MOTM

I plan do build a similar thing for my JH-5 (hybrid MOTM / do-it-myself modular).
But as today, unlike in Moog's modular days, electronic components are much
less expensive than front panel components, a purely passive attenuator does not
make much sense, IMO. What I plan is this:

3 or 4 attenuators in Moog configuration (inputs normalized to previous Attenuator's
input)

Attenuators with on pot and one 3-way (on/off/on) switch for 3 options:
(a) 0 ...1 (passive attenuation)
(b) 0 ... -1 (invertin attenuation)
(c) 0 ... 10 (gain to boost weak external signals. also soft clipping fuction for
    use as overdrive / waveshaper

A 4th (or 5th) output that simply adds all signals from unused attenuator
outputs (similar as with the Quad LFO, but with a dedicated summing
output instead of using the last regular output.)

So I can use one module as 4 separate attenuators (or inverters, or gain
stages), or as a 1 -> 4 signal distribution with individual scaling (good
for Aftertouch routing!), or a 1->3 distribution and 1 extra attenuator,
or a 4 -> 1 mixer (!), or a 1->2 distribution and 2->1 mixer, or any other
combination.

JH.



"T.J." <goku@...> schrieb: 

> I used the Moog design for a passive attenuator. Simple design, three
> pots and 6 jacks. Wired so the first input will go to all 3 attenuators/
> outputs. You disconnect the chain by plugging into the second
> input/third input. So it can be a multiple as well. Very useful module
> in my setup. Perhaps a 1U Stooge panel if Paul has no plans to release
> such a module?
> Terry
> 
> coyoteous wrote:
> > 
> > What does one do for additional attenuation in the MOTM world? Most
> > modules seem to have at least one input with no control and none (I
> > think) have output controls. I prefer the convention with no output
> > level controls and all input level controls (except v/8va inputs). I
> > understand that this is a trade off between circuit functionality,
> > panel real estate and module conventions - but, if this is truly a
> > "modular" system - where is the attenuator module? There needs to be
> > an alternative to burning a mixer (or half a mixer) to control an
> > input. Also, is there a down side to passive attenuation? (no pun
> > intended)
> >
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

This is EXACTLY what I am looking for in an 
attenuator/inverter/amplifier.  Well, almost: no rectifier?  And 
would this be 1U?  And would this be MOTM eventually?

Mike

--- In motm@y..., jhaible@d... wrote:
> I plan do build a similar thing for my JH-5 (hybrid MOTM / do-it-
myself modular).
> But as today, unlike in Moog's modular days, electronic components 
are much
> less expensive than front panel components, a purely passive 
attenuator does not
> make much sense, IMO. What I plan is this:
> 
> 3 or 4 attenuators in Moog configuration (inputs normalized to 
previous Attenuator's
> input)
> 
> Attenuators with on pot and one 3-way (on/off/on) switch for 3 
options:
> (a) 0 ...1 (passive attenuation)
> (b) 0 ... -1 (invertin attenuation)
> (c) 0 ... 10 (gain to boost weak external signals. also soft 
clipping fuction for
>     use as overdrive / waveshaper
> 
> A 4th (or 5th) output that simply adds all signals from unused 
attenuator
> outputs (similar as with the Quad LFO, but with a dedicated summing
> output instead of using the last regular output.)
> 
> So I can use one module as 4 separate attenuators (or inverters, or 
gain
> stages), or as a 1 -> 4 signal distribution with individual scaling 
(good
> for Aftertouch routing!), or a 1->3 distribution and 1 extra 
attenuator,
> or a 4 -> 1 mixer (!), or a 1->2 distribution and 2->1 mixer, or 
any other
> combination.
> 
> JH.
> 
> 
> 
> "T.J." <goku@n...> schrieb: 
> > I used the Moog design for a passive attenuator. Simple design, 
three
> > pots and 6 jacks. Wired so the first input will go to all 3 
attenuators/
> > outputs. You disconnect the chain by plugging into the second
> > input/third input. So it can be a multiple as well. Very useful 
module
> > in my setup. Perhaps a 1U Stooge panel if Paul has no plans to 
release
> > such a module?
> > Terry
> > 
> > coyoteous wrote:
> > > 
> > > What does one do for additional attenuation in the MOTM world? 
Most
> > > modules seem to have at least one input with no control and 
none (I
> > > think) have output controls. I prefer the convention with no 
output
> > > level controls and all input level controls (except v/8va 
inputs). I
> > > understand that this is a trade off between circuit 
functionality,
> > > panel real estate and module conventions - but, if this is 
truly a
> > > "modular" system - where is the attenuator module? There needs 
to be
> > > an alternative to burning a mixer (or half a mixer) to control 
an
> > > input. Also, is there a down side to passive attenuation? (no 
pun
> > > intended)
> > >
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/