MUFF WIGGLER:: View topic - wouldn't a vco with vc-variable sync be awesome?-Authorwouldn't a vco with vc-variable sync be awesome?dudei wonder if i have just overlooked this in some available vcos. Usually there is either a hard sync in or if we are lucky we get variable sync via a knob. And sometimes a switch between hard/soft. Are there vcos which enable voltage control of variable sync?
Someone had mentioned putting a vca in front of a hard sync in to enable variable sync but that did not work for me. I think it would be great to have a dedicated voltage control in for variable sync.dudeor even better, a ninja could tell me how to patch it up with tools on hand! I think part of the complication may stem from the different manners of achieving the variable sync concept in the first place.i don't want my boat to syncdkcgZeroscillator.The knob and CV is called 'Vari-Sync'dudeah you got me excited there for a minute but alas i must not have explained myself.in the ZO's case, you have an pot to control the vari-sync. And you have a waveform in to accept to slave the ZO to. But you however do not have voltage control over the value of the sync. Only knob control.
Unless i am missing something. I want voltage control of the value of the variable sync.dudea knob isn't what i mean by vc.
I mean a dedicated jack in to use a voltage to set a parameter value.hope i am making sense now.3vcosand the tiptop oscillator has this. The tiptop osc is a great sounding vco too.There is no knob for controlling the level of sync but there is a vc input for HSM (hard sync modulation)dudeah, the tiptop does have it. That is what i am talking about. No euro for me though.
Thanks for bringing that up. I know there is always the concept of feature creep when building something but i think all vcos should have something like hsm as sync is absolutely one of the coolest features of any vco i have ever played with.calling ninjas to help patch vc sync without a tiptop osc.Hi5you can patch up variable sync by taking the slave vco you want to be sync'd and run one of it's outputs(preferably not square/pulse) into a comparator. With this you can have a fixed threshold or variable via cv. The comparator output then gets AND'd against your master vco output and this then goes into the sync input of the slave vco.
This way you will get sync when the master vco is high and you are in the given phase you want on the slave vco. By adjusting the threshold of the comparator you can set at what point sync can occur relative to the phase of the main vco.Hi5my bad in editingdudeyou know, i don't even have a voltage controlled comparator though. Your logic seems quite sound. Both my comparators only have manual control of threshold. Lol, i guess i will just have to use my hands. I love how the modular concept leaves me thinking that every single thing should be able have precise control via voltage inputs.Hi5If you can handle a soldering iron a comparator is probably the easiest thing to build with VC over the threshold. 2 opamp stages and a coupe resistors.7thDanSoundIs this what you're after?
There is voltage control at the end.dude7thDanSound wrote:Is this what you're after? There is voltage control at the end.we already discussed this adding a vca before a sync input does not yield voltage control of variable sync. At least with the vcos i am using. This may be the case with dotcom stuff i have no idea.terrafractylHi5 wrote:If you can handle a soldering iron a comparator is probably the easiest thing to build with VC over the threshold. 2 opamp stages and a coupe resistors.yep I just wired up a dual VC-Comparator.
Was very easy and is a very useful module. EVeryone should have at least one!dudeso which dual vc comparator pcbs are ya'll using?
You have me thinking further.confusionalRedacted.terrafractylQuote:so which dual vc comparator pcbs are ya'll using? You have me thinking further.I found this schematic in a modulus newsletter pdf I found on some DIY website.I just added a Attenuater to the threshold CV input. Works a treat 8)dudei was hoping for a pcb and fuck, even a parts list.
I couldn't begin to make something without those things. Reading schematics isn't one of the skills i would put on my resume.as for the serge, it doesn't appear to me that there is voltage control over the amount of variable sync but i have never even seen a serge vco in person so fuck me if i know what all those knobs and jacks actually do.terrafractylall you need is stipboard bro. And theres very few connections going on there, It would be a pretty tiny pcb.I reckon I was freaked out by schematics for a while, but with something this simple just try it on a breadboard or something and see what happens.heres a part list:1 x tl074(or any other tl07x or tl08x etc)1 x 3k Resistor1 x 1k5 Resistor1 x 1k Resistor1 x 1M resistor2 x 27k Resistor1 x 100k Pot3 x Jack inputshope that helps.Just meIt would be a piece of pastry to rig a DotCom for pedal control of sync. The thought could be extended to a relatively simple circuit to VC the input on the PCB.
(Just like is done to guitbox pedals when they are circuit bent for VC.)BananaPlugQuote:as for the serge, it doesn't appear to me that there is voltage control over the amount of variable sync but.No but look, it has one of those nice comparators with + & - inputs. The trick Hi5 was talking about might be attempted with that.dudeah right, i was looking at the wrong spot. And see, i must be looking in the wrong spot all over hence my inability to achieve what i want with what i have currentlythanks everybody for speaking up!Hi5The only issue i see with the serge set-up is that you still would need to AND the comparator output against the master VCO which would then go into the sync input on the slave VCO. The M-Module has the comparator but no means to get the AND aspect. I am pretty sure there are some logic modules in the M-Class series that would help with this.Hi5dude,There is away around the comparator if you dont want to build one. If your slave VCO has PWM you could use the square/pulse out since this is just a comparator off of the saw/tri on a VCO design.
