Grokking the Fyrall

I was gifted the above PC board, which is a Fyrall by Ciat-Lonbarde (Peter Blasser). While awaiting the panel for my Dual Benjolin project (previous post), I dug into the documentation for Fyrall. I remembered having looked at it eleven years ago! At that time I gave up on understanding it, because I had no PC board to build it with.

I’ve spent the last three days combobulating myself to the Fyrall, entering once again the mind of Peter B. Finally, I have understood every aspect of the circuit and have started to make a plan for how I want to implement it. I’ll simplify it somewhat by not utilizing all of the nodes. I plan to use color-coded banana jacks for the patching connections.

Going against the spirit?

Peter’s instruments have always been designed for experimentation by non-technical users, who don’t need to know the inner workings. I, on the other hand, being a technician, like to understand his circuit designs. They are especially ingenious at times. By grokking the innards, I can lay plans for customization, as well as being more systematic than Mr. Blasser may have intended. That’s how I feel compelled to approach his work.

Preliminary Findings

You can download the two documents I’m working from, fyrall-papyrion.pdf and Fyrall-Manuel-To-Put-Together.pdf. I’ve included below a few snapshots from those docs to aid in my exposition here.

Short Overview of Fyrall

Peter didn’t really give much of an overview in the two docs mentioned. There is a drawing, but as you may know, his drawings often take some deciphering to make sense of.

Fyrall consists of three main sections, Z, C, and O. Each section contains three duplicates of pairs of circuits. Three times two equals six, which is the overall cardinality of functions. There are two separate-but-related feedback loops inside Fyrall. One loop consists of a cycle of inter-modulating oscillators. The second, much longer loop consists of the oscillators driving staircase generators that also make signals for selecting other signals to go back to modulate the oscillators. I imagine that various substances may have helped Peter with this design.

Section Z – Oscillators

Section Z has six oscillators, three that “stab up”, i.e ramp waves, and three that “stab down”, i.e. saw waves. These come in pairs of up and down stabbing that share a single knob and LED indicator. I like to start with oscillators when describing a complex design, because they originate the driving signals. A pair of oscillators he calls a “King’s Face”.

Now put three King’s Faces together in a spiral.

The six oscillators are modulating each other in a ring. Why does he say they soak orrangers? Because the outputs from section O (below) come back to impact this modulation.

The ramp and saw waves go out to become inputs to the Orranger. Each pair of oscillators also generates two pulses for the section C, which we’ll come to next. But first have a look at Peter’s schematic for a King’s Face.

Section C – “Counten Temples”

Here’s the schematic for section C.

Section C consists of three pairs of chips, a CD4093B binary up-down counter, and a CD4077B quad XNOR logic. As he says in the pic above, the up and down count pulses come from section Z, and in fact they come from the pairs of oscillators in each King’s Face. Thus, the rates of the oscillators sets the speed of up and down counting. A simple resistor ladder network converts the 4-bit output into a staircase wave.

These outputs each go also to an XNOR gate, which inverts them. The XNOR gates second input is grounded, but can be affected by patching into a node. The XNOR logic outputs go through another ladder network to produce a different staircase. Furthermore (!) these outputs are routed to the preset inputs of the next 4093. See, the 4093 can not only count up and down, it can have its inputs forced immediately to the output, by pulling down the PL pin, which is normally held high but is brought out as yet another node, CL, allowing you to mess things up. Peter says, CL is a sensitive node which causes the counten temple things to freak.

Besides the six staircase wave coming out of section C, come six “Select Joint” bits, in three pairs for controlling the switches of section O.

Section O – Orranger

Each one-third of section O consists of a CD4052B.

CD4051B, CD4052B, CD4053B (Rev. G)

The CD4052B is a differential 4-Channel multiplexer having two binary control inputs, A and B, and an inhibit input. The two binary input signals select 1 of 4 pairs of channels to be turned on and connect the analog inputs to the outputs.

Sounds complicated, but the 4052 is just a dual 4-1 switch, controlled by two bits that in this usage select one of four inputs to be routed to the output, which goes back over to section Z to control the inter-modulation of the oscillators.

Here’s a diagram of Section O.

Each switch takes four inputs and there are six switches, making for 24 inputs to be switched (whew). Peter gives the builder a choice from 12 signals to hard-wire into the switches. (Each signal goes into two switch inputs.) His advice is to randomize them, which is a nice, John Cage method of choosing.

