MOTM

>Yes, and no.  I agree, with the bottom pot knob eliminated
>you could add a 5th jack and still use standard MOTM-800
>hardware and PCB size IF you are careful with the height of
>components in that area.  You could have interference if you
>do not plan well.

I just measured a couple things.  The distance from the top of the PCB to
the left edge of the right jack is about 3/4", and the tallest component
(besides the power connector) on any of my modules is about 1/2".  Of
course, I expect Paul to plan things well -- he is a professional MSEE with
a fortune's worth of CAD/CAM software.

Apparently, we can argue this ad nauseum, but since adding an extra jack
instead of a blend knob makes the 310 both less expensive AND more
powerful, to me this seems like a no-brainer.

Also, the 310 is intended as a low-cost space-saving substitute for the
300.  So logic would dictate that it would have a subset of the 300's
features, and not new functions that the 300 doesn't have.

Even more foreboding, adding a blend knob seems to go against the whole
idea behind modular synthesis.  Essentially, it is permanently adding a
two-channel mixer to the output of a VCO and losing all of the patch
points.  If one didn't want to have patch points for each function, why the
@#$%* would anyone bother to build a modular??  As it stands now, there are
at least two mixers available for the MOTM system that can patched any way
you want, not to mention that both the 440 and 420 have mixer inputs.

I'm also thinking of the owner of a small MOTM system -- perhaps someone
who just getting into modular synthesis, or has limited space or money.
Let's say this person mounts their power supply elsewhere and wants to
build the best single voice they possibly can between two rack rails.  A
300 is a very expensive module, and sync isn't an issue with only one
oscillator.  So they buy a 310 -- that extra 1U for an additional 800 or
the up-and-coming waveshaper can make all the difference in the world.
Considering that both of the available VCA's are dual units, and that both
available filters have multiple inputs, having a VCO with only one output
would severely limit what they could do with their system.

Furthermore, every other VCO on the market has separate outputs for saw and
square.  Regardless how stable it is, offering a VCO with only one output
is going to seem awfully lame in comparison.  Currently, there are MOTM
customers who are buying their VCO's from other manufacturers in order to
avoid paying the price of the 300.  I would hope that the availability of
the 310 would prevent this from continuing.