MOTM

That makes TWO of us!!

Paul S.
<<still trying to sort things out!>>


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Bradley <daveb@...>
To: motm@onelist.com <motm@onelist.com>
Date: Sunday, March 14, 1999 2:28 PM
Subject: [motm] Re: MOTM 55

>From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
>
>What I meant was, I'm finally getting into the game and ordering modules
>instead of sitting on the sidelines drooling. Over the coming weeks, I
>expect to be doing some soldering instead of posting way too many messages

a

>day and playing with bitmaps!
>
>Besides, there's been so much discussion about the mixer that I'm confused
>as to how Paul will actually finalize it.
>
>Dave Bradley
>Principal Software Engineer
>Engineering Animation, Inc.
>daveb@...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 3:11 PM
>> To: motm@onelist.com
>> Subject: [motm] Re: Triple bandpass filter stereo?
>>
>>
>> From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
>>
>> Hey, is this fair? Build before the kit is released? <grin>
>> Larry H
>>
>> ----------
>> > From: Dave Bradley <daveb@...>
>> > To: motm@onelist.com
>> > Subject: [motm] Re: Triple bandpass filter stereo?
>> > Date: Sunday, March 14, 1999 1:14 PM
>> >
>> > From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
>> >
>> > I think I'll quit while I'm ahead, and actually BUILD the MOTM
>> 55 instead
>> of
>> > faking it.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>We have a new web site!
>http://www.onelist.com
>Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services
>

> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> That makes TWO of us!!

Well, If I have this right this is supposed to be a "utility" mixer.
Right? So, if I have this right (and correct me if I am wrong) it is
supposed to serve two basic purposes - 1. mix two or more DCs into a single
output, and 2 - mix 2 or more AC signals into a signal output. so, this
would be good for mixing two or three oscillators for a single voice into
one filter (use 2). Or, mixing another DC for controlling the osc or other
module if the modules inputs were not enough.

So, even though we could think of 1000 features this little mixer out to
have, I think the one thing we (most) agree on is that it should function
as 6-in, 1-out or 3-in, 2-out, and should work AC or DC. As long as it
does those things, it will meet the basic criteria.

In my limited way of thinking it would be nice to have the ability to use
one for DC and one for AC at the same time. Whether we switch between 3:2
and 6:1 modes with a switching jack or switch is secondary. And quite
frankly, unless I am missing the obvious, "would one absolutely require a
master output control?" I really don't like the idea of a dual master that
controls both sides because you might have separate uses. So, here's
another idea to kick around:

In 6:1 mode you have a single master. In 3:2 mode, you have one of the
3:1's with a master and one of the 3:1's without a master. That way MOTM
rules are not violated by non functional knobs. And, when the mixers are
separate, you have one of each kind - with and without master. Now, you
are back down to 7 knobs which should leave room for everything else
(including the switch to go from 6:1 to 3:2).

I wrote:

> So, even though we could think of 1000 features this little mixer out to
> have,

I am really not this illiterate, just lazy when sending e-mail to list.
Larry

In a message dated 3/14/99 2:41:58 PM, jlarryh@... writes:

>And quite
>frankly, unless I am missing the obvious, "would one absolutely require
>a
>master output control?"

I actually would dispute this. In a number of circumstances your output is
being patched into an attenuating input, so the output level is redundant in
that instance; however, there will be that occasional time where you'll need
it and so it's worth it.

My idea one more time:
1) one 3 position switch to determine if the output level only affects
OUTPUT1, OUTPUT2, or BOTH (middle position).

2) One two position switch to determine if the mixer is in 6X1, or 2X(3X1)
mode.

3) If the input from 1 is normalled to input 4, but the mixer is in the
2X(3X1) mode, then you have one input going to two level controls (1,4),
through a dual ganged master output level, to two separate outputs (STEREO).
You don't have a PAN control, just a LEFT and RIGHT level control for each
input. In the same way normal 2 to 5, and 3 to 6, for three input stereo
output. Isn't that the idea Dave?

A picture is worth a thousand words!
JB

I wrote:
"would one absolutely require a master output control?"

> From: JWBarlow@...
> I actually would dispute this. In a number of circumstances your output

is

> being patched into an attenuating input, so the output level is redundant

in

> that instance; however, there will be that occasional time where you'll

need

> it and so it's worth it.

John, I'm glad to hear your "dispute." Hopefully our sharing of differing
opinions will ultimately result in the best of all ideas (within reason).
However, I must now question your own dispute (in a friendly way of
course). It seems to me that your last sentence above indicates that
sometimes you do and sometimes you don't need a master output control. I
agree 100% with that statement. So, I still assert that my suggestion for
one 6:1 master level that stays with "only" one of the 3:2 mixers makes a
lot of sense. When you split the mixer, one half has master and one does
not. Apply the one with a master on the "occasional time" you need it.

