MOTM

Geesh, I love this list.  I hope that no one in incorrectly interpreting
any of my questions like "Why would you want that?  or  What would you do
with that?"  I would like to go on record as saying, "I want every
feature." At the same time, I want to admit ignorance and say I don't know
what I will do with half of it.  So occasionally I will ask the innocent
BUT born from true lack of understanding "WHY?"  I am truly trying to learn
from you guys that do KNOW why.

From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
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? When I first brought
up the idea of a fully VC-ed contour generator to an individual,
his response is "why would you want that?" Now, with this
fancy contour generator being talked about at length, some
people are fans of a single input that would affect each stage
in a flexible and somewhat predictable (in that hopefully you
can predict how you set it up!) way, and those same people
seem to think that the individual VC inputs are not so
necessary. I'm not being critical--
------------
From: "Tkacs, Ken" <Ken.Tkacs@...>

I, too, am really startled by the fact that a few people don't
want VC on the Sustain. Why eliminate it? It seems very
important to me to control the aspect of the envelope (whether
used with a VCA, VCF, whatever) that is held through the
longest part of the tone! It's a big part of the expression; no
one's made clear to me why it should be left off...! 
------------------
From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>

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>).

LH: This comment concerning Barlow is my favorite quote of the day.  Thanks
Dave....

From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
I guess my definition of "unreasonable" would be the 8U wide microprocessor
controlled zillion breakpoint drawn by hand infinite rotary encoded $400
EG.

I agree 100%.  Actually, I "might" draw the line in the sand a little
before that <snicker>. 

From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
I always speak up when I fear a feature is on the chopping
block for cost or simplicity purposes. I don't care--build it
so it's there.

LH: Speak you mind.  I do (and suspect all others as well) appreciate
hearing from everyone on this list.  I have learned a lot here from you
guys with some modular experience.

From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
Unfortunately I don't spend as much on MOTM as I
should to have these bitching rights, but I really don't
care if a control feature drives up costs if it means I'm
going to get something with maximum flexibility.

LH: Well, you have got to put aside all those other luxuries you have been
wasting money on like food, rent, and a car.  Pony up and buy some more
<grin>.
 
From: David Bivins <dbivins@...>
I'm truly just curious--I'm not down on anyone.
No angry responses please.

LH:  Your note didn't come across that way to me.  No room on motm for
flamers. (only stupid stooges - well, maybe one of them might be 1/2
smart).

Larry (I ain't the smart stooge) Hendry
Well, I have been called a smart-ass.  Is that the same as smart?