Reason 3.0 announced

[headquest]

Its got 2 sets of outputs. The OSC outputs on the back are for OSC A and OSC B. Theres a little sticky note that says if you use these outputs, then the Filters are bypassed.

This is what you are looking for, right?

Can somebody confirm by taking a look?

Yep - took a look and you're right

Quite a lot of stuff on the back of the Maelstrom in fact - never taken such a close look before.

You've got Main Outputs (Left:Filter A and Right:Filter B). Below that as you say are Oscillator Outputs A and B with a sticky which reads:

"Note: When these jacks are used no signal passes through to the filters".

Also to the left are 3 Mod Outputs (Mod A, Mod B, Filter Env) 7 Mod Inputs with a knob and a switch each, and at the far left Seq Control for Gate and CV and Gate Inputs for Amp Envb and Filter Env.

Lastly on the far right are the 2 Audio inputs (Shaper/Filter A and FIlter B) and these also have a sticky note which reads :

"Note: These inputs are connected to an "extra" monophonic filter section and not to the voices."

All in all a very impressive backside

Hope this description sorts out your debate.

[Meffy]

All in all a very impressive backside

Thank you. Many discerning critics have said it is nicely shaped, and the huge fluffy tail sets it off to good advantage.

Oops, you were talking about Malstrom, not Maleskunk. *blush* My mistake -- as you were.

Meffy
... as you were when we first met by moonlight in the Champs d'Elysee

[headquest]

All in all a very impressive backside

Thank you. Many discerning critics have said it is nicely shaped, and the huge fluffy tail sets it off to good advantage.

Oops, you were talking about Malstrom, not Maleskunk. *blush* My mistake -- as you were.

Meffy
... as you were when we first met by moonlight in the Champs d'Elysee

[drez]

Its got 2 sets of outputs. The OSC outputs on the back are for OSC A and OSC B. Theres a little sticky note that says if you use these outputs, then the Filters are bypassed.

This is what you are looking for, right?

Can somebody confirm by taking a look?

Yep - took a look and you're right

Quite a lot of stuff on the back of the Maelstrom in fact - never taken such a close look before.

You've got Main Outputs (Left:Filter A and Right:Filter B). Below that as you say are Oscillator Outputs A and B with a sticky which reads:

"Note: When these jacks are used no signal passes through to the filters".

Also to the left are 3 Mod Outputs (Mod A, Mod B, Filter Env) 7 Mod Inputs with a knob and a switch each, and at the far left Seq Control for Gate and CV and Gate Inputs for Amp Envb and Filter Env.

Lastly on the far right are the 2 Audio inputs (Shaper/Filter A and FIlter B) and these also have a sticky note which reads :

"Note: These inputs are connected to an "extra" monophonic filter section and not to the voices."

All in all a very impressive backside

Hope this description sorts out your debate.

Well, based on this description it might not work as I thought.

If the inputs only work through a "monophonic filter" and the OSC outputs state that if you use these, then nothing is passed through the filters, then it might not make it out.

I mean the OSC outs would then be just that...whatever is created with the Oscillators is the ONLY thing that can go out of those outputs, but no "carrier" signal that is routed through the "filter" inputs on the back.

...or it just passes the signal through the filter inputs to the osciallators without passing it through the monophonic filter.

I'll test it tonight to be sure.

[Jeremy_NSL]

As I already said, this doesn't work drez. If you use the osc outputs with audio input, you get silence.

[drez]

As I already said, this doesn't work drez. If you use the osc outputs with audio input, you get silence.

Well that sucks

It would definitely be nice to have a switch on the back that allowed that, eh? One that would kill the filter out and then allow the input to pass through.

I'm off to the Feature Request Forum!

[AD80]

I'm off to the Feature Request Forum!

Good luck. In a best case scenario you'll see that feature implemented in 2007 . Even if they could implement it in a couple of weeks (which they probably could), they dont wanna risk their "lack of updates means solid product" image.