At 4:44 AM +0000 06/05/01,
mate_stubb@... wrote:
>
>For those newer to the list, and for those who don't remember where
>the design of the MOTM-310 left off when last we haggled over it:
>
>http://www.users.qwest.net/~daveb2/images/m310r2.jpg
I had heard it had saw and square outputs, which seems more practical for a
"second" VCO. Don't get me wrong, I love triangle waves for bass patches,
but square and saw seem more useful for driving other modules. Anyway, the
SHAPE knob seems to be labeled "SOU" and "SAW".
What the heck is a "SOU"??
At 2:18 PM +0000 06/05/01,
jpotter2@... wrote:
>
>I would cast a strong vote for CV control over variable waveshape
>(saw>tri>pulse) over FM on that module.
>
>My reasoning:
>
>1.) You've got FM on the 300 VCO.
Yes, but if you want to add a mod source (like tremolo) to both the 300 and
310, you would need a very accurate DC mixer to control the 310 (to mix the
note CV and mod signal) if it did not have an FM input.
>2.) Unless I'm missing something there's no way to smoothly vary the
>waveshape on the 300 even w/ other current modules.
The 320 has VC waveshaping, and the 820 Lag Processor is VC and can process
audio (although I am yet to explore that area). You can also use two VCA's
to crossfade between two different waveforms. The Mini-Wave is a
third-party VC wavetable module that seems promising. Regardless, Paul has
announced that there are two motm waveshapers on the drawing board.