| previous by date | index | next by date |
| previous in topic | topic list | next in topic |
From: Charles Osthelder [mailto:charlesosthelder@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:01 AM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] Re: filter selection....Adam's right. I've got two 410's - one with the wonderful Oakley OMS-
410 expansion module - and I couldn't get along without them! One is
enough for a great stereo sound, but two allow you to go nuts with
the CV inputs for depth and rate and create a very animated sound
field.
Now to be fair, I don't own a '480 - yet! When the date arrives for
the big sale, however, don't stand in between me and that filter! If
it says "Synthesis Technology" on the front panel, it is a necessary
module.
Chub - Mister Two of Everything, Please.
--- In motm@yahoogroups. com, "Adam Schabtach" <adam@...> wrote:
>
> FWIW: I have all of the filters that you list. I really like both
the 410
> and the 480, and it would be hard to choose one over the other. The
410 is
> unique among the MOTM filters because of its triple-BP topology;
the 480 is
> possibly more useful in a general-purpose sense. Given your other
choices
> the 410 would probably provide more variety than the 480. I like
the 410 so
> much that I got a second one (for stereo!), but will also be adding
a second
> 480 to my system during the BIG SALE.
>
> --Adam
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Phil Peery [mailto:ppeery@ ...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:53 PM
> To: motm@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [motm] filter selection... .
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> With the BIG SALE coming up, I've been thinking about filter
> selection. I've already got a 420 and a 490, and am going for the
> MOTM-440, but due to current budget, can only get one other filter
at
> this time. I've been going back and forth between the 410 and the
> 480. I do really like the vocal formant sounds that you can get
from
> the 410, but the 480, along with the mods at www.pugix.com also
look
> really cool. I'd like to get some opinions to help me choose
between
> the two.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Phil
>