MOTM

I'm about to pick my first freebie module (14 bonus points), 
and I can't decide. ;)  It's either the 120, 310, 420 or 
830.

The 120 is on my wishlist, but I'm not sure how useful it 
is, how often I can use it in a patch.

I'm going to get my first 300 soon, so a 310 to go along 
with it could be nice, but I guess I prefer to save some 
more to get a second 300 some day. The 310 seems quite 
limited when compared to the 300 (which is intended, of 
course).

I wonder if it would be nice to get a second 420 filter. I 
always wanted to have the sonic expression of an MS20 (and 
the 2600, yes).  I know it recently came up, but only in a 
negative sense. Does anyone here use two 420 in the classic 
MS20 setup?

And regarding the 830, I still don't have a mixer. But I 
like it so be CV controlled, so save a couple of VCAs. But 
maybe I just don't know yet how to use one. The specs sound 
great, a real MOTM product. :) 

Any suggestions would be really appreciated.

- Robert

On Sunday 11 January 2004 09:20, Robert van der Kamp wrote:

> And regarding the 830, I still don't have a mixer. But I
> like it so be CV controlled, so save a couple of VCAs.
> But maybe I just don't know yet how to use one. The specs
> sound great, a real MOTM product. :)

I forgot to mention that I currently use my 440 as a mixer, 
if I need one. It has the added bonus that there's a filter 
built in, nice for feedback loops. ;) How much would am 830 
be different from using the 440 for mix jobs, apart from 
freeing my 440?

- Robert

Eeven with the filter all the way open and res all the way down, the 
timbre of the inputs is altered from the original.  If you want to 
mix stuff without alteration, then a mixer like the 830 is slightly 
better.  The alteration to the timbre is slight, but it's there.

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Robert van der Kamp <robnet@w...> wrote:

> On Sunday 11 January 2004 09:20, Robert van der Kamp wrote:
> 
> > And regarding the 830, I still don't have a mixer. But I
> > like it so be CV controlled, so save a couple of VCAs.
> > But maybe I just don't know yet how to use one. The specs
> > sound great, a real MOTM product. :)
> 
> I forgot to mention that I currently use my 440 as a mixer, 
> if I need one. It has the added bonus that there's a filter 
> built in, nice for feedback loops. ;) How much would am 830 
> be different from using the 440 for mix jobs, apart from 
> freeing my 440?
> 
> - Robert

>I'm about to pick my first freebie module (14 bonus points),
>and I can't decide. ;)  It's either the 120, 310, 420 or
>830.

I say go for the 120. Then add the stooge panel and daughterboard 
with extra outputs and DC-coupling switch.

Thanks for all the suggestions, guys, both public and 
private. For those interested, I picked the 420 to go with 
the one I already have. Can't wait to try the MS-20 setup. 

The 120 *will* come some day, I got very positive reviews on 
that one, especially when combined with LFO signals. But I 
thought the sound examples on the site weren't very 
convincing. And the 510 wavewarper is coming, so I'll get 
my dose of sound trashing soon enough. 

The 830 sounds like a topnotch mixer, but as I said before, 
I'd like to see CV level control, as found in the new 
Oakley CV Mixer module. But maybe I have to rethink it and 
combine the 830 with a 190 to stay in the MOTM domain. 
Maybe that's how Paul designed it: "if you want CV control, 
simply insert a VCA.". Question if the quality of a 830+190 
is really different from the Oakley CV-Mixer module. 

The 310 almost won the first prize, but I decided in the end 
to stick with the idea to get another 300 in the coming 
months.

Cheers!
Robert