MOTM

> >To offer a different point of view, parametric equalizers (or similar
> >filters) surely have their use (I'm glad my mixing desk has semi
parametric
> >bands), but you wouldn't really want to convert a carefully optimized
> >musical filter into just one more of these.
> >
> >It's really two different things completely - I doubt these modules have
> >much more in common than a similar name.
>
> Huh??  The Technosaurus triple resonant filter is not an simple
> EQ.  It's a resonant VCF x 3.  So it's like using several VCFs in
> parallel.  Each band has it's own CV input so you can do cool things
> like using different rate LFOs (kinda like the 410), or EGs, or audio
> rate VCOs as modulation sources.  If it were just a parametric
> EQ I'd be yawning, as I have good EQ on my console as well as
> outboard.  Multiple filters are cool.  Especially when you start
> mixing them in parallel and in series.

Ok. There is a difference between a parametric EQ and the Technosaurus
filter, there is a difference between the Technosaurus filter and the MOTM
410, and there is a difference between the MOTM 410 and a phaser.

A phaser ? Yes, a 6-stage phaser has 3 resonant peaks which are
controlled by one Feedback or Resonance control.  Which is a nice
feature just as it is, and people rarely complain that they cannot control
each peak individually in a phaser. (There's a whole more circuit
parameters that give different 6-stage phasers a different sound, such as
FETs, Vactrols, OTAs, transistor ladders etc. You get the idea.)

The MOTM-410 has a single Resonance knob like a phaser, but you
can individually position the peaks on the frequency axis. Internally,
it's not built like a phaser, and not like a parametric EQ or VCF either.
(It uses an optoelectronic control that is responsible for the smooth
sound of some phasers, however.)

So I really think comparing the 410 with paremetric EQs (or parametric
BPFs which are quite similar, circuit wise) is comparing apples
and oranges. IMO, parametric VCFs or EQs are very much on the "perfect
control - multi parameter" side, while (resonant) phasers are on the
very opposite side where a certain "character" is designed-in and the user
is offered a limited, ergonomic interface. And I'd place the 410 somewhere
in between these extremes. Best of both worlds if you like, or at least
a deliberate choice to place it where it is.

That's what I wanted to say with short words - it's different, and you would
loose something if you wanted to change it in either direction.
The smoothness of optoelectronic control and the precision of fully
parametric stuff would not fit nicely together - at least I don't see how
they could.

I hope it came thru better this time (;->)

JH.