So, ***DISCLAIMER***, I designed the core of the Rubicon and Rubicon-2. The TZFM implementation on these oscillators was my idea -- in fact I came up with it while looking at a diagram in an electronics textbook (by Joseph Carr, if you must know) while sitting on the can back in 2010. I seem to get all my best ideas there. The Dixie was also born that day. I've only gotten about 8 minutes into this video, but already there are two things I want to comment on: First, the Rubicon isn't "losing TZFM" when the modulation frequency is turned way up and the output becomes a pure sine wave. What is happening is still TZFM. That's exactly what is supposed to happen mathematically when too high of a modulation frequency is applied. Of course, applying such a high modulation frequency has no musical value. All the interesting effects of TZFM are when the carrier and the modulator are closer to each other in frequency. Second, the ZPO output doesn't look like TZFM at all. I'm talking about the video at about 7:30 -- this looks like classic balanced AM. This effect can be achieved with a simple ring modulator. How can you fairly compare the Rubicon to an oscillator which doesn't even do through-zero FM? I'm not sure how the ZPO is supposed to achieve TZFM -- in fact, I know next to nothing about the ZPO, and am only watching this video at someone else's request. However, I have heard that their FM is achieved by rectifying the waveforms and doing something to them post-VCO. I can tell you that there is no way to achieve TZFM that way. To achieve TZFM, the actual current flowing through the oscillator core must be manipulated linearly and in a bipolar way, and certain logic must then be added to invert the resulting integrated waveform to trick the thing which changes the direction of the oscillation (typically a comparator) into thinking that the oscillator is still going forward. Otherwise, when the FM goes negative, the oscillator will just go all the way to the rail voltage and get stuck there. Contrary to popular belief, TZFM is extremely easy to achieve with just a handful of very common electronic components -- indeed, with about five dollars and half an hour with a soldering gun, I suspect that I could convert just about any tricore VCO into a TZFM VCO -- I don't know how to do sawcore TZFM, so for that you'd have to ask Ian Fritz. In any case, I don't see TZFM coming out of the ZPO.
Dear David, i assume its you, first of all thank You for your work and designs, i own few of them and know you very well. As i stated in the beginning or the end of the video i welcomed the designers to correct me because i know my self i missed something or made mistakes. Back to business, i am nobody in general and compared to you, just a simple guy who can basically buy any Module. I do not have any gain or profit doing this, i do it for the hell of it, just fun, it does not change nothing in my life. I noticed what you are talking about at 7:30 when i was watching the video and i was wondering the same too. They are both great Oscillators but i can not be at fault for liking one more than the other. I actually like them both, have them both and use them both. As you stated you know nothing about the ZPO and as far as Designs go i know NOTHING at all either. I found them as represented as TZFM VCOs and of course to my knowledge and experience they were comparable as you can see in many aspects they even sound the same. But if you read the ZPO Manual and one of my Statements, i never said they are the same and also the Manual clearly states THIS IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL TZFM VCO which actually is correct while the Rubicon 2 IS your typical TZFM VCO which makes it clear that they are still comparable. Otherwise what we are left with is just comparing a Rubicon 2 vs Rubicon 1. Of course these 2 are comparable. Thanks for your feedback and corrections.
Omg thank you for this. I've been trying to decide on an analog TZFM oscillator recently and have hence been researching these two and a few other options. On multiple occasions over the past couple months I've seen promotions of the ZPO that prompted research into a potential purchase and ended with varying degrees of silent internal nerd rage that it's being referred to as TZFM. So it is extremely gratifying to read this from someone with your bona fides. To be fair though, SSF does word the description of their implementation such that, IF you know what they're talking about, they basically do tell you flat out that it's ring modulation. Which IS "thru zero", just not FM. And the stylish but ambiguous name "Zero Point Oscillator" introduces an implication more because of the way other similarly labeled oscillators on the market work than any false representation by SSF. But that's all the more reason to correct reviews such as this one. Ultimately though, what should matter to users more is whether they like the sounds it produces and/or whether it can produce the sounds they were hoping for. So I appreciate videos like these regardless. (BTW thank you, Basari Studios, for the in depth audio comparisons. Super useful content, even if some nomenclature is technically inaccurate.) But doc / Mr. Dixon, your comment here was funny, cathartic and gave me a feeling of vindication for words I've never actually spoken aloud but thought with vigor.
lol i remember a few years ago the discussion of TZ vcos and everyone being like "but can't u just rectify the modulator and invert the waveform?" and all the designers explaining that no, that doesn't do the same thing as real TZFM. And now a synth manufacturer is doing exactly that and complains when people say it's not true TZFM. pretty funny tbh
I would really like a follow-up video to this, showcasing audiorate modulation over Rubicon 2's symmetry/0-point, I'm quite disappointed there are zero videos showcasing this feature. Actually, this should be Intellijel's job, because at this rate I would just assume it isn't musically functional by sheer omission. If it's the selling point of this module why not show it?!
