’ve determined that the digital oscillators seem to click every time there is a gate signal generated. I just got this new from Detroit modular… Is this normal or did I get a bad unit?

Update this bug only happens in just intonation tuning. I suspect this may not be specific to my yarns but may be a common issue. Any one else want to test this? Set yarns to just intonation turn on an oscillator it’s there with all wave forms but most notable with sine wave. 2p mode works well, listen to either oscillator hold one voice note and lift the other on and off clicking is audible when the gate for the voice your not listening to is high. I’m happy to realize it’s just in one tuning mode!

I’ll have a look.

Thanks for getting back so quick, don’t worry about it too much over the weekend! I’m having a lot of fun with all the other tunings.

I was wondering if there was an update for the clicking sound on oscillators in just intonation tuning? Also I wanted to know how fine tuning affects the Pythagorean tuning does it maintain frequency ratios being expressed as whole integers? without fine tuning does a4=432 hz in Pythagorean tuning as this is the most common way of creating whole integer frequency ratios.
Finally my last question once I convert a scala file to Sysex how do I put this onto yarns? I think the link on the manual maybe broken due to updates on the midi website, and If not it isn’t very clear . I may have been using some fine tuning when getting the clicks on the oscillator when using just intonation. I will double check to see if that was causing the problem.

> I was wondering if there was an update for the clicking sound on oscillators in just intonation tuning?

Not yet. I need to get a Yarns to try it!

> Also I wanted to know how fine tuning affects the Pythagorean tuning does it maintain frequency ratios being expressed as whole integers?

Almost. Internal oscillators have a resolution of 11µHz, so there is a tiny error. 11µHz is pretty much the frequency of rotation of our planet, so it would take one entire day to hear the little beating effect caused by the internal oscillators error between an A4 and its pythagorean fifth. As opposed to a beating frequency of 0.74 Hz (60000 times larger) between an A4 and its equal tempered fifth.

> without fine tuning does a4=432 hz in Pythagorean tuning as this is the most common way of creating whole integer frequency ratios.

If you drive internal oscillators, a4 = 440 Hz. I don’t see in which way 432 would solve anything.

If you drive external oscillators… well… it depends on the tuning of your oscillators.

> how do I put this onto yarns?

You use a SysEx librarian program and play the generated .syx file into the module.

Awesome thank you so much for your quick reply! Sorry I kind of just assumed you had yarns, but assumptions are never good. As far as the 432 thing goes I will refer to your expertise in the matter. My confusion came
From the fact that many examples use 432 when setting up Pythagorean tunings both from Wikipedia, a YouTube tutorial on how to set up Pythagorean tunings in scala and on some hipi Dipi woo woo music sites I’m into such as merkaba music… That said I don’t think any of those sources came from someone holding a phd soo you are most likely correct. Here is a bit from the Wikipedia page that cause some of my confusion.

For instance, the A is tuned such that its frequency equals 3:2 times the frequency of D—if D is tuned to a frequency of 288 Hz, then A is tuned to 432 Hz. Similarly, the E above A is tuned such that its frequency equals 3:2 times the frequency of A, or 9:4 times the frequency of D—with A at 432 Hz, this puts E at 648 Hz. Since this E is outside the above-mentioned basic octave (i.e. its frequency is more than twice the frequency of the base note D), it is usual to halve its frequency to move it within the basic octave. Therefore, E is tuned to 324 Hz, a 9:8 (= one epogdoon) above D. The B at 3:2 above that E is tuned to the ratio 27:16 and so on. Starting from the same point working the other way, G is tuned as 3:2 below D, which means that it is assigned a frequency equal to 2:3 times the frequency of D—with D at 288 Hz, this puts G at 192 Hz. This frequency is then doubled (to 384 Hz) to bring it into the basic octave.

A lot if people are getting into 432 tuning to preserve the perfect fifth however it does not make sense to me unless it were Pythagorean based. I think that may be part of my confusion, for 432 to make sense it needs to be Pythagorean however Pythagorean does not need to be 432? The Wikipedia article only confounded the matter. Perhaps you could reference me to a better resource on Pythagorean tubing that does not include 432? Again thanks for your replies! I love yarns and am excited to be able to use scala in conjunction with it. So far I love all my mutable modules!

Pythagorean tuning, or any other tuning/temperament, is a matter of frequency ratios, not a matter of absolute frequencies in Hz.

