MOTM

On 11-Dec-08, at 12:00 PM, Aaron Day wrote:

> I have stopped using mine because of the crashes. I thought about
> selling it but have held off for the hopes that it would, someday,
> become reliable.
>
> So, I'll add my voice to the issue. I think its a fair question.
>
> ad
>
>

>
>MOTM-650: love the hardware, hate the software.

On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Ti_ wrote:
>
> Has anyone else had any issues with channels 3&4 in particular?
> Mine are all sorts of funky when it comes to attempting a full
> 1/1/1/1 style patching. Here's a short basic description:
> > Channels 1&2 seem to work fine no matter what. The wierd stuff is
> between 3&4.
> They both work fine on any midi channel...but ONLY as long as they
> are both set to the same midi channel.
> If 3 is on a different channel than 4 it only produces about 2
> octaves untill the pitch hangs and won't go any higher
> and 4 acts the same way. All of the VG's are in solo monophonic
> mode. Both Arppegiators are Off.
> The firmware installed is 1.3<
> The specifics got even more bizarre as I dug deeper into the issue
> but that's the basis of it. I've always wanted to use the 650 to
> essentially be able to send out 4 separate melodies, harmonies, and
> or bass lines, but I can essentially only output 2 lines and
> occasionally I just use 3&4 for triggers since that's about all I
> can count on working as it does.
> ~Tim
>
> From: J.D. McEachin <jdm@...>
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:39:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] 650 OS Update?
>
> At 10:52 AM 12/11/2008 -0800, James Elliott wrote:
> > Any news?
>
> Sorry, health problems have severely limited my time & energy.
>
> > I am encountering a very frustrating issue with my new 650.
>
> Sorry to hear that. Which version of the firmware do you have?
>
> At 01:10 PM 12/11/2008 -0700, Scott Juskiw wrote:
> >
> >MOTM-650: love the hardware, hate the software.
>
> How so?
>
> JD
>
>
>
>
>


NOTICE: This electronic mail message and its contents, including any attachments hereto (collectively, "this e-mail"), is hereby designated as "confidential and proprietary." This e-mail�may be viewed and used only by the person to whom it has been sent and his/her employer�solely for the express purpose for which it has been disclosed and only in�accordance with any confidentiality or non-disclosure (or similar) agreement between TEAC Corporation or its affiliates and said employer, and may not be disclosed to any other person or entity. �
�




�

On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Ti_ wrote:
>
> Has anyone else had any issues with channels 3&4 in particular?
> Mine are all sorts of funky when it comes to attempting a full
> 1/1/1/1 style patching. Here's a short basic description:
> > Channels 1&2 seem to work fine no matter what. The wierd stuff is
> between 3&4.
> They both work fine on any midi channel...but ONLY as long as they
> are both set to the same midi channel.
> If 3 is on a different channel than 4 it only produces about 2
> octaves untill the pitch hangs and won't go any higher
> and 4 acts the same way. All of the VG's are in solo monophonic
> mode. Both Arppegiators are Off.
> The firmware installed is 1.3<
> The specifics got even more bizarre as I dug deeper into the issue
> but that's the basis of it. I've always wanted to use the 650 to
> essentially be able to send out 4 separate melodies, harmonies, and
> or bass lines, but I can essentially only output 2 lines and
> occasionally I just use 3&4 for triggers since that's about all I
> can count on working as it does.
> ~Tim
>
> From: J.D. McEachin <jdm@...>
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:39:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] 650 OS Update?
>
> At 10:52 AM 12/11/2008 -0800, James Elliott wrote:
> > Any news?
>
> Sorry, health problems have severely limited my time & energy.
>
> > I am encountering a very frustrating issue with my new 650.
>
> Sorry to hear that. Which version of the firmware do you have?
>
> At 01:10 PM 12/11/2008 -0700, Scott Juskiw wrote:
> >
> >MOTM-650: love the hardware, hate the software.
>
> How so?
>
> JD
>
>
>
>
>


NOTICE: This electronic mail message and its contents, including any attachments hereto (collectively, "this e-mail"), is hereby designated as "confidential and proprietary." This e-mail may be viewed and used only by the person to whom it has been sent and his/her employer solely for the express purpose for which it has been disclosed and only in accordance with any confidentiality or non-disclosure (or similar) agreement between TEAC Corporation or its affiliates and said employer, and may not be disclosed to any other person or entity.







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:motm-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:motm-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

On Dec 11, 2008, at 7:25 PM, djbrow54 wrote:

> 650 MIDI clock and external MIDI clock differ by 2X. Would be nice
> if someone else could verify this. It's been so long since I looked
> at this I don't remember if it's too fast or too slow.
>
> Dave
>

> I just sent MIDI clock from Logic 8 and at "1x" it
> plays 16th notes. I
> assume that's correct.
>
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 7:25 PM, djbrow54 wrote:
>
> > 650 MIDI clock and external MIDI clock differ by
> 2X. Would be nice
> > if someone else could verify this. It's been so
> long since I looked
> > at this I don't remember if it's too fast or too
> slow.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Neil Bradley <nb@...> wrote:
>
> > 650 MIDI clock and external MIDI clock differ by 2X. Would be
nice
> > if someone else could verify this. It's been so long since I
looked
> > at this I don't remember if it's too fast or too slow.
>
> Are you 100% sure that you didn't have MIDI clock multiplication
turned
> on?
>
> -->Neil
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> C. Neil Bradley - EVERYBODY KERNEL PANIC!
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Neil Bradley <nb@...> wrote:
> > 650 MIDI clock and external MIDI clock differ by 2X. Would be
> > nice if someone else could verify this. It's been so long since
> > I looked at this I don't remember if it's too fast or too slow.
>
> Are you 100% sure that you didn't have MIDI clock multiplication
> turned on?
>
> -->Neil

