The LINK OUT jack was to have been the summed output of the 3 inputs; Post mixer>inverter pre-resonator so that the same summed inputs could be fed into a second resonator.
In an early iteration of proposed panel designs, this jack was called "MIXED OUT" or somesuch, but because the OUTPUT jack is a mixture of the input and the resonator output via the DRY OUT and RESON OUT controls, I suggested that "MIX" might be confusing and proposed
"LINK" instead. I took this term from something I saw on the PCB.
If there is to be no active mixer ie the 3 inputs are just a multiple, then I agree, the "LINK" jack (or whatever we call it) is purposeless. But if some people want to implement the module including Mr. Brown's and your, Mr. Juskiw, ideas of mixing but without attenuating pots, then having an output post-mixed-input pre-resonator might be handy.
If the jack is provided and the mixer isn't implemented, then the jack could be wired up either as a second output or as just another of the multiple inputs.
I'm neither attached to the jack's existence nor to it's name.
Shall there be a jack provided for people who want an output of the input mixer?
If so, what shall we call it?
At this moment, I'd vote for omitting it altogether because I plan to convince Dad that we should implement our two resonators without a summing mixer per Scott's advice, but with Dave Brown's cool clipping indicator - ha ha ha haaaa - evil laugh.
Will
--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> I really don't see why you need a LINK jack at all. None of my other
> filters have LINK jacks, and I hook them up in series, parallel, one
> in inside the feedback loop of another, all kinds of ways. If you are
> going to simply mult the input jacks together, then there's little
> need for a LINK jack at all. The three filters on each board are in
> parallel. Not much use in putting them in series, except to narrow a
> specific band even more. If you wanted to get 6 bands, then you'd
> connect two of these modules in parallel. To link them together, you'd
> simply connect all the inputs together, which is exactly what the mult
> does. So in the end, if you really want three inputs on each board,
> and be able to link several modules together, just patch a cord
> between the IN jacks on the modules.
>
> On 10-Dec-09, at 11:32 AM, wjhall11 wrote:
>
> > Or, reading Dave's note more carefully, does this mean there should
> > be LINK OUT and LINK IN jacks to accomplish the cascade...
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Well then, stubbornly adhering to the large-knob format, so far as
> >> inputs are concerned, I suggest we big-knobbers plan on taking
> >> Scott's suggestion - specifically, just ganging the three inputs up
> >> like a multiple. In the case of inputting an external audio
> >> signal, I suppose we could put it through a mixer first - like the
> >> 830 if need to, right?
> >>
> >> Now as for the "LINK OUTPUT" - this was intended for cascading two
> >> (or more) of the polymoogs so there would, effectively, be more
> >> "bands." I haven't a clue what the best way to do this is and the
> >> jack was stuck there in the design before the PCBs came available
> >> and we really knew what was happening.
> >>
> >> Dave, Scott - is this jack even necessary? Would taking the output
> >> from one resonator and just sticking it into another one have the
> >> desired effect of cascading them? Maybe it would be an output of
> >> just the resonator without any "dry" mixed back in (via the DRY OUT
> >> pot). I dunno -
> >>
> >> I suppose it depends on how the signal flows through the resonator
> >> bands... series or parallel... or something.
>