Heck, I go round and round on this one! If you only use a couple of VCFs in
your patches, having separate mixers allows you to make extra panel space
available for more 1U filter modules. But, if you use most of your filters
in a patch, you could easily exhaust the number of spare mixers in the rack
thereby limiting your patch. But then, separate mixers eat up patch cords
(and it ∗sucks∗ to make patch cords). However, separate mixers offer more
flexibility for the system as a whole. And you can always replace mixers
with other modules if they go unused for periods of time. I guess I would
lean towards separate mixers [today], but then, I like big systems and
convenience. I guess it comes down to a) how you use your filters, b) how
much space you have in your system (SKB or Darmok), and c) how many patch
cords you have (and do you like to solder wires??). Another thread to
ponder: what are the electrical benefits to having mixers built into a
module...
George
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mahoney" <jmahoney@...>
To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Scott Juskiw" <scott@...>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-485R
> 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.
> [snip]
>
> 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