MOTM

Hello all,

I'd like to thank everyone for their input a few weeks ago re module
selection. The design for my portable MOTM system is nearly
finished, but I have two horizontal rack spaces left to fill.

The question is - if you had a system with 3 VCOs, 3 EGs, Noise/S&H,
Sub-Oct mux, VCA, micro LFO (390), cascade multiple, and 2 VCFs (410
& 490), would you add the 440 VCF, 320 LFO, or 820 lag processor?

I have heard a few demos of the 440 VCF and it sounds great, but
would it be missed more than an LFO with sync? Further, I'm not sure
how impotant it is to have a lag processor. Is it an integral part
of everyone's system, and what would it be used for other than
portamento?

Again, thanks for helping a neophite :)

Matt

On Wednesday 23 October 2002 16:01, Matt MacDonald wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to thank everyone for their input a few weeks
> ago re module selection. The design for my portable MOTM
> system is nearly finished, but I have two horizontal rack
> spaces left to fill.
>
> The question is - if you had a system with 3 VCOs, 3 EGs,
> Noise/S&H, Sub-Oct mux, VCA, micro LFO (390), cascade
> multiple, and 2 VCFs (410 & 490), would you add the 440
> VCF, 320 LFO, or 820 lag processor?

I would go for as many filters as I could get from MOTM, and
certainly the 440, which I concider one of the best (based
on the mp3 demos, that is). After that I would add the 320,
followed by the 820.

- Robert

> The question is - if you had a system with 3 VCOs, 3 EGs, Noise/S&H,
> Sub-Oct mux, VCA, micro LFO (390), cascade multiple, and 2 VCFs (410
> & 490), would you add the 440 VCF, 320 LFO, or 820 lag processor?
>

Difficult decision. Would you really like more straight forward timbre
options? Then possibly the 440. However, you already have two nice
VCF's, one 'basic' (490) and one that has a lot of character and cv/output
options (410). Above either of these, the 440 does have 2 freq. cv inputs
and 1 resonance cv input, all of which can be used creatively, e.g., if
timbre modulation is high on your interest level. The 440
mixer means you can patch your 3 vco's directly with different
attenuations (as you did not mention having a mixer).

Would you like more modulation options? Then possibly the 320. You
already have a dual basic lfo module, but IMHO the 320 is still one of the
best modules in the motm lineup: above the 390 you get sawtooth (one of
the best for cv useage, I think), sync (as you mention), 1V/oct (so can be
another 'lower audio' freq. osc, +/- freq. modulation (just + on the 390),
and manual/cv control of waveshape (this being one of the 320's best
features - so you can have "asymmetric" sine-type waveforms and vary the
pulse width (for examples) under waveshape cv input).

> how impotant it is to have a lag processor.

Again, depends on your creative orientation. If you are more into
'keyboard' usage (e.g., Emerson), then the 820 would be a nice addition.

> Is it an integral part
> of everyone's system, and what would it be used for other than
> portamento?
>

820 was one of the latter modules I bought. I find the 440 and
(especially the 320) more useful. Yes, the 820 can be used effectively
anywhere you are interested in 'gliding' cv (e.g., 'smoothing' out pulse
modulation, lagging cv 'behind' a quick env. gen. attack).

> Again, thanks for helping a neophite :)
>

We all are neophites.
Jeff

matthew_macdonald@... writes:

> The question is - if you had a system with 3 VCOs, 3 EGs, Noise/S&H,
> Sub-Oct mux, VCA, micro LFO (390), cascade multiple, and 2 VCFs (410
> & 490), would you add the 440 VCF, 320 LFO, or 820 lag processor?

Hi,
Personally, with that line up of modules, I'd go for the 420 multimode
filter next. You'd get the benefit of the bandpass and notch filters as well
as a low pass with a very nice sound.

Andrew