MOTM

Sheesh, I'm offline for a couple hours and I miss out! (Not that I
really needed another function generator mind you...) ;-)

I got the word a couple days ago that the stooge panel silkscreens are
finally on their way to me. I should have them some time next week.
I've got a couple deadlines coming up at the day job, so I think it's
going to be hard to produce any stooge panels in the next two weeks.
At this point, I'm planning to put the shopping cart online the first
weekend in March so I'll start taking orders on Monday March 5...

--
Doug

http://www.stoogepanels.com
http://www.analognotes.com

I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
MOTM-485 filter? I'm considering this as an upgrade to the 485 once
Stooge panels start shipping again. This wouldn't require any major
surgery to the 485, but I might add a MUUB-2 board for the input
mixer (this could be optional). Here's my current plan:

1. add an IN3 jack
2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)

This 485R panel would be similar to the 440 in features. The layout
would be like this for the 7 pots and 2 switches (LP/HP Mode and
Full/Half Tracking):

IN1_pot FREQ_pot
IN2_pot RES_pot
IN3_pot FM1_pot
switches FM2_pot

and like this for the 8 jacks:

1V/OCT, FM1, FM2, RES
IN1, IN2, IN3, OUT

Any takers? Anyone want to change FREQ to FREAK?

Scott - Will and I will go for it. By the way, Will's vote is for
"FREAK." <G> Aprox. when do you figure this mod would be ready to
roll? Thanks. Bill and Will

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
> MOTM-485 filter? I'm considering this as an upgrade to the 485 once
> Stooge panels start shipping again. This wouldn't require any major
> surgery to the 485, but I might add a MUUB-2 board for the input
> mixer (this could be optional). Here's my current plan:
>
> 1. add an IN3 jack
> 2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
> 3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
> 4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>
> This 485R panel would be similar to the 440 in features. The layout
> would be like this for the 7 pots and 2 switches (LP/HP Mode and
> Full/Half Tracking):
>
> IN1_pot FREQ_pot
> IN2_pot RES_pot
> IN3_pot FM1_pot
> switches FM2_pot
>
> and like this for the 8 jacks:
>
> 1V/OCT, FM1, FM2, RES
> IN1, IN2, IN3, OUT
>
> Any takers? Anyone want to change FREQ to FREAK?
>

when the user switches from LP to HP mode, the label on the resonance
control should change to SQUEEEAAALLLL.

>Scott - Will and I will go for it. By the way, Will's vote is for
>"FREAK." <G> Aprox. when do you figure this mod would be ready to
>roll? Thanks. Bill and Will
>

Sure, I'm in for a couple. -- skw

On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Scott Juskiw wrote:

> I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
> MOTM-485 filter? I'm considering this as an upgrade to the 485 once
> Stooge panels start shipping again. This wouldn't require any major
> surgery to the 485, but I might add a MUUB-2 board for the input
> mixer (this could be optional). Here's my current plan:
>
> 1. add an IN3 jack
> 2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
> 3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
> 4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>
> This 485R panel would be similar to the 440 in features. The layout
> would be like this for the 7 pots and 2 switches (LP/HP Mode and
> Full/Half Tracking):
>
> IN1_pot FREQ_pot
> IN2_pot RES_pot
> IN3_pot FM1_pot
> switches FM2_pot
>
> and like this for the 8 jacks:
>
> 1V/OCT, FM1, FM2, RES
> IN1, IN2, IN3, OUT
>
> Any takers? Anyone want to change FREQ to FREAK?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Once Stooge panels are shipping again, I'll figure out the gain for
the input mixer. I like to drive my filters hard (all inputs at 10),
I'm not sure how much pain the 485 can take. This would be a trivial
modification to make: 2 jacks, 4 pots, one op-amp, a few resistors,
and some wire. Would probably take an hour to do.

