MOTM

That was an excellent response, JH, and your points are very well 
taken. I'll address a few things Paul said so as to keep things neat.

>Noise is annoying only if you can hear it. Now, in today's uber-
quiet CD world, it's certainly *easier* to hear noise. The Audio 
Precision test set I use to look at stuff can show this. But,
just because it measures "bad", doesn't make it *objectionable*.<

This is true, but how far do you want to take it?  Would you make 
filters for that Serge, Buchla or Doepfer sound (whatever that is)? 
The more "noisy" modules you add to your product line, the less 
worthy it will be of the "CD quality" claim on the website.

If you were to ask me [and you didn't :-) ) I would caution against 
building modules that are supposed to emulate such-and-such a 
synthesizer. Ideally, a synthesizer isn't supposed to have any kind 
of sound. That is up to the synthesist to create. An ARP filter isn't 
going to automatically create an ARP sound because it is out of the 
context of the total insturment, unless all the other modules emulate 
the 2600, as well as the signal path (which causes people to create 
more or less the same patches, hence a "sound."  That's actually not 
a good thing).

I was extremely impressed with the 440. If anything, the next filter 
should be a highpass filter of that quality. For bandpass, you would 
just use the two filters in parallel.


>The MOTM-480 CS-80 filter measures the noise floor 12dB HIGHER than 
the MOTM-440. Yet, no beta testers
have even mentioned it, even though I specifically asked them 
to "listen for noise".<

It is rather quiet, though certainly no 440. But that's all I'll say 
for now...


>However, it's that part that creates the 'bubbly, gurply, reed' 
sound.<

Well, at least Robert Rich will buy one.  Wait, that's "glorp."

johnm