OK, I'll have to chime in here I guess. I have to agree that some EGs
ought to have VC of the parameters. It seems to me that the implementation
is really the big issue. Just where should the HOLD points be. One which
is pretty obvious to me is the HOLD that can be created at the sustain level
by simply extending the gate. This would commonly be the sustain pedal.
So, we A and D up to the hold at S, and the D once the pedal is released and
complete R. Hold before seems to be no more than a gate delay. I think I
would just as soon have gate delay as a separate module and add it to my EG
when needed. But, am I understanding some folks want hold between A and D?
If so, I do not understand. I am doing my favorite imitation of Stooge
Larry in a Lucille Ball outfit asking Ricky to "splain" it to me.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: <synth1@...>
To: Scott Juskiw <scott@...>
Cc: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:52 PM
Subject: [motm] VCEG
Well, it's not that I don't ∗want∗ to do a VCEG. The "problem" is I have 2
MOTM designers ∗both∗ with a VCEG design :)
Crow's CS-80 design has more parts and is more esoteric than JH's. I'm
waiting for Crow to source some hard-to-find parts. If it turns out that
these parts are just too much of a pain, then I can use JH's. However,
with things as they are, I'm only focusing on the here-and-now.
Paul S.
Yahoo! Groups Links