MOTM

The best one so far especially with the added sequencer functions! I still 
vote for the small knobs due to saving space. I guess I could look at the 4 
space panel now with the sequencer functions, but the cost would have to be 
insane!!! I much prefer the 2-space version to save space in my expanding 
synth rack.

Thomas White

PS. What about the panel trigger? Possible or no?


>From: "Tony Karavidas" <tony@...>
>Reply-To: motm@egroups.com
>To: <motm@egroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [motm] MOTM compatible module
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:09:30 -0700
>
>OK, what about this one?
>
>http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN3.JPG
>
>It has Crow's idea about a step input for a mini-sequencer function. I've
>added it to the second switch and it's called "STEP." That switch went from
>a two position to a three position. You can now step through the events for
>each rising edge on the gate. So in this mode, gate is like a clock.
>
>The functionality seems to fit well in the current h/w design. Yes, it's
>more software....
>
>Also, I'm looking for a word to call the switch now labeled "SHAPE." It
>really should be something like "TRANSITION" because it describes how this
>progresses from event to event.
>
>Any ideas???
>
>Tony
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Old Crow [mailto:oldcrow@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 5:53 AM
> > To: motm@egroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [motm] MOTM compatible module
> >
> >
> >
> >   Not to be the culprit of yet another bit of creeping featuritis, but 
>can
> > this EG be set to output a stage on each successive gate?  That way you
> > get a little 8-step sequencer for the price of another switch position.
> > Of course, this implies that reset/reload and whatnot exist, but still
> > something interesting can be made mini-sequencer-wise.
> >
> >   I've not yet looked at using Amtel AVR stuff.  Looks interesting.  (It
> > is hard to get me off my Z8/Z80 rocker though, heh heh..even my PIC 
>stuff
> > is a bit off the beaten path).
> >
> > Crow
> >
> > /**/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Well, the panel trigger is possible, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. If
you add a switch dedicated to trigger this module, it would be nice if you
had a jack to use it to trigger other things. You can see how things get out
of control. Should it be a pushbutton, a momentary level, something else?

I'll still think about it. If "everyone" said they wouldn't buy it UNLESS it
has a trigger switch then obviously it would be added.

Thanks for your input. (and everyone else too)

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: thomas white [mailto:djthomaswhite@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 6:08 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
>
>
> The best one so far especially with the added sequencer
> functions! I still
> vote for the small knobs due to saving space. I guess I could
> look at the 4
> space panel now with the sequencer functions, but the cost would
> have to be
> insane!!! I much prefer the 2-space version to save space in my expanding
> synth rack.
>
> Thomas White
>
> PS. What about the panel trigger? Possible or no?

Tony, 

Yes, the panel is getting better... I think "slope" or "step slope" might work for
the "shape" switch.

A simple momentary pushbutton switch that acts like a pulse into the gate input
would be just the ticket.  Such a button is on the ARP 2600.  It triggers both EGs
when pressed and holds at the sustain level until released.  

If I may speak for "everybody", such a momentary switch would be very cool. 
Especially if you run in sequencer mode.  Each press would advance the stage,
allowing you to set the levels appropriately.  Actually, the sequencer mode causes
me to rethink my position on the LEDs.  In sequencer mode, they are absolutely
necessary to show the active stage.

Perhaps I missed this but another cool thing in sequencer mode is for the time pots
to control the time for each step, with an override. 

Great stuff, I look forward to seeing one in my setup!

Eric

--- Tony Karavidas <tony@...> wrote:
> Well, the panel trigger is possible, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. If
> you add a switch dedicated to trigger this module, it would be nice if you
> had a jack to use it to trigger other things. You can see how things get out
> of control. Should it be a pushbutton, a momentary level, something else?
> 
> I'll still think about it. If "everyone" said they wouldn't buy it UNLESS it
> has a trigger switch then obviously it would be added.
> 
> Thanks for your input. (and everyone else too)
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thomas white [mailto:djthomaswhite@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 6:08 PM
> > To: motm@egroups.com
> > Subject: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
> >
> >
> > The best one so far especially with the added sequencer
> > functions! I still
> > vote for the small knobs due to saving space. I guess I could
> > look at the 4
> > space panel now with the sequencer functions, but the cost would
> > have to be
> > insane!!! I much prefer the 2-space version to save space in my expanding
> > synth rack.
> >
> > Thomas White
> >
> > PS. What about the panel trigger? Possible or no?
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Since the numbers were removed from the tick marks, the smaller knobs don't
really seem to be so squeezed.  Are these the 3/4" knobs as opposed to the
1" ones that Paul uses?  I have some of these 3/4 knobs (same style) on my
PAiA vocoder and they are O.K.  For having so much on a 2U panel, I do very
much like the way you have it laid out.  Very intuitive.

