MOTM

Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone else
convinces me elsewise:

* 2U wide
* dual 3:1 or single 6:1
* it splits into dual mode when a jack is inserted into OUT 1
* DC path. Can mix AC and/or DC. Uses OP285GP amps. This is a lower
offset/drift version of the OP275GP
* Has a  -5V to +5V DC bias pot, which is switch in/out via panel switch.
Only offsets OUT 2.
* 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)
* NO 'master Gain' it takes a dual pot and I'm not going down that road
(like 18 weeks lead time).
* $169 kit/$229 assembled
*easy to build, no trimmers. About as hard as a '420 kit.

Well?

Also: I have some new Switchcraft 113 jacks for sale. The are like the 112As
except:

* single open circuit (doesn't have the 3rd shorting lug)
* has an isoloated N.O (Normally Open) switch (on 2 seperate lugs)

The mixer needs a 113E version, which has a N.C. switch (grrrrrr.....)

Regular about $2.50ea. I'll sell em for 10 for $8.00 That's cheap! You don't
*have* to use the switch :)

Paul S.

Yeah, sure Larry! We just caught you trying to corner the market<LOL>!

What's that now, at least 20 times the Stooge has managed to send 
private mail to the list?

Moe

--- In motm@y..., "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@i...> wrote:
> (**(^&%$$%*&)_*(R^&  supposed to be private ... I HATE this F***ing 
rely
> function.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: J. Larry Hendry <jlarryh@i...>
> To: <motm@y...>
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [motm] Mixer design as of now
> 
> 
> Sound great Paul.  I do have one question.  You said switches when 
the jack
> is inserted into OUT 1.  Intuitively, I would consider Out 1 the 
one to be
> active when in 6 X 1 mode.  If the switch in one output 1, then out 
2 must
> be the one active for 6 x 1 mode.  Seems backwards.  However, I do 
think the
> DC bias needs to be active in the 6 x 1 mode.
> 
> In reference to the special jacks, I guess you just purchased the 
wrong ones
> and need to move them.  Right?  You need normally closed, these are 
normally
> open (so the isolated switch shorts when the jack is inserted?)  If 
so, I
> would be willing to take a large quantity off your hands at that 
price.  How
> many do you have?
> 
> Larry
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@a...>
> To: MOTM listserv <motm@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:32 PM
> Subject: [motm] Mixer design as of now
> 
> 
> Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone 
else
> convinces me elsewise:
> 
> * 2U wide
> * dual 3:1 or single 6:1
> * it splits into dual mode when a jack is inserted into OUT 1
> * DC path. Can mix AC and/or DC. Uses OP285GP amps. This is a lower
> offset/drift version of the OP275GP
> * Has a  -5V to +5V DC bias pot, which is switch in/out via panel 
switch.
> Only offsets OUT 2.
> * 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)
> * NO 'master Gain' it takes a dual pot and I'm not going down that 
road
> (like 18 weeks lead time).
> * $169 kit/$229 assembled
> *easy to build, no trimmers. About as hard as a '420 kit.
> 
> Well?
> 
> Also: I have some new Switchcraft 113 jacks for sale. The are like 
the 112As
> except:
> 
> * single open circuit (doesn't have the 3rd shorting lug)
> * has an isoloated N.O (Normally Open) switch (on 2 seperate lugs)
> 
> The mixer needs a 113E version, which has a N.C. switch 
(grrrrrr.....)
> 
> Regular about $2.50ea. I'll sell em for 10 for $8.00 That's cheap! 
You don't
> *have* to use the switch :)
> 
> Paul S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

This sounds good to me. So 7 knobs, 1 switch, 8 jacks, right? A 
typical full 2U panel.

Do you need a mockup? What do you want the labels to say?

Your thinking behind making OUT2 the 6x1 output is that with only 1 
output jack inserted, the main out is at the corner of the module?

Either OUT1 or OUT2 as the 6x1 output works for me. I agree with 
Larry that whichever output works as the 6x1, that's the one that the 
offset pot must be summed with, so that it can work at all times.

