MOTM

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Richard Brewster wrote:

> I like to be able to understand a diagram without too much external 
> reference.   I really do want labels for everything used, including the 
> jacks, pots, switches, and the type of module.  I would like to be able to 
> understand it for the most part even if I don't have a MOTM.

Excellent point. I'll look for a solution to labels that doesn't create 
too much clutter.

> When I draw my own patch diagrams, using a pencil and graph paper, I make 
> block diagrams of the modules and draw lines with arrows to indicate 
> patching.

I thought about arrows for signal flow, but I decided to go with the 
white/clear circles instead. Arrows require a bit more operator 
interaction, but maybe that's ok.

> This shows the signal or control direction, which is more detail 
> than you would see in a photo.  I label the inputs and outputs.  I jot notes 
> about pot and switch settings.  So my preference would be for a less graphic, 
> more schematic approach.

A schematic approach would be ideal. I've looked around a bit, but I have 
yet to find a schematic symbol set that can adequately describe a given 
modular system and its subcomponents without looking like a tangled mess.

Something like the IEEE symbol language for logic diagramming would be 
swell. For example: 
http://www.standardics.philips.com/products/hc/pdf/74hc238.pdf

I've thought about designing one that could encompass any system, but it 
looked hard so I made it MOTM specific ;)

--mikes