Let me ask a couple of questions about function.  First, I liked the
suggestions that Crow had about the step function and I see you included it.
I also liked his alternate solution for the term "shape."  "Slope" seems
somewhat accurate if I understand it.  I guess I am clear on the linear and
expo positions on the switch.  However, I guess I am a bit confused by the
square position.  Does this mean that the transitions are instant?  In that
case does the time dial then determine the length of each state as opposed
to the time it takes to get from one to another?

I have to admit, the more I look at this, the more I like it Tony.  Great
job.  I could see one or two of these in my MOTM cabinet.  I also have to
admit that the idea of a manual gate pushbotton is attractive, but it would
certainly not be a purchase yes/no decision for me.  Once could always
manually trigger from the gate, right?  Of course, if you want to have an
input at the gate and manually trigger, then it gets a little messy.

Larry Hendry

----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Karavidas <tony@...>
To: <motm@egroups.com>


Well, the panel trigger is possible, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. If
you add a switch dedicated to trigger this module, it would be nice if you
had a jack to use it to trigger other things. You can see how things get out
of control. Should it be a pushbutton, a momentary level, something else?

I'll still think about it. If "everyone" said they wouldn't buy it UNLESS it
has a trigger switch then obviously it would be added.

Thanks for your input. (and everyone else too)

Tony

Yes they are the 3/4" knobs. The square position does imply the transitions
are instant. Your interpretation is exactly correct. I still have to decide
the "polarity" or "order" (if you will) of the Time and Level knobs. I'll
use arbitrary values in the following examples just for sake of argument.
Time1 = 5 seconds
Level1 = 25%
Time2 = 1 second
Level2 = 50%
Time3 = 9 seconds
Level3 = 100% (fully clockwise)
...


One way of interpretation is that the module receives a gate and waits 5
seconds before it snaps to Level1 (at the 25% position). It then sits there
for 1 second before snapping to Level2. It sits at Level2 for 9 seconds
before snapping to Level3, etc...

The other way is to reverse the Time and Level and do it like this:

Receive the gate, instantly go to Level1 for 5 seconds, then snap and stay
at Level2 for 1 second, then snap and stay at level 3 for 9 seconds, etc.

Either way, Time8 has no real meaning.


Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:08 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
>
>
> Since the numbers were removed from the tick marks, the smaller
> knobs don't
> really seem to be so squeezed.  Are these the 3/4" knobs as opposed to the
> 1" ones that Paul uses?  I have some of these 3/4 knobs (same style) on my
> PAiA vocoder and they are O.K.  For having so much on a 2U panel,
> I do very
> much like the way you have it laid out.  Very intuitive.
>
> Let me ask a couple of questions about function.  First, I liked the
> suggestions that Crow had about the step function and I see you
> included it.
> I also liked his alternate solution for the term "shape."  "Slope" seems
> somewhat accurate if I understand it.  I guess I am clear on the
> linear and
> expo positions on the switch.  However, I guess I am a bit confused by the
> square position.  Does this mean that the transitions are
> instant?  In that
> case does the time dial then determine the length of each state as opposed
> to the time it takes to get from one to another?
>
> I have to admit, the more I look at this, the more I like it Tony.  Great
> job.  I could see one or two of these in my MOTM cabinet.  I also have to
> admit that the idea of a manual gate pushbotton is attractive,
> but it would
> certainly not be a purchase yes/no decision for me.  Once could always
> manually trigger from the gate, right?  Of course, if you want to have an
> input at the gate and manually trigger, then it gets a little messy.
>
> Larry Hendry
>
>

I see (said the blind man trying to squeeze in some stoogely humor).   I can
see what you mean by the two methods of interpretation.  You could make
arguments that favor either.  Personally, I think either would be fine.
Thanks for the detailed info.  I'll shut up now (about this) and wait for
you to make them.

Larry H

----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Karavidas <tony@...>
To: <motm@egroups.com>


Yes they are the 3/4" knobs. The square position does imply the transitions
are instant. Your interpretation is exactly correct. I still have to decide
the "polarity" or "order" (if you will) of the Time and Level knobs. I'll
use arbitrary values in the following examples just for sake of argument.
Time1 = 5 seconds
Level1 = 25%
Time2 = 1 second
Level2 = 50%
Time3 = 9 seconds
Level3 = 100% (fully clockwise)
...

One way of interpretation is that the module receives a gate and waits 5
seconds before it snaps to Level1 (at the 25% position). It then sits there
for 1 second before snapping to Level2. It sits at Level2 for 9 seconds
before snapping to Level3, etc...

The other way is to reverse the Time and Level and do it like this:

Receive the gate, instantly go to Level1 for 5 seconds, then snap and stay
at Level2 for 1 second, then snap and stay at level 3 for 9 seconds, etc.

Either way, Time8 has no real meaning.

Tony

In step sequencer mode, since the "time" knobs don't 
really have any other function, would they set the glide 
rate between steps?

John Loffink
microtonal@...

