MOTM

I love a good arpeggiator. I can't even begin to estimate the amount of
man-hours that were killed in the 80's by my Korg Mono/Poly arpeggiator.

But as a module... I'm not sure. To be as useful/fun as the Korg MP-4 unit,
it would need to be flexible and controllable. The Korg arpegiator was
"programmed" in real time by the scanned keyboard... how you would
reasonably pull that off with CVs is not clear.

Also, it may be that a mini-sequencer with CV or gate control of
up/down/up-down, for instance, might do the same job but really be more of a
flexible sequencer than an arpeggitor module.

In the end, there may be more "modular" ways of doing a similar job. I have
long been on a quest for a stable/flexible quantizer module. With that, you
could feed in CV sweeps or the output from an S&H and get some
arpeggiator-like effects. Sticking the lag between the S&H or an LFO and the
quantizer would allow you various VC methods for shaping the curve and
therefore the output of the quantizer, and so on.

The subject is worth discussing.

-----Original Message-----
From: sikorsky
To: motm@egroups.com
Sent: 01/02/2001 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] I think I'm gonna throw up


on topic comment: so no one liked the arpegiator module then..?

h3y ken,

>The subject is worth discussing.

i agree.  however, in my ignorance, i would be of very little use in 
a discussion of it.  fun to play with though...
peace,
doc


--- In motm@egroups.com, "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
>  
> I love a good arpeggiator. I can't even begin to estimate the 
amount of
> man-hours that were killed in the 80's by my Korg Mono/Poly 
arpeggiator.
> 
> But as a module... I'm not sure. To be as useful/fun as the Korg MP-
4 unit,
> it would need to be flexible and controllable. The Korg arpegiator 
was
> "programmed" in real time by the scanned keyboard... how you would
> reasonably pull that off with CVs is not clear.
> 
> Also, it may be that a mini-sequencer with CV or gate control of
> up/down/up-down, for instance, might do the same job but really be 
more of a
> flexible sequencer than an arpeggitor module.
> 
> In the end, there may be more "modular" ways of doing a similar 
job. I have
> long been on a quest for a stable/flexible quantizer module. With 
that, you
> could feed in CV sweeps or the output from an S&H and get some
> arpeggiator-like effects. Sticking the lag between the S&H or an 
LFO and the
> quantizer would allow you various VC methods for shaping the curve 
and

> therefore the output of the quantizer, and so on.
> 
> The subject is worth discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sikorsky
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Sent: 01/02/2001 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] I think I'm gonna throw up
> 
> 
> on topic comment: so no one liked the arpegiator module then..?