MOTM

I have a couple of panel ideas kicking around in my head. Perhaps 
they might show up as future Stooge panels if there is enough 
interest.

1. A 1U panel with power switch and fuseholder, and 2 output jacks 
for buffered +15v and -15v.

2. A MOTM-120A panel. The MOTM-120A would be laid out just like a 
120, but would have 4 extra jacks in the top row position. These 
would support a mod bringing out all 4 sub octaves to their own 
buffered full amplitude outputs. The mod would mount on a 
daughterboard like the MOTM-800 output LED mod at my site.

Yes? No? Maybe?

Moe

> 2. A MOTM-120A panel. The MOTM-120A would be laid out just like a 
> 120, but would have 4 extra jacks in the top row position. These 
> would support a mod bringing out all 4 sub octaves to their own 
> buffered full amplitude outputs. The mod would mount on a 
> daughterboard like the MOTM-800 output LED mod at my site.
> 
> Yes? No? Maybe?
> 
> Moe
I think you are meaning a 3U Width panel.
Why not to do a companion module of just 1U so the existing 120 panel 
would stay in place and this useful addition could be placed just 
aside the 120 Either for new as for old MOTM120 owners.
BTW I had been considering months ago that this could be a nice add on 
to the M120 features and I think it may be welcome by many other 
users. 
Enrico (Sicily)

--- In motm@y..., endiendi@t... wrote:

I'm sorry, I read more carefully and I now understand that you still 
intended a 2U panel, anyway you may still consider the suggestion of a 
1U companion module.
Cheers Enrico

  
> > 2. A MOTM-120A panel. The MOTM-120A would be laid out just like a 
> > 120, but would have 4 extra jacks in the top row position. These 
> > would support a mod bringing out all 4 sub octaves to their own 
> > buffered full amplitude outputs. The mod would mount on a 
> > daughterboard like the MOTM-800 output LED mod at my site.
> > 
> > Yes? No? Maybe?
> > 
> > Moe
> I think you are meaning a 3U Width panel.
> Why not to do a companion module of just 1U so the existing 120 
panel 
> would stay in place and this useful addition could be placed just 
> aside the 120 Either for new as for old MOTM120 owners.
> BTW I had been considering months ago that this could be a nice add 
on 

> to the M120 features and I think it may be welcome by many other 
> users. 
> Enrico (Sicily)

Moe,
> 
> 1. A 1U panel with power switch and fuseholder, and 2 output jacks 
> for buffered +15v and -15v.
> 
Being dense this morning (first cup of coffee), is this panel intended to
'replace' a motm900?  That is, the power supply located 'somewhere' in a
cabinet with the mta pcb and connections to modules, and the power switch
and fuse located on the 1U panel (I guess the 2 output jacks have me
confused)?
Jeff

Moe wrote:
> 1. A 1U panel with power switch and fuseholder, and 2 output jacks
> for buffered +15v and -15v.

Would this be used for power distribution to multiple cabinets?  My target
system is three cabinets, so I'm in the process of designing a power system
to support it.  I plan on replacing the 900 with a +-15V 3A PowerOne.  Also,
future modules may require +5V so I'm including a separate PowerOne for that
as well.  Part of my concern is insuring that the star distribution system
is maintained, for obvious reasons.  I'm not sure if a single 1U panel would
handle all of the necessary functionality for multiple cabinets.  I've
picked up 1U and 2U blanks to play around with specifically for this
purpose.  I would definitely go for stooge power panels over my own designs
provided they supported multi-cabinet properly.

Moe wrote:
> 2. A MOTM-120A panel. The MOTM-120A would be laid out just like a
> 120, but would have 4 extra jacks in the top row position. These
> would support a mod bringing out all 4 sub octaves to their own
> buffered full amplitude outputs. The mod would mount on a
> daughterboard like the MOTM-800 output LED mod at my site.
>
> Yes? No? Maybe?

Yes!

Cheers,
George

> Moe wrote:
> > 1. A 1U panel with power switch and fuseholder, and 2 output jacks
> > for buffered +15v and -15v.
>
> Would this be used for power distribution to multiple cabinets?  My target
> system is three cabinets, so I'm in the process of designing a power
system
> to support it.  I plan on replacing the 900 with a +-15V 3A PowerOne.
Also,
> future modules may require +5V so I'm including a separate PowerOne for
that
> as well.  Part of my concern is insuring that the star distribution system
> is maintained, for obvious reasons.  I'm not sure if a single 1U panel
would
> handle all of the necessary functionality for multiple cabinets.  I've
> picked up 1U and 2U blanks to play around with specifically for this
> purpose.  I would definitely go for stooge power panels over my own
designs
> provided they supported multi-cabinet properly.
>

This is a don't care for me, as any cabinet I build will be large enough to
consume the power from a good sized power supply.

