Err, is that Moe's "columns"? I'm confused!
Paul S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mmarsh@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: [motm] Re: 650
>
> I vote for Moe's rows...
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> > > > VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> > > > GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> > > > C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
> >
> > OK folks, it's a ∗dead heat∗. I need to decide by midnight tonite.
> Start stuffing the ballot box.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, are the buttons going to be the same style at
> > > the '600? They don't look the same at all.
> > > Consistancy is very important IMO.
> >
> > They are not the same style, as fitting on the panel is even ∗more∗
> important :)
> >
> > And, these buttons are only used 0.01% of the frequency as the uSeq
> buttons. I haven't used the
> > front panel buttons on my Pro 2000 in about 2 years :) MIDI-CV
> converters tend to be "set and
> > forget".
> >
> > >
> > > Is the jack vertical spacing the same as on other
> > > modules?
> >
> > Yes and no.
> >
> > In order to clear the bottom rail, the jacks are all offset upwards
> (relative to existing
> > modules) about 0.200 inches. The row-to-row spacing is the same,
> 1.00 inch. What this means is
> > that these modules (uSeq and MIDI-CV) jacks are not aligned with the
> other module's rows.
> >
> > Also, be aware that the jacks are on pc boards about 1.5" deep. If
> you have a ∗slanted cabinet∗
> > in mind, chances are that these modules ∗will not fit∗ into the
> bottom cabinet row, because the
> > jack pcb will collide with the cabinet bottom. You will have to add
> about a 7/8" strip across the
> > bottom to allow the tilted boards clearance.
> >
> > Paul S.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>