MOTM

JH and I are working on a smaller, cheaper dual VCA that does NOT pan/fade, that I could ship
MUCH SOONER that the MOTM-130. It may include a RM function (switchable between VCA/RM). Will I
still do the MOTM-130? Sure, because it has many cool features and better SNR and THD specs.

The SEM filter is designed (by JH), I have most of the hard-to-get parts already. But there are
many modulesinfront, including the 500 Series.

I know things are bogging down. I'm going AFAHP :)

Paul S.

>>>>
JH and I are working on a smaller, cheaper dual VCA that does NOT 
pan/fade, that I could ship MUCH SOONER that the MOTM-130. It may 
include a RM function (switchable between VCA/RM). 
<<<<

Aarrrgghhh! This module will at LEAST have an exponential response CV 
input, right? Otherwise it's useless to me!

Moe

> --- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
> JH and I are working on a smaller, cheaper dual VCA
> that does NOT pan/fade, that I could ship MUCH
> SOONER that the MOTM-130.

I certainly agree that a decent VCA of some nature ought to be high on the
list.  While new filters and additional LFOs are nice to have, we are
starving for VCAs out here in MOTM land. :)

Now time for some stupid Stooge Stuff.
I have a question about pan / fade mode.  Maybe I am missing something
obvious, but it seems like pan / fade would be a hugely easy feature to add
to and dual VCA panel space permitting.  Let me play "what if," and those
who know better can correct me.

What if the dual VCA had 3 inputs.  1 input dedicated to each VCA and one
that splits to both.
What is the dual VCA had 3 outputs.  1 output directly from each VCA and one
that is a mix of both
What if the dual VCA had +/- CV inputs for one of the VCAs (lets say the
second for discussion).  The inverted (-) CV for the second could be
normalled over from the first.  If you did jack into the second, the common,
but inverted CV would be disconnected from the second VCA. So, you would
need only one CV for pan or fade.

This arrangement adds what seems like very little circuitry and only 2 jacks
(mix in, mix out) to a dual VCA package.  Yet, depending on how you plug it,
you can have 2 separate VCAs, a fader, or a panner - no switch required.

To me this would be more useful than another "ordinary" ring modulator. The
next MOTM ring modulator shodul have something special.  What?  Hell, I
don't know.  I'm just a stooge.

> I know things are bogging down. I'm going AFAHP :)

We all think you are doing a wonderful job.  But, we really need VCAs. :)
You are forcing me to use a Synth.com VCA and it hurts. <snicker>

Larry (prepared to buy 2 dual VCAs - pan / fade featured please).

Why, is the MOTM-110 useless??!?

Paul S.

> 
> Aarrrgghhh! This module will at LEAST have an exponential response CV 
> input, right? Otherwise it's useless to me!
> 
> Moe

Can we have a true Balanced Modulator rather than just a Ring Modulator????

--Shemp

> The
> next MOTM ring modulator shodul have something special.  What?  Hell, I
> don't know.  I'm just a stooge.
> Larry

Errr....same thing.

Paul S.

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

From: "Tentochi" <tentochi@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:37 PM
Subject: Balanced Modulator was [motm] MOTM queue


> Can we have a true Balanced Modulator rather than just a Ring Modulator????
> 
> --Shemp
> 
> > The
> > next MOTM ring modulator shodul have something special.  What?  Hell, I
> > don't know.  I'm just a stooge.
> > Larry
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>

Paul--

Some of your biggest customers (and biggest supporters) are screaming for
the VCA ('130).  Actually several of us have been asking for several years
(I double-checked the archives).

There is SO much I can't do without them.  Please try and bump the '130 to
the top of the list if at all possible.  Save the trimmed down version for
later.

I am still not sure what new people with no VCAs are supposed to do....

Have you sent out a FP mock-up yet?  I forget...

I guess the '130 won't have quad panner functionality though, right?

Thanks,
Shemp

> > JH and I are working on a smaller, cheaper dual VCA
> > that does NOT pan/fade, that I could ship MUCH
> > SOONER that the MOTM-130.
>
> I certainly agree that a decent VCA of some nature ought to be high on the
> list.  While new filters and additional LFOs are nice to have, we are
> starving for VCAs out here in MOTM land. :)
> Larry (prepared to buy 2 dual VCAs - pan / fade featured please).

> > Can we have a true Balanced Modulator rather than just a Ring Modulator????
> 

Better yet, can we have an unbalanced modulator? This will fit right in with 
us unbalanced modular owners!

