I dont know anbout you all, but two things:
I use my MOTm in arecording environment, where producers, engineers and yes....
even guitar players : ) (sorry Hylander!) get to use the MOTM, and if I had dime
for everytime someone asked if the thing was on, id be a rich man. LED's, such as
the mods on 800's are make using the 800 more intuitive as well.
Also, ergonomics are very important to me and every LED added into my Motm does
make it it look more alive and much better at pictures in the dark
: )
Jim
drq48423@... wrote:
> I couldn't have said it better myself; I'm squeemish about adding LEDs
> to the '800 EGs I have, even tho it's a useful mod. Something like
> putting flames and pinstriping on a well-cared-for '39 Buick. Not my
> style.
>
> Chuck
>
> --- In motm@y..., "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking over some posts from the past week... several of the good
> > folks on the list had expressed the desire that any 'extra' panel space on
> > modules like the 320 & 820 be filled up with something, either some kind of
> > modification or a small multiple block, _something_ to make use of that
> > waste.
> >
> > Unless I missed it (possible), it seems that no one has expressed a contrary
> > viewpoint, so I thought I'd volunteer to pipe up. (Not that I'm feeling
> > particularly 'contrary' today or anything... but often silence is
> > interpreted as agreement...I've learned that the hard way with the local
> > power company.) No offense to those that started leading the cheer for this
> > kind of thing; I just wanted to throw this opinion into the arena.
> >
> > Personally, I really ∗like∗ the fact that some of the modules have a little
> > breathing room on them. Visually, it helps break up the look of the system
> > and adds some individual flavor to the modules. Functionally, one of the
> > things that I love about the MOTM form factor is that it holds usability as
> > a primary concern, never cramping up knobs and switches, and keeping the
> > jacks to the lower portion of the modules so that cords are as
> > out-of-the-way as they can be in a modular. I dunno, maybe I have big hands.
> > But I ∗like∗ those empty spaces!
> >
> > It seems to me that filling up the space because it's there just adds cost
> > to the modules (even just putting in four jacks for a multiple will add at
> > least $10, I'm sure, maybe more if Paul is 'charged by the hole' for
> > drilling on the panels) and just generally flies in the face of one of the
> > MOTM industrial design principles. Plus, adding a 'foreign' function to the
> > module just for the sake of it makes me kind of grimace. I mean, if a "Rev
> > B" version of these modules can add some related functionality, such as what
> > is being done with the '101 over the '100, I'm absolutely all for it. But I
> > kind of grimace at the suggestion of just cramming some stuff on the panel
> > because there's a square inch free. I know that ∗I∗ didn't get into building
> > myself a monster modular in order to save space...!
> >
> > For those who want to mod their own modules or add multiples to that space,
> > God bless you, _go for it!_ Make them your own! A modular should be a
> > personal synthesizer like no other, and if that brings yours closer to your
> > dream machine, I'm behind you all the way! But I would like to cast a quiet
> > vote that Paul ∗not∗ start sticking jacks in those small oases of blank
> > space. I like them.
> >
> > And in the case of multiples, this is a function available in two other
> > modules. Or as I say, go ahead and add them yourself---making a multiple
> > block is the easiest DIY project you are likely to ever encounter, so go for
> > it! But does Paul really need to put them permanently on the module for you?
> >
> > I never went with the vertical rack idea for my system, opting more for the
> > horizontal console. My system plan is for three rows, with (very roughly)
> > sound "sources" in the top tier, "modifiers" in the middle, and "control"
> > modules in the bottom tier, where feasible. For the way I tend to work, this
> > generally allows me to use shorter patchcords and to think of the sound in a
> > left-to-right fashion. So when I lay this out, the density of the bank of
> > VCOs along the top contrasts nicely with the filters and such below, and
> > along the bottom there are the "sparser" panels such as the LFOs, the Lag
> > Processors, and even the Router. It's a real nice look! MOTM doesn't have a
> > secondary module format like the old Moog 'utility' panels, but this does
> > something similar, visually, and gives [my system at least] some real subtle
> > character that I like a lot.
> >
> > I don't know if that makes any sense to any of you... sometimes I feel
> > almost embarrassed speaking up for the "look" of the layout over wedging
> > more functionality into it. But then I see the gorgeous cabinets that many
> > of you are slaving over and I'm confident that we must all love the
> > appearances of our machines, too---not just their sounds---so a few of you
> > at least might feel the same way about this subject.
> >
> > Just my $0.02.
> >
> > Mr. T
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/