Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by J. Larry Hendry
... But yet somehow that little MXR still sounds good. Whatever design, a good, err... no GREAT, phaser should be part of the MOTM plan. :) See what you got
Messages
Browse messages
Page 663 of 690 · 34488 messages matched
RE: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by John Speth
... ABSOLUTELY! Put me down as 1 vote for guitar input, thanks. John Speth Object Engineering, Inc mailto:johns@oei.com
RE: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
... The sound you are not hearing is me biting my lip to resist taking a cheap shot at g%it#r players LOL! Dr. Evil
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Seth Redmore
I vote for skipping the distortion, and keeping it as simple, clean, and quiet as possible. Hey, if I want good distortion, I just beat up on my 420 s.
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Christopher Jeris
... Oh, Paul, you know we love you. :) ... Ooh ooh. Love the idea of pedal modules in general. How about an analogue delay line and a pitch shifter? :)
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Paul Schreiber
Mics are probably best handled by your little Mackie mixer :) Because, you need to handle both XLR and dynamic, phantom power, blah blah blah. Also, there is a
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Paul Schreiber
The ARP has too many parts! The Univibe has about half of the ARPs. The MXR phaser has fewer still! :) Paul S. ... From: Dave Bradley To:
RE: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
... Thomas, you re cheating! Trying to sneak a phasor in when he mentions distortion ! Remember Paul mentioning a possible phasor module awhile back that was
RE: RE:Blacet in a MOTM system
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
I can t take credit for the mod. If you read the Blacet schematic carefully, you can see that the Attack and Decay input circuits are identical to all the
RE: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
I personally need 2 inputs to handle line level (e.g. stereo drum machine), and 1 to handle mic level input. I don t need guitar. Distortion would be OK, but
RE: Revised MOTM 310 design
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
Crap! Those jacks should have said TRI and VAR, not SAW and VAR. Throw away that previous image I just sent. Homer
Revised MOTM 310 design
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
Tri, Square or Saw in a 1 unit VCO, I like! Revised bmp attached. Dave
RE: MOTM-320 info
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
... Boo. Hiss. Inconsistant. Wimps. Sigh. Yes, Master. ... New pic attached for list info purposes only. Dave Bradley Principal Software Engineer Engineering
RE: More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-07 by Dave Bradley
... Moe butting in here. Narrow pulses are especially useful for emulating certain sounds, such as clavinet or harpsichord sounds. They also work as well in a
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by james holloway
Will the Guitar input also be useful as a Mic. preamp? I need a mic. preamp input. Especially when we get the envelope follower module. Thanks
RE: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Tentochi
I personally am not interested in the guitar level inputs. I really won t find much use for a distortion at the input stage either. Will it handle microphone
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by thudson@xxxxxx.xxx
... Univibe, univibe, univibe!!! I drool at the possibility of univibe sound w/ MOTM quality. While one could argue that the univibe is simply a phasor, the
Re: MOTM-320 info
1999-09-07 by J. Larry Hendry
Very cool. Two MOTM modules shipping within a month of each other. This will be a good fall. My wife is now ready for one of the 1U easier modules. I have
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by J. Larry Hendry
Well, I guess I ll throw in my 2 cents worth (I always do). I like your original idea of the triple preamp. I the inputs that accomodate the various inmput
MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-07 by Paul Schreiber
Originally, I was going to do a 1U wide, triple preamp. This would have: 1 guitar level input 2 synth/line level inputs 3 volume pots The guitar input has
MOTM-320 info
1999-09-07 by Paul Schreiber
The MOTM-320 is about to go to board shop. Here are some final details. a) There is no RANGE switch, not needed. This is due to the exponential response of the
Re: More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-07 by JWBarlow@xxx.xxx
Hi Larry, I agree that the 310 waveshaping sounds like a very worth while control, and as it stands the 310 looks to be a great oscillator and a great deal!
Re: More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-07 by J. Larry Hendry
I like that kind of thinking. :) LH
Re: MOTM Pre-amp
1999-09-06 by Gur Milstein
i agree with Seth,a clean and quiet as possible. allso a mic input would be great. a tube module could allso be an intresting idea. thanx Gur Milstein ...
Re: More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-06 by Paul Schreiber
A pot is easier/as cheap as a switch. So, I m still gravitating to a SAW-to-SQUARE morph pot. Paul S.
