> This is an interesting idea, but I think the list would need another > column if I were looking at the whole aspect of module usage. Perhaps > 'functional outputs' or something. Rating the Sub-oct-mux as zero > appears to be missing the whole point of the module. > I totally agree. My quantifications of functionality are too simplistic. There should be a third factor that quantifies functionality other than by the number of independent signals and the number of independent controllable parameters. Please don't take my simple idea too seriously. > > Doing the math shows that adding the OMS-410 increased the functional > density only a tad from 2.5 to 2.66. > > Yes, but the 'density' list allows internal modulators to be counted as > sources. The MOTM-410s LFOs are not accesible as separate entities. One > of the requests that people made on the Oakley group was to make these > available to the front panel. Hence the use of the OMS-410. I actually > end up using the 410's LFOs for all sorts of other things too. > > > Being an old Serge guy, I long for the Serge dual slewing module. > > Advert time: You may want to take a look at the OMS-820 with MOTM-820 > combination. And it has four pretty LEDs that flash very nicely. I looked at the OMS-820, and it did remind me of the Serge slewing module. Great idea, Tony! -Richard
Message
Re: [motm] Functional density - or what to do while waiting for your MOTM modules
2002-08-19 by Richard Brewster
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.