MOTM

In a message dated 2/3/2001 8:10:43 PM, mate_stubb@... writes:

>1. Oakley Wavefolder 2U (10 votes)
>2. Oakley Superladder some of you want 3U, some want 2U (7 votes)
>3. Oakley Triple VCA 2U (4 votes)
>4. Oakley VCO 2U (4 votes)
>5. Oakley Multiladder 2U (4 votes)
>6. Oakley Triple AR 2U (3 votes)
>7. Blacet Klangwerk 2U (2 votes)
>8. Oakley Envelope Follower 1U (2 votes)


Am I the only one that sees the utility of a 1U 4 knob Oakley AD/AR module? I 
think this would be much more useful than the triple 2U version with shared 
AD and AR controls.

>Now here's the deal. The next thing I'm going to ask you to do, is 
>email me again with the number of panels of each design that you 
>would expect to order.

 We will be restructuring how we charge for 
>extra services like drilling, but for now assume that an undrilled 
>panel will cost the same or slightly less than last time: $15-$16 for 
>a 1U, $23-$24 for a 2U panel.

>If you want a SuperLadder, YOU MUST TELL ME IF YOU PREFER 3U or 2U!

Hey Moe, (or anybody), tell us what you would imagine a 3U SuperLadder to 
feature -- it seems that the MOTM 2U have good control features and don't 
really need that many more. OTOH the MultiLadder might need a 3U panel to 
allow all the internal patching/switching kind of stuff.

JB

--- In motm@y..., Stooge Barlow wrote:
> 
> Am I the only one that sees the utility of a 1U 4 knob Oakley AD/AR 
> module? I think this would be much more useful than the triple 2U 
> version with shared AD and AR controls.

In a word, YES<g>. Everybody else wants multiple ARs instead. We can 
probably accomodate you with a one-off sometime. Email me privately.

> Hey Moe, (or anybody), tell us what you would imagine a 3U 
> SuperLadder to feature -- it seems that the MOTM 2U have good 
> control features and don't really need that many more. OTOH the 
> MultiLadder might need a 3U panel to allow all the internal 
> patching/switching kind of stuff.

This is a good time to talk about 3U vs 2U for the Superladder.

Have you looked at Tony's 3U layout for the Superladder? It contains 
the following controls in common with a 440:
FREQ POT
RES POT
3 AUDIO POTS
2 CV POTS
3 AUDIO INPUTS
1V/OCT INPUT
2 CV INPUTS
RES CV INPUT
4 POLE LP (MAIN) OUT

In addition, there is a free onboard VCA that is set up to modulate a 
dedicated EG input. So his layout adds:
ENV INPUT
ENV POT
ENV MOD INPUT
ENV MOD POT

Since he has extra space to work with, might as well add an 
attenuator on the resonance cv:
RES CV POT

Finally, the Superladder has two extra filter outputs:
BANDPASS OUT
1 POLE LP OUT

So, let's see what we could cram into 2U, and what we'd have to give 
up. Assume we take the first group on faith - 3 input and 2 cv 
attenuators, res input. What we have looks just like the 440 except 
for the switch. You could fit 2 jacks into that space. To me, the 
bandpass and 1P lowpass would be the most valuable features to 
retain. So you'd basically throw away the vca and associated controls.

Now, what about the MultiLadder? If it was just me building for 
myself, I'd make a 3U panel. In that extra width I'd add a 4 input 
dedicated mixer (no input jacks), inputs hardwired to the 4 separate 
outputs. A single output jack would carry the mix response. The 
inputs would use reversing attenuators just like the MultiMix. In 
fact, a 4 pot version of the multimix would be perfect. By adding and 
subtracting differing amounts of the various outputs, you could 
achieve a wide variety of responses.

Another thing you could do, is make the filter output mixer a 
separate 1U panel, that would mount right next to the MultiLadder. 
You'd have to normal its inputs by hardwiring them to the 
multiladder's jacks.

Anybody want to debate the design of these two panels?

Moe

Ahh...errr........ahem. Let's stay away from this one panel, shall we?

Paul S.