Moe

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone 
else
> convinces me elsewise:
> 
> * 2U wide
> * dual 3:1 or single 6:1
> * it splits into dual mode when a jack is inserted into OUT 1
> * DC path. Can mix AC and/or DC. Uses OP285GP amps. This is a lower
> offset/drift version of the OP275GP
> * Has a  -5V to +5V DC bias pot, which is switch in/out via panel 
switch.
> Only offsets OUT 2.
> * 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)
> * NO 'master Gain' it takes a dual pot and I'm not going down that 
road
> (like 18 weeks lead time).
> * $169 kit/$229 assembled
> *easy to build, no trimmers. About as hard as a '420 kit.
> 
> Well?
> 
> Also: I have some new Switchcraft 113 jacks for sale. The are like 
the 112As
> except:
> 
> * single open circuit (doesn't have the 3rd shorting lug)
> * has an isoloated N.O (Normally Open) switch (on 2 seperate lugs)
> 
> The mixer needs a 113E version, which has a N.C. switch 
(grrrrrr.....)
> 
> Regular about $2.50ea. I'll sell em for 10 for $8.00 That's cheap! 
You don't

> *have* to use the switch :)
> 
> Paul S.

Sound great Paul.  I do have one question.  You said switches when the jack
is inserted into OUT 1.  Intuitively, I would consider Out 1 the one to be
active when in 6 X 1 mode.  If the switch in one output 1, then out 2 must
be the one active for 6 x 1 mode.  Seems backwards.  However, I do think the
DC bias needs to be active in the 6 x 1 mode.

In reference to the special jacks, I guess you just purchased the wrong ones
and need to move them.  Right?  You need normally closed, these are normally
open (so the isolated switch shorts when the jack is inserted?)  If so, I
would be willing to take a large quantity off your hands at that price.  How
many do you have?

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
To: MOTM listserv <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:32 PM
Subject: [motm] Mixer design as of now


Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone else
convinces me elsewise:

* 2U wide
* dual 3:1 or single 6:1
* it splits into dual mode when a jack is inserted into OUT 1
* DC path. Can mix AC and/or DC. Uses OP285GP amps. This is a lower
offset/drift version of the OP275GP
* Has a  -5V to +5V DC bias pot, which is switch in/out via panel switch.
Only offsets OUT 2.
* 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)
* NO 'master Gain' it takes a dual pot and I'm not going down that road
(like 18 weeks lead time).
* $169 kit/$229 assembled
*easy to build, no trimmers. About as hard as a '420 kit.

Well?

Also: I have some new Switchcraft 113 jacks for sale. The are like the 112As
except:

* single open circuit (doesn't have the 3rd shorting lug)
* has an isoloated N.O (Normally Open) switch (on 2 seperate lugs)

The mixer needs a 113E version, which has a N.C. switch (grrrrrr.....)

Regular about $2.50ea. I'll sell em for 10 for $8.00 That's cheap! You don't
*have* to use the switch :)

Paul S.






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

(**(^&%$$%*&)_*(R^&  supposed to be private ... I HATE this F***ing rely
function.

----- Original Message -----
From: J. Larry Hendry <jlarryh@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Mixer design as of now


Sound great Paul.  I do have one question.  You said switches when the jack
is inserted into OUT 1.  Intuitively, I would consider Out 1 the one to be
active when in 6 X 1 mode.  If the switch in one output 1, then out 2 must
be the one active for 6 x 1 mode.  Seems backwards.  However, I do think the
DC bias needs to be active in the 6 x 1 mode.

In reference to the special jacks, I guess you just purchased the wrong ones
and need to move them.  Right?  You need normally closed, these are normally
open (so the isolated switch shorts when the jack is inserted?)  If so, I
would be willing to take a large quantity off your hands at that price.  How
many do you have?

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
To: MOTM listserv <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:32 PM
Subject: [motm] Mixer design as of now


Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone else
convinces me elsewise:

* 2U wide
* dual 3:1 or single 6:1
* it splits into dual mode when a jack is inserted into OUT 1
* DC path. Can mix AC and/or DC. Uses OP285GP amps. This is a lower
offset/drift version of the OP275GP
* Has a  -5V to +5V DC bias pot, which is switch in/out via panel switch.
Only offsets OUT 2.
* 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)
* NO 'master Gain' it takes a dual pot and I'm not going down that road
(like 18 weeks lead time).
* $169 kit/$229 assembled
*easy to build, no trimmers. About as hard as a '420 kit.

Well?

Also: I have some new Switchcraft 113 jacks for sale. The are like the 112As
except:

* single open circuit (doesn't have the 3rd shorting lug)
* has an isoloated N.O (Normally Open) switch (on 2 seperate lugs)

The mixer needs a 113E version, which has a N.C. switch (grrrrrr.....)

Regular about $2.50ea. I'll sell em for 10 for $8.00 That's cheap! You don't
*have* to use the switch :)

Paul S.






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

The kick is up...

