| previous by date | index | next by date |
| topic list |
Wow.
Your comments weren't in direct response to me, at least not for anything I've said ∗today∗, but I feel I have to jump in here. I think you must be taking these kinds of thoughts in a way very much other than intended.
No one is saying that they "can't tell their modules apart." They're labeled. In English. Of course we can.
The point being made is that you interface with your instrument through visual and tactile clues. MOTM has tactility covered in spades --- jacks, patchcords, and nice, big knobs. But as for the visual aspect, the extra microseconds that the brain has to scan for a clue in the "sea of knobs" (as I dubbed it here three years ago) add up. This is a real simple ergonomic concept... Industrial Design 101. (Okay, not all of us have degrees in ID. But I do, so please take my word for it.)
Why do we have lower case letters in our alphabet? Why not just use all caps? Because capital letters are very 'hard on the eyes'! It takes the brain extra, measurable "processing cycles" to parse capital letters that are NOT wasted on lower case, because lower case letters, having much more varying shapes, are far easier for the brain to recognize. You can argue with me here if you like, but these are not my opinions; this is another really simple concept that has been around since the Renaissance. In graphic design, using all caps for body text is considered a huge 'no-no.' Hell, even san-serif typefaces are very much discourage for all but short lines of text, usually headlines or large advertising slogans, because serifs, like lower case letterforms, are much easier for the eye to parse out!! When you see body text in san-serif typefaces, experienced designers often shake their heads and think, "amateur."
So yes, I am one of those people who wished there were more variations in the looks of the modules, or at least white lines between them for visual 'anchors.'
However, I'm also the first to admit that this would have driven costs to a point that I would have found prohibitive. I don't think Paul made the 'rigid grid' just for design's sake --- it was a way of "modularizing" the construction of the modules and keep costs in line. And I support that 100%. I really do. At the end of the day, I am happy with MOTM, all over.
That doesn't mean that people are "wrong" to point out that, in a 100 or so module setup, it takes the brain valuable, eventually frustrating, milliseconds to hunt out a particular module, especially when webs of patchcords start to obscure everything. (And especially if you move your modules around from time to time. Anyone have a wife that keeps rearranging kitchen drawers on you? I do. Can't find anything in under 5 minutes of searching.)
You cannot always fall back on the "it's the sound" argument. This is a musical instrument. More than sound is involved in its design. It has a physical interface that you must relate to and work with, even love. You have to be GOOD with it, FAST with it. Your conscious mind should never have to be invoked to stop to think about where something is when you're playing. ANYTHING that makes that more difficult is cause for concern. Versace clothes? Sure, if it makes your socks go up-and-down, but that's not what people are talking about when they discuss the fine points of the visual grid!
I suppose you think that the black keys on a piano keyboard are foolish, and only idiots would want two different colors? Or that all of the strings of a concert harp should all be the same color? That the keys on a sax shouldn't have all those different, silly shapes, and should all be uniform circles? Maybe pipe organ stops shouldn't be arranged in rows according to rank, but just splashed randomly all over the place. "Hey, they're ∗labeled∗... what do you ∗mean∗ you can't tell them apart?" Sure, in that tenth-of-a-second during a performance where you need to change the tone color, you want to hunt through stops, I suppose.
Again, I don't think the MOTM look should be particularly altered at this point, but it blows my mind how upset some folks get when others comment that the uniformity of the modules is an ergonomics issue, and discuss things (like separator lines) in order to mitigate that problem! It's okay to discuss whether or not a module should have an inverted output around and around... why should the mechanical discussions be curtailed?
I'm sorry it makes you angry, but at least be assured that you are missing the real point of these discussions. No one wants the panels painted different colors to match their Versace clothing. That's not what this is about.
-----Original Message-----
From: thomas white [mailto:djthomaswhite@...]
To offer a different point of view to all who think MOTM is "too"
stringently designed.
I built my 40 module home system from the ground up and placed each module
into my own custom design arrangement here in my dual wood cabinets. Because
of this I never "Don't Know" or "Have Trouble" finding a knob or where one
of my own modules is. My whole synth is arranged in the most personally
ergonomic way for my patching preferences. Each of us have had to build or
arrange the MOTM this way do to the lack of cabinetry available right? So
who loses track of their modules in the system they built themselves? I have
a hard time not knowing exactly what part of my cabinet my modules are in
because they are in sections like VCO bank, filter bank EG bank VCA bank.
I'm sorry but if you can't tell the differences maybe you should paint your
modules different colors or something. No offense meant only I'm tired o
hearing people bitching about the colors, spacing and layout of these
modules. Its the sound that gets recorded right? I have DIY built my own
modules including the Stooge panels and I know for sure I F'ed up the grid
when drilling those. I even have one similar to the UEG in spacing with a
silver panel that "works" great for me and the listeners of my music never
see a thing HA! Maybe we should all go buy some Prada or Versace' clothes,
get a haircut and take fashion pictures next to our modulars JK! Well a
naked model sounds good anyways, I wonder if she'll fit laying all spread
out on the top of my cabinet like the front of a custom car?
Also, on the new Filter bank, I think it would be fine to comprimise the
design if we had to, but bottom line is since it is in a 3u panel we "Don't
have to" and we can add more features like the gain pot mentioned, inverted
output and the like. I obviously voted on Yahoo for the traditional MOTM
layout but will buy the module regardless. I just hope all care is taken to
make the module the best it can be in the bigger 3u. Can we have individula
outs for the lowpass and highpass responses?
All just my opinions and maybe some agree while some don't. Aren't opinions
grand? Comments?
Thomas White