MOTM

Hey man, I'm with you. Maximum flexibility, within reason. I guess everybody
has a different perception of what "reason" is. For me, the idea of a single
CV input, normalled to A,D, and R inputs, which individually feed reversible
attenuators, is exactly right. Maximum flexibility when you want it, or ease
of use when that's sufficient. Add VCed delay and peak hold, and that's all
I could ask. (OK, OK Barlow - an led on the output instead of the gate input
geesh kwitcha whining<g>).

I guess my definition of "unreasonable" would be the 8U wide microprocessor
controlled zillion breakpoint drawn by hand infinite rotary encoded $400 EG.

To you determined DIYers, I second Tony A's suggestion to check out JH's
very nice VC DADSR design. I've been thinking of trying one after I get my
sequencer going. Here's a link:

http://www.synthfool.com/diy/hj_vc_hadsr.html

Dave Bradley
Principal Software Engineer
Engineering Animation, Inc.
daveb@...

>
> From: "David Bivins" <dbivins@...>
>
> Hey all,
>
> My entire reason for building this modular is to have as many modulation
> routings as possible--maximum flexibility no matter how rarely I use some
> features. Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the contour
> generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the whole reason I've posted
> about the VC EG at all, because I've been dying for easily VC-ed
> contours. I
> need them.
>
> I'm just curious: why does it seem like so many people don't want full
> control in their modules?
>