MOTM

Gents,

5 or 6 jacks and 3 pots on a 1U VCO panel is a nonstarter, for purely 
physical reasons. The board would have to be shortened to clear the 
top jack(s) and would lose a couple of square inches of real estate. 
You would have to compensate by making the board deeper, then it 
doesn't fit on the 800 pcb form factor anymore, hence the cost goes 
up again. And then you might as well buy a 300 if the 310 is not 
significantly cheaper.

Moe

At 5:49 PM +0000 08/31/01, mate_stubb@... wrote:
>
>Gents,
>
>5 or 6 jacks and 3 pots on a 1U VCO panel is a nonstarter, for purely
>physical reasons. The board would have to be shortened to clear the
>top jack(s) and would lose a couple of square inches of real estate.
>You would have to compensate by making the board deeper, then it
>doesn't fit on the 800 pcb form factor anymore, hence the cost goes
>up again. And then you might as well buy a 300 if the 310 is not
>significantly cheaper.

I wish I could think of a more tactful way to put this, but you are
completely wrong :)  I just looked at my 800.  If the bottom pot and knob
were removed, and the same PCB were used, a fifth jack would fit easily.
The PCB would not have to be shortened.  Furthermore, since the pot is
mounted to the PCB, and the fifth jack is mounted to the panel, removing
the pot would provide even more PCB real estate.

Of course, six jacks would be a different situation.

Also, I am thinking of making it less expensive.  Having a dedicated saw
output would add very little if any electronics to the existing circuit
since the saw signal itself would already have to be be available, and one
more jack costs significantly less than one more knob and one more pot.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: <mark@...>
I just looked at my 800.  If the bottom pot 
and knob were removed, and the same PCB
were used, a fifth jack would fit easily.

--LH--
Yes, and no.  I agree, with the bottom pot knob eliminated
you could add a 5th jack and still use standard MOTM-800
hardware and PCB size IF you are careful with the height of 
components in that area.  You could have interference if you
do not plan well.  Certainly, 6 jacks on the bottom requires
not only a notch in the PCB, but also a change in the mounting
bracket (like my 831).  I think that is probably obvious to
everyone though.  :)

Larry H

>Yes, and no.  I agree, with the bottom pot knob eliminated
>you could add a 5th jack and still use standard MOTM-800
>hardware and PCB size IF you are careful with the height of
>components in that area.  You could have interference if you
>do not plan well.

I just measured a couple things.  The distance from the top of the PCB to
the left edge of the right jack is about 3/4", and the tallest component
(besides the power connector) on any of my modules is about 1/2".  Of
course, I expect Paul to plan things well -- he is a professional MSEE with
a fortune's worth of CAD/CAM software.

Apparently, we can argue this ad nauseum, but since adding an extra jack
instead of a blend knob makes the 310 both less expensive AND more
powerful, to me this seems like a no-brainer.

Also, the 310 is intended as a low-cost space-saving substitute for the
300.  So logic would dictate that it would have a subset of the 300's
features, and not new functions that the 300 doesn't have.

Even more foreboding, adding a blend knob seems to go against the whole
idea behind modular synthesis.  Essentially, it is permanently adding a
two-channel mixer to the output of a VCO and losing all of the patch
points.  If one didn't want to have patch points for each function, why the
@#$%* would anyone bother to build a modular??  As it stands now, there are
at least two mixers available for the MOTM system that can patched any way
you want, not to mention that both the 440 and 420 have mixer inputs.

I'm also thinking of the owner of a small MOTM system -- perhaps someone
who just getting into modular synthesis, or has limited space or money.
Let's say this person mounts their power supply elsewhere and wants to
build the best single voice they possibly can between two rack rails.  A
300 is a very expensive module, and sync isn't an issue with only one
oscillator.  So they buy a 310 -- that extra 1U for an additional 800 or
the up-and-coming waveshaper can make all the difference in the world.
Considering that both of the available VCA's are dual units, and that both
available filters have multiple inputs, having a VCO with only one output
would severely limit what they could do with their system.

Furthermore, every other VCO on the market has separate outputs for saw and
square.  Regardless how stable it is, offering a VCO with only one output
is going to seem awfully lame in comparison.  Currently, there are MOTM
customers who are buying their VCO's from other manufacturers in order to
avoid paying the price of the 300.  I would hope that the availability of
the 310 would prevent this from continuing.