MOTM

Going from memory, Paul said that changing one resistor (per channel) would 
allow a person to change the amount of resonance on the 410 triple filter 
module.  How about a 1U module with 3 knobs to control the amount of 
resonance.  The wires that attach the pots from the add on module could have 
a connector in the middle for easy separation.  It's a no-brainer design, 
just needs a professional looking panel.

-Elhardt

Nit so (read the theory section). It's set by the ratio of 2 capacitors.

Paul S.

----- Original Message -----
From: <elhardt@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: [motm] Possible 410 Triple Filter add on module


> Going from memory, Paul said that changing one resistor (per channel)
would
> allow a person to change the amount of resonance on the 410 triple filter
> module.  How about a 1U module with 3 knobs to control the amount of
> resonance.  The wires that attach the pots from the add on module could
have

> a connector in the middle for easy separation.  It's a no-brainer design,
> just needs a professional looking panel.
>
> -Elhardt
>
>
>
>

>Nit so (read the theory section). It's set by the ratio of 2 capacitors.
>
>> Going from memory, Paul said that changing one resistor (per channel)
>would
>> allow a person to change the amount of resonance on the 410 triple filter
>> module.  How about a 1U module with 3 knobs to control the amount of
>> resonance.  The wires that attach the pots from the add on module could
>have
>> a connector in the middle for easy separation.  It's a no-brainer design,
>> just needs a professional looking panel.

I had a blast with the Technosaurus modular at NAMM because of
the triple resonant filter in it.  The unit features multiple audio
inputs, seperate frequency, level, Q, and fm amounts per band,
and three fm seperate inputs to the cutoff frequency.  No offense
to the MOTM-410, but this module rocks!  Of course, to put the
same features in a MOTM module it'd be 4U wide.

http://www.technosaurus.ch/modules/tres.htm

-Cary

> I had a blast with the Technosaurus modular at NAMM because of
> the triple resonant filter in it.  The unit features multiple audio
> inputs, seperate frequency, level, Q, and fm amounts per band,
> and three fm seperate inputs to the cutoff frequency.  No offense
> to the MOTM-410, but this module rocks!  Of course, to put the
> same features in a MOTM module it'd be 4U wide.

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.

JH.

cary.roberts@... writes:

>>I had a blast with the Technosaurus modular at NAMM because of
 the triple resonant filter in it.  The unit features multiple audio
 inputs, seperate frequency, level, Q, and fm amounts per band,
 and three fm seperate inputs to the cutoff frequency.  No offense
 to the MOTM-410, but this module rocks!  Of course, to put the
 same features in a MOTM module it'd be 4U wide.
 http://www.technosaurus.ch/modules/tres.htm<<

I was mentioning the same thing on AH a few weeks back.  I was considering 
getting a couple of them especially after seeing the 15% off sale 
Technosaurus was having and calculating the price, they seemed reasonable.  
But then came the info about odd operating voltages and Mickey's (form 
Drummachine.com) price was considerably higher.  The Doepfer version is also 
just about as flexible but I don't have room for a second one.  I might order 
a second MOTM anyway, but it would be nice to see some kind of future MOTM 
module that is good for general tone altering and setting up formants.

-Elhardt

jhaible@... writes:

>>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.<<

I won't be caught without a parametric EQ next to my synth.  They are great 
for fine tuning.  But triple bandpass filters and fixed filter banks are 
better for drastic sound changes.  In fact, the Polyfusion modular had both a 
3 band Variable Formant Filter (freq, Q, level) and a 5 band Parametric EQ 
module.  None of the parameters were voltage controllable though.

-Elhardt

So what's the difference? Parametric cuts and boosts, formant only 
passes the bands?

Moe

--- In motm@y..., elhardt@a... wrote:
> I won't be caught without a parametric EQ next to my synth.  They 
are great 
> for fine tuning.  But triple bandpass filters and fixed filter 
banks are 
> better for drastic sound changes.  In fact, the Polyfusion modular 
had both a 
> 3 band Variable Formant Filter (freq, Q, level) and a 5 band 
Parametric EQ 

> module.  None of the parameters were voltage controllable though.
> 
> -Elhardt

>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.

-Cary

mate_stubb@... writes:

>>So what's the difference? Parametric cuts and boosts, formant only passes 
the bands?<<

That's basically it.  The formant bank can totally cut out chunks of the 
sound spectrum or just allow one or more single bands of sound to pass 
through, however you want to think of it.  The Parametric as you say just 
allows you to cut and boost bands by small amounts like +/-12db.

-Elhardt

> >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.