J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>
>Well, No one has to call me stupid, I do a good enough job that for myself.
Now I know why Moe was always mad :)
>My public apologies go out to Mark and the list for inadvertently
>>responding publicly to a private e-mail.
>
>Sorry Mark. :(
de nada :)
>Well, that's not the words I would have used.
As you already noted, I had no intention of posting to the list. I
expressed my opinion quite clearly months ago, and was told a motm module
could not have three knobs and five jacks. What's done is done, and there
is no point in complaining about it now.
>Individual saw and pulse outs would not be a difficult thing as I see it.
>But, if you were going to mix them externally, I ask why?
What if you weren't going to mix them externally?? With separate outputs
you could run them through different filters, different waveshapers,
different VCA's, use different overdrive characteristics with the same
filter, etc. Also, since sync inputs expect a pulse you couldn't create a
"double saw", and since the miniwave expects a saw you couldn't use the
pulse at the same time.
>The shape control is "basically" a mixer between the two waveshapes. You
>>would not get anything different by mixing them externally.
Exactly my point!!
>Dislaimer: I am not an engineer. I am not qualified to give such advice.
>This is my casual observation of a way to hack up a perfectly good MOTM-310
>into something ugly without increasing functionality at all.
While I disagree that it wouldn't increase its functionality, I agree that
would be an extremely ugly hack and it is something I would not do.
Thank you for your advice.
--
My ISP has changed my address:
media@... is now
media.nai@...media@... is
media.nai@...Please make a note of it, Thanks!! :)