And its good!!! 

That and a triple VCA and I can rule the world.  My Matrix 12 has 
enough VCA's to attenuate a solar eclipse... So I guess I got spoiled, 
now I want all my control sources to be able to be VCA's with an 
envelope, or / and a lag processor.. (you get the idea).

Bruce

What is the model number?

> * NO 'master Gain' it takes a dual pot and I'm not going down that road
> (like 18 weeks lead time).
> The mixer needs a 113E version, which has a N.C. switch (grrrrrr.....)

Can you desing the PCB (and FP) so we can add this ourselves at a later
time????  That would be cool.

> Regular about $2.50ea. I'll sell em for 10 for $8.00 That's
> cheap! You don't *have* to use the switch :)

Did you order the wrong ones?  How many do you have?

Cheers!
Shemp

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mate_stubb@...>
> Yeah, sure Larry! We just caught you trying to corner
> the market<LOL>!
----
Well, not corner the market.  But, I do have these magic busses that require
48 jacks each.  I know there will be 4 of them.
---
> What's that now, at least 20 times the Stooge has managed
> to send private mail to the list?
---
Careful Moe.  I have some other photos of you too.  Maybe I
should call your wife... nyck nyck...

Just kiddin'
Larry

synth1@... writes:

>>* 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)<<

Am I to understand that this will allow us to subtract a signal from the mix?

-Elhardt

How about + and - output jacks for the mixed output?

At 11:32 PM 3/3/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone else
>convinces me elsewise:

Instead of using Out1 or Out2 to switch from single to dual mode, I would
recommend a real switch.  This could let you use both Outs in Dual mode and
help prevent confusion about which jack switches the unit to dual mode.  It
also would allow switching in/out additional sources on the fly to your
existing audio or modulation sources, a very useful realtime function.

John Loffink
microtonal@...

----- Original Message -----

From: <mate_stubb@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:34 AM
Subject: [motm] Re: Mixer design as of now


> This sounds good to me. So 7 knobs, 1 switch, 8 jacks, right? A
> typical full 2U panel.
>
> Do you need a mockup? What do you want the labels to say?
>
> Your thinking behind making OUT2 the 6x1 output is that with only 1
> output jack inserted, the main out is at the corner of the module?
>
> Either OUT1 or OUT2 as the 6x1 output works for me. I agree with
> Larry that whichever output works as the 6x1, that's the one that the
> offset pot must be summed with, so that it can work at all times.
>
> Moe
>
> --- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> > Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone
> else
> > convinces me elsewise:
> >
> > * 2U wide
> > * dual 3:1 or single 6:1
> > * it splits into dual mode when a jack is inserted into OUT 1
> > * DC path. Can mix AC and/or DC. Uses OP285GP amps. This is a lower
> > offset/drift version of the OP275GP
> > * Has a  -5V to +5V DC bias pot, which is switch in/out via panel
> switch.
> > Only offsets OUT 2.
> > * 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)
> > * NO 'master Gain' it takes a dual pot and I'm not going down that
> road
> > (like 18 weeks lead time).
> > * $169 kit/$229 assembled
> > *easy to build, no trimmers. About as hard as a '420 kit.
> >
> > Well?
> >
> > Also: I have some new Switchcraft 113 jacks for sale. The are like
> the 112As
> > except:
> >
> > * single open circuit (doesn't have the 3rd shorting lug)
> > * has an isoloated N.O (Normally Open) switch (on 2 seperate lugs)
> >
> > The mixer needs a 113E version, which has a N.C. switch
> (grrrrrr.....)
> >
> > Regular about $2.50ea. I'll sell em for 10 for $8.00 That's cheap!
> You don't
> > *have* to use the switch :)
> >
> > Paul S.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

No room.

Paul S.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Dave Hylander" <david@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 5:05 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Mixer design as of now


> How about + and - output jacks for the mixed output?
>
> At 11:32 PM 3/3/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone else
> >convinces me elsewise:
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Well, add it with positive or negative polarity. In the case of a dc 
signal, you are adding negative offset. Is that what you meant?

Moe

--- In motm@y..., elhardt@a... wrote:
> synth1@a... writes:
> 
> >>* 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)<<
> 
> Am I to understand that this will allow us to subtract a signal 
from the mix?
> 
> -Elhardt

Where would you put the extra jack? There are already 8!

