Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list next in topic

Subject: Re: Future modules

From: Thomas Hudson <thudson@...
Date: 1999-05-11

cparker@... wrote:

> Is it the general concensus of the group that these sorts of things are
> better handled externally by one of today's multiple-effects boxes (ie- d∗g∗t∗lly)?
> This would leave more room for additional oscillators, filters, etc. in your racks.
A lot of the implementations in digital boxes still don't have enough
control. For example, in my TSR-24, I can't control the sweep of its
phase shifter by anything other than an internal LFO. ALso, if I build
an algorithm using two phase shifters, I can't sync or offset the
phases of the LFOs.

So for many effects, I would still prefer a MOTM form factor w/ the
all important voltage control. Flanging, echo, and phasing all
benefit from non-standard VC, for example, two LFOs; one fast w/ small
amplitude, one slow with larger amplitude. Another nice effect is using
an envelope follower to control the cutoff frequency of a phase shifter.
Sort of auto-wah only more etheral.

No digital effects box can contain all the possibilites, (excluding
of course your computer). Of course, for reverbs, I'd pick digital.

Interesting you bring up parametrics. I would love to see a bank of
paramteric equalizers that were completly voltage controlled (boost/cut,
frequency and width). A bank of these in series could be used to achieve
many different filter reponses and morph between them.