Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. I used to think that a "no
knob" filter was the way to go. Just an audio input jack, and audio
output jack, and two CV inputs: one for frequency, and the other for
resonance. Four jacks, no knobs whatsoever, and use external mixers
for the audio inputs, the frequency, and resonance (if the external
mixers can also handle a DC offset). But slowly I started turning to
the other camp. I found that I used several audio inputs on each
filter, and several for frequency everytime I used my synth.
Sometimes I needed more than just FM1, FM2, and the V/OCT input, and
I had to use an external mixer in addition to the integrated ones.
So, for me (right now, this week), I prefer the integrated mixer
approach. I'll eat my hat now.
With the 485R, I'd like three inputs with attenuators and at least
another FM input. So if I were to use Oakley multi-mixers, I'd need
two, which would take up 3U in total (two mixers plus the 485). So in
this instance, the 2U 485R is more compact for my needs.
At 8:52 PM -0500 2007/02/19, John Mahoney wrote:
>At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>
>>I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>>MOTM-485 filter? [snip] Here's my current plan:
>>
>>1. add an IN3 jack
>>2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
>>3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
>>4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>>[snip]
>
>This raises an interesting question, and perhaps some folks will
>share their opinions on this.
>
>Some months back, Tony Allgood asked the Oakley list for opinions on
>creating more 1U VCF modules, and there was definitely interest ∗∗∗
>in compact filters, the idea being that you will also have some
>general purpose mixers to use as needed. This makes sense where you
>want a lot of different VCFs in one synth; you tend not to use all
>the filters at once, so why have built-in mixers that aren't doing
>anything except comsuming front panel space? If you are using
>several of the filters simultaneously, you are probably spreading
>the signals around so much that you don't need mixing capability on
>most of them, anyway.
>
>∗∗∗ (I'm sure that some people were not hip to the compact filter
>concept, too. Different strokes for different folks.)
>
>So, compact filters and separate mixers, or "fully-featured" filters
>with built-in mixers: What's your preference, and why?
>
>I'll go first: I like the idea of compact filters, especially if
>they are all 1U and (I can dream, right?) they all have the same
>layout. Then I'd put a 2U dual mixer to the left of my "VCF bank",
>and probably a 1U triple attenuator/distributor module, too.
>
>By the way -- and I would hope this is obvious -- this is not meant
>to sway Scott from what he's planning to do. Even if I could do so,
>I have no reason to do so! I'm just always curious to see how
>different people approach their synths.
>--
>john
>