> Yes they are the 3/4" knobs. The square position does imply the transitions
> are instant. Your interpretation is exactly correct. I still have to decide
> the "polarity" or "order" (if you will) of the Time and Level knobs. I'll
> use arbitrary values in the following examples just for sake of argument.
> Time1 = 5 seconds
> Level1 = 25%
> Time2 = 1 second
> Level2 = 50%
> Time3 = 9 seconds
> Level3 = 100% (fully clockwise)
> ...
> 
> 
> One way of interpretation is that the module receives a gate and waits 5
> seconds before it snaps to Level1 (at the 25% position). It then sits there
> for 1 second before snapping to Level2. It sits at Level2 for 9 seconds
> before snapping to Level3, etc...
> 
> The other way is to reverse the Time and Level and do it like this:
> 
> Receive the gate, instantly go to Level1 for 5 seconds, then snap and stay
> at Level2 for 1 second, then snap and stay at level 3 for 9 seconds, etc.
> 
> Either way, Time8 has no real meaning.
> 
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:08 PM
> > To: motm@egroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
> >
> >
> > Since the numbers were removed from the tick marks, the smaller
> > knobs don't
> > really seem to be so squeezed.  Are these the 3/4" knobs as opposed to the
> > 1" ones that Paul uses?  I have some of these 3/4 knobs (same style) on my
> > PAiA vocoder and they are O.K.  For having so much on a 2U panel,
> > I do very
> > much like the way you have it laid out.  Very intuitive.
> >
> > Let me ask a couple of questions about function.  First, I liked the
> > suggestions that Crow had about the step function and I see you
> > included it.
> > I also liked his alternate solution for the term "shape."  "Slope" seems
> > somewhat accurate if I understand it.  I guess I am clear on the
> > linear and
> > expo positions on the switch.  However, I guess I am a bit confused by the
> > square position.  Does this mean that the transitions are
> > instant?  In that
> > case does the time dial then determine the length of each state as opposed
> > to the time it takes to get from one to another?
> >
> > I have to admit, the more I look at this, the more I like it Tony.  Great
> > job.  I could see one or two of these in my MOTM cabinet.  I also have to
> > admit that the idea of a manual gate pushbotton is attractive,
> > but it would
> > certainly not be a purchase yes/no decision for me.  Once could always
> > manually trigger from the gate, right?  Of course, if you want to have an
> > input at the gate and manually trigger, then it gets a little messy.
> >
> > Larry Hendry
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Add the trigger (momentary pushbutton). Don't add the jack - it's not 
your module's responsibility to provide a generic button for the 
entire system.

SLOPE works for me.

Moe

--- In motm@egroups.com, "Tony Karavidas" <tony@e...> wrote:
> Well, the panel trigger is possible, but I'm not sure if it's worth 
it. If
> you add a switch dedicated to trigger this module, it would be nice 
if you
> had a jack to use it to trigger other things. You can see how 
things get out
> of control. Should it be a pushbutton, a momentary level, something 
else?
> 
> I'll still think about it. If "everyone" said they wouldn't buy it 
UNLESS it
> has a trigger switch then obviously it would be added.
> 
> Thanks for your input. (and everyone else too)
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: thomas white [mailto:djthomaswhite@h...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 6:08 PM
> > To: motm@egroups.com
> > Subject: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
> >
> >
> > The best one so far especially with the added sequencer
> > functions! I still
> > vote for the small knobs due to saving space. I guess I could
> > look at the 4
> > space panel now with the sequencer functions, but the cost would
> > have to be
> > insane!!! I much prefer the 2-space version to save space in my 
expanding

> > synth rack.
> >
> > Thomas White
> >
> > PS. What about the panel trigger? Possible or no?

OK! What do you think now!!??


http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN4.JPG

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tony Karavidas wrote:

> OK! What do you think now!!??

  Freeze the design right there.  With a little retouching, the envelope
graphic can be moved away from the right edge.  Aethstetically. it might
be nice to use a momentary paddle switch that looks like the other toggle
switches for the manual triger/step.  Other than that, it's finished.

Crow

/**/

The Old Crow wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tony Karavidas wrote:
> 
> > OK! What do you think now!!??
> 
>   Freeze the design right there. 

I second that motion.

Tomy

OK, check out the same image. It's been tweaked and enhanced.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: thudson@... [mailto:thudson@...]On Behalf Of
> Thomas Hudson
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 11:05 AM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] 4th version panel layout
> 
> 
> The Old Crow wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tony Karavidas wrote:
> > 
> > > OK! What do you think now!!??
> > 
> >   Freeze the design right there. 
> 
> I second that motion.
> 
> Tomy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Wonderful!  I'd prefer a pushbutton for the trigger rather than the paddle but I can
live with the paddle, if necessary.  Can you set our expectations as to when we
might get an idea of price and availability?

Eric

--- Tony Karavidas <tony@...> wrote:
> OK! What do you think now!!??
> 
> 
> http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN4.JPG
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

Sometime this weekend I'll announce that info.

