MOTM

--- In motm@y..., "George Kisslak" <groovyshaman@s...> wrote:
> To me, it makes more sense to replace the 120 front panel with a 
120A (that
> has an extra 4 holes for the individual outs) instead of adding a 1U
> companion module, provided that the circuitry containing the buffer 
circuits
> fits as a daughterboard within the 120 module space.  A 1U companion 
module
> that contains nothing but 4 jacks in my opinion would be wanting 
something
> more in functionality to account for it's space requirement.  Add 
some
> mults, then you're getting somewhere.
> 
> The only downside to a 120A panel would be that you would now have a 
120
> panel that you didn't need.  Maybe the stooge operation could be set 
up to
> convert a 120 panel to a 120A?
George,
your objections are perfectly right and using 1U for just "4 holes" is 
a nonsense... the fact is that I was following a mental process that I 
didn't actually express and I may try to clarify now:What to do with 
these four independent outputs? If you want to treat them separately 
you could send each to a different filter (too expensive!) since the 
sound is rather rough and needs a "treatment"... yet the four outputs 
are far from being independent sound sources, it is not like having 4 
additional VCOs of course since  the frequencies are fixed.A companion 
module might have
a low cost dual eq for each output (bass treble with coaxial 
pots?)That would be four pots and four jacks. The use of these four 
sources would be more versatile this way I think. 
Cheers Enrico


> > > >
> > > > Moe
> <snip>