MOTM

At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:

>I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>MOTM-485 filter? [snip] Here's my current plan:
>
>1. add an IN3 jack
>2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
>3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
>4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>[snip]

This raises an interesting question, and perhaps some folks will 
share their opinions on this.

Some months back, Tony Allgood asked the Oakley list for opinions on 
creating more 1U VCF modules, and there was definitely interest *** 
in compact filters, the idea being that you will also have some 
general purpose mixers to use as needed. This makes sense where you 
want a lot of different VCFs in one synth; you tend not to use all 
the filters at once, so why have built-in mixers that aren't doing 
anything except comsuming front panel space? If you are using several 
of the filters simultaneously, you are probably spreading the signals 
around so much that you don't need mixing capability on most of them, anyway.

*** (I'm sure that some people were not hip to the compact filter 
concept, too. Different strokes for different folks.)

So, compact filters and separate mixers, or "fully-featured" filters 
with built-in mixers: What's your preference, and why?

I'll go first: I like the idea of compact filters, especially if they 
are all 1U and (I can dream, right?) they all have the same layout. 
Then I'd put a 2U dual mixer to the left of my "VCF bank", and 
probably a 1U triple attenuator/distributor module, too.

By the way -- and I would hope this is obvious -- this is not meant 
to sway Scott from what he's planning to do. Even if I could do so, I 
have no reason to do so! I'm just always curious to see how different 
people approach their synths.
--
john


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007 4:35 PM