MOTM

In a message dated 4/12/2003 10:43:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
phaneber@... writes:

> I would agree that 90% of the ARP sound comes from the filter, but I 
> would also argue that the oscillators played a part in the sound as 
> well.  If you just listened to the oscillators without the filter, 
> they sounded somewhat thin as opposed to the fat Moog sound.  
> 

I agree with most of the comments that have been made so far (and was going 
to make the point about the oscillators too). I also think that the 2600 is 
probably the best assortment of modules, and I would suggest people putting a 
system together should use that as a basic framework to start with especially 
considering the more unusual modules like the S/H, lag processor, 
mixer/inverters, preamp/env follower (all though there are some notable 
problems in the design: like VCO 2 is the only source of tri/sine waves but 
is also the only one with VC PWM input).

But this is also very timely as I expect to get another MOTM 490 in the next 
few days which I hope install in my ARP 2600 (to get that "classic" ladder 
sound). When I bought my gray face ARP 20 years ago (it was built in 75), I 
found that the VCF had been replaced with a CEM 3320.

Unfortunately, it looks much more difficult than I first thought. I've 
compared the schematics of the ARP 4012 and the MOTM 490 -- I'm hoping not to 
change the VCF motherboard too much. I'd looked into one of Phil C.'s 
replacement VCFs a few years ago but thought it a bit expensive (like $250 
for the submodule).

Any input would be appreciated.
JB