Thanks,

Tony Karavidas
Encore Electronics

http://www.encoreelectronics.com

Designers of "The best MIDI to CV converter on the planet." -Keyboard Oct.
1997

> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-mode [mailto:alt_mode@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:51 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] 4th version panel layout
>
>
> Wonderful!  I'd prefer a pushbutton for the trigger rather than
> the paddle but I can
> live with the paddle, if necessary.  Can you set our expectations
> as to when we
> might get an idea of price and availability?
>
> Eric
>
> --- Tony Karavidas <tony@...> wrote:
> > OK! What do you think now!!??
> >
> >
> > http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN4.JPG
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
> 
>
>
>
>

In a message dated 8/23/00 12:02:11 PM Central Daylight Time, 
tony@... writes:

> OK! What do you think now!!??
>  

 Will the panel color be silver with black text like the pic?

 Just curious,
 Andrew

No, it will be black with white text like the rest of MOTM. The image is
just easier to see with my printer.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ixqy@... [mailto:ixqy@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 1:05 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] 4th version panel layout
>
>
> In a message dated 8/23/00 12:02:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
> tony@... writes:
>
> > OK! What do you think now!!??
> >
>
>  Will the panel color be silver with black text like the pic?
>
>  Just curious,
>  Andrew
>
> 
>
>
>
>

Yes, what he said.

Dave

--- In motm@egroups.com, The Old Crow <oldcrow@o...> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tony Karavidas wrote:
> 
> > OK! What do you think now!!??
> 
>   Freeze the design right there.  With a little retouching, the 
envelope
> graphic can be moved away from the right edge.  Aethstetically. it 
might
> be nice to use a momentary paddle switch that looks like the other 
toggle
> switches for the manual triger/step.  Other than that, it's 
finished.

> 
> Crow
> 
> /**/

That's a good idea!!! I'll try to add it. I would like this to ship in the
*near* future!! :)

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microtonal@... [mailto:microtonal@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 6:16 AM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
>
>
> In step sequencer mode, since the "time" knobs don't
> really have any other function, would they set the glide
> rate between steps?
>
> John Loffink
> microtonal@...
> > Yes they are the 3/4" knobs. The square position does imply the
> transitions
> > are instant. Your interpretation is exactly correct. I still
> have to decide
> > the "polarity" or "order" (if you will) of the Time and Level
> knobs. I'll
> > use arbitrary values in the following examples just for sake of
> argument.
> > Time1 = 5 seconds
> > Level1 = 25%
> > Time2 = 1 second
> > Level2 = 50%
> > Time3 = 9 seconds
> > Level3 = 100% (fully clockwise)
> > ...
> >
> >
> > One way of interpretation is that the module receives a gate and waits 5
> > seconds before it snaps to Level1 (at the 25% position). It
> then sits there
> > for 1 second before snapping to Level2. It sits at Level2 for 9 seconds
> > before snapping to Level3, etc...
> >
> > The other way is to reverse the Time and Level and do it like this:
> >
> > Receive the gate, instantly go to Level1 for 5 seconds, then
> snap and stay
> > at Level2 for 1 second, then snap and stay at level 3 for 9
> seconds, etc.
> >
> > Either way, Time8 has no real meaning.
> >
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 8:08 PM
> > > To: motm@egroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
> > >
> > >
> > > Since the numbers were removed from the tick marks, the smaller
> > > knobs don't
> > > really seem to be so squeezed.  Are these the 3/4" knobs as
> opposed to the
> > > 1" ones that Paul uses?  I have some of these 3/4 knobs (same
> style) on my
> > > PAiA vocoder and they are O.K.  For having so much on a 2U panel,
> > > I do very
> > > much like the way you have it laid out.  Very intuitive.
> > >
> > > Let me ask a couple of questions about function.  First, I liked the
> > > suggestions that Crow had about the step function and I see you
> > > included it.
> > > I also liked his alternate solution for the term "shape."
> "Slope" seems
> > > somewhat accurate if I understand it.  I guess I am clear on the
> > > linear and
> > > expo positions on the switch.  However, I guess I am a bit
> confused by the
> > > square position.  Does this mean that the transitions are
> > > instant?  In that
> > > case does the time dial then determine the length of each
> state as opposed
> > > to the time it takes to get from one to another?
> > >
> > > I have to admit, the more I look at this, the more I like it
> Tony.  Great
> > > job.  I could see one or two of these in my MOTM cabinet.  I
> also have to
> > > admit that the idea of a manual gate pushbotton is attractive,
> > > but it would
> > > certainly not be a purchase yes/no decision for me.  Once could always
> > > manually trigger from the gate, right?  Of course, if you
> want to have an
> > > input at the gate and manually trigger, then it gets a little messy.
> > >
> > > Larry Hendry
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 microtonal@... wrote:

> In step sequencer mode, since the "time" knobs don't 
> really have any other function, would they set the glide 
> rate between steps?

