Just one thought:
Not all of the "vintage" envelopes work as we would expect it, either.
Nobody complains about a Minimoog envelope going above its nominal
peak level with fast repeated triggers. Most people consider it a "feature",
even though it is originally a design flaw.
Personally I grew up with "flawless" CEM and SSM envelopes, and
that's how I like them as a standard. And I ∗think∗ MOTM should have
something like this in the future (I have a discreet circuit for this, which
is also in the core of the VCLAG, so I guess it's just a matter of time
until there will be a fully VC ADSR which also fits the SSM/Curtis
standard. Not speaking for Paul here - just my own thoughts.)
But this does ∗not∗ mean that anything which is different from CEM / SSM
standards is useless. Look at the early Korg envelopes for instance !
No standard ADSR at all (and hard to get a typical ADSR envelope
out of it, too), so it was long frowned upon. Now people start to realize
that it also has benefits, like fast switching from a (useful !) percussive
setting to a useful sustained setting. (Only that Korg called it "singing"
rather than sustained.) Took me decades until I found it usefull. Kitaro
knew better from the start - that's why he hoarded stacks of Minikorgs
and 800DV's. (;->)
Not to fuel more discussion (as I said, I'm all for a "standard" VCADSR
as a future module, so you would be running into open doors ...), just
to say that I'm sure the current MOTM envelopes are good and useful
even though you have found some unexpected behaviour. I'd try to make
creative use of it - that's how the best of art is often created.
JH.
(no, I have not designed it, and no, I have not followed all of this
discussion either, so maybe it's just worthless thoughts, but anyway.)
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Paul Schreiber <
synth1@...>
An: <
Elhardt@...>; <
motm@yahoogroups.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Mai 2002 14:54
Betreff: [motm] MOTM-800 EG
> #1: May it has an issue, but you are NOT HELPING by spewing "It's fatally
flawed". THINK first.
> OK, it has an issue with attack below a certain point.
>
> #2: I will look into this. It will be next week. In the meantime, PLEASE
don't spew this
> everywhere. Well, OK do, torpedo MOTM and end it for everyone. I am
SERIOUS! Stuff like this, in
> the "wrong hands" WILL cause panic and end it. Is that what you want?
>
> #3: Like I've said 10 times: use a MOTM-820. Repeat for #11: use a
MOTM-820 for now. Because all
> you need are "organ" envelopes, which are A-R (no S or D). Sustain "level"
is then CV MOD of the
> '110. This is a "work around" but a SOLUTION.
>
> #4: Is there an "easy fix"? Maybe, maybe NOT. Even the "easiest" fix is
unsoldering and
> resoldering parts. This may not be so "easy" to some people. Then what? I
have over 300 EGs in
> the field. The only solution that would make financial sense is a
board-level (or for some
> smaller subset of assembled users, unit-level) replacement at my cost +
postage. This is for the
> people that would request it, as for 4 years the "fatal flaw" has elluded
everyone.
>
> This would of course delay EVERYTHING: the new VCAs, the 500 series, the
480. If say I need to
> replace 100 EGs, then I would guess 2 full months to redesign, test, kit
and ship. Why does this
> sound bad to me?
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>