> This is an interesting idea, but I think the list would need another
> column if I were looking at the whole aspect of module usage. Perhaps
> 'functional outputs' or something. Rating the Sub-oct-mux as zero
> appears to be missing the whole point of the module.
>
I totally agree. My quantifications of functionality are too simplistic.
There should be a third factor that quantifies functionality other than by
the number of independent signals and the number of independent controllable
parameters. Please don't take my simple idea too seriously.
> > Doing the math shows that adding the OMS-410 increased the functional
> density only a tad from 2.5 to 2.66.
>
> Yes, but the 'density' list allows internal modulators to be counted as
> sources. The MOTM-410s LFOs are not accesible as separate entities. One
> of the requests that people made on the Oakley group was to make these
> available to the front panel. Hence the use of the OMS-410. I actually
> end up using the 410's LFOs for all sorts of other things too.
>
> > Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module.
>
> Advert time: You may want to take a look at the OMS-820 with MOTM-820
> combination. And it has four pretty LEDs that flash very nicely.
I looked at the OMS-820, and it did remind me of the Serge slewing module.
Great idea, Tony!
-Richard