previous by date | index | next by date |
previous in topic | topic list | next in topic |
On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Mark wrote:
>
> While I don't think I'll be building a wogglebug myself, as I already
> have PCB's for a number of unfinished projects, and a lack of panel
> space, I would like to comment on this situation in general.
>
> What people often seem to forget in these discussions, when adding
> features to panel, is that a modular is modular.
>
> Imho, bad UI decisions are when panel space is wasted (eg. no
> attenuator for shape CV pn the MOTM-320 which has space for five more
> knobs), or when it results in situations that cannot be overcome by
> external modules (eg. missing a way to control a parameter, or access
> to an input or output). This doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> So not knowing anything more about it, I would say that having two
> single wogglebugs with separate panels is better than a double
> wogglebug. If the extra outputs on the double unit are easily
> obtainable by ring modulating outputs that would be already available
> on single wogglebugs, then having a separate ring modulator would be
> much more flexible. How often are you going to use these child
> tones?? Not only could you use that ring modulator for whatever else
> you wanted, but you might not even have to add one. If necessary, I
> can
> already get two or three ring modulators out of what many people
> would consider a relatively small modular.
>
> On 3/16/08, Scott Deyo put forth:
> >To get the Child tones, just ring mod two Wogglebugs. The Wiard unit
> >RMs the Woggled Outs from two 'Bugs for one Child Tone, and the
> >Smooth Tones from two 'Bugs for the other Child Tone. At least, I'm
> >pretty sure.
> >: )
>
>