>In a message dated 2/3/2001 8:10:43 PM, mate_stubb@... writes:
>
>>1. Oakley Wavefolder 2U (10 votes)
>>2. Oakley Superladder some of you want 3U, some want 2U (7 votes)
>>3. Oakley Triple VCA 2U (4 votes)
>>4. Oakley VCO 2U (4 votes)
>>5. Oakley Multiladder 2U (4 votes)
>>6. Oakley Triple AR 2U (3 votes)
>>7. Blacet Klangwerk 2U (2 votes)
>>8. Oakley Envelope Follower 1U (2 votes)
>
>
>Am I the only one that sees the utility of a 1U 4 knob Oakley AD/AR module? I
>think this would be much more useful than the triple 2U version with shared
>AD and AR controls.

That's how I made my Oakley EG, a 2U panel with 2 EG's, 4 knobs each. I
also multed the first gate input to the second, so you can trigger both
envelopes with one trigger. Very handy module!

____________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@...
New & Improv Media
http://www.newandimprov.com
Now available: Admiral Twinkle Devil: Wabi Dub
____________________________________________

In a message dated 2/4/2001 10:23:59 AM, mate_stubb@... writes:

>This is a good time to talk about 3U vs 2U for the Superladder.
>
>Have you looked at Tony's 3U layout for the Superladder? It contains 
>the following controls in common with a 440:
>FREQ POT
>RES POT
>3 AUDIO POTS
>2 CV POTS
>3 AUDIO INPUTS
>1V/OCT INPUT
>2 CV INPUTS
>RES CV INPUT
>4 POLE LP (MAIN) OUT
>
>In addition, there is a free onboard VCA that is set up to modulate a 
>dedicated EG input. So his layout adds:
>ENV INPUT
>ENV POT
>ENV MOD INPUT
>ENV MOD POT
>
>Since he has extra space to work with, might as well add an 
>attenuator on the resonance cv:
>RES CV POT
>
>Finally, the Superladder has two extra filter outputs:
>BANDPASS OUT
>1 POLE LP OUT
>
>So, let's see what we could cram into 2U, and what we'd have to give 
>up. Assume we take the first group on faith - 3 input and 2 cv 
>attenuators, res input. What we have looks just like the 440 except 
>for the switch. You could fit 2 jacks into that space. To me, the 
>bandpass and 1P lowpass would be the most valuable features to 
>retain. So you'd basically throw away the vca and associated controls.


I'd forgotten about the ENV Level control (I'm not sure I ever understood it, 
and I'm not sure it would be that useful to me -- but it is worth having). I 
agree that a 3U would be a good use of space. I wonder if it would be worth 
it to have two different labels for each version of the SuperLadder (Moog vs. 
diode) -- I'd forgotten that it could be built as a diode VCF too.

>Now, what about the MultiLadder? If it was just me building for 
>myself, I'd make a 3U panel. In that extra width I'd add a 4 input 
>dedicated mixer (no input jacks), inputs hardwired to the 4 separate 
>outputs. A single output jack would carry the mix response. The 
>inputs would use reversing attenuators just like the MultiMix. In 
>fact, a 4 pot version of the multimix would be perfect. By adding and 
>subtracting differing amounts of the various outputs, you could 
>achieve a wide variety of responses.

This would be my choice for this module as well!

>Another thing you could do, is make the filter output mixer a 
>separate 1U panel, that would mount right next to the MultiLadder. 
>You'd have to normal its inputs by hardwiring them to the 
>multiladder's jacks.

I might just do this if it ends up as 2U.

And Trenkel, you're a smart man! I'd prefer a 1U single AR/AD module (easier 
to spread around through a system), but a 2U double module would work for me 
too!

And everyone is right about the Dual VCA module!
JB

1 Wavefolder
1 vca
1 ar
1 superladder 2 u
1 vco (are they triples

I wish paul would do a cheaper vco  wife won't a;;ow.

