MOTM

But Barlow--you should have at least 10 LFOs! :) I feel like I'm going to
burn out the two I have because I use them so much. 

Anyway, I would much rather leave OUT any internal LFO. I don't like these
mixed modules. I would much rather have each module perform one function.
Even with the 410 I would rather have 3 CV inputs (hey--I'm not complaining
though--I still love it).

But that's just my opinion and other MOTMers rarely agree with that opinion,
so I'll just go back to my corner.

David.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jwbarlow@... [mailto:jwbarlow@...]
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 8:12 PM
> To: motm@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] LFO
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 1/1/2001 5:49:49 AM, jhaible@... writes:
> 
> >I got my MOTM LFO kit shortly after Christmas, and the
> >first thing I tried was controlling a Phaser with the
> >unsymmetrical Sine waveshape. This is something I wanted
> >to try for a long time. 
> 
> 
> >And there it was, the idiosyncratic "roller coaster" type modulation
> >which you find in some vintage Phasers.
> >So, if you have an exponentially controlled (V/Oct) Phaser and
> >a MOTM VCLFO, it's recommended to try this specific setup.
> 
> 
> Maybe the upcoming MOTM VC Phaser can incorporate a "simple" 
> on board LFO 
> which is capable of producing the basic "popular" LFO waveforms (like 
> triangle, sine, and "rollycoaster") as this would leave the 
> 320 free to use 
> elsewhere.
> 
> Hey, I can't let UK Paul dominate the unreasonable future 
> module request list.
> JB
> 
> 
>