I don't yet have a 730 but am interested in one when economics allow.
From a purely theoretical standpoint this sounds like very valuable set
of changes to make.
Dave
Paul Schreiber wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > My earlier comment was unclear. The MOTM-730 in fact synchronizes the
> > TRAILING edges of output pulses rather than the LEADING edges.
> Therefore,
> > if multiple outputs are simultaneously used to trigger notes, the
> > beginning of notes will not be synchronized. For example, if I input 48
> > clocks per measure into the '730, and look at the the /6 and /3
> outputs to
> > get eighth notes and sixteenth notes, the leading edges of the outputs
> > will be offset from each other (as per the signal output jpg
> available on
> > the MOTM website). As synchronizing the "start" of notes rather than the
> > "end" of notes was important to me, I found this to be a problem. Others
> > may not. This problem is entirely independent of the setting of the
> clock
> > polarity switch. And yes, inverting all 16 outputs would solve that
> > problem, but then, how to synchronize the "start"? There's no reset to
> > zero function that would allow the first output pulse from every output
> > jack to come out in synchronization with the first input pulse.
>
> a) I had 3 beta testers. No said anything but "It's great!"
>
> b) the code is contained in a socketed PIC processor. This ∗might∗ be able
> to be changed to count 'the other way' and to convert run/stop to run/reset
> to zero.
>
> Would this help matters any?
>
> If you had a small flat-bladed screwdriver the upgrade takes 20 seconds.
> The
> cost would be around $25.
>
> Paul S.
>
>