I think this is kind of related, so here goes..
I was looking at one of my older synths awhile back and was noticing the
various knob sizes and off-axis positioning on the control panel. Visually,
this helps to easily identify the different functions. I wonder if this
concept would be useful in any future MOTM modules? I also wonder if using
some smaller pot knobs would allow for more knobs per module in some cases
(like the UEG)?
One of the great things about MOTM modules ARE the large knobs. I definitely
do not want the large knob format to go away as a whole...or at all. I'm just
throwing stuff out there that happened to cross my mind recently.
Just food for thought, (no flames, please! : )
Andrew
In a message dated 2/19/02 7:06:29 PM Central Standard Time,
mate_stubb@... writes:
> >>>>
> I remember an interesting point about MOTM being the consistency, the
> jacks always in a row on the bottom, etc. From looking at pictures
> on the MOTM-110, it appears to be a bit of an anomaly. Lining that
> image up next to an MOTM-410, the pots are scaled vertically
> differently. Is there a convention now that didn't exist then? Is
> there any convention at all?
> <<<<
>
> The actual pot placement between the 410 and the 110 is consistent.
> The only difference is the labelling. On that module, there was room
> to label the jack immediately under the bottom pot to the side,
> allowing the '0' and '10' pot graphics to be used. This was the first
> module designed I believe (although I wasn't around at the time). On
> later modules with more jacks, the only place to label the jacks is
> on top, so the pot '0' and '10' marks must be sacrificed.
>
> Now.
>
> What you may see in images on the web site may be different. In fact,
> that's almost certain to be true. That's because many of those are
> Photoshop images instead of photos, and the pots are slightly
> misplaced. I know, because I have created many of these images
> myself. Awhile back I noticed that the bottom row of pots were too
> high, so I repositioned them lower in later images.
>
> >>>>
> The consistiency thing might prove tough to maintain with weirder
> modules like a giant sequencer. Just curious, that's all. (Also, the
> proposed MiniMoe 3U doesn't follow the convention at all. Grin)
> <<<<
>
> Yes. When you cram tons of functionality and I/O into a module,
> something has to give. When you add new types of controls that have
> never been used before, you have to add to old conventions or create
> new ones. When I design a Stooge panel, I make every effort to lay it
> out to be consistent with the convention. Sequencers by their very
> nature are going to have to be treated differently.