Ha! That's great. My teacher says we're tackling Virgil this year. That shouldn't be too dull I hope. Will
--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "Greg James" <gjames@...> wrote:
>
> 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.com
> Subject: [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
>