MOTM

synth1@... writes:

>>Starting to get a trickle of nibbles from the EM ad. No, orders are not 
"pouring in".  Lobbying EM editors to do a cover feature on analog modulars! 
Stay tuned!<<

It seems like you should be able to get your modules into Keyboards "Newgear" 
section, as you did in the past when you didn't have many.  I am assuming 
that doesn't cost anything.

>>I know some of you have ordered synthesizers.com stuff. Please let us know 
what you think.<<

I haven't heard anyone on any list mention that they placed an order with 
them (except one guy for blank panels).  There was a lot of talk but no 
action from people.  I wonder what the problem is.

-Elhardt

I bought 3 modules from Roger; an instrument interface, a clipper/rectifier,
and a signal processor. Still have a pedal inteface on backorder.

I like the modules a lot. Roger was real good about providing schematics
(normally he doesn't). The form factor and look is very good. The circuitry
design seemed above average. Probably just textbook circuits. Nothing
too innovative here. Just basic functionality. The only possible complaint
I have would be the added difficulty in modifying the power cables to
adapt the MOTM form factor (.156 MTA) to the Symthesizer.com (.100 MTA).
Wasn't too difficult to build new cables though.

Don't look for anything too exotic from Synthesizers.com. Roger says
he's not going to go much beyond what's in the "Future" section of his
site. His goal was to provide a basic full featured modular. He's done
that well.


-- 
James Holloway
jimh54@... - email
(972) 993-2023 x1188 - voicemail/fax



---- elhardt@... wrote:
> 
> synth1@... writes:
> 
> >>Starting to get a trickle of nibbles from the EM ad. No, orders are
> not 
> "pouring in".  Lobbying EM editors to do a cover feature on analog
> modulars! 
> Stay tuned!<<
> 
> It seems like you should be able to get your modules into Keyboards
> "Newgear" 
> section, as you did in the past when you didn't have many.  I am assuming
> 
> that doesn't cost anything.
> 
> >>I know some of you have ordered synthesizers.com stuff. Please let
> us know 
> what you think.<<
> 
> I haven't heard anyone on any list mention that they placed an order
> with 
> them (except one guy for blank panels).  There was a lot of talk but
> no 
> action from people.  I wonder what the problem is.
> 
> -Elhardt
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want insight into hot IPOs, investing strategies and stocks to watch?
> Red Herring FREE newsletters provide strategic analysis for investors.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/5176/6/_/529958/_/962262356/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place.
Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com

In a message dated 6/29/2000 12:28:54 PM, nate@... writes:

>If this guy really wants business, my suggestion for him
>(or any synth manufacturer *hint-hint*) is to start looking into ribbon
>controllers, it's the one facet of analog synth control that no other synth
>company presently offers. 

...and other nontraditional controllers too!

Great point Nate! And I'm not just saying that because I've made that same 
point about ten times previously, I'm just saying it because I want some 
unusual controllers! Lets use the "spies" to our advantage.

Anyway, back to the point, I probably will not
>be
>buying any of Roger's stuff, I'd rather wait for the better MOTM equivelant
>to come out.  -Nate

I'm already mixed up enough buying the occasional thing from John Blacet and 
Tony Allgood, I'm sticking with MOTM (at least until I see some controllers, 
then I'm like a rat from a sinking ship <g>).

JB

My idea of a keen non-traditional controller is a VERY traditional one.  I
would like to see a guitar type controller, but instead of spitting out
MIDI, have it output a CV / string.  Zon (http://www.zonguitars.com, I
think...) makes a bass guitar called the "Sonus Lightwave Bass", which uses
optical pickups to track pitch... The company which makes the pickup system
(Lightwave, http://www.lightwave-systems.com), mentions a MIDI option.  I
have to wonder how adaptable that would be to CV?  (Probably not so
adaptable to be work the several thousand dollars it would likely cost...
;)

--PBr

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	jwbarlow@... [SMTP:jwbarlow@...]
> Sent:	Thursday, June 29, 2000 12:54 PM
> To:	motm@egroups.com
> Subject:	Re: [motm] Some news
> 
> In a message dated 6/29/2000 12:28:54 PM, nate@... writes:
> >If this guy really wants business, my suggestion for him
> >(or any synth manufacturer *hint-hint*) is to start looking into ribbon
> >controllers, it's the one facet of analog synth control that no other
> synth
> >company presently offers. 
> 
> ...and other nontraditional controllers too!
> 
> Great point Nate! And I'm not just saying that because I've made that same
> 
> point about ten times previously, I'm just saying it because I want some 
> unusual controllers! Lets use the "spies" to our advantage.
>

Don't hold your breath; this guy doesn't seem to have ambitions or design
chops for esoteric things. He seems content to fill a few holes in his
lineup, and call it quits.

