MOTM

Whereas I suppose I can deal with however the consensus dictates, My
vote would be for midi - only because that's what nearly all my other
equipment uses - and because that's already how I control most gadgets
out of my recording / sequencing equipment.

Well - there is a big exception - my guitar stage rig is ultimately
controlled by a laptop to a Roland GT Pro via usb... the GT pro
attaches to its pedal board via midi and controls all other outboard
stuff via midi.  But even so, I can control the GT pro via midi from
my sequencer if I ever needed to.  Maybe that's significant.

I guess I'm trying to think of how the cloud generator would hook up
to and be controlled by my sequencer (isn't midi pretty universal?)and
how data would be downloaded (wouldn't sysex do?) in the context of my
own use.

As usual, guys, you're the engineers and are probably much more
informed about all this stuff than me - but that's how I look at it -
probably midi <shrug>

Whatever it is, thirty or so bucks isn't going to make a difference to
me about it at all... if both could be done, I'd go for it... a think
that costs a little more but is more usable is worth every cent.

So much for my two cents anyway.

Bill



--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
>
> > Paul, have you made any more decision regarding the digital
interface to 
> > the cloud generator?  With all of these parameters being able to
code a 
> > computer based editor would seem a big plus.  I know some people
prefer to 
> > keep their computer and modular segregated but I'm always looking
for more 
> > ways to use my computer with my modular.
> 
> Hmmm... I haven't really thought about it (having direct link from the 
> Expander to a computer). It could be:
> 
> a) serial port
> b) MIDI port
> c) USB
> d) Ethernet
> 
> The added hardware cost is $10-$15 (my cost) per module, so I guess the 
> question to ask is:
> 
> a) who wants to volunteer to write the editors
> b) is a burden cost of say $30/module worth it (everyone pays it)
> 
> This would push the planned cost of the Expander from $189 to say
$219. Big 
> deal?
> 
> Paul S.
>