MOTM

> I see.  There are either 3 or 6 lfos/filters per oscillator depending on
> whether the 520 has 8 or 16 oscillators, which is still unknown.
>

There are 16 VCOs (the original design had 8). There are 2 LFOs per VCO
plus LFOs for the noise generators. 48 total.

> The Sine and Pulse waves on one board and the Saw and Tri on the other.
> That's a very awkward split in functions.  It's going to be expensive to
> get
> those much sought after supersaw waves.  I had thought this was because
> there wasn't room on the 520 panel because you didn't want to go 3U.  But
> then the CGX is going to be 3U.  Seems backwards to me.
>

This is a result of a 100% redesign in the hardware from the original plan.
The
original hardware was restricted to Sine/Pulse *only*.
I already had the panels fabricated. Also, delaying the project up to this
point
allowed technology to 'catch up' so that having the CGX available allowed
all of these additional feature. The price of CG + CGX < ZO. The ZO is very
cool, but it is a 'one trick pony' (yes, I bought one, too). I think you
will
discover the CG + CGX is almost a self-contained synth, all it needs are
48 EGs and 48 VCAs and it's a monophonic Synergy II /Synclavier :)

> Ah.  It's nice to see it return, although you should have reconsidered not
> holding back and going with a full 15 band FFB.
>
I can always jiggle the passbands around (it's just capacitor ratios).
>
> The only small knobs that would go with the style of the other MOTM
> modules
> would be the smaller sized MOTM knobs like those used on the Encore UEG.
>

I still plan to use the PKES knobs when possible. However, the industry is
getting away
more and more from generic round 1/4" shafts.

Paul S.