FW: [motm] MOTM-310 time again
2001-08-31 by Tkacs, Ken
Either one sounds great, but if I were to vote, it would be for "Plan B." It sounds like a good and crafty compromise of function over space. The PWM jack normalled to 50% is a crafty space-saver, and I think that having that blend-able waveform just sounds like a really unique feature.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Schreiber To: MOTM listserv Sent: 08/30/2001 9:48 PM Subject: [motm] MOTM-310 time again Now that Larry is hard at work (cough cough) on the pedal interface, I'm focusing on the MOTM-310 MicroVCO. To refresh: this is a lower cost VCO that shares MOTM-800 EG panel, bracket, and pcb size. That means 4 knobs and 4 jacks. In order to match MOTM-300 performance, and to use common parts I want to keep it SAW-based (as opposed to TRI-based). Looking at the pcb space and cost target ($169-179 kit) I propose the following: 4 knobs are: COARSE FINE FM (attenuator) WIDTH (of pulse) 4 jacks are: 1V/OCT FM SAW PULSE This minimizes parts count. Having a 'blend' pot (say between SQUARE and TRI) looks like too many parts to fit on the board. Plus it adds $10-$15 to the cost. Since this main function of the '310 is to 'beef up' the mix with existing '300s, and to use as a sync generator to other '300s, this looks like the best fit. The only other possibility is: the 4th pots is a 'blend'. The VCO has 1 OUT. The 4th jack is PWM IN. With no plug inserted, the PULSE is 50%. Else, the input is a -5V to +5V pulse width control (no input attenuation). So you can get SAW to PULSE with the blend. This is not as gnarly as the TRI stuff, and possibly more musically useful. Well??!?!? Paul S. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/