August 18, 2019, 11:20:38 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email
News:

Arturia Forums



Author Topic: Incorrect ARP Electronic switch A B behavior (bug?)  (Read 1656 times)

maurizio55

  • Apprentice
  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: 0
Incorrect ARP Electronic switch A B behavior (bug?)
« on: February 27, 2015, 04:48:48 pm »
On the real ARP 2600 I can patch the VCF out to the input of the electronic switch, then patching the A and B outputs of electronic switch to Left and Right mixer inputs I can obtain a ping pong effect, basically any impulse will switch A-B outputs.
This doesn't happen on the virtual ARP2600 V. A and B appear to be inputs instead of outputs, they cannot be be connected to L&R inputs.

Anyone else experienced this? Is this by design or is a bug or I can connect them for some other reason?

Not a big problem for me, I have the real ARP  :) , but just out of curiosity.

(I already posted this on a different forum but maybe here is more appropriate.)

martinl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: 2
Re: Incorrect ARP Electronic switch A B behavior (bug?)
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2015, 06:04:26 pm »
According to the ARP 2600 manual, the electronic switch works bi-directional. In software, that would be more complicated to implement (not impossible, though), and Arturia must have decided that the way to switch between two input signals, and relay them to one output is the more important function.

So, not really a bug, I would say, but not the complete implementation of the module either.


maurizio55

  • Apprentice
  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: 0
Re: Incorrect ARP Electronic switch A B behavior (bug?)
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2015, 08:09:26 pm »
Yes I know, according to the manual is bi-directional, very easy probably to implement with the hardware circuit.
What I don't understand, though, is how use the switch using A/B an inputs. Should it work like a patch, so any signal arriving either to A or B is routed to C? Doesn't make much sense. If they had to choose one or another, considering C input and A/B alternate outputs should have been the way to go.
BTW, I understand that they may have designed the virtual circuit framework allowing a connection to be either in or out and not both, but they can always duplicate the module (AB->C) making the copy work in the opposite way (C->AB). Logic wouldn't be very hard to implement, with a variable remembering if the last routed output was A or B.

 

Carbonate design by Bloc
SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines