MOTM

h3y ken,

>The subject is worth discussing.

i agree.  however, in my ignorance, i would be of very little use in 
a discussion of it.  fun to play with though...
peace,
doc


--- In motm@egroups.com, "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
>  
> I love a good arpeggiator. I can't even begin to estimate the 
amount of
> man-hours that were killed in the 80's by my Korg Mono/Poly 
arpeggiator.
> 
> But as a module... I'm not sure. To be as useful/fun as the Korg MP-
4 unit,
> it would need to be flexible and controllable. The Korg arpegiator 
was
> "programmed" in real time by the scanned keyboard... how you would
> reasonably pull that off with CVs is not clear.
> 
> Also, it may be that a mini-sequencer with CV or gate control of
> up/down/up-down, for instance, might do the same job but really be 
more of a
> flexible sequencer than an arpeggitor module.
> 
> In the end, there may be more "modular" ways of doing a similar 
job. I have
> long been on a quest for a stable/flexible quantizer module. With 
that, you
> could feed in CV sweeps or the output from an S&H and get some
> arpeggiator-like effects. Sticking the lag between the S&H or an 
LFO and the
> quantizer would allow you various VC methods for shaping the curve 
and
> therefore the output of the quantizer, and so on.
> 
> The subject is worth discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sikorsky
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Sent: 01/02/2001 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] I think I'm gonna throw up
> 
> 
> on topic comment: so no one liked the arpegiator module then..?