Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list next in topic

Subject: Re: No more guessing!

From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
Date: 1999-11-30

> >In a message dated 11/29/99 10:43:45 AM, daveb@... writes:
> >RE: Up & down rate pots - 2 ways to go here are that pots switch to
become
> >attenuators on the jax, or pots remain offset level and jax are
> >unattenuated. I'd probably prefer the latter, although it's a close
call.

> From: JWBarlow@...
> Once again, Bradley is WRONG!
> You need one initial rate pot for each (rise and fall) segment of the
glide.
> You also need VC jacks and pots (attenuators), as well as a common VC
jack
> (controlling both rise and fall times simultaneously) which MUST have a
> reversing attenuator. I would think this (and on VC EGs) is an even more
> important place for the reversing attenuator than the VCF (which I really

> like as well).

1. Once again JWB is only 1/2 right <stooge snicker>. I'll go with Dave
here "prefer the latter" that the "UP Rate and DOWN Rate" pots remain
offset level and jax unattenuated. At some point we have to say "OK, I
need a reversing attenuator" as a separate module so that every single
module that Paul makes does not have to have DC attenuation as part of the
design. I can't see two pots on every MOTM module DC input, one for
initial and one for attenuation.

2. Now, to argue with myself (since I know everyone else will chime in
too). Looking at the former MOTM modules (like the 410 for example) it
seems that initial pots do become attenuators once a CV in inserted. so,
maybe from a consistency of application, that is the right answer (Dave
said it was a close call).

3. Now, to support John's weak argument, some VC inputs do deserve BOTH
attenuation and initial (PWM on the VCO).

I think an argument can be made for any of the three. If I had to pick, 3
would be the most control assuming the two extra pots don't expand the size
(knowing they will already significantly expand the cost). However,
picking between 1 and 2 I would go with Dave B's close call and pick # 1.

Since John may feel picked on right now, I like the idea that the single UP
& DOWN pot is a reverse attenuator CV when CV source is plugged.

Larry (don't call me a diplomatic stooge) Hendry