<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MIDI-CV Converter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://studionebula.com/blog/2009/07/16/midi-cv-converter/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://studionebula.com/blog/2009/07/16/midi-cv-converter</link>
	<description>Adam Schabtach&#039;s Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 21:06:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: adam</title>
		<link>http://studionebula.com/blog/2009/07/16/midi-cv-converter/comment-page-1#comment-2353</link>
		<dc:creator>adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://studionebula.com/blog/2009/07/16/midi-cv-converter#comment-2353</guid>
		<description>Very quiet. The S/N is exceptional. :-)

It works very well, as far as I&#039;ve pushed it. My biggest concern was the timing, i.e. the ability to deliver gate signals without an objectionable amount of jitter. In the light testing I&#039;ve done so far it has no audible jitter. Hopefully that will be true when I&#039;m pushing data through all four channels. The firmware is currently set up so that it responds in a monophonic manner to MIDI channels 1-4 with velocity and modulation data mapped to the low-res DACs. If I find that it can&#039;t deal with four channels of full data without getting sloppy I&#039;ll have to tune the code. So far, though, I&#039;m entirely happy with its performance.
I did discover that my VCOs are tracking a bit sharp so I&#039;ll have to recalibrate them. Apparently the commercial MIDI-CV interface I replaced with this one wasn&#039;t as accurate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very quiet. The S/N is exceptional. <img src='http://studionebula.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>It works very well, as far as I&#8217;ve pushed it. My biggest concern was the timing, i.e. the ability to deliver gate signals without an objectionable amount of jitter. In the light testing I&#8217;ve done so far it has no audible jitter. Hopefully that will be true when I&#8217;m pushing data through all four channels. The firmware is currently set up so that it responds in a monophonic manner to MIDI channels 1-4 with velocity and modulation data mapped to the low-res DACs. If I find that it can&#8217;t deal with four channels of full data without getting sloppy I&#8217;ll have to tune the code. So far, though, I&#8217;m entirely happy with its performance.<br />
I did discover that my VCOs are tracking a bit sharp so I&#8217;ll have to recalibrate them. Apparently the commercial MIDI-CV interface I replaced with this one wasn&#8217;t as accurate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Laity</title>
		<link>http://studionebula.com/blog/2009/07/16/midi-cv-converter/comment-page-1#comment-2352</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Laity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:36:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://studionebula.com/blog/2009/07/16/midi-cv-converter#comment-2352</guid>
		<description>Nice work. How does it, er, sound?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice work. How does it, er, sound?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

