MOTM

Yes, I agree with Ken.  I hate looking at scope screens and numbers 
when it comes to this stuff.  I use my ears first, and then my brain.

Unless there is some critical calibration that cannot be performed 
by ear, I won't try to use DVM or scope.  

Well, maybe that's a lie.  I *do* like to see what effect a certain 
tweak may have on the waveform, and for this I use a scope.

This is not to deny that there is an issue with 0 ATTACK settings on 
the EG.  Paul has already said there is.  But it's not an issue that 
affects me in the least.  I seem to be able to find the texture and 
timbre that I want every time I use the machine.

BIG CAVEAT - I don't do imitative synthesis.  This application may 
require more precise behavior at super fast attacks (though with a 
modular, there are *many* ways to accomplish the same thing).

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
> 
> I had the same reaction to this ongoing thread.
> 
> We're a group of people that sit around waxing poetic about the 
strange
> behaviors and unique personalities of all this vintage gear, and 
yet we're
> going to lose sleep over some unusual characteristic of this one 
module
> that, as Paul pointed out, no one even noticed for four years?
> 
> Maybe 15 years from now people will be trying to emulate the 
action of the
> Rev2 MOTM-EG!
> 
> Brian Eno once commented that when his synthesizers broke, he 
didn't get
> them fixed, because 'NOW they start to have some PERSOINALITY.' 
While that
> may be a little extreme for most of us, it's worth noting that odd 
behavior
> is kind of a major part (I think) of why we're using this gear in 
the first
> place, instead of perfect, flawless digital emulations that never 
stray.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhaible [mailto:jhaible@d...] 
> 
> Just one thought:
> Not all of the "vintage" envelopes work as we would expect it, 
either.
> Nobody complains about a Minimoog envelope going above its nominal
> peak level with fast repeated triggers. Most people consider it 
a "feature",
> even though it is originally a design flaw.
> ....