MOTM

jlarryh@... writes:
>>....the fact that the patch points are always at the bottom. So, from a 
pure engineering point of view, that is one of the best ways to hold down 
cost without compromising on the quality of parts.  True, there are some 
limitations imposed by that standardization.<<

Since I still haven't gotten my shipment of MOTM modules, I don't know 
anything about the mechanical design behind the panel.  So I am speaking not 
having those considerations in mind.  But those cost factors of course have 
to come into the equation.

>>Concerning no input on some of the modules, that is somewhat true.  The 
upcoming JH filter is a proven design clone of the popular filter from the P5 
I think.<<

It wouldn't be the actual filter design that would be discussed on something 
like that.  But maybe for example, the number of audio/modulation inputs or 
other features outside of the actual filter circuit.  If it is like the 420 
filter in that area, then great.

>>Just to give you a couple of examples where user input has actually changed
a design even AFTER the initial issue:  MOTM-800 - The new one has a circuit 
addition which will allow full ADSR operation with a gate only.  That change 
was a direct response to ranting (like yours) here on the list.<<

I would hope the 800 could be controlled with gate only like all other EGs, 
because that is all that is usually available.  That is why we should know 
before final design.

-Elhardt

The 420 actually had some heated discussion of what sort of inputs, and how 
many were available -- I was a big fat loud mouth (what's new) on having the 
reversing CV in attenuator. I really like the way that module turned out.

JB

In a message dated 10/30/99 9:35:25 PM, Elhardt@... writes:

>It wouldn't be the actual filter design that would be discussed on something
>
>like that.  But maybe for example, the number of audio/modulation inputs
>or 
>other features outside of the actual filter circuit.  If it is like the
>420 
>filter in that area, then great.
>

> From: JWBarlow@...
> 
> The 420 actually had some heated discussion of what sort of inputs, and
how 
> many were available -- I was a big fat loud mouth (what's new) on having
the 
> reversing CV in attenuator. I really like the way that module turned out.

I agree on both counts. 

1.  The module turned out great
2.  JWB is a loud mouth

Larry (pot calling the kettle black) Hendry
he he