MOTM

At 9:42 PM +0200 04/17/02, jhaible wrote:
>
>Now, more seriously: I see all your points, and I see reasons for all
>three versions:

Oh, that's good.  There was snow last week, and it was 96ºF yesterday, so
it's hard to tell if I'm making any sense ;)

>Switch and Gain control - most comfort, most panel space, most expensive.
>None of these - cheaper, less panel space
>Switch only - good if you want to remove it quickly from the signal chain,
>without taking care of level matching. (For instance, because
>you have a lot of other gain pots in the signal chain.)

According to Moe, it will take 3U even if the bypass feature is omitted
entirely.  So I'm thinking, if it's going to take up 3U, it might as well
have 3U worth of stuff.  How much would adding a gain pot increase the
cost??

And now for the really good question:

Why does a bypass switch, that doesn't have a pedal input or any kind of
external control, need an LED??  Is that for people with some kind of weird
eye disease who can only see LED's but can't read switches?? :)

>Gain control which adjusts itself with a motor pot, according to some
>criteria like peak level or RMS level - now *that* would be the ultimate
>solution, wouldn't it ? (;>)

Oh, I'm sure that will fit behind the Mark Technology MARK-450 ;)