  I was sort of visualising the time knobs as portamento per step, but I
shot off the note about a step gate so fast I forgot to separately mention
the portamento effect.  Seems like it wouldn't need much extra code as the
Tx->Lx happens for standard enveloping.

Crow

/**/

> Add the trigger (momentary pushbutton).

Still agree.

> Don't add the jack - it's not your module's responsibility
> to provide a generic button for the entire system.

Disagree.  The module still needs to be triggerable (but not necessarily
from a button somewhere else).  And needed to gang modules when set in
sequencer mode.  Module also needs a trigger out to cascade into the next
module for longer envelopes, more complex LFO shapes and longer sequences.
Still plenty of room for and extra jack or two.

> SLOPE works for me.

No opinion.  Functionality over labelability.

One last question:

Would you rather have an "OUT-" jack, or a "Trigger Out" jack?

Hopefully you all know what these two things do.

Tony

> > OK! What do you think now!!??
>  Other than that, it's finished.

Other opinions may vary................................................

--Shemp

OK I lied. One more question.

I've been thinking about the TCV input and there are two possibilities of
implementation I'm considering. The first is to have the TCV make it go
faster as the TCV goes from 0 to 5 volts, the second way is to slow
everything down. (there is also a third way by making it bipolar, but I
don't want to do that)

I've seen them both on various instruments. There are pros and cons to both
options.

What do you think??

Tony

Yeah the thing about that is you need a special little serial programmer.
It's $50 for a parallel port version.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tentochi [mailto:tentochi@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 10:10 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] 3rd version panel layout
>
>
> Ah, we could have different versions of the code as features and upgrades
> are added.
>
> This is actually serious even if it sounds like I am joking.  There is the
> possiblity of upgrading the firmware in the future to add functionality or
> to fix bugs.
>
> >   I was sort of visualising the time knobs as portamento per step, but I
> > shot off the note about a step gate so fast I forgot to
> separately mention
> > the portamento effect.  Seems like it wouldn't need much extra
> code as the
> > Tx->Lx happens for standard enveloping.
>
> --Shemp
>
>
>
>
>
>

> In step sequencer mode, since the "time" knobs don't
> really have any other function, would they set the glide
> rate between steps?

Good idea!

Or they could signals rests when set at a certain level.

Or they could signal the end of the last note in the sequence when set at a
certain level.

Or they could generate a second set of CVs set either in parallel or in
sequence (i.e. additional steps).

Or they could indicate note length.

Of course for the first 7 steps only....

--Shemp

Ah, we could have different versions of the code as features and upgrades
are added.

This is actually serious even if it sounds like I am joking.  There is the
possiblity of upgrading the firmware in the future to add functionality or
to fix bugs.

>   I was sort of visualising the time knobs as portamento per step, but I
> shot off the note about a step gate so fast I forgot to separately mention
> the portamento effect.  Seems like it wouldn't need much extra code as the
> Tx->Lx happens for standard enveloping.

--Shemp

In a message dated 00-08-24 01:00:58 EDT, you write:

<<  "Trigger Out" jack?
  >>


tony,
i think the "trigger out" function would be more useful.
best,
dave v.

In a message dated 00-08-24 01:04:01 EDT, you write:

<< the second way is to slow
 everything down. >>



tony,
my "vote" is for longer segment times ( slower - ? ) with increasing control 
voltages.
best,
dave v.

> 
> Would you rather have an "OUT-" jack, or a "Trigger Out" jack?
> 
OUT-  definitely

>TCV direction
either way


Jeff

HA HA.  The first two responses took opposite directions.  Just goes to show
you will not be able to please all.  However, you certainly have a great
looking product.

My vote:  Jack selection - Trigger out.  NOT because I have any idea how I
would use that exactly right now.  I might actually use "-out" more often.
BUT, that function is available simply using a reversing attenuator from
your system.  There is no way to get trigger out unless it is built into the
modules (we never say "no" way).  Now, to throw a kink in it all, I will say
that the EG graphic is now so small, I would ditch it.  Use the space for
the extra jack and put them both on.

TCV - I agree with DaveVosh.  More voltage = slower.

Larry Hendry

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@...>
Jack = OUT-  definitely
TCV direction = either way

----- Original Message -----
From: <davevosh@...>
Jack = i think the "trigger out" function would be more useful.
TCV = my "vote" is for longer segment times ( slower - ? )
           with increasing control voltages.

> that the EG graphic is now so small, I would ditch it.  Use the space for
> the extra jack and put them both on.

Now here's a person who is really thinking - good idea!  A segment of the
EG graphic could be substituted for the current EG graphic if Tony feels
that it would be helpful to illustrate what 'Time' and 'Level' are. 


 Jeff

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tony Karavidas wrote:

> Would you rather have an "OUT-" jack, or a "Trigger Out" jack?

