Why not build two single WoggleBugs and make child tones with an
external XOR module. The CGS Quad Logic Gate with a CD4077 XNOR makes a
great ring modulator, and also serves as a pulse inverter with one input.
http://www.pugix.com/modules/cgs-digital.htmAs for the MOTM-320 lacking attenuator for shape, check out the
MOTM-320R panel:
http://www.pugix.com/modules/motm-320.htmRichard Brewster
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.
>> : )
>>