MOTM

Yes, I should read what I type.  I had the "sense" of the normalled
connection backwards in my message, sorry.  I have no problem working with
normalized plugs in a normal signal flow, as in the case of an ARP 2600 or
other devices where I know I'm breaking just a single signal flow.  In a
multiple panel, it just seems really akward to me.

From a human factors POV, I think the difference here is how we view a set
of multiples.  I view them as multiple sets so I would leave a switch, if
one existed, in the "off" position by default.  Whereas a normalled
connection assumes the switch is "on", connecting the muiltiple mults
together.  So, the default is different.  Does that make sense?

I certainly can live with the normalized jack, if push came to shove (or is
that slap to eye poke?) but I would find the switches more intuitive to my
work mode....Just another subjective opinion.

	Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tkacs, Ken [mailto:Ken.Tkacs@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 3:41 PM
> To: 'motm@onelist.com'
> Subject: RE: [motm] Multiple Personalities
> 
> 
> From: "Tkacs, Ken" <Ken.Tkacs@...>
> 
> 
> Even with the dotted line there it's confusing
> 
>  It's just the opposite of what you stated---you would NOT 
> plug something in
> there in order to maintain a connection to the upper mult. 
> You plug into the
> key jack to break the connection and take priority over the 
> panel from that
> point downward.
> 
> [Don't worry-I'm not taking this personally. But my degree 
> was in Industrial
> Design (ages ago) so I find these 'human factors' discussions 
> interesting.]
> 
> For me personally, it's easier to glance at the jack and see 
> that nothing is
> in the cutoff position rather than to squint at a switch 
> (maybe 'squinting'
> is overstating it, but you know what I mean).
> 
> Using the normally-closed lugs of the jacks just seems more 
> elegant to me,
> and less cramped. I dunno... it seems natural to me---since 
> my earliest days
> of playing with my MS-10, the idea of a plug cutting a normal 
> has always
> been pretty straightforward, especially if there's a front 
> panel graphic
> showing that realtionship. Certainly on a modular you don't 
> want to go too
> crazy with normalization, but in the case of a multiple, it's a little
> self-contained utility module, not a VCO-VCF-VCA normalization scheme.
> 
> Some of the old Moog modules used similar normalization--the triple
> attenuator panel for instance. You would plug something into 
> the INPUT, and
> then you could pull three (was it four?) outputs, each with its own
> attenuator. But if you plugged in a second input anywhere 
> along that chain,
> the normalization was broken with the prior gang-point and 
> the two split
> sections acted independently. Very elegant. And not confusing 
> at all once
> one gets used to it (anyone using a patchbay in their studio 
> would already
> be used to this kind of thinking.
> 
> Of course, if one *were* to go with the switches, more room 
> could be made by
> eliminating one of the quads, leaving three and two switches. 
> That conforms
> to the existing MOTM "graphic layout grid" more closely.
> 
> Interesting discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 		-----Original Message-----
> 		From:	Crawley, Eric 
[mailto:esc@...]
		Sent:	Thursday, January 27, 2000 3:00 PM
		To:	motm@onelist.com
		Subject:	RE: [motm] Multiple Personalities

		From: "Crawley, Eric" <esc@...>

		I like the switches because I can visually see what is going
on.  Normalized
		jacks are for patch panels and inserts.  I would find it
confusing to
		remember that I should plug something into a specific jack
to keep it
		connected to the upper mult...

		

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Looking for the lowest refinance rate for your mortgage?
GetSmart.com can help. We'll help you find the loan you 
need - quick, easy, and FREE click
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/GetSmartRefinance ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------