MOTM

I think I like the second option, because I very much like the idea 
of a blend.  But I would also very much like to have the blend under 
CV. I would give up PWM for blend!

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> Now that Larry is hard at work (cough cough) on the pedal 
interface, I'm
> focusing on the MOTM-310 MicroVCO.
> 
> To refresh: this is a lower cost VCO that shares MOTM-800 EG panel, 
bracket,
> and pcb size. That means 4 knobs
> and 4 jacks.
> 
> In order to match MOTM-300 performance, and to use common parts I 
want to
> keep it SAW-based (as opposed
> to TRI-based). Looking at the pcb space and cost target ($169-179 
kit) I
> propose the following:
> 
> 4 knobs are:
> 
> COARSE
> FINE
> FM (attenuator)
> WIDTH (of pulse)
> 
> 4 jacks are:
> 
> 1V/OCT
> FM
> SAW
> PULSE
> 
> This minimizes parts count. Having a 'blend' pot (say between 
SQUARE and
> TRI) looks like too many parts to
> fit on the board. Plus it adds $10-$15 to the cost. Since this main 
function
> of the '310 is to 'beef up' the mix with
> existing '300s, and to use as a sync generator to other '300s, this 
looks
> like the best fit.
> 
> The only other possibility is: the 4th pots is a 'blend'. The VCO 
has 1 OUT.
> The 4th jack is PWM IN. With no
> plug inserted, the PULSE is 50%. Else, the input is a -5V to +5V 
pulse width
> control (no input attenuation).
> So you can get SAW to PULSE with the blend. This is not as gnarly 
as the TRI
> stuff, and possibly more
> musically useful.
> 
> Well??!?!?
> 
> Paul S.