MOTM

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 revtor@... wrote:

> I was wondering why the 1u size for the ladder filter?

  I think Paul is going forward with the plan to offer a set of 1U
'micromodules' that can both complement the standard MOTM line as well as
be keyed toward those who want maximum portable variety per unit space.
MOTM has three (soon to be four) 2U filters already, so there is certainly
no lack of choice for the 'big behemoth' modular synth builders.  That a
Moog ladder filter was chosen for the first mu-series is probably a matter
of offering a new module in 1U format that isn't just a chopped down
version of an existing 2U module combined with the ability to make it easy
to offer a 2U version later.

Crow

/**/

Quantec reverb - All discrete logic!!  200 TTL chips!!   thats insane...    
Impressive indeed..  who the hell designed that thing!!! ?

Now Paul,  I was wondering why the 1u size for the ladder filter?  
Considering the moog filters popularity, and seeing as how a filter is 
usually a module with more control parameters and possibilities than many 
other modules...  especially Jeurgens dual design (although the Voyager has 
this, wouldnt want to copy the desing into something that sells in quantity, 
right?)..... why the 1u?  cuz now we need a mixer to get more than one vco in 
there, and we lose some control..
hmmmmmm

 We'll need a mult to kinda mix the vcos into the filter, and now were back 
to 2u, and a proper mixer would leave us at 3u..  

just wondering since so far filters have been MOTM's forte....
~Steve M

Who said this was the *only* Moog filter...hmmmmm??!?!

Paul S.

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

From: <revtor@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: [motm] quantec.... !! and 490 filter.


> Quantec reverb - All discrete logic!!  200 TTL chips!!   thats insane...    
> Impressive indeed..  who the hell designed that thing!!! ?
> 
> Now Paul,  I was wondering why the 1u size for the ladder filter?  
> Considering the moog filters popularity, and seeing as how a filter is 
> usually a module with more control parameters and possibilities than many 
> other modules...  especially Jeurgens dual design (although the Voyager has 
> this, wouldnt want to copy the desing into something that sells in quantity, 
> right?)..... why the 1u?  cuz now we need a mixer to get more than one vco in 
> there, and we lose some control..
> hmmmmmm
> 
>  We'll need a mult to kinda mix the vcos into the filter, and now were back 
> to 2u, and a proper mixer would leave us at 3u..  
> 
> just wondering since so far filters have been MOTM's forte....
> ~Steve M
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>

>why the 1u?  cuz now we need a mixer to get more than one vco in
>there, and we lose some control..
>hmmmmmm
>
>We'll need a mult to kinda mix the vcos into the filter, and now were back
>to 2u, and a proper mixer would leave us at 3u..
>
>just wondering since so far filters have been MOTM's forte....
>~Steve M

I think it makes sense to "atomize" the modules down to their basic 
function. In the "old" days, the 420 and 440 needed to have a 
built-in mixer because there was no mixer module and hence no way to 
get 3 oscillators into those filters. Now we have the 830, and Paul 
has hinted at a 1U wide uMixer module. So there is no need to have a 
mixer built into any modules now.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Juskiw 
scott@...

I agree with this thinking. On modules where you ALWAYS need to mix inputs,
the convenience of a dedicated mixer is a good idea. And when there were
only one or two filters, you pretty much always used them. But as the module
compliment grows, you may not always use THAT filter in THIS patch, and you
end up more and more with circuitry, function, and panel space that could be
better used if it was more... "modular"... or 'atomic,' as Mr. J put it. A
1u mixer makes sense in taking the place of the "left half" of a lot of 2u
modules.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Juskiw [mailto:scott@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, 04 December, 2001 2:10 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] 490 filter.

>why the 1u?  cuz now we need a mixer to get more than one vco in
>there, and we lose some control..
>hmmmmmm
>
>We'll need a mult to kinda mix the vcos into the filter, and now were back
>to 2u, and a proper mixer would leave us at 3u..
>
>just wondering since so far filters have been MOTM's forte....
>~Steve M

I think it makes sense to "atomize" the modules down to their basic 
function. In the "old" days, the 420 and 440 needed to have a 
built-in mixer because there was no mixer module and hence no way to 
get 3 oscillators into those filters. Now we have the 830, and Paul 
has hinted at a 1U wide uMixer module. So there is no need to have a 
mixer built into any modules now.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Juskiw 
scott@...

So, now that Paul has admitted the following about the 1U MOTM-490:

> Who said this was the *only* Moog filter...hmmmmm??!?!
>
> Paul S.

IF another Moog filter is in the works, MIGHT it be possible that it would
be a dual-LPF as in the JH-5 (and Big Briar Voyager)??  I'll be praying
westward to MOTM-Mecca for that!

Hmmmmmmm indeed...
George