REALLY dumb question about attenuverters


#1

Specifically attenuverters with a switch, like the ones on Shades (and quite a few other modules.)
When I flip that switch from normal attenuation to attenuversion, it’s because I want to invert my signal. But now I’ve lost half of the knob’s rotation range because zero is in the center … so if I want to adjust my inverted signal I can only use 50% of the pot to do it. This makes fine adjustments more difficult. It seems to me it would be much more useful to have the switch activate an inverter, either pre- or post-attenuation, and that way you could still use the entire sweep of the knob to adjust the amplitude of the inverted signal. That makes much more sense to me. But I haven’t seen anybody do it that way. Why?? Is there some electronic-engineering reason why Attenuverters Must Be Like This? I know it’s trivial but it popped into my head a few days ago and it’s been bothering me ever since.


#2

With a 3-position switch, it would be possible to design a circuit with 3 configurations: attenuation, attenuation of the inverted signal, attenuverter.


#3

Waiting for a long facebook post about shades, why it is discontinued and that it will eventually all makes sense when the next modules come :grin:


#4

The SSF Mixmode has straight inversion switches on each of the unipolar channels, it’s sometimes useful sure but I usually reach for Shades (or Blinds) before that.


#5

sorry - I don’t get it - did you read somewhere that shades is discontinued? because on the MI web-page it is still not under “discontinued modules”… would be a pity…


#6

I think it’s a riff on the recent purge of modules, being replaced with newer, more refined implementations of the original idea.


#7

Blinds kinda is a more refined version of Shades, but I think they’re different enough to both have their places, and I can’t see either being replaced soon.


#8

In my experience this is because the idea was that many CV modulation sources were bi-polar, and so this configuration of attenuverter was a simple way to scale a CV that was already swinging across the zero-point - just more like a “shift” function. At least this was how we often thought of them in Serge-world. I can see that if one is using unipolar CVs what you describe would be very useful, but one can also just patch a simple inverter either before or after the “normal” attenuator - a little panel of home-brew inverters would not be hard to build, I think…