Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list next in topic

Subject: Re: MOTM 800-EG

From: "mmarsh100" <mmarsh@...>
Date: 2002-05-11

Yes, this ∗is∗ smart if you want the fix and it involves part
changes. I guess I would have two unfixed and two 'fixed'...

--- In motm@y..., Adam Schabtach <adam@s...> wrote:
> > Indeed if anyone is reconsidering an 800 order, that would be
> > unwise. This EG kicks ass.
>
> I recently received the four -800 kits that I purchased as part of
my first
> MOTM order. I've built one but haven't had a chance to even power
it up. Do
> I have any second thoughts about these modules based on what I've
read here?
> Absolutely not. OTOH I might wait to start building the other
three until
> after Paul has tinkered for awhile. :-)
>
> Paul, I'd vote that you don't fix the
> decay-acts-like-attack-when-sustain-is-10 bug. That sounds more
like a
> feature to me. The decay parameter really has no meaning when the
sustain is
> 10, so if it does something unusual in this circumstance, that
sounds like
> behavior that might be useful. Essentially it's another attack
contour, and
> we can always use different contours from one modulation source.
>
> --Adam