I just bought 4 Blacet generics  Please entertain my idea.. I have't
gone public with this but  we need these

jwbarlow@... wrote:

> 
> In a message dated 2/3/2001 8:10:43 PM, mate_stubb@... writes:
> 
> >1. Oakley Wavefolder 2U (10 votes)
> >2. Oakley Superladder some of you want 3U, some want 2U (7 votes)
> >3. Oakley Triple VCA 2U (4 votes)
> >4. Oakley VCO 2U (4 votes)
> >5. Oakley Multiladder 2U (4 votes)
> >6. Oakley Triple AR 2U (3 votes)
> >7. Blacet Klangwerk 2U (2 votes)
> >8. Oakley Envelope Follower 1U (2 votes)
> 
> Am I the only one that sees the utility of a 1U 4 knob Oakley AD/AR module? I
> think this would be much more useful than the triple 2U version with shared
> AD and AR controls.
> 
> >Now here's the deal. The next thing I'm going to ask you to do, is
> >email me again with the number of panels of each design that you
> >would expect to order.
> 
>  We will be restructuring how we charge for
> >extra services like drilling, but for now assume that an undrilled
> >panel will cost the same or slightly less than last time: $15-$16 for
> >a 1U, $23-$24 for a 2U panel.
> 
> >If you want a SuperLadder, YOU MUST TELL ME IF YOU PREFER 3U or 2U!
> 
> Hey Moe, (or anybody), tell us what you would imagine a 3U SuperLadder to
> feature -- it seems that the MOTM 2U have good control features and don't
> really need that many more. OTOH the MultiLadder might need a 3U panel to
> allow all the internal patching/switching kind of stuff.
> 
> JB
>

my belated votes- one of each of  the following:


> > >1. Oakley Wavefolder 2U (10 votes)
> > >2. Oakley Superladder some of you want 3U, some want 2U (7 votes)   [2u]
> > >4. Oakley VCO 2U (4 votes)
> > >7. Blacet Klangwerk 2U (2 votes)
> >
> > Am I the only one that sees the utility of a 1U 4 knob Oakley AD/AR 
> module? I
> > think this would be much more useful than the triple 2U version with shared
> > AD and AR controls.

this 1u AD/AR gets my vote.

-mark

Why be so frugal with space. If we wanted to make do with a little 
space we'd have nice litte synthesizers with little chicklet sized soft 
buttons under tiny menu-filled LCD screens. Since we are those of the 
knob and switch and jack point persuasion, I'll have as many of those 
as possible, and thank you. If we can make use of the dead space 
currently vacant on the Superladder, then why not a 3U panel? If we can 
fit 3 eg's on two panels, then what increased function does an 1U 
module make possible? With the demands of functionality met, I still 
want my synth to take up a lot of real estate in my control room. I 
want people to be compelled towards it while in its vicinity, and learn 
that great size engenders great sound, and give up their puny 
insignificant little digital boxes.
Paul 

--- In motm@y..., markus <n0nspaz@l...> wrote:

> my belated votes- one of each of  the following:
> 
> 
> > > >1. Oakley Wavefolder 2U (10 votes)
> > > >2. Oakley Superladder some of you want 3U, some want 2U (7 votes)   [2u]
> > > >4. Oakley VCO 2U (4 votes)
> > > >7. Blacet Klangwerk 2U (2 votes)
> > >
> > > Am I the only one that sees the utility of a 1U 4 knob Oakley AD/AR 
> > module? I
> > > think this would be much more useful than the triple 2U version with shared
> > > AD and AR controls.
> 
> this 1u AD/AR gets my vote.
> 
> -mark

In a message dated 2/4/2001 9:01:47 PM, pow333@... writes:

>If we can make use of the dead space 
>currently vacant on the Superladder, then why not a 3U panel? 

I didn't see the additional VCA used for the level of the envelope input when 
I initially questioned the use of a 3U panel over a 2U. Given those controls, 
I can't see getting the module into a 2U format without losing something 
important -- there is about enough room to add a LFO though.

If we can
>fit 3 eg's on two panels, then what increased function does an 1U 
>module make possible? 

Since you ask, Tony's module gives simultaneous AR and AD outputs from a 
single gate. Tony has the PCB laid out so that dual ganged pots can be used 
to provide simultaneous control over both of the attack segments and 
simultaneous control over both the decay and release segments -- this is a 
smart way to lay out the PCB, but on a modular (as you said) real estate 
isn't a major issue. In this implementation (the one that allows three of 
these EG modules in a 2U front panel) one loses independence over the 
different segments of the envelopes -- both the attacks will (of course) take 
about the same time, and the release will take about the same time as the 
decay.