Take the square output which has PWM vc and logical AND this against the master VCO. This way you have a manual pot and vc over PWM which sets the threshold. This works but then you dont have access to the square output on the slave VCO. Likewise, depending on the design on the PWM on the slave VCO you may not have the full 0-100% but you can at least get variable sync up and running to try out.dudeok and then what is the easiest way to and without dedicated logic? Would a simple mixer work?dudeah fuck never mind, don't answer me, you have 666 posts.
Better quit while your aheadkindredlostdude wrote:or even better, a ninja could tell me how to patch it up with tools on hand!Ninja? Not me, but I think it could be as simple as adding a jack between the knob and the PCB. That way you have both the knob and the cv input. The knob will be a 'level' to the cv input.This question might be good to ask to the DIY forum. I'd be careful to specify which VCO you are referring to.
(my guess is the ModCan)-Daviddudethere won't be any diy performed on the modcan.confusionalRedacted.confusionalRedacted.7thDanSounddude wrote:we already discussed this adding a vca before a sync input does not yield voltage control of variable sync. At least with the vcos i am using. This may be the case with dotcom stuff i have no idea.Oh ok Hmm, but what is then voltage controlled sync? I mean in the case of hard sync the synced VCO just resets at every cycle of the master, nothing strange with that. Soft sync just when the phase of the two VCO's coincide somehow, yes? What is it you want to VC? Because in the video, voltage control of the incoming signal is just like turning the soft sync knob on the VCO aid module.
I gotta think some more about thisHi5dude wrote:ok and then what is the easiest way to and without dedicated logic? Would a simple mixer work?This one we really do need the logical AND function as a mixer with only sum which is more like OR. We only want a high value when the phase of the comparator output and the master VCO signal coincide.dudethere must be a way to mock up some logic? So the list of system necessities grows whilst space continues to be nonexistent.need vc comparators and dedicated logic.Hi57thDanSound wrote:dude wrote:we already discussed this adding a vca before a sync input does not yield voltage control of variable sync. At least with the vcos i am using.
This may be the case with dotcom stuff i have no idea.Oh ok Hmm, but what is then voltage controlled sync? I mean in the case of hard sync the synced VCO just resets at every cycle of the master, nothing strange with that. Soft sync just when the phase of the two VCO's coincide somehow, yes? What is it you want to VC? Because in the video, voltage control of the incoming signal is just like turning the soft sync knob on the VCO aid module.
I gotta think some more about thisThis concern with variable sync is not that you just can turn it on and off like the case of the VCA example but rather controlling the point when sync can occur relative to the phase of the slave VCO. With the comparator on the slave VCO output we can set the point where sync could ever occur as this is compared to the master VCO with logical AND'ing. This way we only get a signal sent to the sync input when the master VCO is high and we are within the phase threshold of the slave VCO as set by the comparator. This allows for more control of how sync is shaping the slave VCO. It Isn't a super drastic effect but allows for a more tweakable sync sound. At lfo levels it is interesting in that you really can dial in a variety of shapes by just setting when sync occurs.dudeoh i did try some of this stuff last night with what i had. I used a vcdo with square out.
It has quadrature. I used the 0˚ out to speaker then mixed 90˚ out with a square from another vco and put that into the sync (hard) in.
Messing with the mixer levels as well ast he pulsewidth had some very cool fx. I didn't record it but was pleased.Hi5bradleyallen wrote:Hi5 wrote:The only issue i see with the serge set-up is that you still would need to AND the comparator output against the master VCO which would then go into the sync input on the slave VCO. The M-Module has the comparator but no means to get the AND aspect.
I am pretty sure there are some logic modules in the M-Class series that would help with this.Good point. Now I want to try patching it up and 'see what happens'. Maybe it's possible to achieve the same result as some of the other possibilities mentioned with other systems, but coming at it from a different path?
I don't know. I still like the original 'wouldn't it be cool.' Idea, though.Well, you could also use a voltage controlled switch or vca which is controlled by the comparator output.
This way when the phase of the slave is beyond the threshold it opens the switch/vca which then allows the master VCO to pass through to the sync input on the slave. Essentially we just need a way to control when the master is allowed to sync to the slave which is dependent on the phase of the slave VCO.
With logical AND'ing we ensure that it only occurs when both are high but a switch/vca would get us in a similar ballpark.dudeah, im a fucking idiot. I totally have two vc comparators. I gotta lay of the jazzz.dudeHi5 wrote:you can patch up variable sync by taking the slave vco you want to be sync'd and run one of it's outputs(preferably not square/pulse) into a comparator. With this you can have a fixed threshold or variable via cv. The comparator output then gets AND'd against your master vco output and this then goes into the sync input of the slave vco.
This way you will get sync when the master vco is high and you are in the given phase you want on the slave vco. By adjusting the threshold of the comparator you can set at what point sync can occur relative to the phase of the main vco.i am stoked about this. I can definitely patch it up with my makeshift vc comparator and a vca to mimic AND logic. I must say i am bummed that the 666 was lost by us sync novices asking silly questions.thank you so much for making my in-sync dreams come true.7thDanSoundJust a quick note, you can make an AND function using just a VC switch: patch one signal to AND into the CV input and the other to the input the module switches to when the CV goes high. The output is the AND'ed signal and will be low unless both inputs are high.If that made sensedudeyup, you can use a vca too! I always knew that but i don't think in logic terms very well.dudei barely got a C in my introduction to formal logic class in college long ago. It fulfilled my math requirement and i thought it would be easy as it was in the philosophy department.