Re: More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-06 by J. Larry Hendry
... give ... really ... Well, I think the pot is really worth it on the 300 when coupled with PWM input. However, with Paul s latest suggestion for a tri and
Re: More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-06 by JWBarlow@aol.com
... AH HA! Now I understand! ... I d still like a sync input, but at $159 for a great VCO, who can complain! I m sure I d be buying some of these as well as
Re: More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-05 by J. Larry Hendry
Yes, Paul. These are indeed good thoughts. Although personally, I liked the original idea of PWM control, that is already available on the 300. This shaping
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-05 by J. Larry Hendry
... next ... do ... but ... rise ... YES, in my opinion. I think the extremes ends of the PW (well not the total end, duh..) are some of the best suited
RE: MOTM-320 Silkscreen
1999-09-05 by joe.pavone
Now I understand why you are thinking of smaller and less complicated modules... ...jp
MOTM-320 Silkscreen
1999-09-05 by Paul Schreiber
Well, I managed to actually *fit* the 80 resistors, 14 transistors, and 8 ICs used in the 320 on the pcb! Now.....I just have to *route*.....sigh.........
More uVCO thoughts
1999-09-05 by Paul Schreiber
If I use the a dual OTA, triange-based VCO, then I can get SAW for a minimal effort. So, I m thinking these lines:
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-05 by JWBarlow@xxx.xxx
Like Mark, I also prefer triangle to saw for LF and audio modulation (my next preference would be for sine), part of my reason for suggesting it. But I do
Re: RE:Blacet in a MOTM system
1999-09-05 by JWBarlow@aol.com
I think a collaboration between Paul and John Blacet could be a very good thing since John has some interesting ideas. One of my favorite homebrew modules a
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-05 by Mark Pulver
... Tri/Pulse would make more sense if someone was to look at the VCO as being a modulation source. I personally don t find sawtooth modulation (at either
little vco(s)
1999-09-04 by joe.pavone
just a thought: How about 2 uVCOs: 310: knobs: Coarse,fine,width,FM (left FM freq, right FM PW - SEM style) jacks: 1V/oct, FM,Saw,Pulse 311: knobs: Coarse,
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by Christopher Jeris
I like the idea of saw/tri outputs and using a comparator for pulse (or a 700, with a couple of constant CV sources). This would also allow PWM, if you really
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by Paul Schreiber
1) How about a Tri/Pulse VCO? This is a different circuit as a Saw/Pulse, but still easy to do in a small form-factor. 2) Dave: How about a VCO Roundup of your
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by improv@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
... I think you can never have enough VCO s in a patch, and I d definitely want a couple of uVCO s. I d personally prefer if they had sine or triangle outs, as
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-04 by JWBarlow@xxx.xxx
I agree that a smaller, simpler, cheaper VCO would be a good idea. I also agree with many of the comments already given (even some of those opposed to the
Re: bananas, anyone?
1999-09-04 by JWBarlow@xxx.xxx
... Hi Charles, I don t know anything about Fenix (any useful ideas that might influence MOTM modules?), but I ve been using bananas for my small but growing
Re: MOTM-310u> Post thought
1999-09-04 by Paul Schreiber
The reason it s a cheaper, smaller version is that all of the waveshaping circuitry is left out! Paul S.
Re: MOTM-310u> Post thought
1999-09-04 by Roy Tate
... I was pondering this also. I was cooking up the idea of offering 4 outputs - pulse, saw, tri and sine. Then just let the builder pick which outputs to
RE: MOTM-310u> Post thought
1999-09-04 by william Hanson
I guess You would have to give up the PWM pot cause of the 1U space to get the Sine out jack hugh? oh well.......... it was a thought. I still like it. Bill
RE: MOTM-310u> to the point opinion.
1999-09-04 by william Hanson
I like it.....leaning to the side of I m almost loving it already Here s my Psyco-Synth babble/opinion on what would make it a perfect cheapie VCO.
Re: RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Paul Schreiber
errr....no. For 1 thing, it wouldn t fit! For 2 thing, I m saving it for next year. Paul S. ... From: Dave Bradley To: MOTM List
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by Dave Bradley
Somebody mentioned giving the 310 something that the 300 didn t have to improve its desirability to current 300 owners. Well, how about.... through-zero FM ala
Presenting the MOTM-310 micro VCO
1999-09-03 by Dave Bradley
Laydeez n Gentlemen, Presenting the MOTM-310 micro VCO. I placed the PW knob above the FM amount, and depicted the FM amount as bipolar, as in the wildly
RE: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by David Bivins
Oh, that s simply not true. The right tool for the right job, right? Make em cheap! I like the idea of the simple VCO, especially now that Mr. Pulver s
Re: MOTM-310 uVCO
1999-09-03 by hodad1@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Of course, another option is to give the 310 some small feature (don t know what) that the 300 lacks. That would certainly add to its allure. ... From: John