Dave Bradley
Principal Software Engineer
Engineering Animation, Inc.
daveb@...

>
> In a message dated 6/29/2000 12:28:54 PM, nate@... writes:
>
> >If this guy really wants business, my suggestion for him
> >(or any synth manufacturer *hint-hint*) is to start looking into ribbon
> >controllers, it's the one facet of analog synth control that no
> other synth
> >company presently offers.
>
> ...and other nontraditional controllers too!
>
> Great point Nate! And I'm not just saying that because I've made
> that same
> point about ten times previously, I'm just saying it because I want some
> unusual controllers! Lets use the "spies" to our advantage.
>
> Anyway, back to the point, I probably will not
> >be
> >buying any of Roger's stuff, I'd rather wait for the better MOTM
> equivelant
> >to come out.  -Nate
>
> I'm already mixed up enough buying the occasional thing from John
> Blacet and
> Tony Allgood, I'm sticking with MOTM (at least until I see some
> controllers,
> then I'm like a rat from a sinking ship <g>).
>
> JB
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Click here for savings: beMANY!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4115/6/_/529958/_/962308463/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

I have not ordered any of this stuff.  But, now that I have my version of IE
upgraded to something that will actually "work" with the site, I did go look
it over.  I think Roger has certainly done some homework.  Too bad he picked
the lower price point / quality level (or maybe that's a good thing?).
Anyhow, I did see some "features" I thought were interesting as ideas.
However, like most of those on this list, I would rather wait for the MOTM
version.  The two things (not yet currently available in MOTM land that
looked interesting to me were the Q-111 pan fade and Q-118 instrument
interface.  I really liked the way everything that was needed to interface
an outside instrument was included in the Q-118 package providing the
pre-amplifier, envelope follower, gate and trigger.  What would a studly
MOTM instrument interface include?
Larry Hendry

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
To: MOTM listserv <motm@egroups.com>

6) I know some of you have ordered synthesizers.com stuff. Please let us
know what you think :) Really, I can take it. My doctor says I'm
 *much better* now.

I'd like to see the MOTM equivalent be broken into separate modules (and I think
this is Paul's plan), a separate instrument preamp, envelope follower and
envelope generator all prove useful in this one situation, but who wants to buy
3 preamps just because they want 3 envelope followers. I'm in favor of making
modules as "modular" as possible. The 1st modular I looked at was the paia 9700
series. For obvious reasons I decided to go with MOTM, but one of the major
reasons I didn't like the 9700 stuff was because you couldn't just buy a filter,
it had to have a built in EG and LFO, you couldn't just buy a VCA, it had a
mixer and noise source built in. When you break all the components down into
separate modules, it also allows you room for more features and control. -Nate

"J. Larry Hendry" wrote:

> I have not ordered any of this stuff.  But, now that I have my version of IE
> upgraded to something that will actually "work" with the site, I did go look
> it over.  I think Roger has certainly done some homework.  Too bad he picked
> the lower price point / quality level (or maybe that's a good thing?).
> Anyhow, I did see some "features" I thought were interesting as ideas.
> However, like most of those on this list, I would rather wait for the MOTM
> version.  The two things (not yet currently available in MOTM land that
> looked interesting to me were the Q-111 pan fade and Q-118 instrument
> interface.  I really liked the way everything that was needed to interface
> an outside instrument was included in the Q-118 package providing the
> pre-amplifier, envelope follower, gate and trigger.  What would a studly
> MOTM instrument interface include?
> Larry Hendry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
> To: MOTM listserv <motm@egroups.com>
>
> 6) I know some of you have ordered synthesizers.com stuff. Please let us
> know what you think :) Really, I can take it. My doctor says I'm
>  *much better* now.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Need a credit card?
> Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/6034/6/_/529958/_/962400635/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 6/30/2000 4:47:13 PM, nate@... writes:

>I'd like to see the MOTM equivalent be broken into separate modules (and
>I think
>this is Paul's plan)

>The 1st modular I looked at was the paia
>9700
>series. For obvious reasons I decided to go with MOTM, but one of the major
>reasons I didn't like the 9700 stuff was because you couldn't just buy
>a filter,
>it had to have a built in EG and LFO


While I was never really interested in the 9700 as a "way to go" (I was well 
into MOTM by the time it was shipping), but like you I was confounded by the 
"combined features in the modules." Suppose you wanted to add additional EGs 
and LFOs, the last catalog I saw only had the three (?) combined modules.

