MOTM

>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...! 


Just to make it clear that I've NEVER said this (i.e., I've always wanted to 
include a VC sustain input -- as well as separate VC A, VC D, VC R inputs) 
I've excerpted several of my previous posts below.

In a message dated 2/11/2000 8:51:33 PM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>-- 8 jacks including the basic output, trigger, gate and four unattenuated
>VC 
>A, VC D, VC S, VC R inputs as well as one (magical) VC A-D-R input.



In a message dated 2/11/2000 9:56:31 PM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>I agree! I may have underemphasized what I consider the important part
>of my 
>proposed 3310 module -- the SINGLE VC A, VC D, VC R, INPUT and the associated
>
>THREE reversing attenuators. I consider the four unattenuated VC inputs
>to be 
>much less interesting or useful. 
>



In a message dated 2/12/2000 9:50:37 AM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>Why no VC sustain? But there IS VC sustain! A single unattenuated VC sustain
>input (along with one each of VC A, VC D, VC R), but I also find VC sustain
>much less interesting than changing the slopes of envelopes -- fine for
>the 
>hoi poloi, but the sophisticated, martini swilling modular user needs more
>sub
>tle VC EGs.



In a message dated 2/13/2000 11:04:49 AM, JWBarlow@... writes:

>Well, like Larry said, the individual VC inputs are for "the masses" --
>and 
>are cheap enough to justify.

But I do think
>the 
>SUSTAIN level almost always needs to be handled separately from the slope
>parameters, and I often want to handle some of those parameters in opposite
>ways.

Others will use their VC EGs different than I would, but I still like the 
basic idea.
JB