In a message dated 2/14/2000 9:34:32 AM,
dbivins@... writes:
<Edited for your enjoyment:>
>I'm truly just curious--I'm not down on anyone. No angry responses please.
Thank you Dave! And in that same spirit, let me just say that any comments I
make in response to posts I've received today about certain list members'
intelligence, literacy, or questionable parentage should be taken as my way
of trying to improve future MOTM modules -- for everyone's benefit of course!
>My entire reason for building this modular is to have as many modulation
>routings as possible--maximum flexibility no matter how rarely I use some
>features. Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the contour
>generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the whole reason I've posted
>about the VC EG at all, because I've been dying for easily VC-ed contours.
>I
>need them.
BREADBOARD -- As the subject line says, I hope to breadboard this module on
the MOTM protoboard within the next month or so. I'll report back to the list
if it is warranted. If anyone would like to experiment along with me (Dave V.
Hendry, Bradley?) in this venture please contact me. Since Paul has the 3310s
available, we could do this rather easily. I will look at JH's VC ADSR
(thanks Tony), but I don't want to relive my recent ADSR set back.
FLEXIBILITY -- My dream modular would absolutely have maximum flexibility,
but more along the lines of the EMu modulars (with lots of mixing inputs for
each module) than the Moog concept (having to buy lots of mixing modules to
scatter around your system since there is usually only one VC input per
function). I like the idea of having separate VC inputs for the A D S R, but
I know I'd use the VC slope input (and associated processing attenuators)
about 70% of the time. I couldn't justify the expense of having another four
attenuators for each of the individual inputs.
Now, with this fancy contour generator being talked about at length,
>some people are fans of a single input that would affect each stage in
>a
>flexible and somewhat predictable (in that hopefully you can predict how
>you
>set it up!) way, and those same people seem to think that the individual
>VC
>inputs are not so necessary.
See my last post! These inputs have their uses, but the VC slope input would
be far more useful to me I know.
I'm not being critical--I understand that
>some
>of you have had this feature in other modular systems and either didn't
>find
>it all that useful or found it too cumbersome. But it's there if you ever
>do
>want to use it (the feature--singular).
>I always speak up when I fear a feature is on the chopping block for cost
>or
>simplicity purposes. I don't care--build it so it's there. Unfortunately
>I
>don't spend as much on MOTM as I should to have these bitching rights,
>but I
>really don't care if a control feature drives up costs if it means I'm
>going
>to get something with maximum flexibility.
I absolutely agree!! Although I do think that often a useful and simple
addition to a module is warranted by particular uses -- e.g., the LFOs in the
410. Keep up the bitching! It'll keep everyone honest, or at least thinking.
John (BTW, your mother wears combat boots!) Barlow