> Moe wrote:

> > 2. A MOTM-120A panel. The MOTM-120A would be laid out just like a
> > 120, but would have 4 extra jacks in the top row position. These
> > would support a mod bringing out all 4 sub octaves to their own
> > buffered full amplitude outputs. The mod would mount on a
> > daughterboard like the MOTM-800 output LED mod at my site.
> >
> > Yes? No? Maybe?
>
> Yes!

We must think alike.  I've been considering for awhile how useful discrete,
unfiltered outputs from the MOTM-120 would be.  I would take the outputs
from the 74HC157 MUX so the outputs could be selectable between suboctave
and cross.  The cross (AND function) could be useful for unusual triggering
modification, and add something different than the upcoming VC Pulse Divider
module.

John Loffink
microtonal@...

To me, it makes more sense to replace the 120 front panel with a 120A (that
has an extra 4 holes for the individual outs) instead of adding a 1U
companion module, provided that the circuitry containing the buffer circuits
fits as a daughterboard within the 120 module space.  A 1U companion module
that contains nothing but 4 jacks in my opinion would be wanting something
more in functionality to account for it's space requirement.  Add some
mults, then you're getting somewhere.

The only downside to a 120A panel would be that you would now have a 120
panel that you didn't need.  Maybe the stooge operation could be set up to
convert a 120 panel to a 120A?

George

> --- In motm@y..., endiendi@t... wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I read more carefully and I now understand that you still
> intended a 2U panel, anyway you may still consider the suggestion of a
> 1U companion module.
> Cheers Enrico
>
>
> > > 2. A MOTM-120A panel. The MOTM-120A would be laid out just like a
> > > 120, but would have 4 extra jacks in the top row position. These
> > > would support a mod bringing out all 4 sub octaves to their own
> > > buffered full amplitude outputs. The mod would mount on a
> > > daughterboard like the MOTM-800 output LED mod at my site.
> > >
> > > Yes? No? Maybe?
> > >
> > > Moe
<snip>

<snip>
>
> This is a don't care for me, as any cabinet I build will be large enough
to
> consume the power from a good sized power supply.

Based on this, I'm curious, are you using a separate power supply for each
cabinet?

<snip>
>
> We must think alike.  I've been considering for awhile how useful
discrete,
> unfiltered outputs from the MOTM-120 would be.  I would take the outputs
> from the 74HC157 MUX so the outputs could be selectable between suboctave
> and cross.  The cross (AND function) could be useful for unusual
triggering
> modification, and add something different than the upcoming VC Pulse
Divider
> module.
>
> John Loffink
> microtonal@...

I agree.  I also think it would be interesting to design a switch to
exchange the cross-function chip for other mathematical operations.

Cheers,
George

--- In motm@y..., "George Kisslak" <groovyshaman@s...> wrote:
> To me, it makes more sense to replace the 120 front panel with a 
120A (that
> has an extra 4 holes for the individual outs) instead of adding a 1U
> companion module, provided that the circuitry containing the buffer 
circuits
> fits as a daughterboard within the 120 module space.  A 1U companion 
module
> that contains nothing but 4 jacks in my opinion would be wanting 
something
> more in functionality to account for it's space requirement.  Add 
some
> mults, then you're getting somewhere.
> 
> The only downside to a 120A panel would be that you would now have a 
120
> panel that you didn't need.  Maybe the stooge operation could be set 
up to
> convert a 120 panel to a 120A?
George,
your objections are perfectly right and using 1U for just "4 holes" is 
a nonsense... the fact is that I was following a mental process that I 
didn't actually express and I may try to clarify now:What to do with 
these four independent outputs? If you want to treat them separately 
you could send each to a different filter (too expensive!) since the 
sound is rather rough and needs a "treatment"... yet the four outputs 
are far from being independent sound sources, it is not like having 4 
additional VCOs of course since  the frequencies are fixed.A companion 
module might have
a low cost dual eq for each output (bass treble with coaxial 
pots?)That would be four pots and four jacks. The use of these four 
sources would be more versatile this way I think. 
Cheers Enrico

> > > >
> > > > Moe
> <snip>

> > This is a don't care for me, as any cabinet I build will be large enough
> to
> > consume the power from a good sized power supply.
>
> Based on this, I'm curious, are you using a separate power supply for each
> cabinet?
>

Yes...well, when I build a second cabinet. :-)  My first is 18U x 15U and
about 6 months away from being filled.

> > The cross (AND function) could be useful for unusual
> triggering
> > modification, and add something different than the upcoming VC Pulse
> Divider
> > module.
> >
> I agree.  I also think it would be interesting to design a switch to
> exchange the cross-function chip for other mathematical operations.
>

Other logic functions would be nice too.  Now you're talking about taking
both counter outputs to the daughter board, performing the logic functions,
then Muxing them.  This would also require another panel switch, maybe two
switches that do a binary selection between SUBOCTAVE, CROSS (AND), OR and
XOR.

By the way, I would view these mods as useful functions for gate
manipulation, not for audio processing.  The separate outputs and logic
functions won't add much to waveform mangling.

John Loffink
microtonal@...