#21

yeah i guess that would make sense, it’d be a bit easier to work with without special parts. in that case, i think having TRRS with ground and some arbitrary GPIO pin would be the most useful for potential future standard developments.

there’s been a lot of discussion about what physical connector is most ideal. let’s not get into it here; 3.5mm is a fine stopgap measure, with the disadvantage that it causes shorts and weird crap on the bus if you hotplug something.

#22

I’m confused.

I guess first point of confusion is: ii == i2c?

Don’t we already have a relatively standard I2c connector? (Standard in the sense that the monome modules all use it).

That being said, I do often wish that i2c bus was front-of-panel, as the juggling act of keeping all the monome modules connected behind-the-panel can get pretty irritating.

#23

yes on the back its just 0.1" pins i think, which is what i first suggested. on aleph theres a 3.5mm jack

a front panel mini jack would be dangerous in my opinion, cause you would probably plug 10v into it and blow stuff up. then you get into having to put buffers on your digital bus, oh no your edges are looking goopy now, craziness &c

and yeah, ii == i2c. but i think technically we should say TWI so we don’t get sued by phillips or something. also people occasionally get confused about i2c vs i2s.

5 Likes
#24

ah, I didn’t realize that.

1 Like
#25

yes, ii = i2c. ii was supposed to mean “i2c with a smart protocol” but we never got around to implementing this smart protocol… so it’s a pretty dumb protocol, basically tons of defines in libavr32.

the physical connector is a huge ordeal. i spent a ludicrous amount of time on this problem over the course of a year and gave up-- it’s a very difficult problem that i won’t go into here.

i’d just leave a header exposed. i2c on this would be a very homemade hacked thing. yes there’s a 3.5mm port on the aleph but i wouldn’t consider that a standard, nor the ridiculous 2x3 headers on the modules.

edit: @zebra is fully correct re TWI. “ii” is more fun to say though

6 Likes
#26

Interested in a built unit :slight_smile:

#27

To be clear I’m talking about a run of tabletop devices - not rack mount.

#28

Yes, been following the fader threads from the earliest days.

But it does raise the question of what you plan to connect this i2c header to, and what the ergonomics of that would be.

#29

Interested in the built unit!

#30

very interested in a built unit!

#31

2 mentions of the New Thing in a couple days
you’re killing me

Edit also put me down for an assembled version if that is an option

1 Like
#32

I don’t have a personal need for this at the moment but i really like the idea of keeping it open for others to build on.

1 Like
#33

i would connect it to the aleph for easily manipulating more than 4 parameters without preset swaps.

3 Likes
#34

Cool. Apologies for not grokking the aleph context.

1 Like
#35

i would love to be able to use faderbank with teletype.

7 Likes
#36

I’d be in for a built unit. I couldn’t DIY a sandwich.

I’d prefer it if the height, width and depth all matched the 128 grid exactly. I’d also prefer aluminium sides, but understand the tradeoffs.

#37

Cautiously raising my hand for a built unit

I could use it

#38

I am fader-curious, and need to learn more about the finished product before I become fader-committed.

1 Like
#39

I’d be interested in a kit!

#40

perhaps the once-imagined midi usb could be implemented similar to your grid-extension for tt. swap the cable.

7 Likes