> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. I used to think that a "no
> knob" filter was the way to go. Just an audio input jack, and audio
> output jack, and two CV inputs: one for frequency, and the other for
> resonance. Four jacks, no knobs whatsoever, and use external mixers
> for the audio inputs, the frequency, and resonance (if the external
> mixers can also handle a DC offset). But slowly I started turning to
> the other camp. I found that I used several audio inputs on each
> filter, and several for frequency everytime I used my synth.
> Sometimes I needed more than just FM1, FM2, and the V/OCT input, and
> I had to use an external mixer in addition to the integrated ones.
> So, for me (right now, this week), I prefer the integrated mixer
> approach. I'll eat my hat now.
>
> With the 485R, I'd like three inputs with attenuators and at least
> another FM input. So if I were to use Oakley multi-mixers, I'd need
> two, which would take up 3U in total (two mixers plus the 485). So in
> this instance, the 2U 485R is more compact for my needs.
>
> At 8:52 PM -0500 2007/02/19, John Mahoney wrote:
>
>> At 04:22 PM 2/19/2007, Scott Juskiw wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm wondering if there's any interest in a 2U wide version of the
>>> MOTM-485 filter? [snip] Here's my current plan:
>>>
>>> 1. add an IN3 jack
>>> 2. add a 3 input mixer for the audio inputs
>>> 3. add 3 log pots for mixing the 3 inputs
>>> 4. add an FM2 input with an attenuator (not a reversing attenuator)
>>> [snip]
>>>
>> This raises an interesting question, and perhaps some folks will
>> share their opinions on this.
>>
>> Some months back, Tony Allgood asked the Oakley list for opinions on
>> creating more 1U VCF modules, and there was definitely interest ***
>> in compact filters, the idea being that you will also have some
>> general purpose mixers to use as needed. This makes sense where you
>> want a lot of different VCFs in one synth; you tend not to use all
>> the filters at once, so why have built-in mixers that aren't doing
>> anything except comsuming front panel space? If you are using
>> several of the filters simultaneously, you are probably spreading
>> the signals around so much that you don't need mixing capability on
>> most of them, anyway.
>>
>> *** (I'm sure that some people were not hip to the compact filter
>> concept, too. Different strokes for different folks.)
>>
>> So, compact filters and separate mixers, or "fully-featured" filters
>> with built-in mixers: What's your preference, and why?
>>
>> I'll go first: I like the idea of compact filters, especially if
>> they are all 1U and (I can dream, right?) they all have the same
>> layout. Then I'd put a 2U dual mixer to the left of my "VCF bank",
>> and probably a 1U triple attenuator/distributor module, too.
>>
>> By the way -- and I would hope this is obvious -- this is not meant
>> to sway Scott from what he's planning to do. Even if I could do so,
>> I have no reason to do so! I'm just always curious to see how
>> different people approach their synths.
>> --
>> john
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>