Moe

--- In motm@y..., Dave Hylander <david@h...> wrote:
> How about + and - output jacks for the mixed output?
> 
> At 11:32 PM 3/3/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >Here is what I'm about to commit to for the mixer unless someone 
else
> >convinces me elsewise:

In a message dated 3/4/2001 1:58:04 AM, elhardt@... writes:

>synth1@... writes:
>
>>>* 2 reversing attenuators (1 in each mixer)<<
>
>Am I to understand that this will allow us to subtract a signal from the
>mix?

That would be my understanding! 

BTW, you may remember a long while ago I was raving about using inverters to 
add and subtract different waveforms from a single VCO (allowing one to 
reinforce the fundamental for example)-- I thought this technique needed a 
closer look (listen). The addition of these reversing attenuators is a real 
plus IMO, and they will of course, be useful in all the normal CV mixing 
functions too.

JB

Is there a picture of it somewhere?  I didn't know there were 8.

dave

At 04:55 PM 3/4/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Where would you put the extra jack? There are already 8!

I've whipped up a couple of panel candidates, neither of which has 
been blessed by Paul. One of them incorporates John L.'s suggestion 
for a dedicated MODE switch.

http://motm.retrosynth.com/moe_stuff/future_motm/m-mixer.jpg
http://motm.retrosynth.com/moe_stuff/future_motm/m-mixer2.jpg

Enjoy, drool, etc.

Moe

Dave's Hot Rod MOTM Shop
http://www.users.qwest.net/~daveb2

--- In motm@y..., Dave Hylander <david@h...> wrote:

> Is there a picture of it somewhere?  I didn't know there were 8.
> 
> dave
> 
> At 04:55 PM 3/4/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >Where would you put the extra jack? There are already 8!

This is what I'd like to see.  The switch changes between 2x3 and 1X6, and 
there is a LED :).  Sorry about the resolution.  It's difficult to export 
out of Acad2000.

Dave

At 06:31 PM 3/4/01 +0000, you wrote:

>I've whipped up a couple of panel candidates, neither of which has
>been blessed by Paul. One of them incorporates John L.'s suggestion
>for a dedicated MODE switch.

In a message dated 3/4/2001 10:32:51 AM, mate_stubb@... writes:

>One of them incorporates John L.'s suggestion 
>for a dedicated MODE switch.

>http://motm.retrosynth.com/moe_stuff/future_motm/m-mixer2.jpg

I think I prefer this one for the reasons John gave previously.

Beyond that, I like everything that Paul has incorporated into this module so 
far.

Hey, it's rated XXX, for extreme mixing no doubt!
JB

Sorry for the attachment, that was supposed to go private to Dave B.

dave (acting like a stooge)


At 02:00 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:

>This is what I'd like to see.  The switch changes between 2x3 and 1X6, and
>there is a LED :).  Sorry about the resolution.  It's difficult to export
>out of Acad2000.
>
>Dave
>
>At 06:31 PM 3/4/01 +0000, you wrote:
> >I've whipped up a couple of panel candidates, neither of which has
> >been blessed by Paul. One of them incorporates John L.'s suggestion
> >for a dedicated MODE switch.
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

I like the dedicated mode switch on mixer2.

dave

At 06:31 PM 3/4/01 +0000, you wrote:

>I've whipped up a couple of panel candidates, neither of which has
>been blessed by Paul. One of them incorporates John L.'s suggestion
>for a dedicated MODE switch.
>
>http://motm.retrosynth.com/moe_stuff/future_motm/m-mixer.jpg
>http://motm.retrosynth.com/moe_stuff/future_motm/m-mixer2.jpg

Har! Round Three of the Mixer Wars erupts again! I posted both panel 
designs to start a discussion, in part because some of the newer list 
members are complaining about all the off topic posts, and we haven't 
had a design brawl in awhile. So if you're a list old-timer and are 
tired of all this, blame me.

Be aware - adding a second switch ups the module cost $5 - $10. Still 
want it?

Moe

Dave's Hot Rod MOTM Shop
http://www.users.qwest.net/~daveb2

--- In motm@y..., "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@i...> wrote:
> I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion here.  The jack 
switching is
> more efficient in that you do not need an external switch and you 
leave the
> panel space open for other things.  What is it that the external 
switch gets
> you?  Nothing I can see.
> 
> with only one output connected, it is a 6 to 1 mixer.  With both 
jacked, it
> is a 3 to 1 mixer times 2.  What could be any more simple than 
that.  I have
> a DIY mixer built like that except  it is either 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 
times 2
> with dedicated bias and LEDs on each 1/2.  when you plug in the 
second
> output, it splits the mixer, that simple.  I also added 2 LEDs that 
indicate
> whether the mixer is in 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 x 2 mode.  However, I have 
found
> that the LEDs are just not needed.
> 
> So, I think Paul's concept of a switching jack is still best, but I 
think
> the "switch jack" should be the second output not the first.   
Think about
> it -- one output plug and it is 6 to 1 --  two output plugs and it
> automatically splits off  3 of the inputs to the second output.  
Highly

