I agree Greg. That was why I suggested
independent bias of the individual outputs.
Larry H
----- Original Message -----From: Greg JamesTo: Sikorsky ; motm@yahoogroups.comSent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 12:11 PMSubject: RE: [motm] Re: Panning VCAsPaul,You're approach got me thinking (uh oh). If "both" sides are controlled independently,then you'd have more control over how the panning occurs. Sometimes, you might notwant a competely "summed" pan - you may want one side or the other to be higher orlower than it might otherwise be if both sides always summed to 100%. That could beused for some more natrual or interesting sounding pans, no?-Greg-----Original Message-----hello all,
From: Sikorsky [mailto:vulture.squadron@...]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 6:57 AM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Panning VCAs
this got me thinking, so i multed a signal into two VCAs (motm 110) then
used a CGS37 CV Cluster to create the two control voltages, initially i used
an LFO to create the clock pulse and divided this down using an MOTM120R.
Sub 1 output went to the CV cluster voltage input, while Sub 2 output went
to the Modulator input. Alternatively the LFO outputs from an OMS410 we fed
into the CV Cluster
food for thought...
cheers
paul
sheffield
uk