Yes, it is kinda silly to take a continuous device like a ribbon, digitize it, spew
it out over a protocol, make it into a voltage, etc. etc. Many are the kludges we
make... I was probably too hard on the Moog ribbon too. It has many more uses than
just doing bending and can control many things.
I personally believe we won't see any substantial mechanical MOTM controllers except
for a joystick. Why, because Paul is more suited to do circuit-based stuff rather
than intense mechanical stuff. Face it, he has enough trouble getting his metal
shop to make panels and rails up to his standards, and he doesn't offer any chassis
or other mechanical stuff. Think how difficult it would be to get a custom mounting
for a ribbon controller designed and built. I think that unless Paul can
OEM/purchase this kind of stuff, and do some MOTM value add (like a joystick), we
won't be seeing any of it. It is the reality of small business. Now, if he could
charge $1000 for a ribbon controller, perhaps the equation would be different...
Eric
--- Nathan Hunsicker <
hunsickn@...> wrote:
>
>
> Why must we use so much effort to take input from a ribbon device, digitize it,
> map it to a scale, translate it to note/cc messages, output it to a midi/cv
> converter, and get a voltage out? A simple all analog device could easily do
> this without all the extra work. I like the moog units b/c you can mark certain
> areas with a piece of tape to mark notes and touch that area to produce that
> pitch with out having to "bend" to a desired note. I would use a ribbon
> controller as a standalone touch controller not just a large pitch bender for my
> keyboard. And I'd love to see a MOTM controller, but I'm pretty sure Paul isn't
> interested. Maybe an independent design made up by several list members would be
> the answer. -Nate
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/