>>I'm not surprised that there are "make it big" and "make it small" camps.
Even within each of us, we're probably torn which way to go (functionality
vs. size & cost). Below are my own feelings on the matter:
I know personally, I LOVED the idea of the SuperMoe from the minute I saw it
on your site: a modular sequencer for a modular synthesizer. Sure, it's huge
& complicated, but we aren't in this 'analog modular' thing for the quick
string sound, you know? The idea of breaking out all of the 'black box'
functions into separate panels allows their use for other purposes (i.e.,
non-sequencer use in patches); it allows one to slowly build his sequencer
bit-by-bit (i.e., time and cash flow is easier, even if, in the long run,
it's more expensive than one small module would be); and, it's visually
impressive! If huge. For me, that would be the ideal: a modular sequencer
built one module at a time where each module has an alternate use in
anticipation of the big payoff of building that final module and having a
monster sequencer.
In this 'reduced scope' version, I get very mixed feelings. On the one hand,
if SuperMoe is really coming "someday," well, I'd almost rather wait for it.
How many cubic feet of my studio, and hundreds of dollars, do I want to
dedicate to sequencers? I definitely WANT one, and a GOOD one... (with a
modularized design, one could buy "one" core and as many expanders as
wanted, so it would be "one" sequencer, but be as huge as I want it to be).
So I'd tend to vote for the "smaller" versions simply because I would be
still holding out for SuperMoe. But as someone pointed out, the UEG can be
pressed into service as a micro-sequencer already. Or (Gack!) a PC
sequencing program, even though I'd be the first to point out how "un-fun"
that is.
So that bounces my vote back up to the bigger versions. And back again.
Even though some of the intermediate designs might actually be smart
compromise solutions, I think it's just a character flaw of mine that I
would vote for one extreme or the other. Either give me a small, cheap
solution that does 15% of what a sequencer might do, or give me the biggest
one yah got that does 150%, things I never even thought of. Everything else
in between is just... something in between.
The MOTM modular that we build is typically regarded as "no compromise,"
even though, in reality, there are ALWAYS compromises. Coming out with a
stop-gap version is not unlike the newer MOTM trend of "micro modules." But
because of the huge scale of the sequencer, I feel that it's different. It's
one thing to have 4 Ultra-VCOs and 6 Micro-VCOs, but it's different to have
two or more different big, expensive step sequencers, especially when the
panel space and dollar cost will ultimately be very great. In this case, my
feeling would be, "Just go for the gold, do it once and do it as the
ultimate."
I'm rambling, and this Email doesn't cast a vote either way. I've been
monitoring the discussion for the past few days, and agreeing with almost
everything people have been writing. I am writing now, not to comment on
technical issues, but rather to "air out" my indecisiveness... perhaps
others feel the same way. Many, perhaps the majority, have expressed the
idea that, "I ∗really∗ wanted SuperMoe but I'll take the 8u version
instead." My _tendency_ is to say the same thing, but I still have this
queasy feeling: "Yeah, but, _Jeez_, I ∗REALLY∗ want the ∗SUPERMOE!∗"
I just can't get past that. So I'll abstain with my vote and probably end up
buying whatever the rest of you all decide on.
Never one to make a decision,
Mr. T