MOTM

In a filter bank like this, the Highpass is the uppermost band and the
Lowpass is the lowermost. Like saying, "And this for everything ABOVE this
point..." So you obviously want to keep the LP near band 1 and the HP near
the highest.
 
I get the impression some of you are thinking that the LP affects the left
side and the HP the right, or something. Nothing that mysterious; these are
simply the outer bands.

In a message dated 4/12/02 7:53:35 AM Central Daylight Time, 
ken.tkacs@... writes:

> In a filter bank like this, the Highpass is the uppermost band and the
>  Lowpass is the lowermost. Like saying, "And this for everything ABOVE this
>  point..." So you obviously want to keep the LP near band 1 and the HP near
>  the highest.
>   
>  I get the impression some of you are thinking that the LP affects the left
>  side and the HP the right, or something. Nothing that mysterious; these are
>  simply the outer bands.

 Hi,
 Just trying to clear a little confusion on my part.... The HP and LP are 
shelving type of filters, correct?. Is their cutoff freq. below and above 
band 1 and 8? Or are they centered more towards a middle/center frequency? 

 Thanks,
   Andrew

I'm happy with the layout. I agree that we need to respect, but be flexible,
with the 'grid.' It's makes more sense to cheat a few sixteenths than to go
to 4u, that's for sure.

Maybe future MOTM modules should even "creep" over to this new grid...? I
know that will cause a lot of screaming, not least of which from Paul, but
is it worth considering?

-----Original Message-----
From: mate_stubb [mailto:mate_stubb@...] 
Sent: Friday, 12 April, 2002 10:06 AM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-450 peek

HA HA HA!

I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could 
agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've 
done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly 
like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run 
up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.

RE: LP and HP - Ken is correct. There are 8 peaking bands in the 
middle of the spectrum, tuned for maximum musical effect (I don't 
know the frequencies, perhaps JH can chime in here). The LP knob 
controls a different frequency passing everything BELOW the lowest 
peaking band, and HP passes everything ABOVE the highest peaking 
band. They are not tuned however to the exact same freq. as the 
nearest peaking band. Just like a multiband console EQ conceptually, 
not in terms of operation and filter type, but in terms of how the 
bands are laid out.

Note that this will NOT fit on a 2U panel. There are 10 knobs, 2 
jacks, a switch and an LED. Also, I hope people will not freak out 
about 5 pots in a row, or 1/8" less space between pots. It really is 
the best layout ergonomically IMO. We shouldn't be slaves to the 
format, but make it work for us in nonstandard situations. Also, I'd 
point out that the bottom knobs are not in fact 'getting down in the 
jacks'. If there is a module below, the only thing there will be more 
knobs!

Moe

Its not the grid but the 2 knobs that will be between other jackas and 
cables if this is placed between say, 2 440 VCF's. Just my 2 cents. I really 
don't see why the 2 lowest pots can't be moved to the column with the LED's. 
I would go for the Moog looking 4 space too.

Thomas White

PS. (Chris Parker) Don't let yourself slip on the Encore UEG because of how 
it looks. Its an awesome module and really adds to the MOTM features. Even 
if this modules comes out as shown in the JPG, will you not buy it because 
of the 2 lowest pots?


>From: "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@...>
>To: "'motm@yahoogroups.com'" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: FW: [motm] MOTM-450 peek
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:04:46 -0400
>
>
>I'm happy with the layout. I agree that we need to respect, but be 
>flexible,
>with the 'grid.' It's makes more sense to cheat a few sixteenths than to go
>to 4u, that's for sure.
>
>Maybe future MOTM modules should even "creep" over to this new grid...? I
>know that will cause a lot of screaming, not least of which from Paul, but
>is it worth considering?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mate_stubb [mailto:mate_stubb@...]
>Sent: Friday, 12 April, 2002 10:06 AM
>To: motm@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-450 peek
>
>HA HA HA!
>
>I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could
>agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've
>done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly
>like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run
>up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.
>
>RE: LP and HP - Ken is correct. There are 8 peaking bands in the
>middle of the spectrum, tuned for maximum musical effect (I don't
>know the frequencies, perhaps JH can chime in here). The LP knob
>controls a different frequency passing everything BELOW the lowest
>peaking band, and HP passes everything ABOVE the highest peaking
>band. They are not tuned however to the exact same freq. as the
>nearest peaking band. Just like a multiband console EQ conceptually,
>not in terms of operation and filter type, but in terms of how the
>bands are laid out.
>
>Note that this will NOT fit on a 2U panel. There are 10 knobs, 2
>jacks, a switch and an LED. Also, I hope people will not freak out
>about 5 pots in a row, or 1/8" less space between pots. It really is
>the best layout ergonomically IMO. We shouldn't be slaves to the
>format, but make it work for us in nonstandard situations. Also, I'd
>point out that the bottom knobs are not in fact 'getting down in the
>jacks'. If there is a module below, the only thing there will be more
>knobs!
>
>Moe
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

>>>Thomas White wrote:

>PS. (Chris Parker) Don't let yourself slip on the Encore UEG because of >how 
>it looks. Its an awesome module and really adds to the MOTM features. >Even 
>if this modules comes out as shown in the JPG, will you not buy it because 
>of the 2 lowest pots?


I really don't know...I'd have to think about it hard.

Up until now, I've bought at least two of each MOTM module...but they've all been of the same format.  This would be the first one I might balk on.

If the 450 comes out in the new format, I might buy one and stick it in a separate rack (as I may also do if I buy a UEG someday).  If the MOTM format is maintained, however, I would definitely buy at least two of these as well.

I've heard a lot of good things about the Encore UEG.  Paul even put some samples on the SynthTech website, so it must have its merits.  I just wish it was as compatible with the other MOTM modules as the Stooge panels make the Blacet/Oakley kits.

-Chris-