I plan do build a similar thing for my JH-5 (hybrid MOTM / do-it-myself modular).
But as today, unlike in Moog's modular days, electronic components are much
less expensive than front panel components, a purely passive attenuator does not
make much sense, IMO. What I plan is this:
3 or 4 attenuators in Moog configuration (inputs normalized to previous Attenuator's
input)
Attenuators with on pot and one 3-way (on/off/on) switch for 3 options:
(a) 0 ...1 (passive attenuation)
(b) 0 ... -1 (invertin attenuation)
(c) 0 ... 10 (gain to boost weak external signals. also soft clipping fuction for
use as overdrive / waveshaper
A 4th (or 5th) output that simply adds all signals from unused attenuator
outputs (similar as with the Quad LFO, but with a dedicated summing
output instead of using the last regular output.)
So I can use one module as 4 separate attenuators (or inverters, or gain
stages), or as a 1 -> 4 signal distribution with individual scaling (good
for Aftertouch routing!), or a 1->3 distribution and 1 extra attenuator,
or a 4 -> 1 mixer (!), or a 1->2 distribution and 2->1 mixer, or any other
combination.
JH.
"T.J." <
goku@...> schrieb:
> I used the Moog design for a passive attenuator. Simple design, three
> pots and 6 jacks. Wired so the first input will go to all 3 attenuators/
> outputs. You disconnect the chain by plugging into the second
> input/third input. So it can be a multiple as well. Very useful module
> in my setup. Perhaps a 1U Stooge panel if Paul has no plans to release
> such a module?
> Terry
>
> coyoteous wrote:
> >
> > What does one do for additional attenuation in the MOTM world? Most
> > modules seem to have at least one input with no control and none (I
> > think) have output controls. I prefer the convention with no output
> > level controls and all input level controls (except v/8va inputs). I
> > understand that this is a trade off between circuit functionality,
> > panel real estate and module conventions - but, if this is truly a
> > "modular" system - where is the attenuator module? There needs to be
> > an alternative to burning a mixer (or half a mixer) to control an
> > input. Also, is there a down side to passive attenuation? (no pun
> > intended)
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/