Immediately I think to say CV controlled Blend like everyone else, but down
the road I am gonna want the Pulse Width Modulation. Maybe the CV input can
control pulse width or blend cv with an on board jumper (Stemming from
George's idea)? Is this too crazy? It would really allow us to use the same
small module in different ways depending on our ultimate needs.
Polyphony and creating classic sounding pulse width chords leaves the pulse
width as necessity for me. I know the CV controlled blend would be great,
but a lack of pulse width as a whole would push me towards 3 more 300's over
a time period rather than 3 of the 310's almost immediately. Just my uses
and opinion.
How bout a MOTM-330 module which has four waveforms available from one jack
with cv input that slides selection through the waveshapes.
Sine-Tri-Saw-Square with a knob to center the waveshape and a reversing cv
attenuator to allow for the slides and changes of waveshape? Don't have any
clue of the circuitry, but this is similar to Grant's (Wiard) Omnifilter and
its changing modes and the new Big Briar "Hoo Haw" Voyager Synth where you
have smooth control over waveshape selection with one knob. Add one FM for
pitch control and this thing could get out of hand. I know there are at
least a couple who would like this feature in our synths right? With a
2-space panel you could also keep pulse width and get crazy. Imagine a LFO
controlling waveshape, LFO contolling Pulse Width and LFO controlling FM. I
guess this could be done with a voltage controlled mixer but ideas are fun
Thomas White
>From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
>To: "MOTM listserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [motm] MOTM-310 time again
>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:48:59 -0500
>
>Now that Larry is hard at work (cough cough) on the pedal interface, I'm
>focusing on the MOTM-310 MicroVCO.
>
>To refresh: this is a lower cost VCO that shares MOTM-800 EG panel,
>bracket,
>and pcb size. That means 4 knobs
>and 4 jacks.
>
>In order to match MOTM-300 performance, and to use common parts I want to
>keep it SAW-based (as opposed
>to TRI-based). Looking at the pcb space and cost target ($169-179 kit) I
>propose the following:
>
>4 knobs are:
>
>COARSE
>FINE
>FM (attenuator)
>WIDTH (of pulse)
>
>4 jacks are:
>
>1V/OCT
>FM
>SAW
>PULSE
>
>This minimizes parts count. Having a 'blend' pot (say between SQUARE and
>TRI) looks like too many parts to
>fit on the board. Plus it adds $10-$15 to the cost. Since this main
>function
>of the '310 is to 'beef up' the mix with
>existing '300s, and to use as a sync generator to other '300s, this looks
>like the best fit.
>
>The only other possibility is: the 4th pots is a 'blend'. The VCO has 1
>OUT.
>The 4th jack is PWM IN. With no
>plug inserted, the PULSE is 50%. Else, the input is a -5V to +5V pulse
>width
>control (no input attenuation).
>So you can get SAW to PULSE with the blend. This is not as gnarly as the
>TRI
>stuff, and possibly more
>musically useful.
>
>Well??!?!?
>
>Paul S.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp