MOTM

In a message dated 1/2/2001 11:45:22 AM, dbivins@... writes:

>But Barlow--you should have at least 10 LFOs! :) I feel like I'm going
>to
>burn out the two I have because I use them so much. 

Yes, I should, and you should buy them for me!!!

>Anyway, I would much rather leave OUT any internal LFO. I don't like these
>mixed modules. I would much rather have each module perform one function.
>Even with the 410 I would rather have 3 CV inputs (hey--I'm not complaining
>though--I still love it).

I almost sort of agree with you here (on alternate days at least), and at 
first I didn't like the idea on the 410. In retrospect I'm glad the 410 has 
an onboard LFO since I use it this way more than half the time -- and I'm 
really glad (and have been a very vocal proponent) in having all the onboard 
mixers for inputs and CVs. I'd hate to have to buy a mixer for every VCO (and 
two for most every VCF).

I think of it this way, it probably costs about $20 to put the LFO and the 
"RATE" control in such a module (since you'd still want the "DEPTH" control 
for the an external input). I can't remember how much a 320 costs, but I bet 
it's a bit more than $20 (even with the substantial discount that Paul would 
give me for being so generous as to offer him that "delicious" vegetarian 
pizza from the Dominos of his choice). So my ten 320s would be freed up for 
VC Panning, VC PWM, sweeping the FM input of a VCO which is synced to another 
VCO, etc.

>But that's just my opinion and other MOTMers rarely agree with that opinion,
>so I'll just go back to my corner.

Yep, go have some piazza and make some more MP3s!

Hey, I just got back from my walk and it's got to be in the mid 70s (F) an 
hour after sundown!
John (and....loving it) Barlow