It was in my final semester of music school and it was probably the hardest class i remember taking. It made me fucking sweat. And my teacher smelled. Didn't make it easy to talk to her. She also wore these shirts that showed off her extensively hairy armpits. Now, i couldn't care less if women shave as we can all do what the fuck we want, but the combo of the smell and her wearing those shirts and always lifting her arms up high to write complicated formulas on the blackboard.well fuck.it was just a mess.
So whenever i hear about logic, i cringe a bit despite needing its functions in my modular.now back to your scheduled programming7thDanSoundVCA? Oh yeah, that's right! Cool, never thought of that Great tip!Man, I get so many things I need to shoot for my YouTube channel from this forum!dudeyou and me both brothermy modcan boxes are supposed to be here by the weeks end so videos shall hopefully abound. I am no longer going to try thinking of them as demos but patch videos instead. I am too crackheaded to try and explain modules but i can make fun patch videos.7thDanSounddude wrote:but i can make fun patch videos.You sure can, I love 'em!dude7thDanSound wrote:dude wrote:but i can make fun patch videos.You sure can, I love 'em!thank you sir!
Yours are great!just saw that my boxes are in my fair city.7thDanSoundNew Modcan boxes, wow -luckily I don't suffer from envy Rock on!Dr. Sketch-n-EtchHi5 wrote:7thDanSound wrote:dude wrote:we already discussed this adding a vca before a sync input does not yield voltage control of variable sync. At least with the vcos i am using. This may be the case with dotcom stuff i have no idea.Oh ok Hmm, but what is then voltage controlled sync? I mean in the case of hard sync the synced VCO just resets at every cycle of the master, nothing strange with that.
Soft sync just when the phase of the two VCO's coincide somehow, yes? What is it you want to VC? Because in the video, voltage control of the incoming signal is just like turning the soft sync knob on the VCO aid module. I gotta think some more about thisThis concern with variable sync is not that you just can turn it on and off like the case of the VCA example but rather controlling the point when sync can occur relative to the phase of the slave VCO. With the comparator on the slave VCO output we can set the point where sync could ever occur as this is compared to the master VCO with logical AND'ing.
This way we only get a signal sent to the sync input when the master VCO is high and we are within the phase threshold of the slave VCO as set by the comparator. This allows for more control of how sync is shaping the slave VCO. It Isn't a super drastic effect but allows for a more tweakable sync sound. At lfo levels it is interesting in that you really can dial in a variety of shapes by just setting when sync occurs.My saw-core 2164 Expo VCO design has very simple take on variable sync.
I don't really know how other people do it, but mine works perfectly. Here's how:You probably know that the heart of a saw-core VCO is a ramp integrator which is reset by an electronic switch (typically a JFET) wired across the integrator capacitor which is gated by a comparator. When the integrated ramp hits the threshold voltage of the comparator (+5V in my case), the comparator sends a positive voltage spike to the JFET's gate, the JFET switch closes thereby resetting the integrator voltage to zero, and the next ramp begins.All I do to sync is send a wave with edges (either square or saw) through a variable-gain inverter and a small capacitor into that threshold voltage input, with a small resistor going back to the voltage reference. This cap and resistor make a differentiator which converts the incoming edges to spikes.
The negative spikes temporarily lower the 5V reference at the comparator input. If the spike goes to a lower voltage than wherever the ramp happens to be, then it forces the integrator to reset.Now, if the gain on the inverter is cranked all the way up, the incoming spikes cause the threshold voltage to go to less than 0V, and this guarantees that the ramp integrator will reset on every spike. This is 'hard sync'. If the gain is less than 1, the spikes cause the threshold voltage to go to something between 0 and 5V, and the ramp integrator may or may not reset depending on the ramp voltage.OK, so earlier this evening I successfully created true 'voltage-controlled variable sync'. All I had to do was to send the syncing square-wave signal (the 'master') through a VCA and then into the sync input of the slave. The variable sync knob was cranked to 100% gain.
I modulated the VCA with a sine wave and was able to sweep the entire sync range from 'no sync' to 'hard sync'. The effect was reasonably cool, but probably not distinctive enough to warrant building it into a VCO.dudewell i just tried the comparator+AND logic (from vca) version and it worked. There are actually a bunch of little voltage controllable parts i can abuse as my main vcos for these matters are a vcdo and ZO. It worked like a charm, well, at least it sounded like it to me.Dr. Sketch-n-EtchFurther to my last post, I just tried the VCVarisync again, but this time I set each VCO (master and slave) to a constant pitch and triangle-LFOed the VCA controlling the variable sync.
What I got (when I set the pitches just so) was a minor 6th arpeggio. The more I cranked up the variable sync, the broader the arpeggio became. It's almost like a poor man's sequencer!dudeyeah i was getting some sequencer type stuff too! Fucking rad.7thDanSoundThis is awesomeNavsNot sure if you want VC control over when sync is applied or at which point in a waveforms's cycle the VCO is re-started, but if it's the latter this might help:Similar to the comparator patch, I've used Maths as a gate delay, with the rise setting determining the time the EOR pulse is emitted.Otherwise, as others have written, a VCA or crossfader will give you a logical AND, a mixer an OR.
I find it helps to speak the conditions out loud to understand logic, rather than looking at truth tables e.g. I want this to happen, but only when that also happens etc.Dr. Sketch-n-EtchMy variable sync works by selecting the phase. This is done simply by drawing the saw comparator's threshold down to a specific voltage.
