On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Richard Brewster wrote:
> I like to be able to understand a diagram without too much external
> reference. I really do want labels for everything used, including the
> jacks, pots, switches, and the type of module. I would like to be able to
> understand it for the most part even if I don't have a MOTM.
Excellent point. I'll look for a solution to labels that doesn't create
too much clutter.
> When I draw my own patch diagrams, using a pencil and graph paper, I make
> block diagrams of the modules and draw lines with arrows to indicate
> patching.
I thought about arrows for signal flow, but I decided to go with the
white/clear circles instead. Arrows require a bit more operator
interaction, but maybe that's ok.
> This shows the signal or control direction, which is more detail
> than you would see in a photo. I label the inputs and outputs. I jot notes
> about pot and switch settings. So my preference would be for a less graphic,
> more schematic approach.
A schematic approach would be ideal. I've looked around a bit, but I have
yet to find a schematic symbol set that can adequately describe a given
modular system and its subcomponents without looking like a tangled mess.
Something like the IEEE symbol language for logic diagramming would be
swell. For example:
http://www.standardics.philips.com/products/hc/pdf/74hc238.pdfI've thought about designing one that could encompass any system, but it
looked hard so I made it MOTM specific ;)
--mikes