Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

Well, the flat rails are here, and now it's time for many of us to start building homes for our module collections. For myself, I find that I'm not completely in love with my case ideas of three years ago. At the time, my studio layout was different, as was my lifestyle. I was designing them with the idea of gigging once in a blue moon, and of owning a small number of modules and slowly adding to it. But now I have kids so I'm "studio-only," and it's taken me so long to get around to the cabinetry that I now have a boat-load of modules that could fill up a large case right away.

Since the list is relatively quiet today, and since everyone here is full of great ideas and observations, I figured I'd post my internal mullings and see what, if any, comments come back. I imagine many of us are going through (or HAVE gone through) the same questions, and most of these points below have been voiced here at one time or another in the past few years. I would especially love to hear/see-examples-of designs and experiences (especially with shallow cases tipping over, etc.). Feel free to tell me that I'm flat-out wrong if I am laboring under some awful misconceptions, below.

No matter which console options are chosen, the idea of future expansion (probably 'upward') must be taken into account.

Thanks in advance for all creative input!

∗∗Portable versus Console∗∗

[In other words (and in Moog terms), something vaguely like a Moog IIIp system  (www.isaotomita.net/tomita/images/fant13.jpg) compared to something vaguely like a System 55 (www.wendycarlos.com/photos/bsst2.jpg).]

∗Portability∗-Obviously, a series of smaller cabinets is easier to move and fit into a VW Beetle than a huge console. Also, modules could be placed in these cabinets in such a way that a single cabinet may contain a complete, simple synthesizer voice (3 VCOs, VCF, VCA, 2 EGs, etc.), and for many occasions, be all one needs to bring to a gig. ∗Winner: Portable∗

∗Expansion∗-Either can be expanded, but with a series of smaller cases, there would be fewer empty spaces to fill up with blanks during long-term growth, and cabinets could be added incrementally as needed. With a console style, tiers could of course be added, but they tend to be bigger 'jumps' in size. ∗Winner: Portable∗

∗Stability∗-because the depth of MOTM modules is modest, it doesn't make sense to house them in a really deep cabinet or console. Eight inches depth-overall should be plenty. But a tall, narrow case with a shallow depth might tip over easily, whereas the size and weight of a single larger console ought to make it sturdier. ∗Winner: Console∗

∗Ease of Construction∗-it's easier to build one big console than three smaller ones, plus there starts to be a lot of "wood" in there. That makes having many cabinets, compared to one big one, heavier, more expensive, and harder to build. Also, for those with less-than-perfect woodworking skills, it's easier to get one console built properly than to make a series of cabinets that should look exactly the same. ∗Winner: Console∗

∗Rigidit∗y-On the other hand, a case with three or four rows of modules only 12u wide probably won't flex as much during patching, whereas a large expanse of modules in a console may need extra internal bracing. ∗Winner: Portable∗

∗Power∗-It's easier to put one big power supply in a console than lots of smaller ones in portable cabinets. You could rig a power-sharing system to expansion cabinets, but that seems like an extra pain. ∗Winner: Console∗

∗Flexibility∗-I tend to rearrange my studio a lot to shoe-horn in new stuff, so a series of smaller cabinets offers more options than one mammoth console with a few expansion tiers on it, which must always stay just as originally envisioned. ∗Winner: Portable∗

∗Indefensible Rationalizations∗-A huge console looks cool and serious, like a pipe organ or a starship cockpit. But so does a wall of stacked IIIp cabinets. The portable cabinets are sort of modular, so there's a recursiveness to the whole thing. ∗Winner: None∗

∗∗Angled versus Flat∗∗

[In other words, angling some or all tiers of the module faces about 70 degrees from the table surface. The two Moog systems, above, have examples of these options (IIIp being flat and System 55 being a mix of flat and angled), but there's no reason the bottom tier or two of portable cabinets couldn't be angled. In fact, someone here recently posted a photo of a 3-tiered, bottom-row-angled Tolex-covered portable case that looks EXACTLY like what I was thinking that I would do a year ago, sans the Tolex, so we know that this works and looks good.]

∗Stability∗-Angling the case should add stability to the system by widening the lower part and dropping the center of gravity. ∗Winner: Angled∗

∗Space∗-Angled cases take up more desk space, but they also allow one to make cabinets that have some extra room inside for power supplies, reverb tanks, etc. and still keep the average depth minimal. On the other hand, in the 'case' (ugh!) of the Moog IIIp styling, angling limits your ability to arc the cabinets around you seamlessly. ∗Winner: Tie?∗

∗Ease of Construction∗-Not having to deal with angles makes for easier woodworking, especially trying to fashion multiple cabinets that all [should] look exactly the same. Staying flat, one could probably find wood of the proper width and just cross-cut them to length. ∗Winner: Flat∗

∗Ergonomics∗-Cabinets and consoles with one or more angled tiers give the appearance of being more ergonomic, but usually aren't, particularly, in practice. You would have to design the angles around the idea that the operator is in one fixed position for long periods of time, that the system will always be at a particular table height, and so on, which for me at least isn't realistic. ∗Winner: Flat (or no issue)∗

∗Appearance∗-Sure, angled panels LOOK ergonomic, so they look serious. Who hasn't looked at the TONTO setup and thought, "Ooh, cool...!" ∗Winner: Angled∗

∗∗Wood versus Tolex∗∗

[Tolex meaning any durable fabric covering, but for the most part this refers to giving the cabinets a guitar-amp look.]

∗Durability∗-both can be damaged, but Tolex is more durable. Using a covering also means that the wood could be press-board (particle board) which is heavier and tends to warp less than 'real' wood. ∗Winner: Tolex∗

∗Appearance∗-I doubt you would Tolex a big console (this is more for the 'portable cabinets' system) but you could use fine wood on either design. Wood has class, warmth, depth... Tolex says "musical instrument" ... both have merit, but I think a fine wood wins this one, based on personal preference. ∗Winner: wood∗

∗Cost∗-Tolex isn't cheap, but neither is fine wood. If covering the cabinet, even press-board could be used, which is heavier and yet cheaper than wood. Still, I think Tolex would come out as the more expensive alternative. ∗Winner: wood∗

∗Ease of Construction∗-I find working with fabric in all forms to be a nightmare, personally, whereas working with sandpaper and stain is no big deal. ∗Winner: wood∗

∗∗Back or No Back∗∗

∗Cost∗-you could use cheap material for the back, even 1/8" thick so this is negligible. ∗Winner: n/a∗

∗Performance∗-Not having a back is great ventilation, but the MOTM doesn't need a lot. Also, one could use pre-drilled peg board similar to old console TVs, and that should offer plenty. ∗Winner: n/a∗

∗Ease of Construction∗-Naturally it's more difficult to make backs than to NOT make them, but it's hardly a big deal. ∗Winner: No Back∗

∗Protection∗-Naturally, having a cover is more protective of the circuitry than NOT having one. Keeps the cat out. Wont help if the cabinet topples backward of the table. A screwed-in back also adds support to keep a rectangular case from going trapezoidal, although the modules themselves do a pretty good job of that too. ∗Winner: Back∗