Latin est stolidus, tamen infigo.
-greg
-----Original Message-----
From:
ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com[mailto:
ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wjhall11
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:10 PM
To:
ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.comSubject: [ModularSynthPanels] Re: JH Polymoog Resonator Panel
Scott J,
OK, then. I'll take your word re. the faders. I had begun to research them
and it does look to me like they'd end up taking up more space.
At the risk of indulging in pulsus a mortuus equus, but for what it's worth
anyway, I was looking at my Dad's Crumar Orchestrator because it has a lot
of small faders on it. From what I see, I'm not sure there's really any
advantage to these faders as opposed to knobs so far as human engineering is
concerned. My Dad has said that on stage sometimes the lighting makes
things harder to see and so I've tried to think how that might have been an
original design consideration.
To me, faders make intuitive sense on a mixer and they seem obvious on a
graphic equalizer. I have no particular experience with a PolyMoog, of
course. And whereas I completely support the desire for a tribute approach,
as someone with no previous experience with the vintage instrument, I
actually see no intrinsic advantage to the design aside from, perhaps,
looking cool which, alone, has undeniable value.
Still, it seems that although, as some say, the polymoog was a bit of a
clunker, Moog got the resonator part right. Therefore, I suppose I'm
looking for an explanation for the original design.
Nonetheless, faders are out, knobs are in.
Thanks, Scott J.
Will (and Bill)
PS. Who said my Latin classes would be good for nothing? Will
--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Scott Juskiw <scott@...> wrote:
>
> After second thought, I don't think faders would not work very well
> for this circuit (with an MOTM layout). I have a Polymoog and was
> looking at the resonator section trying to figure out a way to make
> those faders fit (vertically) within an MOTM panel and it's not good.
> The fader layout on the Polymoog works well because the faders are all
> in a horizontal row, and not very tall. If you try to make them fit
> into an MOTM panel, you'd have a very wide panel with lots of blank
> space. Or you could break the faders up into groups and make two rows,
> but I don't think that looks very good. I suppose you could do
> horizontal faders, but then that's not sticking to the "tribute
> module" that I was hoping to achieve.
>
> Forget I mentioned it. Knobs good, faders bad.
>
> On 27-Aug-09, at 6:49 PM, wjhall11 wrote:
>
> > Jeff L, Scott J - I entirely concur regarding the vertical rather
> > than horizontal band orientation. Here is a revision:
> >
> > URL to image:
http://www.dragonflyalley.com/images/JHpolymoogResonator/JHPolymoogResV2vIIw
idth1-92in.jpg
> >
> > As for faders vs knobs, I was working within my perception of MOTM
> > design constraints so I stuck to knobs. According to the Polymoog
> > schematics, the frequency controls are dual gang pots; 10K per JH.
> > A fancy version would be to use Bourns 51ABD-B28-B15/B15L, or
> > similar. I found some at Newark.
> >
> > I assume they make dual gang Faders too. How do they attach to a
> > panel? Would they require some kind of special bracket? I've seen
> > them in Dad's mixers, but not anywhere else.
> >
> > Point me in a direction here, I'll do some research.
> >
> > Will (and Bill)
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links