At 9:42 PM +0000 2007/02/19, wjhall11 wrote:

>Scott - Will and I will go for it. By the way, Will's vote is for
>"FREAK." <G> Aprox. when do you figure this mod would be ready to
>roll? Thanks. Bill and Will
>
>
>
>--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>> MOTM-485 filter? I'm considering this as an upgrade to the 485 once
>> Stooge panels start shipping again. This wouldn't require any major
>> surgery to the 485, but I might add a MUUB-2 board for the input
>> mixer (this could be optional). Here's my current plan:
>>
>> 1. add an IN3 jack
>> 2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
>> 3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
>> 4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>>
>> This 485R panel would be similar to the 440 in features. The layout
>> would be like this for the 7 pots and 2 switches (LP/HP Mode and
>> Full/Half Tracking):
>>
>> IN1_pot FREQ_pot
>> IN2_pot RES_pot
>> IN3_pot FM1_pot
>> switches FM2_pot
>>
>> and like this for the 8 jacks:
>>
>> 1V/OCT, FM1, FM2, RES
>> IN1, IN2, IN3, OUT
>>
> > Any takers? Anyone want to change FREQ to FREAK?

At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:

>I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>MOTM-485 filter? [snip] Here's my current plan:
>
>1. add an IN3 jack
>2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
>3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
>4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>[snip]

This raises an interesting question, and perhaps some folks will
share their opinions on this.

Some months back, Tony Allgood asked the Oakley list for opinions on
creating more 1U VCF modules, and there was definitely interest ***
in compact filters, the idea being that you will also have some
general purpose mixers to use as needed. This makes sense where you
want a lot of different VCFs in one synth; you tend not to use all
the filters at once, so why have built-in mixers that aren't doing
anything except comsuming front panel space? If you are using several
of the filters simultaneously, you are probably spreading the signals
around so much that you don't need mixing capability on most of them, anyway.

*** (I'm sure that some people were not hip to the compact filter
concept, too. Different strokes for different folks.)

So, compact filters and separate mixers, or "fully-featured" filters
with built-in mixers: What's your preference, and why?

I'll go first: I like the idea of compact filters, especially if they
are all 1U and (I can dream, right?) they all have the same layout.
Then I'd put a 2U dual mixer to the left of my "VCF bank", and
probably a 1U triple attenuator/distributor module, too.

By the way -- and I would hope this is obvious -- this is not meant
to sway Scott from what he's planning to do. Even if I could do so, I
have no reason to do so! I'm just always curious to see how different
people approach their synths.
--
john


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007 4:35 PM

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. I used to think that a "no
knob" filter was the way to go. Just an audio input jack, and audio
output jack, and two CV inputs: one for frequency, and the other for
resonance. Four jacks, no knobs whatsoever, and use external mixers
for the audio inputs, the frequency, and resonance (if the external
mixers can also handle a DC offset). But slowly I started turning to
the other camp. I found that I used several audio inputs on each
filter, and several for frequency everytime I used my synth.
Sometimes I needed more than just FM1, FM2, and the V/OCT input, and
I had to use an external mixer in addition to the integrated ones.
So, for me (right now, this week), I prefer the integrated mixer
approach. I'll eat my hat now.

With the 485R, I'd like three inputs with attenuators and at least
another FM input. So if I were to use Oakley multi-mixers, I'd need
two, which would take up 3U in total (two mixers plus the 485). So in
this instance, the 2U 485R is more compact for my needs.

At 8:52 PM -0500 2007/02/19, John Mahoney wrote:

>At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>
>>I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>>MOTM-485 filter? [snip] Here's my current plan:
>>
>>1. add an IN3 jack
>>2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
>>3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
>>4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>>[snip]
>
>This raises an interesting question, and perhaps some folks will
>share their opinions on this.
>
>Some months back, Tony Allgood asked the Oakley list for opinions on
>creating more 1U VCF modules, and there was definitely interest ***
>in compact filters, the idea being that you will also have some
>general purpose mixers to use as needed. This makes sense where you
>want a lot of different VCFs in one synth; you tend not to use all
>the filters at once, so why have built-in mixers that aren't doing
>anything except comsuming front panel space? If you are using
>several of the filters simultaneously, you are probably spreading
>the signals around so much that you don't need mixing capability on
>most of them, anyway.
>
>*** (I'm sure that some people were not hip to the compact filter
>concept, too. Different strokes for different folks.)
>
>So, compact filters and separate mixers, or "fully-featured" filters
>with built-in mixers: What's your preference, and why?
>
>I'll go first: I like the idea of compact filters, especially if
>they are all 1U and (I can dream, right?) they all have the same
>layout. Then I'd put a 2U dual mixer to the left of my "VCF bank",
>and probably a 1U triple attenuator/distributor module, too.
>
>By the way -- and I would hope this is obvious -- this is not meant
>to sway Scott from what he's planning to do. Even if I could do so,
>I have no reason to do so! I'm just always curious to see how
>different people approach their synths.
>--
>john
>