I'm glad the 130 is still on the list and JH's initial thoughts on a 
complimentary dual VCA  sound very good -- like others I think the absence of 
VCAs needs to be resolved fairly soon.

Any thoughts on the cost of the dual VCA? Is this going to be a 2U module?

JB

Any thoughts on the cost of the dual VCA? Is this going to be a 2U module? 


I'm thinking 1U, about $119 kit.

Paul S.

At 5:22 PM -0500 2002/04/29, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>
>I certainly agree that a decent VCA of some nature ought to be high on the
>list.  While new filters and additional LFOs are nice to have, we are
>starving for VCAs out here in MOTM land. :)

Yep, count me in the droning and starving group. Looks like we may 
have to get a posse together and head down to Texas to straighten 
things out. ;-)

Paul, just think of how many more 800s you'll sell once those new 
VCAs are unleashed. Wagonloads !

I really want the MOTM-130 2U Dual/pan/fade VCA first. How long have we
been asking for this?  Every few months it comes up for a vote, and it
wins!
 
Paul is forcing me to put my MOTM through the Universal Audio Processor
on my Serge panel.  Now that's got to hurt! :-)
John Loffink
jloffink@...

--- Paul Schreiber <synth1@...> wrote:
> JH and I are working on a smaller, cheaper dual VCA

micro VCA... correct? I don't think you're surprising
anyone here. Atleast I assumed you were going to
release a micro VCA w/ the rest of the line. Business
standpoint this is needed far greater than a panning
VCA. Complete your micro line... duh!

In this list of EE's and EE wannabe's, no one has
figured out that you can buy a $500 EFX processor,
Digital Performer/Pro Tools,  or (gasp) a board that
does auto-panning/fading??

> 
> The SEM filter is designed (by JH), I have most of
> the hard-to-get parts already. But there are
> many modulesinfront, including the 500 Series.

Now for the rest of us... the utilitarian modules are
done, IMHO. I want 500-series. Time to differentiate
MOTM.
 
 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

We don't want autopanning, we want panning by modular control voltages.
The autopanning possible from these digital tools is only a subset of
the modulations that are possible in a true modular system.  Most likely
they offer a simple LFO to control it but no complex waveshapes,
envelopes, sequences, etc.  By this token we could all buy soft synths
and throw away our MOTMs.
John Loffink
jloffink@... 
In this list of EE's and EE wannabe's, no one has
figured out that you can buy a $500 EFX processor,
Digital Performer/Pro Tools,  or (gasp) a board that
does auto-panning/fading??

Black_Man_Music@... wrote:

> micro VCA... correct? I don't think you're surprising
> anyone here. Atleast I assumed you were going to
> release a micro VCA w/ the rest of the line. Business
> standpoint this is needed far greater than a panning
> VCA. Complete your micro line... duh!

While I can see that the micro-module line is very important for the
portable SKB-pop-up dudes, being one of the much-larger-format MOTMists, I'm
MUCH more interested in the 2U MOTM-130 than the uVCA.  Alas, I remember
Paul saying that the PCB layout of the 130 was a real headache.  Guess he
wan't kidding!  [insert duh here]

> In this list of EE's and EE wannabe's, no one has
> figured out that you can buy a $500 EFX processor,
> Digital Performer/Pro Tools,  or (gasp) a board that
> does auto-panning/fading??

Yikes.  Well, [ahem] being an EE sorta-wannabe myself (and a synthesist
definite-wannabe) my interest will not be swayed torward the concept of
auto-panning (or any other synthesis technique, for that matter) with some
analog-wannabe software tool.  Give me voltage control!  Live free or die!
et al...  :)

Cheers,
George

> Some of your biggest customers (and biggest supporters) are screaming
> for the VCA ('130).  Actually several of us have been asking for several
> years

> I really want the MOTM-130 2U Dual/pan/fade VCA first. How long have we
> been asking for this?  Every few months it comes up for a vote, and it
> wins!
>  

Sorry to hammer on this, but I agree with the above.  The 130 has always
ranked high on preference lists, so I *assume* that buyers are
interested and that it will sell relatively well.

The micro modules are very nice - nice functionality in 'small' space.
The 500 series (from what little I have gleened from short posts) appears
also to have lots of potential.

