Actually, on second thought, how about we...
JUST KIDDING! I'm glad Paul spent his valuable time listening to us
bicker about this design, and I'm sure that, frankly, any design he'd
OK (original, this, or the others he put up for vote) would be
totally fine. Now we just have to whine about how the LEDs don't
look like the MOTM-320 style. ::whine whine::
J/K (;
It's great to be a part of the 'design team' with MOTM, even if it's
only for silly stuff like jack placement.
-Geoff (the 'computer nerd' who may not end up buying that new
computer after all...)
--- In
motm@yahoogroups.com, "sucrosemusic <sucrosemusic@y...>"
<sucrosemusic@y...> wrote:
> OK, botched my last post, here's my plan.
>
> CV and Gate should be next to each other, so
> they don't "box in" the other jacks, so CV,
> GATE, VEL, AUX is how i'd do it.
>
> also, for kicks, a vertical layout like this
> one is nice in my mind:
>
> AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
>
> I'd keep the CV and gate on the bottom so the
> 'filled up bottom rows' look and feel is kept
> the same. it could just as easily be flipped
> vertially, but I think Pitch and Gate should
> be next to each other no matter what.