MOTM

Another ditto.  I am now convinced that a quantizer function is too rich 
with possibilities to warrant inclusion in this simple S&H module.  Yes, 
it was I who brought it up.  I was brainstorming.  This collaborative 
design is great.  The best ideas stick and the more off-the-wall  ideas 
shake out and maybe lead to other module design ideas.  A consensus is 
converging that a MOTM-102 should not include noise or quantizing.  If 
you take those out, we're left with the remaining good ideas and it is 
simple enough to fit in 1U.  Agree?  Or do you still want noise or 
quantizing in this little module?

-Richard Brewster

http://www.pugix.com

Scott Juskiw wrote:

>>I would rather see a quantizer as a seperate module.
>>    
>>
>
>Ditto. If the 102 has a chromatic scale quantizer built in, fine. I 
>may not use it. Once you start talking about quantizers you get into 
>the whole realm of different scales, modes, and intonation. Soon 
>we're getting into microtuning. (I'll step aside and let John L. take 
>over on this topic).
>
>If there's going to be an MOTM quantizer, it should be a "no 
>compromise" quantizer, and not some single switch add-on to a S&H, 
>IMHO.
>
>Doesn't the 650 support different intonations and micro-tuning? Would 
>this cover the needs of a quantizer (from the MIDI keyboard/sequencer 
>viewpoint)? I suppose there's still a need to quantize control 
>voltages.
>
>
>
>  
>