However, when I see modules that I perceived to be "in production" not
progressing, and then pushed farther down the queue to make way for more
recently conceived modules, then I start to wonder when I can anticipate 
the "in production" modules come to the customer purchase stage. It might
help us plan a bit if modules were designated as in the 'idea' stage
(which would include the 'research' prototype stage) or in the
'production' stage (i.e., parts being purchased, ordering to start soon).
For example, is the 450 in the 'idea' stage or is it to be produced before
the 130 and sem filter?

Anyway, it's Paul's business/hobby and, of course, he can run it as he
sees fit.  Maybe I'm just after a little more 'planning structure' than is
allowable by such a business.  (And I keep looking at that 2U 'hole' where
I plan to put the 130 ...)
Jeff

> 
> > In this list of EE's and EE wannabe's, no one has
> > figured out that you can buy a $500 EFX processor,
> > Digital Performer/Pro Tools,  or (gasp) a board that
> > does auto-panning/fading??
> 
Hmmm, what is a flexible voltage control modular synthesizer about?

> Anyway, it's Paul's business/hobby and, of course, he can run it as he
> sees fit.  Maybe I'm just after a little more 'planning structure' than is
> allowable by such a business.  (And I keep looking at that 2U 'hole' where
> I plan to put the 130 ...)
> Jeff

Paul has *always* stressed that they way he has kept his "hobby" going is to
run it as a business (as opposed to others that have killed the hobby by NOT
running it as a business).  It seems like keeping your loyal (and new)
customers happy makes the most business sense (especially in this case).  It
also seems like JH will be helping out with this project quite a bit too.

I will buy a minimum of 2 '130s to begin with (as Larry said he will too, 1
of Jeff) and will probably buy several more after that.  This is NOT true
for the 500 series.  I hope the urgency to get the 500 series out (or the
micro series?) is NOT in response to one or two naysayers out there.  Even
if there are a bunch of esoteric MOTM modules created, the system will still
need VCAs.

I don't understand quad panners well enough unfortunately, but I do know
what they can provide.  Will the '130s be able to create quad panning???

As always, I will buy whatever Paul releases.

Loyal MOTM Customer/Supporter/(Ab)user,
Shemp

As I have stated many times in the past the "game" I play is as follows:

#1: Older, established customers are interested in new modules
#2: New customers just want their order (current modules)
#3: Assembled orders were rare: now they are a larger percentage

These are the 3 areas I have to apply a fixed number of available hours. So, I operate on trying
the patience of everyone :)

At this rate, I'll *never* finish Return to Castle Wolfenstein....grumble.......

Paul S.

Regarding MOTM-130 - - - ME TOO ! I want one.

It's by far my most sought after module. I'm extremely interested in doing stereo imaging and I'd probably buy at least two.

John Speth
mailto:johns@...

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
> As I have stated many times in the past the
> "game" I play is as follows:
>
> #1: Older, established customers are interested in new modules

They all want 130s.

> #2: New customers just want their order (current modules)

They need VCAs too, many will want 130s.

> #3: Assembled orders were rare: now they are a larger percentage

Those people especially will want 130s since their options are limited.

> At this rate, I'll *never* finish Return to Castle
Wolfenstein....grumble.......

Might as well uninstall that. <snicker>
Larry H.

> >
> > #1: Older, established customers are interested in new modules
> 
> They all want 130s.

Correct.

> 
> > #2: New customers just want their order (current modules)
> 
> They need VCAs too, many will want 130s.

Correct, but all have '110s held in reserve.

> 
> > #3: Assembled orders were rare: now they are a larger percentage
> 
> Those people especially will want 130s since their options are limited.

Correct, but all current orders have '110s held in reserve.


> 
> > At this rate, I'll *never* finish Return to Castle
> Wolfenstein....grumble.......
> 
> Might as well uninstall that. <snicker>

HA! I'm getting the expansion mission pak for Ghost Recon next week.

Paul S.

I'm dying for the 500 series as well, although I won't dispute that an available VCA is important.  And I want a preamp (in a tree...)!  :)

--PBr

-----Original Message-----
From: Black_Man_Music@... [mailto:black_man_music@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:26 AM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM queue


--- Paul Schreiber <synth1@...t> wrote:
> The SEM filter is designed (by JH), I have most of
> the hard-to-get parts already. But there are
> many modulesinfront, including the 500 Series.

Now for the rest of us... the utilitarian modules are
done, IMHO. I want 500-series. Time to differentiate
MOTM.