> intuitive.
> Larry H
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Hylander <david@h...>
> To: <motm@y...>
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 1:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Mixer design as of now
> 
> 
> I like the dedicated mode switch on mixer2.
> 
> dave

>So, I think Paul's concept of a switching jack is still best...

Absolutely, no need for the switch.

>... but I think the "switch jack" should be the second output not the
first.

But I don't get this. Surely the top output should be the sum of the top
row of inputs. Inserting a jack in these automatically disconnects this
from the next three. Its also easier to do, since you can do this with
the NC contacts in the 112A.

Its what I would do :-)

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, England

Oakley Modular Synth and TB3030:
www.techrepairs.freeserve.co.uk/projects.htm
My music: www.mp3.com/taklamakan

At 2:29 PM -0600 03/04/01, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>
>I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion here.  The jack switching is
>more efficient in that you do not need an external switch and you leave the
>panel space open for other things.  What is it that the external switch
>>gets you?  Nothing I can see.

I agree.  A variety of switched jacks is one reason to choose 1/4".  You
might as well take advantage of it.

The only advantage to additional switch would be if the first output was
the first three inputs, and the second output was the second three outputs
or all six outputs depending solely on the switch regardless of whether or
not you are using the first output.  That way you could get a three channel
submix and a six channel main mix from the same six inputs.

You can also use a 1/4" jack on the outputs so its the negative when
inserted half way.  In fact, this would be a nice standard for every output
in the system!!

>with only one output connected, it is a 6 to 1 mixer.  With both jacked, it
>is a 3 to 1 mixer times 2.  What could be any more simple than that.

Two separate modules??

>So, I think Paul's concept of a switching jack is still best, but I think
>the "switch jack" should be the second output not the first.   Think about
>it -- one output plug and it is 6 to 1 --  two output plugs and it
>automatically splits off  3 of the inputs to the second output.  Highly
>intuitive.

Hmmm...my intuition tells me the output for all six should be all the way
to the bottom, and all the way to the right.  The sub-out for the first
three should be to the left of the output of the second three.

At 2:00 PM -0500 03/04/01, Dave Hylander wrote:
>
>This is what I'd like to see.  The switch changes between 2x3 and 1X6, and
>there is a LED :).  Sorry about the resolution.  It's difficult to export
>out of Acad2000.

You want a switch and an LED??  What does the LED tell you??  Which way the
switch is?!?

I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion here.  The jack switching is
more efficient in that you do not need an external switch and you leave the
panel space open for other things.  What is it that the external switch gets
you?  Nothing I can see.

with only one output connected, it is a 6 to 1 mixer.  With both jacked, it
is a 3 to 1 mixer times 2.  What could be any more simple than that.  I have
a DIY mixer built like that except  it is either 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 times 2
with dedicated bias and LEDs on each 1/2.  when you plug in the second
output, it splits the mixer, that simple.  I also added 2 LEDs that indicate
whether the mixer is in 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 x 2 mode.  However, I have found
that the LEDs are just not needed.

So, I think Paul's concept of a switching jack is still best, but I think
the "switch jack" should be the second output not the first.   Think about
it -- one output plug and it is 6 to 1 --  two output plugs and it
automatically splits off  3 of the inputs to the second output.  Highly
intuitive.
Larry H

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Hylander <david@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Mixer design as of now


I like the dedicated mode switch on mixer2.

dave

well unfortunetly for some who use are MOTM in the studio, having to explain to
a producer or guitarist patching things this everytime is a pain. Id prefer the
switch as well. Also Dave Hylanders note about a LED would be cool.
Jim