The phase of the integrated ramp is linearly related to ramp voltage according to the following formula (specific to my VCO):phase = 2. pi. V / 5My variable sync is very easy to put under voltage control because I have avoided using a comparator in the sync circuit. Of course, this means that the sync only works when the master signal has sharp edges, but it also means that I can control the level of sync (i.e., the phase of reset) directly, simply by attenuating the master signal.Had I used a comparator to convert the master signal to a square wave (which is a good idea in general because it allows any zero-crossing signal to trigger the sync circuit), I would not have been able to do this as easily, because the comparator has a constant voltage output.
Vc Sync App
I would have had to bypass the comparator with a switch. Of course, I wasn't thinking about this when I did it, but it is a side benefit of having a simpler circuit. The downside of how I've done it is that the specific RC combination I've used for the sync differentiator is customized for use with my VCOs (which generate very sharp edges), and may not provide a large enough spike if the master comes from a VCO with sloppier edges (i.e., longer integrator reset times).frijitzI'm having trouble following all this, mostly because two different kinds of variable sync are being discussed: (1) hard sync with variable relative phase, and (2) the amount of hardness of the sync, ie what happens when you turn the 'variable sync amount knob' (as on the ZO).
The OP seemed to be asking about (2), but I'm not sure.In my TZ VCO there is a knob for the sync amount. The sync circuit resets the oscillator core when the relative phases of the master and slave are within a window, set by comparators on the internal Tri wave and on the master input. The window width is defined by a variable comparator on the Tri signal, which could easily be VCed by adding a jack, a pot and a resistor.
This would be (2).Another kind of sync modulation could be done by adding the sync modulating signal to the sync input signal. This would change the sync point relative to the phase of the sync modulating signal, without changing the sync amount. No idea what this sounds like, but I guess it would be (3).Iandude1,2,3,4,5,6,7i don't know any of the tech specs or physics/actions behind what is really going on with any type of sync (beyond the obvious). I was just hoping to figure out what has or how to use voltage to control some sort of variable sync.
In my case it was using a comparator and logic to mess with a hard sync in on a modcan vcdo.Dr. Sketch-n-Etchfrijitz wrote:I'm having trouble following all this, mostly because two different kinds of variable sync are being discussed: (1) hard sync with variable relative phase, and (2) the amount of hardness of the sync, ie what happens when you turn the 'variable sync amount knob' (as on the ZO). The OP seemed to be asking about (2), but I'm not sure.What do you mean by 'hard sync with variable relative phase' exactly?frijitz wrote:In my TZ VCO there is a knob for the sync amount. The sync circuit resets the oscillator core when the relative phases of the master and slave are within a window, set by comparators on the internal Tri wave and on the master input.
The window width is defined by a variable comparator on the Tri signal, which could easily be VCed by adding a jack, a pot and a resistor. This would be (2).This sounds (more or less) like what I'm doing, although in a less complicated fashion. The negative-going spikes I'm generating from the sync master input pull the integrator reset comparator's threshold down. If it is pulled down below the voltage where the ramp happens to be, the oscillator is reset.
When the sync knob is cranked all the way up, the spikes pull the threshold to about -2V, and since the ramp is 0 to 5V, this guarantees reset. I call this 'hard sync'. If the sync knob is at some intermediate setting, the spikes pull the threshold down to something between 0 and 5V, which means that the oscillator may or may not reset. In practice, this generates harmonics. Because I don't have a comparator on the sync input, I can attenuate the sync input (manually with the knob, or by voltage control through an external VCA) to change the depth of the spikes.
When I apply CV from an LFO to the VCA such that the gain of the sync master input varies between 0 and 10Vpp, this is like repeatedly turning the sync knob all the way up and down. If master and sync are both tuned to constant pitches, this generates a lovely arpeggio of harmonics. It can be musically very useful, especially if the LFO controlling the VCA is reset by the keyboard trigger.frijitz wrote:Another kind of sync modulation could be done by adding the sync modulating signal to the sync input signal. This would change the sync point relative to the phase of the sync modulating signal, without changing the sync amount. No idea what this sounds like, but I guess it would be (3).This just seems tantamount to FM'ing the master VCO. It sounds pretty good (like an '80s hair metal guitar solo when notes are played fast on the keyboard).frijitzDr. Sketch-n-Etch wrote:What do you mean by 'hard sync with variable relative phase' exactly?For example a Saw sync source driving a variable comparator with the VCO core being reset when the comparator goes high.
The comparator reference level determines the realative phase of master/slave.Quote:This sounds (more or less) like what I'm doing, although in a less complicated fashion.Right, same thing. Unfortunately that method won't work with my TZ VCO, because the core can be ramping either up or down.Quote:The negative-going spikes I'm generating from the sync master input pull the integrator reset comparator's threshold down. If it is pulled down below the voltage where the ramp happens to be, the oscillator is reset. When the sync knob is cranked all the way up, the spikes pull the threshold to about -2V, and since the ramp is 0 to 5V, this guarantees reset. I call this 'hard sync'. If the sync knob is at some intermediate setting, the spikes pull the threshold down to something between 0 and 5V, which means that the oscillator may or may not reset.Yes, that's a good way to go. There was a similar method given in one of the old EN issues.Quote:frijitz wrote:Another kind of sync modulation could be done by adding the sync modulating signal to the sync input signal.
