MOTM

> a) I know Cynthia is reading all this (HI!!) so I'll let her responsed
> *if* she decides to.
>
> Suffice it to say: the MOTM format was very successful and was the
> *primary reason* I decided to drop the kits other than time/Paul H.
> situation.
>
> Reason it out from that. Hint: it wasn't because she sold *39* of them.
>
> b) Maybe I missed doing my homework but what other 5U pulse-diving module
> that was available in Oct 2008:
>
> 1) had fractional division (/2.5, /7.5, etc)
> 2) had a stepped voltage out that tracked the clock and had switchable,
> quantized voltages
> 3) had 16 simultaneous outputs
> 4) had *voltage-controlled* dividing over the range of 1.5 to 33?
>
> I don't think *anyone* had a *single one* of these features, much less
> *all of them in the same module*.
>
> c) please don't get me wrong: I'm not here pointing fingers. I'm trying to
> get a *concrete idea* what to do, because frankly Euro is stomping 5U in
> the marketplace for *whatever* reason. It's cheaper, it's smaller, it's
> "off the shelf" and has funny names. Whatever........
>
> If 5U is mostly a "solder monkey's paradise" unless a 'magical thing'
> appears that everyone wants (but no one can *predict* or visualize
> beforehand) that's a perfectly legimate thing to grasp. If 5U existing
> customers are "mature" in their rigs and only 20-40 modules per design is
> the TAM (Total Available Market) then OK, those modules are going to be
> $500-$600 (go take a gander at Modcan's prices). If .com wants to be the
> de facto 5U source, OK then. If JH is leading the way for the pc board
> market, hell I buy them, too!
>
> There is *no way* I can compete with .com, because he has 7 full-time,
> paid employees (and his wife Margo is a CPA and does all the orders/office
> stuff as well) that are supported by Arrick Robotics (www.robotics.com).
> I got me and Shane the tech.
>
> I agree that having stock it about the best solution.Been trying to get
> there for 12 years :)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
>
> [resending, sorry if it double posts. My email ISP is a flake]
>
>
>
> > a) I know Cynthia is reading all this (HI!!) so I'll let her responsed
> > *if* she decides to.
> >
> > Suffice it to say: the MOTM format was very successful and was the
> > *primary reason* I decided to drop the kits other than time/Paul H.
> > situation.
> >
> > Reason it out from that. Hint: it wasn't because she sold *39* of them.
> >
> > b) Maybe I missed doing my homework but what other 5U pulse-diving module
> > that was available in Oct 2008:
> >
> > 1) had fractional division (/2.5, /7.5, etc)
> > 2) had a stepped voltage out that tracked the clock and had switchable,
> > quantized voltages
> > 3) had 16 simultaneous outputs
> > 4) had *voltage-controlled* dividing over the range of 1.5 to 33?
> >
> > I don't think *anyone* had a *single one* of these features, much less
> > *all of them in the same module*.
> >
> > c) please don't get me wrong: I'm not here pointing fingers. I'm trying to
> > get a *concrete idea* what to do, because frankly Euro is stomping 5U in
> > the marketplace for *whatever* reason. It's cheaper, it's smaller, it's
> > "off the shelf" and has funny names. Whatever........
> >
> > If 5U is mostly a "solder monkey's paradise" unless a 'magical thing'
> > appears that everyone wants (but no one can *predict* or visualize
> > beforehand) that's a perfectly legimate thing to grasp. If 5U existing
> > customers are "mature" in their rigs and only 20-40 modules per design is
> > the TAM (Total Available Market) then OK, those modules are going to be
> > $500-$600 (go take a gander at Modcan's prices). If .com wants to be the
> > de facto 5U source, OK then. If JH is leading the way for the pc board
> > market, hell I buy them, too!
> >
> > There is *no way* I can compete with .com, because he has 7 full-time,
> > paid employees (and his wife Margo is a CPA and does all the orders/office
> > stuff as well) that are supported by Arrick Robotics (www.robotics.com).
> > I got me and Shane the tech.
> >
> > I agree that having stock it about the best solution.Been trying to get
> > there for 12 years :)
> >
> > Paul S.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> Here's my suggestion. Unleash the hounds! Scrap the super versions.
> Simply take a few dozen completed SMT boards for the E340 and E350 and
> mail them to Bridechamber, STG and Cynthia. Let them loose to create
> panels of every description. Start dancing a jig as sales rack up! Worry
> about the next module later. If you wait much longer, competitors will
> have beaten you to market.
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
> > b) And how many people really wanted those features? 39. These were not
> > features that a broad group of people found appealing. The unit is in
> > fact unusable to clock events in a synchronized fashion - at least as I
> > see it - as it triggers on clock trailing edges.
>
> Um....check out the very first switch, upper left corner. Clock Polarity :)

> BESIDES the CG, the MT, and the '102: what other 2 modules should I have in
> 5U?