J. Larry Hendry wrote:

> I have to disagree with the prevailing opinion here.  The jack switching is
> more efficient in that you do not need an external switch and you leave the
> panel space open for other things.  What is it that the external switch gets
> you?  Nothing I can see.
>
> with only one output connected, it is a 6 to 1 mixer.  With both jacked, it
> is a 3 to 1 mixer times 2.  What could be any more simple than that.  I have
> a DIY mixer built like that except  it is either 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 times 2
> with dedicated bias and LEDs on each 1/2.  when you plug in the second
> output, it splits the mixer, that simple.  I also added 2 LEDs that indicate
> whether the mixer is in 4 to 1 or 2 to 1 x 2 mode.  However, I have found
> that the LEDs are just not needed.
>
> So, I think Paul's concept of a switching jack is still best, but I think
> the "switch jack" should be the second output not the first.   Think about
> it -- one output plug and it is 6 to 1 --  two output plugs and it
> automatically splits off  3 of the inputs to the second output.  Highly
> intuitive.
> Larry H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Hylander <david@...>
> To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 1:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Mixer design as of now
>
> I like the dedicated mode switch on mixer2.
>
> dave
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Absolutely, no need for the switch.
>
> >... but I think the "switch jack" should be the second output not the
> first.
>
> But I don't get this. Surely the top output should be the sum of the top
> row of inputs. Inserting a jack in these automatically disconnects this
> from the next three. Its also easier to do, since you can do this with
> the NC contacts in the 112A.
>
> Its what I would do :-)
>

For everyone who says there's no need for a mode switch, look at all the
arguments about whether the first or second output would activate the
switching.  This would not be confusing though...

Nuff said.

John Loffink
microtonal@...

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Tony Allgood <oakley@...>
But I don't get this. Surely the top output should be the sum of the top
row of inputs. Inserting a jack in these automatically disconnects this
from the next three. Its also easier to do, since you can do this with
the NC contacts in the 112A.
---
Well, after looking at Moe image 1 as Paul has indicated, I agree.  And
I agree that the switching can be done with the NC contact of a 112A.
although that might not fit Paul's way of doing things.

You can also do it with a normal stereo 113 A with no switches using the 
"ring" connection as a shorting switch to ground.  Since that is DIY OT,
anyone interested in how I did that on my homebrew can e-mail me 
privately.  It only added a couple of resistors.

Larry H

No, The LED is on the output.  I use one of the bicolor and it indicates 
the polarity and strength of the signal.  Very similar to the 320 LFO 
operation.

dave

At 03:19 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>You want a switch and an LED??  What does the LED tell you??  Which way the
>switch is?!?

Now, That's the kind of LED that is valuable.  IMHO.
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Hylander <david@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Mixer design as of now


No, The LED is on the output.  I use one of the bicolor and it indicates
the polarity and strength of the signal.  Very similar to the 320 LFO
operation.

dave

At 03:19 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>You want a switch and an LED??  What does the LED tell you??  Which way the
>switch is?!?




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

mate_stubb@... writes:

>>Well, add it with positive or negative polarity. In the case of a dc 
 signal, you are adding negative offset. Is that what you meant?<<

I don't think adding a negative offset is the same as adding an inverted 
signal which would be like subtracting.  Subtracting is what I was hoping it 
will do.

-Elhardt

Well, Paul also said that two of the inputs will be reversing 
attenuators, so yes, it will subtract (add with inverse polarity).

Moe

--- In motm@y..., elhardt@a... wrote:
> mate_stubb@y... writes:
> 
> >>Well, add it with positive or negative polarity. In the case of a 
dc 
>  signal, you are adding negative offset. Is that what you meant?<<
> 
> I don't think adding a negative offset is the same as adding an 
inverted 
> signal which would be like subtracting.  Subtracting is what I was 
hoping it 

> will do.
> 
> -Elhardt

At 8:57 PM -0600 03/04/01, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>
>Now, That's the kind of LED that is valuable.  IMHO.

I agree.  Although motm doesn't seem big on LED's.

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dave Hylander <david@...>
>To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 7:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Mixer design as of now
>
>
>No, The LED is on the output.  I use one of the bicolor and it indicates
>the polarity and strength of the signal.  Very similar to the 320 LFO
>operation.
>
>dave
>

At 03:19 PM 3/4/01 -0500, I wrote:
>>You want a switch and an LED??  What does the LED tell you??  Which way
>>the switch is?!?

which would be silly :)

We probally wont gte this from Paul, will you mod mine down the road, as im sure
you will yours ?

main complaint people have when they come over on MOTM.... Is this thing on ?  :
)

hows the weather ?

Dave Hylander wrote:

> No, The LED is on the output.  I use one of the bicolor and it indicates
> the polarity and strength of the signal.  Very similar to the 320 LFO
> operation.
>
> dave
>
> At 03:19 PM 3/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >You want a switch and an LED??  What does the LED tell you??  Which way the
> >switch is?!?
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/