That's why I think the 1U four knob (fully independent -- one knob for each 
segment, using standard pots) version of this module is preferable; more 
control.
JB

i stand appended; if the functionality of a 3u vs. a
2u filter allows greater sonic possibilities, and
that's what the group decides, i'm all for it. 

also, i do not see significant benefit in the 2u AD/AR
vs. the 1u, so i choose the 1u. perhaps there is
something i am overlooking.

so form follows function. personally i disagree with
"take up a lot of real estate in my  control room..."
YMMV

and i just have a certain liking of 1u 'utility'
modules for some reason...

personally,
mark


--- pow333@... wrote:
> Why be so frugal with space. If we wanted to make do
> with a little 
> space we'd have nice litte synthesizers with little
> chicklet sized soft 
> buttons under tiny menu-filled LCD screens. Since we
> are those of the 
> knob and switch and jack point persuasion, I'll have
> as many of those 
> as possible, and thank you. If we can make use of
> the dead space 
> currently vacant on the Superladder, then why not a
> 3U panel? If we can 
> fit 3 eg's on two panels, then what increased
> function does an 1U 
> module make possible? With the demands of
> functionality met, I still 
> want my synth to take up a lot of real estate in my
> control room. I 
> want people to be compelled towards it while in its
> vicinity, and learn 
> that great size engenders great sound, and give up
> their puny 
> insignificant little digital boxes.
> Paul 
> 
> --- In motm@y..., markus <n0nspaz@l...> wrote:
> > my belated votes- one of each of  the following:
> > 
> > 
> > > > >1. Oakley Wavefolder 2U (10 votes)
> > > > >2. Oakley Superladder some of you want 3U,
> some want 2U (7 votes)   [2u]
> > > > >4. Oakley VCO 2U (4 votes)
> > > > >7. Blacet Klangwerk 2U (2 votes)
> > > >
> > > > Am I the only one that sees the utility of a
> 1U 4 knob Oakley AD/AR 
> > > module? I
> > > > think this would be much more useful than the
> triple 2U version with shared
> > > > AD and AR controls.
> > 
> > this 1u AD/AR gets my vote.
> > 
> > -mark
> 
> 
 


__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

>That's why I think the 1U four knob (fully independent -- one knob for
each segment, using standard pots) version of this module is preferable;
more control.

I agree. If you have only 1U to spare, then the four knob version is the
one to go for. But if you do have 2U then a triple AD/R maybe the best
choice for control versus panel space. The 2U panel gives you six
outputs, but with only three A and three D/R knobs. This way you can get
three ADs (or three ARs) if you want. But it is possible that you
require two different AD and two different AR outputs. This could only
be done on two 'four knobbed' version.

Cost comes into it too, the four knob one is cheaper! But, if I look
back on the past pot kit sales, the two options have been divided pretty
much equally.

Other people have made combined AR/AD and VCA modules too. One of the
nice things about doing just the PCBs is that you get to hear and
sometimes 'see' combinations of modules that you would have never
thought about. Most of them not in the MOTM format. Check the gallery
for a few examples of that. One guy is building a whole synth with the
PCBs! Wot no patch leads :-)

Regards,

Tony Allgood  Penrith, Cumbria, England

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

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 pow333@... wrote:

> Why be so frugal with space(?) 
Because some of us do not have a lot of studio space to expand a
modular into (especially looking several years ahead), but still would
like the advantages of the motm panel interface (and electronics).  An
extra 1U env. on a filter will not get me nearly "as much" as, say, a 1U
microvco or a 1U reversable attenuator/mixer. 
Jeff

>i stand appended; if the functionality of a 3u vs. a
>2u filter allows greater sonic possibilities, and
>that's what the group decides, i'm all for it.
>
>also, i do not see significant benefit in the 2u AD/AR
>vs. the 1u, so i choose the 1u. perhaps there is
>something i am overlooking.
>
The only reason I did the 2u AD/AR is because I had a blank 2u panel
around, and no 1u. The reason I brought up my panel was to point out how
useful a 4-knob AD/AR was, not to recommend a 2u panel. The only real
advantage it offers is in being able to mult together the gate inputs.

____________________________________________
Dave Trenkel : improv@...
New & Improv Media
http://www.newandimprov.com
Now available: Admiral Twinkle Devil: Wabi Dub
____________________________________________