Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

I agree that a smaller, simpler, cheaper VCO would be a good idea. I also
agree with many of the comments already given (even some of those opposed to
the module), but in the long run, when one is imagining say a four voice
system with two to four (or more) VCOs per voice it quickly becomes apparent
that features like sync, PWM, and all four waveforms will not be worth the
extra dollars (since two MOTM 300s will cost about as much as three MOTM
310s) -- I think Mark described a perfect use for such a VCO.

Now let me make an even more controversial suggestion: lose the pulse output
in favor of triangle. Why? Because you lose the PW pot (maybe you could add a
sync, or other input or feature), and (like the Serge Precision VCO) you can
still get a pulse out with PWM by using an external comparator module. (How's
about a 1U MOTM 710 dual comparator module with 2 inputs, 1 output, and 1 pot
per module. Such a module would be useful for sequencers as well as squaring
up audio signals.)

I've also thought a 310 VCO like you describe could be offered as a dual VCO
module in a 3U panel (with two PCBs). You could maybe add a couple of extra
or features for such a module and offer it for around $350.

John B.