This would change the sync point relative to the phase of the sync modulating signal, without changing the sync amount. No idea what this sounds like, but I guess it would be (3).This just seems tantamount to FM'ing the master VCO.I believe that would be quite similar if you restrict operation to a linear part of a waveform.I had some fun abusing the sync input with various dynamic signals and I agree that there is lots of interesting sonic territory with sync depth modulation.IanDr.
Sketch-n-EtchI wonder how all of this applies to tricore sync.?-Page 1 of 3.
What EY can do for youHistorically, companies sold products and services through linear value chains. With the supply chain of the future, digital ecosystems consisting of market networks will enable hybrid forms of cooperation and competition. At the same time, technology, demographics and government policies are shaping industries as never before. To improve performance and innovation in this Transformative Age, companies must radically restructure their supply chains and operations.is a suite of asset-backed solutions enabled by advanced technologies such as data analytics, blockchain, machine learning, robotics and artificial intelligence.
Vc Sync Free
This suite of solutions extends from end-to-end supply chain strategy, strategic architecture, operational excellence, and supply chain resilience. We can help you harness the creativity and intelligence of your entire supplier ecosystem, increase collaboration, and ultimately help serve your customers better. Supply Chain Smart Maps ™As part of our Supply Chain Smart Maps™ solution, we use Supply Chain Strategic Analyzer, our proprietary software platform for supply chain intelligence. With this advanced diagnostic tool, you can analyze the entire breadth of your supply chain to better align with your business priorities.
Smart Maps™ provide insights through quantitative analytics, standardizing, and qualitative performance assessments. These insights can help you identify the critical areas to increase performance and achieve your full supply chain potential. Integrated Digital PlanningEY‘s Integrated Digital Planning solution is enabled by the latest technologies, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and cloud platforms, and is also supported by assets including VC Sync™, Working Capital Optimization, Cognitive Automation and “Lights Out” Planning. By taking advantage of our experience, assets and advanced technologies, the Integrated Digital Planning solution can help align your planning and decision-making at strategic, operational and tactical levels, and allow you to react faster to rapid changes in the marketplace. Supply-side OptimizationA recent EY survey of procurement leaders indicated that more than half view digital as an immediate priority to enable cost savings, innovation, supply certainty and service.
Supply-side success requires selecting the right suppliers with the right capabilities, engaged under the right commercial agreements to drive performance, and then actively managing this portfolio as the company and the supply base evolves. Our solution provides an end-to-end framework to deploy tailored processes and assets that will enable effective and efficient processes to optimize the supplier portfolio, manage commercial excellence, and conduct lights-out operations. Smart FactorySmart Factory is our people-centric solution for bringing together operations strategy, industrial Internet of Things (IoT), shopfloor operational excellence (OpEx) leading practices and analytics to drive sustainable performance improvement. Smart Factory can help you understand whether your practice standards are consistent from line to line, leverage manufacturing data to improve results, and check whether your digital strategy is translating into performance on the shopfloor. This solution combines our leading capabilities with the cloud-based EY Catalyst OpEx platform and our EY Smart Factory execution apps to help you gain insights and take the right actions toward. Digital FulfillmentMany of today‘s supply chains suffer from disparate and inefficient fulfillment processes in terms of performance, risk and cost. EY‘s Digital Fulfillment solution leverages innovative technology such as autonomous automated vehicles to carry out goods movements, AI equipment to safeguard execution of material flow, and analytics to generate heat maps for areas to improve inventory allocation.
The Digital Fulfillment solution can help you address the traditional logistics challenges of efficiency, cost, accuracy and speed to market in an environment of ever-increasing complexity around delivery points and shortening lead times. EY Assurance Tax Transactions AdvisoryAbout EYEY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities.EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.
For more information about our organization, please visit ey.com.© 2019 EYGM Limited. All Rights Reserved.EYG/OC/FEA no.ED MMYYThis material has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be relied upon as accounting, tax, or other professional advice. Please refer to your advisors for specific advice.
Welcome to EY.comIn addition to cookies that are strictly necessary to operate this website, we use the following types of cookies to improve your experience and our services: Functional cookies to enhance your experience (e.g.
I usually abbreviate various forms of the word 'synchronization' with the spelling 'sync'. It just looks right to me, perhaps because it seems to be the more common spelling-the iTunes command, the band 'N Sync, etc. I've also seen it spelled 'synch', but that looks a little weird and less aesthetically pleasing to me.The linguist in me, however, realizes that the root is χρόνος ('time'), and the Greek letter chi (χ) is always transliterated into the Roman alphabet as ch. So it seems that one should preserve the final 'h' in the abbreviation. 'Synch' is more correct.but I still don't like the way it looks.I feel torn between aesthetics and linguistic purity.
Said.The letter Xi (Xi, as opposed to Ksi) represents a voiceless velar fricative. In the Roman Alphabet, the voiceless velar fricative is represented by the ch digraph. However, most words containing a voiceless velar fricative in borrowee language have the voiceless velar fricative coverted into a voiceless velar plosive, due to English-speakers' traditional inability to voice the appropriate pronunciation.Thus, in the english language,because the H in Synchronise no longer serves a purpose at all (the ch digraph being converted into a sound that can be represented solely by C), Sync would be more correct that Synch would if you're following the rules established in the English language.
Said.Thanks, Chris! That makes perfect sense to me.
If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the actual sound represented by chi does not exist in English. It's actually equivalent to the German 'ch', which English speakers tend to mispronounce as a hard 'c' (the fricative to plosive conversion). I do remember this now from my one year of Greek, though I'd forgotten since we typically pronounce the letter itself as 'kye'.
At least it's not as bad as 'ksi' which English speakers inevitably pronounce as 'zye'.(I need to figure out how to support other fonts in the comments.). Anonymoussaid.I was about to use the word 'synched' somewhere but the spell-check keeps underlining it. So I searched Google and found your useful take on the matter.I appreciate that some have an aesthetic taste for sync, but as you point out, the 'h' completes the sound.That's why to me, 'sync' just does not look correct or pleasing at all, let alone 'synced'. I already have the whole word appreciated in my mind as 'synchronize' so I automatically see 'synch' as sounding like sink.Someone said 'synch' can look like 'cinch', but to me 'sync' looks like 'since'.So I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, and even though Firefox wants to label 'synch' incorrect, I realize Firefox also doesn't know what 'non sequitur' is either (and a host of other, more common words), so I will stick with synch.This was a fun exercise in etymology. Said.Why thank you for this blog post.
I've been annoyed for a few months going back and forth with colleagues in Europe and Asia regarding a project which will keep our shared data in sync. They keep subtly encouraging me to write synch and even correct my spelling in some documents. I just can't do it, it feels wrong. But I won't be as adamant in changing it all back since I realize it is probably just as appropriate to write 'synch'. Seems silly, but things like this do get people worked up when trying to maintain professionalism and corporate style continuity. Suppose if it's a real problem we should just spell out the entire word.
Anonymoussaid.I am aware of the larger popularity of sync over synch. However, I feel synch to be the more correct form. The ch should be thought of a single, inseparable letter, similar to th.
You would not separate the c from the h when hyphenating sync-hronized, and neither should you drop it when abbreviating.On the other hand, I do understand that the English language is shaped by usage instead of logic, and the sheer force of apparently incorrect usage will make the sync usage correct, by definition. Anonymoussaid.I tend to think of abbreviated words as 'viable' portions of the original word.
You wouldn't write syncronization, because the h in that word is purposeful. The logical chunk, therefore, is synch.However, that leaves me up a creek when parsing refrigerator. What the frig should the spelling of this common abbreviation be?Secondly, your only example is part of the reason I stick with synch: the band N' Sync. Bands often deliberately misspell words when creating their names (perhaps more likely in the 80's and 90's). I do not trust that this is a valid example of good spelling. Any examples of 'sync' in, say, a novel or medical journal?
Anonymoussaid.The problem with 'sync' is its conjugation. Past tense ('synced') and present participle ('syncing'), would have the 'c' pronounced as an 's' rather than 'k' according to standard english pronunciation rules ('c' followed by 'e' or 'i' is typically pronounced 's'). We're taught in kindergarten that 'c' has a 'k' sound, but that is only half the story.Similarly, 'ch' having the 'tch' sound is only a third of the story, since it frequently is pronounced 'k' or 'sh'. I don't know of a spelling rule that determines how it is pronounced, though. Said.i agree with anonymous regarding conjugation. I am trying to decide whether to use SYNC or SYNCH for a status variable in some code i am writing. SYNC is more succinct, as others have noted.
The problem is my variable can take on values of NEEDSSYNCH, SYNCHING, or SYNCHED. Or alternatively, NEEDSSYNC, SYNCING, and SYNCED. The latter two i would read as 'sincing' and 'sinced', rather thank 'sinking' and 'sinked'.so i think i'm going to go with leaving the H in there, though i could see others coming to the opposite conclusion. Ray Reglosaid.Really good conversation on what could be looked a very informal part of language 'an abbreviation.' I am bothered by the two different spelling from a technology-based perspective. Semantic searching will need to include both spellings for accuracy.On a more practical note: I think we are all admitting that we are all working from the same root word 'Synchronize' and it's tenses.
When I see sync or synch I see it as synchronize or synchronization, whichever fits. In my 'need for speed' world I simply abbreviate it as sync, and if I need to add a tense to it becomes sync'ing or sync'd.
I know this will run afoul with some of the opinions offered here. So, I am standing by for the fallout. Anonymoussaid.ArtAltamonte Springs, FLThe way it seems most reasonable is to have it in 3 forms.
These are the ones I use depending on whether I am talking about the root word, or a present action, or in the past. Ex: Have, has, had. He would like to have a new car.
He has a new car. He had a new car. Likewise: I will sync the video and audio. I am syncing the video and audio. I sync'd the video and audio.
In the past tense I use it like a contraction. In the same way one might use shouldn't or don't. So, that said, it makes it simpler and less confusing to use: Sync (for Synchronize), Syncing (for Synchronizing), Sync'd (for Synchronized).
Adaptive sync display technologies from Nvidia and AMD have been on the market for a few years now, however it's just recently that it's become more mainstream with gamers taking the plunge thanks to generous selection, a wide variety of options, and monitor budgets. Initially, Nvidia’s G-Sync and AMD’s FreeSync significantly differed in their implementation and user experience, but now that both technologies and ecosystems have matured, it’s a good opportunity to revisit them to see where the differences lie in mid 2017. TechnologyFor those that haven’t been keeping up with adaptive sync, here’s a quick refresher on what it brings to the table. Traditional monitors (without adaptive sync) have a fixed refresh rate, which sees the display update its image at the same interval regardless of what your PC is doing.