So you can do the same reasoning with A = 440 :

D below = 2/3 of the frequency of A = 293.3333333333… Hz
E above = 3/2 of the frequency of A = 660.0 Hz

Or you can do the same reasoning with A = 144π (= 452.389… Hz)

D below = 2/3 of the frequency of A = 96π (= 301.593… Hz)
E above = 3/2 of the frequency of A = 216π (= 678.584… Hz)

Maybe they used 432 Hz to avoid dealing with recurring decimal, but it’s just a matter of convenience, it has nothing to do with our perception. 432 Hz, 440 Hz, or 144π Hz will sound just as pure to your ears, and unless you have perfect pitch you won’t be able to tell the difference.

In other words what makes a 432 Hz tone and a 648 Hz tone played together a perfect fifth is not that they have a frequency of 432 and 648 Hz - it is just that the frequency ratios are 3:2, ensuring that the harmonics of the one do not beat against the harmonics of the other.

Godwin was right

I think a lot of these strange beliefs stem from the illusion that 432 is more “natural” because once you build various kinds of just intonation scales from it, you end up with frequencies which are integers (a consequence of the fact that 432 has more small prime factors and more divisors than 440).

What they are missing is that this appearance of wholeness is only relative to the unit of Hz, which itself depends on the actual definition of the second as “the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom”. If you define another unit of time, say the secondd (for example, the duration of 9168390000 periods of the caesium-133 transition radiation) and a matching Hertzz, You’ll find that A4 = 440 Hzz has more interesting “clock synchronization” properties than A4 = 432 Hzz… As if our ears and bodies were caesium atomic clocks anyway…

And of course, all this is also contingent to our use of the decimal system…

Thank you! You’ve done an excellent job explaining as our number system is a construct as well as our units. I will perhaps be upsetting some hippies soon.

That video was a little over the top for sure.
I was looking at this

And this

Maria Reynolds tunings are used by one of my favorite music producers. All though now it seems that Pythagorean tuning is more what I’m after than 432.

I’ve discovered some more strange things going on with my yarns. It seems the display is creating some noise that sounds like a windshield wiper when it is flashing, for instance when selecting a tempo. It’s very odd as it is audible without patching yarns into anything. I think it may be on the ground as attenuation/volume of the output doesn’t seem to affect how loud the noise is. Perhaps it has to do with my psu, I’m using 4ms 30 row power, however all i have hooked in is yarns and streams at the moment. I am also using a moog mother 32 running on its own psu.

If I am listening to the output of the mother 32 I can hear the windshield wiper noise as soon as I patch anything between mother 32 and streams even if steams is not connected to yarns. Changing the volume of the output for the mother32 does not affect the volume of this noise. Also it doesn’t matter what I’m patching between the mother 32 and streams. Which makes me think the noise is being generated on the ground. To describe the noise a bit better it is related to the brightness of the screen, as the screen gets brighter the pitch of the noise goes higher.

> 4ms 30 row power

I’d recommend using a proper bus board.

You’re right about this coming from the ground. Yarns (or any module with a display or lots of lighting) causes a rapidly varying amount of current to return to ground (the alternative is to return the current to 12V it’s trickier to do when logic drivers are used and can have the exact same adverse effect on analog circuitry that trusts the rails). If the resistance of the cable that connects the ground of two modules is high (and this is the case with those looooong “flying buses”), this will create a voltage difference between the ground of the two modules - so the signal emitted by a module is “referenced” to something wobbly or whiny compared to another module’s reference.

Improvements will come from:

I know it looks more convenient to have rows after rows of power connectors, but the “star” layout is just better for noise issues. Not only for digital but also to prevent VCOs locking each other.

The Intellijel power boards got this right. Hinton Instruments also sells bus boards with short and thick traces.

1 Like

Excellent, I’ve been having some problems with ground noise with an oscillator I built based off a 555 timer, I actually ended up taking it apart (it was just on a
Breadboard) but I may try building it again once i upgrade to a proper busboard. I should probably try and put together on of your module testers as I’ve been doing a lot of plugging and unplugging of modules when I’m working on some DIY circuits. I haven’t had yarns connected to any of my DIY stuff and won’t until I get it off the breadboards. Thanks for your quick responses, I really appreciate it! For comparison it took 4ms about 3 weeks to get back to me on a question I asked about the 30 row power.

This was a bug!

The just intonation computations took too much time, preventing the audio buffer to be filled with samples. I don’t know if this problem has been there form the beginning, or if it appeared after last summer’s oscillator code overhaul.

The fix consists in:

  • Using a different method for searching for the best just intonation correction: coarse search by increments of 3 cents, then refinement of the correction by steps of 0.8 cents.
  • Increasing the size of the oscillators buffer (this adds 0.6ms of latency).

File here

Awesome thank you for fixing it so quick, to update my yarns with this do I just follow the firmware update procedure?

Yes, the procedure explained at the end of the user manual.