  I would have it remain the OUT- jack.  There is a problem beginning to
accumulate: suggestions are slowly trying to turn this thing into an
8-stage sequencer when it started out and should remain an envelope
generator.  Now of course I didn't help matters when I suggested the step
gate mode, but then I wasn't wanting to add other switches and knobs that
enhance the sequencer aspect possibly at the expense of the original EG
functions. The device is an EG that can operate in a limited sequencer
mode, and that is how it should be designed, IMHO.

  A trigger out might be useful if only to start a cascaded EG, but the
inverse waveform is still more useful as far as EG capabilities go.

  I know your panel is crowded already, but perhaps one last tweak can be
performed.  I'll email a really quick sketch to you, Tony.

Crow

/**/

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, J. Larry Hendry wrote:

> modules (we never say "no" way).  Now, to throw a kink in it all, I will say
> that the EG graphic is now so small, I would ditch it.  Use the space for
> the extra jack and put them both on.

  The image file I just sent to Tony addresses moving the stockchart
graphic and yet not deleting it.  The real space culprit on the panel is
where that nice, unused place where the word LOOP breaking the vertical
line is.  I drew a quick suggestion that the stockchart and LOOP legend
be combined and placed where the LOOP text currently resides.  It will
either look half-decent, or tacky--I won't know until I see Tony's
rendering of it, heh heh..

  With the stockchart moved, space for one or two other little harmless
things now exists to provide TOny with additional programming headaches.

> TCV - I agree with DaveVosh. More voltage = slower.

  Yep, I agree with this one as well as the sense of the numbers match up.

Crow

/**/

> > 
> > Would you rather have an "OUT-" jack, or a "Trigger 
Out" jack?
> > 
End trigger out

> >TCV direction
slower

1. As CV increases, time increases (slower)
2. Larry is correct on the jack. You can add external reversible 
attenuators later, or use ones already on your MOTM filters, but you 
can never add the trigger out jack, so build it in.

Moe

--- In motm@egroups.com, "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@i...> wrote:
> HA HA.  The first two responses took opposite directions.  Just 
goes to show
> you will not be able to please all.  However, you certainly have a 
great
> looking product.
> 
> My vote:  Jack selection - Trigger out.  NOT because I have any 
idea how I
> would use that exactly right now.  I might actually use "-out" more 
often.
> BUT, that function is available simply using a reversing attenuator 
from
> your system.  There is no way to get trigger out unless it is built 
into the
> modules (we never say "no" way).  Now, to throw a kink in it all, I 
will say
> that the EG graphic is now so small, I would ditch it.  Use the 
space for

> the extra jack and put them both on.
> 
> TCV - I agree with DaveVosh.  More voltage = slower.
> 
> Larry Hendry
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@k...>
> Jack = OUT-  definitely
> TCV direction = either way
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <davevosh@a...>
> Jack = i think the "trigger out" function would be more useful.
> TCV = my "vote" is for longer segment times ( slower - ? )
>            with increasing control voltages.

>One last question:
>
>Would you rather have an "OUT-" jack, or a "Trigger Out" jack?
>
>Hopefully you all know what these two things do.
>
>Tony

I'd vote for the inverted out jack.

Just wanted to say that I've been lurking on these discussions, and I
really think the module is way, WAY cool!

____________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@...
Minus Web Site: http://listen.to/minusmusic
Minus MP3's: http://www.mp3.com/-minus-
____________________________________________

I side with Shemp on this one and would like to see the trigger out jack. 
You can always send the positive out through an inverter (SO simple to build 
one or two as a module!!!) The trigger out would be great for me and would 
make me want at least two of these to see what could happen. Good idea. You 
could even patch other envelopes off of the trigger jack to really get the 
blood pumpin'

Thomas White


>From: "Tony Karavidas" <tony@...>
>Reply-To: motm@egroups.com
>To: <motm@egroups.com>
>Subject: RE: [motm] Universal Event Generator - Last question
>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:00:14 -0700
>
>
>One last question:
>
>Would you rather have an "OUT-" jack, or a "Trigger Out" jack?
>
>Hopefully you all know what these two things do.
>
>Tony
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

I concur with both of these.

At 03:23 PM 08/24/2000 -0000, "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...> wrote:
>1. As CV increases, time increases (slower)

At least (almost) everyone seems to be in complete agreement on this!
(After all, it has been labeled "time" CV, not "frequency"/"rate" CV)

>2. Larry is correct on the jack. You can add external reversible 
>attenuators later, or use ones already on your MOTM filters, but you 
>can never add the trigger out jack, so build it in.

Exactly!  Running the EG output through an inverter or the
reverse-attenuating input of the module it's controlling is no problem;
getting an end trigger out of an EG that doesn't have a trigger out jack is
next to impossible without mods.

	-Doug
	 ceres@...