For 60 Hz monitors, this means the image is always updated every 1/60 th of a second.The issue with a fixed refresh rate is that when you’re playing games, your graphics card isn’t always outputting frames at the same interval as your monitor’s refresh rate. Occasionally you may hit a locked 60 FPS, which produces frames every 1/60 th of a second to match a 60 Hz monitor’s refresh, but frame rate fluctuations are far more common. For example, if you’re playing at 45 FPS, your graphics card is producing frames every 22.2ms when your 60 Hz display wants to update every 16.7ms.This sort of mismatch results in one of two things. With v-sync off, you’ll get screen tearing, as a new frame may become ready half way through the display refresh process, leading to both frames being shown at once.Screen tearing is ugly, jarring and annoying during gameplay. Switching v-sync on solves screen tearing, as it forces each frame to wait until the display is ready to refresh, but it often leads to noticeable stuttering if your frame rate is fluctuating below the display’s refresh rate.The solution to these issues is adaptive sync, which informs the display when to refresh based on the frame rate produced by the GPU. If your game is running at 45 FPS, adaptive sync tells the monitor to refresh at 45 Hz.
If the game jumps up to 57 FPS, adaptive sync makes the monitor refresh at 57 Hz. This creates a dynamic monitor refresh rate that’s synced to the GPU output rate, eliminating screen tearing and stuttering, leading to a smoother and more enjoyable gaming experience.The improvement is especially noticeable in the 40 to 60 FPS range, often giving lower frame rates a similar level of smoothness as 60 FPS on a non-adaptive-sync 60 Hz monitor. At higher refresh rates (greater than 60 Hz), the benefit of adaptive sync is reduced, though the technology still helps to remove screen tearing and stutters caused by frame rate fluctuations.This slide references G-Sync, but it also applies to FreeSync, which works in the same way.The implementation of adaptive sync differs between FreeSync and G-Sync. FreeSync uses the VESA Adaptive-Sync standard, a component of DisplayPort 1.2a, along with a variety of off-the-shelf display scalers that support adaptive sync.G-Sync uses a proprietary module from Nvidia in place of the usual display scaler, though it also communicates over DisplayPort. The proprietary module along with the closed nature of the G-Sync platform makes it more expensive to implement than FreeSync, which I’ll explore in more detail later. Feature DifferencesBoth G-Sync and FreeSync provide the key features of adaptive sync, but due to differences in implementation, there are some features differences as well.As G-Sync monitors use a proprietary scaler module, most displays are limited to just DisplayPort and HDMI for connectivity, with only DisplayPort supporting adaptive sync.
FreeSync uses standard display scalers, so FreeSync monitors often have many more connectivity options than their G-Sync counterparts, including multiple HDMI ports and legacy connectors such as DVI and even VGA.FreeSync has another connectivity advantage through a feature called FreeSync over HDMI. As the name suggests, AMD has managed to get adaptive sync working over standard HDMI connectors and cables, provided both the GPU and monitor support the feature.There are a few benefits to running adaptive sync over HDMI rather than DisplayPort, among them that HDMI cables are cheaper than DisplayPort cables, and devices with limited room for ports (such as laptops) can use the more widely-adopted HDMI standard for compatibility with other displays without losing support for adaptive sync.G-Sync’s proprietary module does have its advantages, too. G-Sync continuously tweaks monitor overdrive on the fly to eliminate ghosting wherever possible, which has been shown previously to improve ghosting performance compared to FreeSync displays. Driver and monitor tweaks over the past few years have improved FreeSync displays in this regard, though.Nvidia has integrated a feature called Ultra Low Motion Blur (ULMB) into every G-Sync monitor, which strobes the backlight in sync with the display’s refresh rate to reduce motion blur and improve clarity in high-motion situations. The feature works at high fixed refresh rates, typically at or above 85 Hz, though it does come with a small brightness reduction.The main downside to ULMB is that it can’t be used in conjunction with G-Sync. In other words, you need to choose between variable refresh rates without stuttering and tearing, or high clarity and low motion blur.
Most people will prefer to use G-Sync for the smoothness it provides, while esports enthusiasts will love ULMB for its responsiveness and clarity at the expense of tearing.Low framerate compensation (LFC) is another point of difference between G-Sync and FreeSync. Every adaptive sync monitor has a refresh rate window, for example 30 to 144 Hz, within which the refresh rate can dynamically adjust to the GPU’s render rate. What happens between 0 Hz and the display’s minimum refresh rate – 30 Hz in the case of my example – is determined by whether the monitor supports LFC.Monitors that support LFC will duplicate frames and refresh rates when frame rates are below the display’s minimum to ensure variable refresh continues to function below the minimum.
For example, when 20 FPS gameplay is played on a 30 to 144 Hz adaptive sync monitor with LFC, every frame is duplicated and the monitor operates at 40 Hz; within its refresh window. Monitors without LFC would run at 30 Hz with either tearing or stuttering, depending on the v-sync setting.LFC is extremely important on monitors with high minimum refresh rates, such as 48 Hz. LFC on these monitors allows the variable refresh window to extend into the crucial 30 to 48 Hz zone and function as if the monitor has no minimum refresh rate.