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@...> wrote:
> I re-setup my system. The only MIDI clock multiplier I know is for
> the arpeggiator. ARP1 is set to 1X and ARP2 is off. I'm using the
> clock output from channel 1 (Aux=clock).
>
> If I set the clock to internal at 120 bpm, I get clock pulses
> at 125 mS, or 8/second, 480/minute. At 4 clocks per quarter
> note, =120 BPM.
>
> Now if I leave everything exactly the same, and set the clock to
> MIDI, and set my controller to 120 BPM, the clock is now 250 mS or
> 1/2 the frequency. Shouldn't these be the same frequency?
>
> I believe the 650 is dividing the MIDI clock 2X too much.
>
> Somebody else please check this. Am I missing a clock setting
> somewhere?
>
> Dave
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Neil Bradley <nb@> wrote:
> > > 650 MIDI clock and external MIDI clock differ by 2X. Would be
> > > nice if someone else could verify this. It's been so long since
> > > I looked at this I don't remember if it's too fast or too slow.
> >
> > Are you 100% sure that you didn't have MIDI clock multiplication
> > turned on?
> >
> > -->Neil
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@...> wrote:
>
> I pulled out my Alesis HR-16 drum machine and verified that a 120
> BPM setting produced 250 mS clocks from the MOTM-650 while the
> internal clock generates 125 mS clocks. I've now verified equal
> results with two different external midi clock sources. I get 1/2
> the clock rate with an external midi source when compared to the
> internal clock. I believe the internal clock is correct and the
> external midi clock is divided too low.
>
> I also verified the ArpClkDv setting has no affect on the clock
> output as I would have expected.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@> wrote:
> > I re-setup my system. The only MIDI clock multiplier I know is
> > for the arpeggiator. ARP1 is set to 1X and ARP2 is off. I'm
> > using the clock output from channel 1 (Aux=clock).
> >
> > If I set the clock to internal at 120 bpm, I get clock pulses
> > at 125 mS, or 8/second, 480/minute. At 4 clocks per quarter
> > note, =120 BPM.
> >
> > Now if I leave everything exactly the same, and set the clock to
> > MIDI, and set my controller to 120 BPM, the clock is now 250 mS
or
> > 1/2 the frequency. Shouldn't these be the same frequency?
> >
> > I believe the 650 is dividing the MIDI clock 2X too much.
> >
> > Somebody else please check this. Am I missing a clock setting
> > somewhere?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Neil Bradley <nb@> wrote:
> > > > 650 MIDI clock and external MIDI clock differ by 2X. Would be
> > > > nice if someone else could verify this. It's been so long
since
> > > > I looked at this I don't remember if it's too fast or too
slow.
> > >
> > > Are you 100% sure that you didn't have MIDI clock multiplication
> > > turned on?
> > >
> > > -->Neil
> >
>

>So, is my request for a meaningful update just going to go ignored?
>
>Well, if 'update' means "something new to report", then there is no update.
>
>To spell it out:
>
>a) I did not write the code
>b) I do not have access to the code
>c) the person who has the code is aware of the problems, but has had ongoing
>health issues. I have emailed him several times, and gotten no response.
>d) I have NO IDEA if, or when, a code update will happen
>e) I have taken corrective measures for future modules (both in HW and SW)
>to assure this situation does not happen again
>f) if anyone is unhappy with any MOTM module, for any reason, just email me.
>I will issue a refund *immediately* upon it's return.
>
>Paul S.
>

> is the source to the 650 available?
>
> in the absence of the original author, maybe the community could have
> a go at fixing it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>So, is my request for a meaningful update just going to go ignored?
>>
>>Well, if 'update' means "something new to report", then there is no
>> update.
>>
>>To spell it out:
>>
>>a) I did not write the code
>>b) I do not have access to the code
>>c) the person who has the code is aware of the problems, but has had
>> ongoing
>>health issues. I have emailed him several times, and gotten no response.
>>d) I have NO IDEA if, or when, a code update will happen
>>e) I have taken corrective measures for future modules (both in HW and
>> SW)
>>to assure this situation does not happen again
>>f) if anyone is unhappy with any MOTM module, for any reason, just email
>> me.
>>I will issue a refund *immediately* upon it's return.
>>
>>Paul S.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

---A post from Paul a week or so ago states that he does not have access
to the code--very scary!

> is the source to the 650 available?
>
> in the absence of the original author, maybe the community could have
> a go at fixing it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>So, is my request for a meaningful update just going to go ignored?
>>
>>Well, if 'update' means "something new to report", then there is no
>> update.
>>
>>To spell it out:
>>
>>a) I did not write the code
>>b) I do not have access to the code
>>c) the person who has the code is aware of the problems, but has had
>> ongoing
>>health issues. I have emailed him several times, and gotten no response.
>>d) I have NO IDEA if, or when, a code update will happen
>>e) I have taken corrective measures for future modules (both in HW and
>> SW)
>>to assure this situation does not happen again
>>f) if anyone is unhappy with any MOTM module, for any reason, just email
>> me.
>>I will issue a refund *immediately* upon it's return.
>>
>>Paul S.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

--
John Blacet

>I think it is Paul's responsibility to get the SW going but that
>doesn't mean we can't help.

On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Jason Proctor wrote:

>
> >He wrote me and said the same thing. It sounds kind of cheesy but
> >maybe we could send a group letter to the SW engineer and ask/plead
> >that he release it.
>
> in any case, it doesn't need to be a full scale distribution, where
> dodgy things like rights get involved. more like an expansion of the
> development team :-)
>
>
>