>Moe
>
>--- In motm@egroups.com, "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@i...> wrote:
>> HA HA.  The first two responses took opposite directions.  Just 
>goes to show
>> you will not be able to please all.  However, you certainly have a 
>great
>> looking product.
>> 
>> My vote:  Jack selection - Trigger out.  NOT because I have any 
>idea how I
>> would use that exactly right now.  I might actually use "-out" more 
>often.
>> BUT, that function is available simply using a reversing attenuator 
>from
>> your system.  There is no way to get trigger out unless it is built 
>into the
>> modules (we never say "no" way).  Now, to throw a kink in it all, I 
>will say
>> that the EG graphic is now so small, I would ditch it.  Use the 
>space for
>> the extra jack and put them both on.
>> 
>> TCV - I agree with DaveVosh.  More voltage = slower.
>> 
>> Larry Hendry
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@k...>
>> Jack = OUT-  definitely
>> TCV direction = either way
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <davevosh@a...>
>> Jack = i think the "trigger out" function would be more useful.
>> TCV = my "vote" is for longer segment times ( slower - ? )
>>            with increasing control voltages.

In a message dated 00-08-24 09:50:03 EDT, you write:

<< A trigger out might be useful if only to start a cascaded EG, but the
 inverse waveform is still more useful as far as EG capabilities go.
  >>



crow,
my interest in the trigger out jack is based on past serge experience where i 
found it useful for triggering other things at the end of an eg`s cycle, not 
in an attempt to make the module more sequencer-like. i`m probably also a bit 
biased as my current modular has inverters as modules so getting an inverse 
control voltage is easy ( plus, they have the function built into the eg`s 
already and i find i miss the trigger jack, which they don`t have! ). i do 
agree that "creeping featuritis" is something that must be watched out for 
during a modules gestation period. keep it ( the module) as focused as 
possible. if other things fall out of the design as serendipity, great, but 
don`t add so much stuff that you dilute the central concept.
best,
dave v.

Here is yet another refinement to the module. Crow sent me a graphic idea
that is now on there. I've been thinking about the trigger vs out- and I
think the trigger is more useful (which is now reflected on this drawing.

http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN5.JPG


The trigger switch is now a pushbutton. I think is will be out of the way
better than a toggle.

Tony

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Tony Karavidas wrote:

> Here is yet another refinement to the module. Crow sent me a graphic idea
> that is now on there. I've been thinking about the trigger vs out- and I
> think the trigger is more useful (which is now reflected on this drawing.

  Hm, it looks decent enough.  Probably look a lot better in the final
white on black at full size.

  Now you have that nice open space for the "final useful thing".  A TCV
atten. knob?  An out(-)?  Reset input (for non-regular loopbacks)?  The
mind boggles...

Crow

/**/

"nice open space" he says!!!

There are tons of parts behind all that area.... no more room for external
stuff :(

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Old Crow [mailto:oldcrow@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:37 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] Re: 5th version panel layout
>
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Tony Karavidas wrote:
>
> > Here is yet another refinement to the module. Crow sent me a
> graphic idea
> > that is now on there. I've been thinking about the trigger vs out- and I
> > think the trigger is more useful (which is now reflected on
> this drawing.
>
>   Hm, it looks decent enough.  Probably look a lot better in the final
> white on black at full size.
>
>   Now you have that nice open space for the "final useful thing".  A TCV
> atten. knob?  An out(-)?  Reset input (for non-regular loopbacks)?  The
> mind boggles...
>
> Crow
>
> /**/
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Tony, & everybody...

Tony Karavidas wrote:
> 
> Here is yet another refinement to the module. 
>
> http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN5.JPG
> 

Oh, Ah! I still like it. Interesting idea with the graphic, probably
makes for a good reminder when in loop mode. Thanks for retaining the
trigger out rather than an inverted output, too. As many others said,
inverters are easy with an external module, trigger-on-end, however is
not...

For added confusion, perhaps the reference lines up to the graphic from
the lower 'end position' switch should point to just the range of 'end'
points rather than the whole loop; and similarly the lines down from the
'start position' switch should point to just the range of beginning
points? Does anyone really care though? Certainly wouldn't keep me from
buying one :-)

Frank Vanaman
Baltimore

http://frank.gadgetland.net/projects.htm#MOTM

The panel graphics is one of the very flexible and final items once the
basic functions are locked down. I will attend to the panel graphics in more
detail after the proto is running.

Thanks for everyone's input. It's fun to hear the variety of thoughts and
even though some features get cut, it ultimately helps in the design
process.