Well, I want to know what was being routed where. So I traced it out and drew the following diagram.

On the right, from top to bottom, the following signals are made available. Staircase and XOR signals come from section C. The oscillators are from section Z, in order of their linkage in the spiral. (I picked an oscillator to be #1 arbitrarily. Same for the three part of section C.) I also traced where the O outputs go to, and which Counten Temple the Select Joint bits come from. All this tracing allows me to prepare the U-strip wiring non-randomly for maximal diversity. See my notes on the pic, above.

  • Oscillator 3
  • Oscillator 6
  • Oscillator 1
  • Oscillator 4
  • Staircase 1
  • XOR 1
  • Staircase 2
  • XOR 2
  • Staircase 3
  • XOR 3
  • Oscillator 5
  • Oscillator 2

Now, here’s the schematic for one-third of section O.

Includes notes about my plan for node usage. (Note that the LED driver differs from the published schematic. My schematic is traced from the actual board.)

Let’s talk about the Select Joint bits. These are brought out of section C and used to control the 4-to-1 switches. So, oddly enough, section C not only provides six staircase signals to be switched, but also six control bits to do the switching!

A small, optional modification

Here’s where grokking a circuit can give you ideas. The switch outputs are buffered by op amps, and these points can be brought out as the nodes OZ. I noticed a similarity to the design as used in the Quantussy (center of the Cocoquantus). If you like, you can add a 100nf capacitor to ground at node OZ.

[EDIT] CAVEAT: This probably wouldn’t work, for reasons detailed in my comment, below.

Node ON provides access to the Inhibit input of the 4052B. If this is pulled high, both outputs go high impedance (i.e. not connected to any input). Without the capacitor, unless you patch a signal into OZ, the input to the buffer will float. Kinda weird. But, since I’m adding that capacitor, when node ON is pulled high, the last voltage will be held — a sample and hold! Cool, eh?

Spesal Cuck and Mido modulation

Everyone who’s built a Ciat-Lonbarde DIY board knows that Mido is the +4.5 volt bias which the internal signals center on. For Fyrall, Peter implemented Mido modulation. Why this is called Spesal Cuck is anyone’s guess.

With no input Mido stays at 4.5V. Patching a (DC-blocked) signal into S.C. lets you waver Mido around, with the amount of modulation set by a panel pot. It’s important to note that Mido is used only by the oscillator section Z in Fyrall. The only thing you’ll be messing with is the oscillators — all at once! So, if the inter-modulation of the oscillators, with interaction by signals coming from the Orranger, isn’t enough for you, just patch something into the Spesal Cuck.

Other circuits on the PCB

There are two Sections P, which each consists of two more oscillators that take signals out of Orranger and use these to modulate their frequencies. I’m planning to not build these, but possibly repurpose the op amps for something else.

A speaker amplifier also exists on the board, but I won’t use it.

Finally, there are two output amps, called “Crystal Transfer Station in the Formation.” These take any input from Fyrall and buffer it for a Studio Out signal, as well a producing a “Stab” output, which will pull down any signal patched to it. I will use these.

The Future

This analysis was my first step with Fyrall. Eventually, I will get around to planning my peculiar implementation of it.

8 Responses to Grokking the Fyrall

  1. Joshua Rodriquez says:

    The circuit name is the FYRALL. It eventually became one of his Oval Synths called the FYRAL
    Peter loves to spell stuff funny on his site, I called it the FRYALL for the longest time too, and NOBSRINE, I always calls NOSBRINE lololol.

    Spesal Cuck is called Spesal Cuck because it is cuck power. Power Starve at the whims of the cuck.
    bahaha.
    Peter was pretty naughty with that one..

    I love this S&H mod!! I am going to try it out on one of mine!

    Thank you so much for your input in the CL DIY Community!!!

  2. Richard says:

    Where’s my DOH emoticon? I edited everything except the URI. Thanks, Josh.

  3. andrew taylor says:

    Wow amazing forensics job in th name of experimental synthesis. This is what i want to do when i grow up (haha trust me I’m already old).
    Awesome work Richard Brewster

  4. Richard says:

    I now think my S&H idea won’t work without some changes. Reason is, in the Quantussy the signal selected to go through the 4052 switch comes directly from an op amp output. But in the Fyrall there is a 100K resistor in series, right there in front of the U-strip. A capacitor at node OZ will result in a slew, since it will take time to charge up.

