MOTM

I agree with this thinking. On modules where you ALWAYS need to mix inputs,
the convenience of a dedicated mixer is a good idea. And when there were
only one or two filters, you pretty much always used them. But as the module
compliment grows, you may not always use THAT filter in THIS patch, and you
end up more and more with circuitry, function, and panel space that could be
better used if it was more... "modular"... or 'atomic,' as Mr. J put it. A
1u mixer makes sense in taking the place of the "left half" of a lot of 2u
modules.



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Juskiw [mailto:scott@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, 04 December, 2001 2:10 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] 490 filter.

>why the 1u?  cuz now we need a mixer to get more than one vco in
>there, and we lose some control..
>hmmmmmm
>
>We'll need a mult to kinda mix the vcos into the filter, and now were back
>to 2u, and a proper mixer would leave us at 3u..
>
>just wondering since so far filters have been MOTM's forte....
>~Steve M

I think it makes sense to "atomize" the modules down to their basic 
function. In the "old" days, the 420 and 440 needed to have a 
built-in mixer because there was no mixer module and hence no way to 
get 3 oscillators into those filters. Now we have the 830, and Paul 
has hinted at a 1U wide uMixer module. So there is no need to have a 
mixer built into any modules now.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Juskiw 
scott@...