Heck, I go round and round on this one! If you only use a couple of VCFs in
your patches, having separate mixers allows you to make extra panel space
available for more 1U filter modules. But, if you use most of your filters
in a patch, you could easily exhaust the number of spare mixers in the rack
thereby limiting your patch. But then, separate mixers eat up patch cords
(and it *sucks* to make patch cords). However, separate mixers offer more
flexibility for the system as a whole. And you can always replace mixers
with other modules if they go unused for periods of time. I guess I would
lean towards separate mixers [today], but then, I like big systems and
convenience. I guess it comes down to a) how you use your filters, b) how
much space you have in your system (SKB or Darmok), and c) how many patch
cords you have (and do you like to solder wires??). Another thread to
ponder: what are the electrical benefits to having mixers built into a
module...

George

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mahoney" <jmahoney@...>
To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Scott Juskiw" <scott@...>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-485R


> At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>
> >I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
> >MOTM-485 filter? [snip] Here's my current plan:
> >
> >1. add an IN3 jack
> >2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
> >3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
> >4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
> >[snip]
>
> This raises an interesting question, and perhaps some folks will
> share their opinions on this.
> [snip]
>
> So, compact filters and separate mixers, or "fully-featured" filters
> with built-in mixers: What's your preference, and why?
>
> I'll go first: I like the idea of compact filters, especially if they
> are all 1U and (I can dream, right?) they all have the same layout.
> Then I'd put a 2U dual mixer to the left of my "VCF bank", and
> probably a 1U triple attenuator/distributor module, too.
>
> By the way -- and I would hope this is obvious -- this is not meant
> to sway Scott from what he's planning to do. Even if I could do so, I
> have no reason to do so! I'm just always curious to see how different
> people approach their synths.
> --
> john

At 09:50 PM 2/19/2007, groovyshaman wrote:

>[snip] Another thread to
>ponder: what are the electrical benefits to having mixers built into a
>module...
>
>George

About the only reason to avoid integrated mixers is to save front
panel area, I guess.

Aside from the font panels, adding mixers is practically free --
basically just another jack, pot, and resistor per input, since the
summing amps are already there. That's a strong argument for building
in more inputs with attenuators. Scott makes a good case for
integrated mixing; you could say that having Mixers Everywhere (TM,
haha) provides you with more patching options.

Electrically, the on-board mixers keep the signal from going through
2 inverting op amps, right? And some patch cords.

The longer I think about this, the more I flip-flop! Thanks for the
input, guys... I think. ;-)
--
john


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007 4:35 PM

I made 1U FPE panel designs for the MOTM 420 and 440 (and the 700). I
never built these, of course, because there isn't much point in
rebuilding nice 2U panels and giving up the extra inputs and
attenuators. Now that you can buy the PC boards for DIY, this is a
viable option. I look at this sort of thing as a design dilemma. You
can't have it both ways: the panel can be either sparse or full. The
Oakley "filter core" approach adds extra resistors and connector pads on
the board for additional audio and CV inputs. Just add more pots if you
want to. You can make a 1U, 2U, or 3U panel. For the SuperLadder I
compromised with a 2U. (photos to be forthcoming on my website)

As for a 2U expansion panel for the MOTM-485, why not?

Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com

Scott Juskiw wrote:

> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. I used to think that a "no
> knob" filter was the way to go. Just an audio input jack, and audio
> output jack, and two CV inputs: one for frequency, and the other for
> resonance. Four jacks, no knobs whatsoever, and use external mixers
> for the audio inputs, the frequency, and resonance (if the external
> mixers can also handle a DC offset). But slowly I started turning to
> the other camp. I found that I used several audio inputs on each
> filter, and several for frequency everytime I used my synth.
> Sometimes I needed more than just FM1, FM2, and the V/OCT input, and
> I had to use an external mixer in addition to the integrated ones.
> So, for me (right now, this week), I prefer the integrated mixer
> approach. I'll eat my hat now.
>
> With the 485R, I'd like three inputs with attenuators and at least
> another FM input. So if I were to use Oakley multi-mixers, I'd need
> two, which would take up 3U in total (two mixers plus the 485). So in
> this instance, the 2U 485R is more compact for my needs.
>
> At 8:52 PM -0500 2007/02/19, John Mahoney wrote:
>
>> At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>>> MOTM-485 filter? [snip] Here's my current plan:
>>>
>>> 1. add an IN3 jack
>>> 2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
>>> 3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
>>> 4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>>> [snip]
>>>
>> This raises an interesting question, and perhaps some folks will
>> share their opinions on this.
>>
>> Some months back, Tony Allgood asked the Oakley list for opinions on
>> creating more 1U VCF modules, and there was definitely interest ***
>> in compact filters, the idea being that you will also have some
>> general purpose mixers to use as needed. This makes sense where you
>> want a lot of different VCFs in one synth; you tend not to use all
>> the filters at once, so why have built-in mixers that aren't doing
>> anything except comsuming front panel space? If you are using
>> several of the filters simultaneously, you are probably spreading
>> the signals around so much that you don't need mixing capability on
>> most of them, anyway.
>>
>> *** (I'm sure that some people were not hip to the compact filter
>> concept, too. Different strokes for different folks.)
>>
>> So, compact filters and separate mixers, or "fully-featured" filters
>> with built-in mixers: What's your preference, and why?
>>
>> I'll go first: I like the idea of compact filters, especially if
>> they are all 1U and (I can dream, right?) they all have the same
>> layout. Then I'd put a 2U dual mixer to the left of my "VCF bank",
>> and probably a 1U triple attenuator/distributor module, too.
>>
>> By the way -- and I would hope this is obvious -- this is not meant
>> to sway Scott from what he's planning to do. Even if I could do so,
>> I have no reason to do so! I'm just always curious to see how
>> different people approach their synths.
>> --
>> john
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I just happened to hit Scott's web site again for the first time in a few
years, and holy crap that machine has become a beast! Four expanded
miniwaves????!!!!
http://www.tellun.com/motm/darmok/darmok.html

George

On 2/19/07, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:

> I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
> MOTM-485 filter?

I'm interested... :-)

Doug

http://www.stoogepanels.com
http://www.analognotes.com

P.S. I now have the stooge silkscreens in my possession! I'm in the
process of looking through them all and setting up jigs so that I can
get consistent results. I'm also working on the web site so that I'll
have diagrams of the panels for everybody to see before they order.
Stay tuned...

At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:

>I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>MOTM-485 filter? ...

After the discussion, I'm interested. :-D

>Any takers? Anyone want to change FREQ to FREAK?

Sure! Nothing wrong with a little silliness.
--
john


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.2/692 - Release Date: 2/18/2007 4:35 PM

And two Wavewarpers! But I don't understand why Scott has only one
Veeblefetzer. He has at least two of everything else (except Sword of
Kahless). I have two Veeblefetzers and I love them. Scott, you need
another Veeblefetzer.

http://www.pugix.com/top-cabinet.htm#veeblefetzer

-Richard Brewster

groovyshaman wrote:

> I just happened to hit Scott's web site again for the first time in a few
> years, and holy crap that machine has become a beast! Four expanded
> miniwaves????!!!!
> http://www.tellun.com/motm/darmok/darmok.html
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>

I've posted details about my latest MUUB based utility module (tuner
and headphone monitor):

http://www.tellun.com/motm/diy/tln867/TLN-867.html

Thanks to David Brown for making the A440 tone generator that started
me on this project.

Hi Scott -

Will and I had been considering this module already.

Now we've emailed David Brown re the chips.

How about the stooge panel?

I (Bill) am particularly interested in such a gadget because of my
need for tuning my acoustic instruments - guitars, piano, etc. - an
although we're using the incredible TuneLab Pro software
(http://www.tunelab-world.com) to tune our piano and other instuments
- it would be great to have a reliable A440 reference whith which to
tune our oscillators and - even - the TuneLab Pro.

Thanks much, Scott.

Bill and Will

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> I've posted details about my latest MUUB based utility module (tuner
> and headphone monitor):
>
> http://www.tellun.com/motm/diy/tln867/TLN-867.html
>
> Thanks to David Brown for making the A440 tone generator that started
> me on this project.
>