Regards,
Tony Karavidas
Encore Electronics

http://www.encoreelectronics.com

Designers of "The best MIDI to CV converter on the planet." -Keyboard Oct.
1997

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Vanaman [mailto:fvanaman@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 1:18 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] Re: 5th version panel layout
>
>
> Hi Tony, & everybody...
>
> Tony Karavidas wrote:
> >
> > Here is yet another refinement to the module.
> >
> > http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN5.JPG
> >
>
> Oh, Ah! I still like it. Interesting idea with the graphic, probably
> makes for a good reminder when in loop mode. Thanks for retaining the
> trigger out rather than an inverted output, too. As many others said,
> inverters are easy with an external module, trigger-on-end, however is
> not...
>
> For added confusion, perhaps the reference lines up to the graphic from
> the lower 'end position' switch should point to just the range of 'end'
> points rather than the whole loop; and similarly the lines down from the
> 'start position' switch should point to just the range of beginning
> points? Does anyone really care though? Certainly wouldn't keep me from
> buying one :-)
>
> Frank Vanaman
> Baltimore
>
> http://frank.gadgetland.net/projects.htm#MOTM
>
>
>
>
>

oooh, thats nice!!! indeed, hope the price isnt going up every new drawing
though  : )
hehehehe
Jim

Tony Karavidas wrote:

> Here is yet another refinement to the module. Crow sent me a graphic idea
> that is now on there. I've been thinking about the trigger vs out- and I
> think the trigger is more useful (which is now reflected on this drawing.
>
> http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN5.JPG
>
> The trigger switch is now a pushbutton. I think is will be out of the way
> better than a toggle.
>
> Tony
>

In a message dated 00-08-25 15:26:30 EDT, you write:

<< Here is yet another refinement to the module >>



tony,
it just gets better and better! any idea on availability ( i`ve got to start 
saving up my nickels and dimes! ) ?
best,
dave v.

Trigger out will probably prompt me to buy 2 of them also.  Maybe three?
This is great for ambient evolving (devolving?) pads among many other
things.

Paul is probably going to come out with some small panels with things like
inverters next year.

> I side with Shemp on this one and would like to see the trigger out jack.
> You can always send the positive out through an inverter (SO simple to
build
> one or two as a module!!!) The trigger out would be great for me  and
would
> make me want at least two of these to see what could happen. Good idea.
You
> could even patch other envelopes off of the trigger jack to
> really get the  blood pumpin'
> Thomas White

--Shemp

Excellent.  What about moving the pushbutton one column to the right?  It
seems better there for usuability.

Can a trigger be used equally well as a gate for this module?  Please
explain any differences to me.

Thanks!
Todd

> Here is yet another refinement to the module. Crow sent me a graphic idea
> that is now on there. I've been thinking about the trigger vs out- and I
> think the trigger is more useful (which is now reflected on this drawing.
> http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN5.JPG
> The trigger switch is now a pushbutton. I think is will be out of the way
> better than a toggle.
> Tony

I don't need the lines at all.  It keeps more with the current MOTM asthetic
I believe.  I think the wave pic is going to be pretty cramped and a good
silk screener will be required.

Nice page Frank.  How did you do your graphics (if you haven't posted it
before)?  I am still waiting to silk screen my Chaos panels...

Nice rack!  (and shut up in the back row!)

--Shemp


> For added confusion, perhaps the reference lines up to the graphic from
> the lower 'end position' switch should point to just the range of 'end'
> points rather than the whole loop; and similarly the lines down from the
> 'start position' switch should point to just the range of beginning
> points? Does anyone really care though? Certainly wouldn't keep me from
> buying one :-)
>
> Frank Vanaman
> Baltimore
>
http://frank.gadgetland.net/projects.htm#MOTM

Too late, the PCB went to production a few hours ago....

It will be as you see #5.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tentochi [mailto:tentochi@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 8:46 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] Re: 5th version panel layout
>
>
> Excellent.  What about moving the pushbutton one column to the right?  It
> seems better there for usuability.
>
> Can a trigger be used equally well as a gate for this module?  Please
> explain any differences to me.
>
> Thanks!
> Todd
>
> > Here is yet another refinement to the module. Crow sent me a
> graphic idea
> > that is now on there. I've been thinking about the trigger vs out- and I
> > think the trigger is more useful (which is now reflected on
> this drawing.
> > http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN5.JPG
> > The trigger switch is now a pushbutton. I think is will be out
> of the way
> > better than a toggle.
> > Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>

Forgot to answer this question.

Trigger in will work as a trigger. The module will simply progress through
all the stages without the ability to loop or sustain.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tentochi [mailto:tentochi@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 8:46 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] Re: 5th version panel layout
>
>
> Excellent.  What about moving the pushbutton one column to the right?  It
> seems better there for usuability.
>
> Can a trigger be used equally well as a gate for this module?  Please
> explain any differences to me.
>
> Thanks!
> Todd
>
> > Here is yet another refinement to the module. Crow sent me a
> graphic idea
> > that is now on there. I've been thinking about the trigger vs out- and I
> > think the trigger is more useful (which is now reflected on
> this drawing.
> > http://www.encoreelectronics.com/motm/ENVGEN5.JPG
> > The trigger switch is now a pushbutton. I think is will be out
> of the way
> > better than a toggle.
> > Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>

Congrats Tony on a great looking product and a lot of good input from
potential customers.  This will no doubt be useful in most any MOTM rack.

Larry H.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Karavidas <tony@...>
To: <motm@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 1:47 AM
Subject: RE: [motm] Re: 5th version panel layout


Too late, the PCB went to production a few hours ago....

It will be as you see #5.

Tony