I can see your point. But just because a design is on or off the grid
doesn't make it better. I found #2 to be the most balanced layout,
without too much wasted space. #1 and 5 were lopsided, knobs on one
side and switch and jacks on the other. #3 and 4 had big expanses of
wasted blank space.
The jacks on #2 are off the normal jack vertical grid, incidentally.
The MOTM grid spacing is tied into the module sizes. 1U is too narrow
for two rows of knobs. 2U could just barely fit 3 rows of Encore size
knobs, but personally I find these just a little small. 2U could fit 5
columns of jacks, but usually we're short on knob space, not jack space.
Given the form factor I don't see many options until we get to 3U wide
panels.
For my forthcoming DIY diode waveshaper panel I am considering smaller
knobs, inbetween the Encore and standard MOTM sizes. This won't fit it
into a smaller panel, however. It's still 3U wide. It will just let me
put more of the diode breakpoints onto the module, allowing a 4 column
by 5 row layout.
John Loffink
jloffink@... -----Original Message-----
From: mate_stubb [mailto:
mate_stubb@...]
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 5:55 PM
To:
motm@yahoogroups.comSubject: [motm] Ergonomics
Interesting - Paul has unintentionally created a monster with "the
grid". Both he and I attempted to break out of the rigid MOTM grid
with the design choices for the new 450. Guess which one the majority
is voting for.
Moe
.