> My idea one more time:
> 1) one 3 position switch to determine if the output level only affects
> OUTPUT1, OUTPUT2, or BOTH (middle position).
>
> 2) One two position switch to determine if the mixer is in 6X1, or

2X(3X1)

> mode.
>
> 3) If the input from 1 is normalled to input 4, but the mixer is in the
> 2X(3X1) mode, then you have one input going to two level controls (1,4),
> through a dual ganged master output level, to two separate outputs

(STEREO).

> You don't have a PAN control, just a LEFT and RIGHT level control for

each

> input. In the same way normal 2 to 5, and 3 to 6, for three input stereo
> output. Isn't that the idea Dave?

Well, all that sounds OK. BUT (dang these's always a "but" ain't there?),
I would rather not see the "simple utility mixer" that Paul originally
proposed grow into a $200 module. Can't we have one that is fairly simple
and affordable so we can have more than one? Maybe later, we can have a
"full featured" output mixer that we might only have one of. For now, I
would rather have an affordable utility mixer and use a commercial audio
mixer for my output mixer.

Anyhow, just my $.02. And please keep in mind it's a pretty cheap $.02
since I really don't have enough experience to know exactly what I will
want/need. Unfortunately, ignorance does not keep me from having an
opinion. And no, I did not steal that last statement from a Dan Quale
speech. <grin>

Larry Hendry

Hi All,

One of the most inspiring aspects of a list such as the MOTM list is that it
is a powerful medium for debate about the use and development of current and
future MOTM modules (and many related concepts as well). Yesterday I disputed
the premise of Larry's conjecture: "a mixer must always have an output level
control!" I proposed his argument was flawed due to certain particulars of
most EM equipment having an attenuating input thereby defeating the need for
said output level control. Of course a medium such as the MOTM list is useful
for arriving at a rational conclusion after an informed dialectic, and such
conclusions should not be driven by ego, but rather a striving towards
perfection in analog EM modules. It is in such a spirit of striving for
perfection, free debate, intellectual respect that I offer the following
suggestion: eat my shorts Larry!

In a message dated 3/14/99 7:47:28 PM, "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
wrote:

>I would rather not see the "simple utility mixer" that Paul originally
>proposed grow into a $200 module. Can't we have one that is fairly simple
>and affordable so we can have more than one? Maybe later, we can have a
>"full featured" output mixer that we might only have one of. For now, I
>would rather have an affordable utility mixer and use a commercial audio
>mixer for my output mixer.

I actually agree with you here, though I don't think my ideas would increase
the cost of the mixer too much. Paul's 6X1 mixer has seven pots and knobs
($70) already. My suggestions will only add 2 switches, 2 opamps, and a few
short wires (not much cost). The idea being the more you can make a module do,
the less likely it is to sit idle.

BUT! Here's my proposition for the CHEAPEST MOTM mixer possible (Why? Because
it has NO features!).

1) Three inputs (one unity gain, two attenuated).
2) No output level.
3) A 1U panel with three input jacks, one output jack, and two input level
knobs.
4) Maybe the cheapest MOTM KIT possible (maybe even under $80).

OK Larry! You don't need to eat my shorts!
Synth Peon
JB

> From: JWBarlow@...
> It is in such a spirit of striving for
> perfection, free debate, intellectual respect that I offer the following
> suggestion: eat my shorts Larry!

You say the sweetest things <grin>.

> I actually agree with you here.......<<snip>> (editor's progative) :)

What? Really ?

> The idea being the more you can make a module do,
> the less likely it is to sit idle.

No arguement there.

> OK Larry! You don't need to eat my shorts!

Darn, I was just getting used to the idea. Actually, I think we all want
about the same thing -- A utility mixer. I truely am not picky about
features, long as it works. But, I would rather have two 6 x 1 mixers if
I could get them for the same price as one 6:1 or 3:2 with panning,
switching, voltage control, etc. I'm sure when its all said and done, Paul
will build us something nice and we will all buy one or two of them.
Except of course Steve, who will buy 5.

Larry (speaking his last opinion about mixers) <g>

In a message dated 3/15/99 8:42:40 PM, Larry wrote:

>I'm sure when its all said and done, Paul
>will build us something nice and we will all buy one or two of them.
>Except of course Steve, who will buy 5.

And here we are all in agreement. From the proverbial thesis, to antithesis,
to synthesis! The so called dialectical synthesis: it predates the so called
analog and digital synthesis by more than one hundred years!

Synth Peon
JB

> From: JWBarlow@...
> And here we are all in agreement. From the proverbial thesis, to

antithesis,

> to synthesis! The so called dialectical synthesis: it predates the so

called

> analog and digital synthesis by more than one hundred years!

OK John. Whatever you say.... rushing to find my dictionary... <g>
Larry