MOTM

> JH's "Interpolating Scanner" idea is the closest thing I've read about to
> making changes to CVs that just might be considered morphing, because it
> cordons off voltages at different levels, sort of adding a new "plane" to
> the control. How does the proposed Dual VCA "morph" control voltages?

The "Interpolating Scanner" (IS) and "Morphing Programmer" (MP) are
based on the same idea. My IS has 8 inputs that are crossfaded into one
output channel. My MP has 6 x 3 "inputs" that are crossfaded into 6
output channels. A MP built from MOTM dual VCAs would have N x 2
inputs crossfaded into N output channels. (N being the number of modules).

The IS was optimized for speed (distortion free audio rate operation)
because it also serves as programmable waveshaping module. 8 inputs
are overkill for morphing (at least when it's done in hardware), and
the single output channel is not enough for serious morphing.
The MP, otoh, was optimized for precision (if you neglect the design
flaw that unnecessarily reduces precision, that is (;->) ), and for
economy. Only 2 of its 6 channels use VCAs (for morphing between
different modulation sources). The remaining 4 channels were just
for morphing CVs or (with one extra VCA) modulation *depths*.
With a 3 x 6 in 6 configuration I can set up *three* different sounds
for morphing which differ in 6 parameter.

The MOTM dual VCA with built-in crossfade can be used as building
block for morhing between *two* different sounds with an arbitrary
number of parameters. More Modules, more parameters, still two
sounds. I can imagine that in the long run a dedicated controller
would make sense, but the 2 x N feature that's "built in for free"
in the standard dual VCA is a good start for morphing.

I wouldn't talk about IS or MP too much in the current situation
(voting ... (;->)), but if my "vote" as a contributor rather than
customer counts, I think the Dual VCA would be a good choice
for the next module.

JH.