BTW, MOTM needs a 1U VCA too.

>"J. Larry Hendry" wrote:
>
>>I really liked the way everything that was needed to interface
>> an outside instrument was included in the Q-118 package providing the
>> pre-amplifier, envelope follower, gate and trigger.  What would a studly
>> MOTM instrument interface include?
>> Larry Hendry


This idea definitely has its merits, but I think, like Nate said, you might 
want to seperate out the envelope followers from the preamps. But I 
absolutely agree with you about envelope followers having a gate output (and 
trigger, if needed). I'd also like to have separate RISE and FALL times (a 
built in lag processing circuit -- yes, I got that from the way I use my 
Serge DSG) so that the follower CV output could have some moderate (not VC) 
amount of processing without using up an 820. I rarely use a followers output 
without some sort of lag processing.

JB

>From: Nathan Alan Hunsicker <nate@...>
I'd like to see the MOTM equivalent be broken into separate
modules (and I think this is Paul's plan), a separate instrument
preamp, envelope follower and envelope generator all prove
useful in this one situation, but who wants to buy 3 preamps
just because they want 3 envelope followers. I'm in favor of making
modules as "modular" as possible.
----
I don't disagree with that line of thinking at all Nate.  I think the
Synthesizer.com module has only two functions:  preamp and envelope
follower.  You would need a separate EG.  And, if I am seeing this right,
the preamp is kind of needed to get the right level for the envelope
follower.

I agree, this combination would not replace a preamp.  However, (and I admit
to not being too sharp on this subject) it looks like just the right
"combination" for envelope follower.
----
> The 1st modular I looked at was the paia 9700
series. For obvious reasons I decided to go with MOTM, but one
of the major reasons I didn't like the 9700 stuff was because
you couldn't just buy a filter, it had to have a built in EG and LFO,
you couldn't just buy a VCA, it had a mixer and noise source built in.
When you break all the components down into separate modules, it
also allows you room for more features and control. -Nate
----
I agree Nate.  I mean why even build a modular if you want to put it all in
one module.  However, John is obviously after a different price point
customer.  He must be the king of cost reduction strategy. <grin>

Larry H

Does the Envelope follower provide an envelope equivalent to the audio
being processed or does it just produce a gate? I think the function of
an EF is to mimic the envelope of an incoming signal, (I'm not all that
familiar with them either.) An EG wouldn't be necessary unless you
wanted to produce an envelope dissimilar to the incoming audio. The
preamp may be needed to boost an instrument level to acceptable levels,
but what about processing another synth signal or that generated by a
VCA? The amp and EF modules will prove useful but would be of greater
use as 2 separate modules in the case that you would want to boost a
inst. level up to run through a filter or to modulate a VCO. -Nate

"J. Larry Hendry" wrote:

> >From: Nathan Alan Hunsicker <nate@...>
> I'd like to see the MOTM equivalent be broken into separate
> modules (and I think this is Paul's plan), a separate instrument
> preamp, envelope follower and envelope generator all prove
> useful in this one situation, but who wants to buy 3 preamps
> just because they want 3 envelope followers. I'm in favor of making
> modules as "modular" as possible.
> ----
> I don't disagree with that line of thinking at all Nate.  I think the
> Synthesizer.com module has only two functions:  preamp and envelope
> follower.  You would need a separate EG.  And, if I am seeing this
> right,
> the preamp is kind of needed to get the right level for the envelope
> follower.
>
> I agree, this combination would not replace a preamp.  However, (and I
> admit
> to not being too sharp on this subject) it looks like just the right
> "combination" for envelope follower.
> ----
> > The 1st modular I looked at was the paia 9700
> series. For obvious reasons I decided to go with MOTM, but one
> of the major reasons I didn't like the 9700 stuff was because
> you couldn't just buy a filter, it had to have a built in EG and LFO,
> you couldn't just buy a VCA, it had a mixer and noise source built in.
>
> When you break all the components down into separate modules, it
> also allows you room for more features and control. -Nate
> ----
> I agree Nate.  I mean why even build a modular if you want to put it
> all in
> one module.  However, John is obviously after a different price point
> customer.  He must be the king of cost reduction strategy. <grin>
>
> Larry H
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>