    If we remove the 100K from the oscillator outputs, it would work fine. But the staircase outputs are not buffered, so they would get slewed in a probably unwanted way. So unless we can add six buffers for the staircase and XOR signals, it’s not going to work right.

  5. Neil says:

    Hi @Richard.

    Thanks for your writeup. I’ve read a lot on your site in the past 5 years and always learn something.
    I’m also something of a technician so like to know how things actually work! 🙂

    I’m also in the process of understanding the Fyrall while I wait for PCBs to arrive.
    Have you decided on which nodes you are going to omit?

    I was thinking of leaving the OR section (24 nodes) as that just seems to be overriding / mixing in another signal to the two signals that go into each input of the multiplexor (4052).

    I might also leave out the connections to capacitors (ZT and PT) as I have never really figured out what they do on my Fourses Tarp.

    Finally, I was thinking of just connecting two of the XNOR inputs (CM) for each chip, to have 6 rather than 12 CM nodes.

    Any thoughts? I’m a bit worried that removing ZT & PT will take away the “Ciat-Lonbarde-ness” of the Fyrall.

  6. Richard says:

    Hi Neil,

    Here are my preliminary thoughts on how I’m going to do it. (And, BTW, your comment forced me to rethink my plan for section O. Thanks!)

    Here are all the nodes I plan to bring out.

    I’m not building the P sections, and will uses those op amps for something else (see below). In section Z (oscillators) I will bring out only the six ZE and ZC nodes.

    In section C (counters) I will bring out the three CL (load) nodes, which are inputs. As for CMs, I’ll tie the four nodes in each section together with one 470K pull-down and bring out to one common node for inverting all 4 bits at once. So that is just three CM nodes on the panel.

    In section O (switches) I will bring out the three ONs and three pairs of OCs. Internally, I’ll hard-wire the OZs through 470K resistors to MIDO. That way, when ON is activated, instead of the + input of the op amp floating, it will reference MIDO.

    I will buffer the six staircase waves; that’s what the section P chips will be used for. I’ll put 10K resistors in the U-strip instead of 100K, and bring out twelve of the OR nodes to use as outputs from the six oscillators and six buffered staircases. The OR nodes can also be used as inputs, where anything patched in will mix with what’s on the other end of the 10K.

    I have to rethink my U-strip wiring scheme. The way I drew it above, only three of the twelve sources would be in use at any one time, and that was dumb! I want to make it so that at all times, six different sources will be selected, routed to the six oscillators, while avoiding any oscillator modulating itself. That’ll be a fun exercise.

  7. Neil says:

    Thanks for your reply Richard.
    I understand and think most of your proposals are good.
    However, I’d encourage you to rethink having just one CM node per XNOR chip wired to all the CM inputs for the chip.
    If you think about the truth table of the XNOR – with all of the B inputs held low through the 470k resistor to ground, the bits will be inverted for the whole nibble (4 bits). If all of the B inputs are held high then all of the bits will be (in effect) inverted twice – giving you the same output as you get from the 40193 counter and, therefore, two identical staircase waves.
    By holding some of the B inputs high and some low, a different wave to the staircase will be produced – adding some timbral variety.
    I think I’m going to wire up two CM inputs per chip in somewhat random order, e.g. 1&3, 2&3, 3&4. Obviously, those outputs with the smallest resistors will contribute more to the primitive DAC and will have more effect than the larger values.

  8. Richard says:

    Good point about the CM nodes, Neil. The more I meditate on the whole project, the more ideas I get.

    Going over the U-strip again, I realized how to bring back the S&H idea. For that to work, the direct, low-impedance output from an op amp must go directly into the 4052, so that the capacitor on the other end will charge very quickly. So there can’t be a resistor in that path. I had trashed this idea, due to the possibility that two op amp outputs might be shorted together through two switches. But now I’ve realized that I can route four sources into the same chip, but going into different channels on each switch. That way each op amp can be connected to one or the other outputs, but not both at once. This also lets me bring out the 12 sources through separate 10K resistors on the op amps, rather than from the OR nodes at the switch inputs.

    Back to the CM nodes, I now think I want to bring out the two bits that go over to O to control the selection. And I’m thinking to direct wire those bits to OC, omitting the 100K resistors there, and soldering a 10K series resistor into the OC node points to get the selection bits for outputs.

    I know, I know, I’m getting farther away from the spirit of Petroleum Bottle. Somehow I feel more comfortable having inputs and outputs clearly defined, rather than the IO node idea.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of your company name or keyword spam.