MOTM

Hey all,

My entire reason for building this modular is to have as many modulation
routings as possible--maximum flexibility no matter how rarely I use some
features. Please do not eliminate the individual VC points for the contour
generator. I will use them like crazy. It's the whole reason I've posted
about the VC EG at all, because I've been dying for easily VC-ed contours. I
need them.

I'm just curious: why does it seem like so many people don't want full
control in their modules? When I first brought up the idea of a fully VC-ed
contour generator to an individual, his response is "why would you want
that?" Now, with this fancy contour generator being talked about at length,
some people are fans of a single input that would affect each stage in a
flexible and somewhat predictable (in that hopefully you can predict how you
set it up!) way, and those same people seem to think that the individual VC
inputs are not so necessary. I'm not being critical--I understand that some
of you have had this feature in other modular systems and either didn't find
it all that useful or found it too cumbersome. But it's there if you ever do
want to use it (the feature--singular).

I always speak up when I fear a feature is on the chopping block for cost or
simplicity purposes. I don't care--build it so it's there. Unfortunately I
don't spend as much on MOTM as I should to have these bitching rights, but I
really don't care if a control feature drives up costs if it means I'm going
to get something with maximum flexibility.

I'm truly just curious--I'm not down on anyone. No angry responses please.

David.


> Well, like Larry said, the individual VC inputs are for "the
> masses" -- and
> are cheap enough to justify.