Without LFC on these monitors, there is a jarring effect when frame rates fluctuate in the 40 to 55 FPS zone, as variable refresh is continually activating and deactivating at the 48 FPS boundary. LFC is crucial for the best adaptive sync experience.Every G-Sync monitor comes with support for LFC, so when buying a G-Sync display it’s not something you have to worry about. FreeSync is a different story, as only some monitors – mostly high-end ones – support LFC. You’ll need to consult AMD’s display list to check whether a FreeSync monitor on your radar supports LFC, whereas it’s a known quantity with every G-Sync display. Some of the initial teething issues with both adaptive sync technologies have been resolved now.
V-sync works the same in both FreeSync and G-Sync, with v-sync controls only affecting how frames are displayed outside the variable refresh window. Borderless window gaming with adaptive sync is also supported now by both FreeSync and G-Sync, although AMD’s implementation appears to be a bit dodgy in some situations.As for graphics card support, FreeSync requires a 'Sea Islands' Radeon Rx 200 series card from 2013 or newer, while G-Sync requires a 'Kepler' GeForce 600 series card from 2012 or newer. G-Sync doesn’t work on AMD graphics cards, and FreeSync doesn’t work on Nvidia graphics cards, as has always been the case.The main takeaway from looking at a range of G-Sync and FreeSync displays is that G-Sync is a known quantity, whereas FreeSync monitors vary significantly in quality. Basically every G-Sync monitor is a high-end unit with gaming-suitable features, a large refresh window, support for LFC and ULMB – in other words, when purchasing a G-Sync monitor you can be sure you’re getting the best variable refresh experience and a great monitor in general.With FreeSync, some monitors are gaming-focused with high-end features and support for LFC, but many aren’t and are more geared towards everyday office usage than gaming. Potential buyers will need to research FreeSync monitors more than with G-Sync equivalents to ensure they’re getting a good monitor with all the features necessary for the best variable refresh experience. PricingPricing is one of the most contentious issues with FreeSync versus G-Sync, as Nvidia charges a hefty premium for the use of their proprietary module. I’ve researched a bunch of near-identical FreeSync and G-Sync monitors to examine the price differences, and here are the results.
Monitor TypeFreeSyncPriceG-SyncPrice24” 1080p 144 HzAOC G2460PF$249AOC G2460PG$44924” 1080p 240 Hz TNViewSonic XG2530$449Acer Predator XB252Q$54927” 1440p 144 Hz IPSAcer XF270HU$599Acer Predator XB271HU (OC to 165 Hz)$79927” 4K 60 Hz IPSAcer H277HK$649Acer Predator XB271HK$87934” 1440p 21:9 100 Hz VAPhilips 349X7$899AOC AG352UCG$109935” 1080p 21:9 144 Hz VAAcer XZ350CU$599Acer Predator Z301C (OC to 200 Hz)$799Looking at near-identical monitors from the same manufacturer, G-Sync adds $200 in most cases to the MSRP over the FreeSync model. When looking across brands, the margin can be as low as $100, but it often hovers near the $200 mark. For the six monitor types I researched, the average price difference when looking at the most similar models was $188.Two of the G-Sync models could be overclocked using the on-screen display beyond what the equivalent FreeSync model was capable of, which adds a bit of value to the premium price you’re paying. For the most part, though, you’re only getting the aforementioned benefits of G-Sync like ULMB, LFC and, of course, adaptive sync compatibility with Nvidia graphics cards.FreeSync monitors are universally cheaper, though one of the six monitors I examined (the Acer H277HK) did not support LFC due to its limited refresh rate windows. Future: FreeSync 2 and G-Sync HDRNew adaptive sync monitors are set to hit the market in the coming months, which harness some new additions to the FreeSync and G-Sync ecosystems.G-Sync is expanding its feature set to include support for HDR monitors and wide color gamuts. HDR monitors with G-Sync will support features like ULMB and LFC, though they will also include far larger gamuts and higher brightness for HDR functionality. Drivers will seamlessly switch between an SDR environment for desktop work, and HDR in supported applications where appropriate.FreeSync 2 is a much larger update, that not only includes support for HDR monitors, but also introduces a monitor validation program that will see only the best monitors receive a FreeSync 2 badge.
FreeSync 2 monitors will have at least twice the maximum brightness and color volume over standard sRGB displays, and monitors will be validated to meet input lag standards (in the “few milliseconds” range). All FreeSync 2 monitors will support LFC.FreeSync 2 will include similar features to G-Sync HDR as well, like support for larger gamuts, higher brightness and automatic switching between SDR and HDR modes. There’s still no word on whether AMD will charge a premium for FreeSync 2 validation and branding, though the updated technology will bring FreeSync closer to what G-Sync provides in every monitor.
Who leaves ratings and reviews?Ratings and reviews are provided by customers who have either purchased a vehicle or visited a dealership for service.How are ratings and reviews collected?Customers are invited to participate in a survey administered by MaritzCX, an independent, third-party supplier.Can dealerships edit or remove reviews?No. Ford personnel and/or dealership personnel cannot modify or remove reviews.Are reviews modified or monitored before being published?MaritzCX moderates public reviews to ensure they contain content that meet Review guidelines, such as:‣No Profanity or inappropriate defamatory remarks‣Fraud‣No Personal Identifying information (e.g., customer phone number or email)‣No Competitor references (e.g., another brand or dealership)‣Dangerous behavior (e.g. Threatening to harm employees or others)‣Lack of adequate text (e.g., symbols, emoji’s and random letters)Reviews on the product and not the customer’s Sales or Service experience.