So, ***DISCLAIMER***, I designed the core of the Rubicon and Rubicon-2. The TZFM implementation on these oscillators was my idea -- in fact I came up with it while looking at a diagram in an electronics textbook (by Joseph Carr, if you must know) while sitting on the can back in 2010. I seem to get all my best ideas there. The Dixie was also born that day.
I've only gotten about 8 minutes into this video, but already there are two things I want to comment on:
First, the Rubicon isn't "losing TZFM" when the modulation frequency is turned way up and the output becomes a pure sine wave. What is happening is still TZFM. That's exactly what is supposed to happen mathematically when too high of a modulation frequency is applied. Of course, applying such a high modulation frequency has no musical value. All the interesting effects of TZFM are when the carrier and the modulator are closer to each other in frequency.
Second, the ZPO output doesn't look like TZFM at all. I'm talking about the video at about 7:30 -- this looks like classic balanced AM. This effect can be achieved with a simple ring modulator. How can you fairly compare the Rubicon to an oscillator which doesn't even do through-zero FM?
I'm not sure how the ZPO is supposed to achieve TZFM -- in fact, I know next to nothing about the ZPO, and am only watching this video at someone else's request. However, I have heard that their FM is achieved by rectifying the waveforms and doing something to them post-VCO. I can tell you that there is no way to achieve TZFM that way. To achieve TZFM, the actual current flowing through the oscillator core must be manipulated linearly and in a bipolar way, and certain logic must then be added to invert the resulting integrated waveform to trick the thing which changes the direction of the oscillation (typically a comparator) into thinking that the oscillator is still going forward. Otherwise, when the FM goes negative, the oscillator will just go all the way to the rail voltage and get stuck there. Contrary to popular belief, TZFM is extremely easy to achieve with just a handful of very common electronic components -- indeed, with about five dollars and half an hour with a soldering gun, I suspect that I could convert just about any tricore VCO into a TZFM VCO -- I don't know how to do sawcore TZFM, so for that you'd have to ask Ian Fritz. In any case, I don't see TZFM coming out of the ZPO.
Dear David, i assume its you, first of all thank You for your work and designs, i own few of them and know you very well. As i stated in the beginning or the end of the video i welcomed the designers to correct me because i know my self i missed something or made mistakes. Back to business, i am nobody in general and compared to you, just a simple guy who can basically buy any Module. I do not have any gain or profit doing this, i do it for the hell of it, just fun, it does not change nothing in my life. I noticed what you are talking about at 7:30 when i was watching the video and i was wondering the same too. They are both great Oscillators but i can not be at fault for liking one more than the other. I actually like them both, have them both and use them both. As you stated you know nothing about the ZPO and as far as Designs go i know NOTHING at all either. I found them as represented as TZFM VCOs and of course to my knowledge and experience they were comparable as you can see in many aspects they even sound the same. But if you read the ZPO Manual and one of my Statements, i never said they are the same and also the Manual clearly states THIS IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL TZFM VCO which actually is correct while the Rubicon 2 IS your typical TZFM VCO which makes it clear that they are still comparable. Otherwise what we are left with is just comparing a Rubicon 2 vs Rubicon 1. Of course these 2 are comparable.
Thanks for your feedback and corrections.
Omg thank you for this. I've been trying to decide on an analog TZFM oscillator recently and have hence been researching these two and a few other options. On multiple occasions over the past couple months I've seen promotions of the ZPO that prompted research into a potential purchase and ended with varying degrees of silent internal nerd rage that it's being referred to as TZFM. So it is extremely gratifying to read this from someone with your bona fides.
To be fair though, SSF does word the description of their implementation such that, IF you know what they're talking about, they basically do tell you flat out that it's ring modulation. Which IS "thru zero", just not FM. And the stylish but ambiguous name "Zero Point Oscillator" introduces an implication more because of the way other similarly labeled oscillators on the market work than any false representation by SSF. But that's all the more reason to correct reviews such as this one.
Ultimately though, what should matter to users more is whether they like the sounds it produces and/or whether it can produce the sounds they were hoping for. So I appreciate videos like these regardless. (BTW thank you, Basari Studios, for the in depth audio comparisons. Super useful content, even if some nomenclature is technically inaccurate.)
But doc / Mr. Dixon, your comment here was funny, cathartic and gave me a feeling of vindication for words I've never actually spoken aloud but thought with vigor.
@@rdean150 thank You. I am just here to have fun and share whatever i know. Hope it helps someone.
Omg doc sketchy :o
lol i remember a few years ago the discussion of TZ vcos and everyone being like "but can't u just rectify the modulator and invert the waveform?" and all the designers explaining that no, that doesn't do the same thing as real TZFM. And now a synth manufacturer is doing exactly that and complains when people say it's not true TZFM. pretty funny tbh
One of the best the Rubicon 2
I would really like a follow-up video to this, showcasing audiorate modulation over Rubicon 2's symmetry/0-point, I'm quite disappointed there are zero videos showcasing this feature. Actually, this should be Intellijel's job, because at this rate I would just assume it isn't musically functional by sheer omission. If it's the selling point of this module why not show it?!