>
>
>
>
> > My earlier comment was unclear. The MOTM-730 in fact synchronizes the
> > TRAILING edges of output pulses rather than the LEADING edges.
> Therefore,
> > if multiple outputs are simultaneously used to trigger notes, the
> > beginning of notes will not be synchronized. For example, if I input 48
> > clocks per measure into the '730, and look at the the /6 and /3
> outputs to
> > get eighth notes and sixteenth notes, the leading edges of the outputs
> > will be offset from each other (as per the signal output jpg
> available on
> > the MOTM website). As synchronizing the "start" of notes rather than the
> > "end" of notes was important to me, I found this to be a problem. Others
> > may not. This problem is entirely independent of the setting of the
> clock
> > polarity switch. And yes, inverting all 16 outputs would solve that
> > problem, but then, how to synchronize the "start"? There's no reset to
> > zero function that would allow the first output pulse from every output
> > jack to come out in synchronization with the first input pulse.
>
> a) I had 3 beta testers. No said anything but "It's great!"
>
> b) the code is contained in a socketed PIC processor. This *might* be able
> to be changed to count 'the other way' and to convert run/stop to run/reset
> to zero.
>
> Would this help matters any?
>
> If you had a small flat-bladed screwdriver the upgrade takes 20 seconds.
> The
> cost would be around $25.
>
> Paul S.
>
>

On 28 April 2010 22:49, rogerpellegrini <rogerpellegrini@...> wrote:

Ok, in the interest of constructive brainstorming, here's another module
idea. Polyphonic.

* Module (1) "quad digital VCO" ala stripped down Cloud Generator or MT. It
would have MIDI in and 4 voice outs. Waveform select, portamento, detune
knobs. Simple. Very usable all on its own, or ...

* Module (2) "quad EG/VCA" would have 2 sets of quad digital EGs and 4
simple VCAs. Ribbon cable to connect to module (1) to carry digital
information, it would have
* 4 voice inputs and
* 4 CV outs, along with a
* mix voice out and 4 individual voice outputs
* Controls for ADSR 1-4 and ADSR 5-8.
ADSR 1-4 output to the 4 CV outs, mixed in with keyboard follow CV and
velocity CV and go to control filters. ADSR 5-8 goes to internal quad VCAs.
Use your (4) analog filters in between module 1 and 2. You wouldn't even
have to use 4 filters in between. You could use a single filter on the
output. You could even have "patch" storage of all the EG/CV settings.
This unit could even have 4 analog gate inputs, so it would be a quad EG/VCA
all on its on.

* Modules (3, 4, 5, etc.) would be stripped down quad repackaged versions of
old MOTM filters.

* Buy 2 sets for 8 voice.
*A combination of module 1+2 could also function as a simple quad midi->CV
converter in a pinch, if you add gate outs.
*Alternately, it might be more musically useful to have one CV/gate output
from these modules that could be set to low, high or last note priority.
That way, the musician could use the rest of the modular to play leads
(high) or bass (low), etc.
*Buy 2 sets of module 1 for double thick voices.

There's nothing particularly high tech about all this, but I think it hits a
few reasonable targets:

* Have multiple obvious, unique and attractive uses for the broad market
* Provide possibility for repeat or follow-on sales

Just a thought,
-Roger

--

-=john

----- Original Message -----

From: Miguel Mendoza

To: motm@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:03 PM

Subject: [motm] 730 start synch

I noticed that 730 behaviour, trying to synchronize a MOTM bass drum with a bass sequence, the 730 dividing the start pulse of the sequencer and triggering the BD. The bass drum was tight on black notes but it didn't start on time with the sequencer. I had to solve this issue editing the audio recorded.

Will this update solve this, Paul?

Thanks!

From: Paul Schreiber

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:04 PM

To: motm@yahoogroups.com ; rogerpellegrini

Subject: Re: [motm] Re: ZO ver 730

> My earlier comment was unclear. The MOTM-730 in fact synchronizes the
> TRAILING edges of output pulses rather than the LEADING edges. Therefore,
> if multiple outputs are simultaneously used to trigger notes, the
> beginning of notes will not be synchronized. For example, if I input 48
> clocks per measure into the '730, and look at the the /6 and /3 outputs to
> get eighth notes and sixteenth notes, the leading edges of the outputs
> will be offset from each other (as per the signal output jpg available on
> the MOTM website). As synchronizing the "start" of notes rather than the
> "end" of notes was important to me, I found this to be a problem. Others
> may not. This problem is entirely independent of the setting of the clock
> polarity switch. And yes, inverting all 16 outputs would solve that
> problem, but then, how to synchronize the "start"? There's no reset to
> zero function that would allow the first output pulse from every output
> jack to come out in synchronization with the first input pulse.

a) I had 3 beta testers. No said anything but "It's great!"

b) the code is contained in a socketed PIC processor. This *might* be able
to be changed to count 'the other way' and to convert run/stop to run/reset
to zero.

Would this help matters any?

If you had a small flat-bladed screwdriver the upgrade takes 20 seconds. The
cost would be around $25.

Paul S.

On 28 April 2010 23:29, John L Rice <Drummer@...> wrote:

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JLR

From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Audette
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:00 PM
To: MOTM List
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: ZO ver 730

If a simple chip change would give the 730 the ability to reset I would pay for that instantly.

-=john

On 28 April 2010 22:49, rogerpellegrini <rogerpellegrini@...> wrote:

--

-=john