Yes, I should read what I type. I had the "sense" of the normalled
connection backwards in my message, sorry. I have no problem working with
normalized plugs in a normal signal flow, as in the case of an ARP 2600 or
other devices where I know I'm breaking just a single signal flow. In a
multiple panel, it just seems really akward to me.
From a human factors POV, I think the difference here is how we view a set
of multiples. I view them as multiple sets so I would leave a switch, if
one existed, in the "off" position by default. Whereas a normalled
connection assumes the switch is "on", connecting the muiltiple mults
together. So, the default is different. Does that make sense?
I certainly can live with the normalized jack, if push came to shove (or is
that slap to eye poke?) but I would find the switches more intuitive to my
work mode....Just another subjective opinion.
Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tkacs, Ken [mailto:Ken.Tkacs@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 3:41 PM
> To: 'motm@onelist.com'
> Subject: RE: [motm] Multiple Personalities
>
>
> From: "Tkacs, Ken" <Ken.Tkacs@...>
>
>
> Even with the dotted line there it's confusing
>
> It's just the opposite of what you stated---you would NOT
> plug something in
> there in order to maintain a connection to the upper mult.
> You plug into the
> key jack to break the connection and take priority over the
> panel from that
> point downward.
>
> [Don't worry-I'm not taking this personally. But my degree
> was in Industrial
> Design (ages ago) so I find these 'human factors' discussions
> interesting.]
>
> For me personally, it's easier to glance at the jack and see
> that nothing is
> in the cutoff position rather than to squint at a switch
> (maybe 'squinting'
> is overstating it, but you know what I mean).
>
> Using the normally-closed lugs of the jacks just seems more
> elegant to me,
> and less cramped. I dunno... it seems natural to me---since
> my earliest days
> of playing with my MS-10, the idea of a plug cutting a normal
> has always
> been pretty straightforward, especially if there's a front
> panel graphic
> showing that realtionship. Certainly on a modular you don't
> want to go too
> crazy with normalization, but in the case of a multiple, it's a little
> self-contained utility module, not a VCO-VCF-VCA normalization scheme.
>
> Some of the old Moog modules used similar normalization--the triple
> attenuator panel for instance. You would plug something into
> the INPUT, and
> then you could pull three (was it four?) outputs, each with its own
> attenuator. But if you plugged in a second input anywhere
> along that chain,
> the normalization was broken with the prior gang-point and
> the two split
> sections acted independently. Very elegant. And not confusing
> at all once
> one gets used to it (anyone using a patchbay in their studio
> would already
> be used to this kind of thinking.
>
> Of course, if one ∗were∗ to go with the switches, more room
> could be made by
> eliminating one of the quads, leaving three and two switches.
> That conforms
> to the existing MOTM "graphic layout grid" more closely.
>
> Interesting discussion.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Crawley, Eric
[mailto:
esc@...]
Sent:Thursday, January 27, 2000 3:00 PM
To:
motm@onelist.comSubject:RE: [motm] Multiple Personalities
From: "Crawley, Eric" <
esc@...>
I like the switches because I can visually see what is going
on. Normalized
jacks are for patch panels and inserts. I would find it
confusing to
remember that I should plug something into a specific jack
to keep it
connected to the upper mult...
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
GetSmart.com can help. We'll help you find the loan you
need - quick, easy, and FREE click
<a href="
http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/GetSmartRefinance ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------