Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

Hello everyone,

This is my first post since lurking for about a week. I am awaiting
my first MOTM order. But I'm not a newbie. I was building custom
modular synthesizers over 20 years ago. From scratch. Mostly
Electronotes based, but with some reverse-engineered Serge influence.

I faced the panel design issue, too, but I had the luxury of having
my own requirments and not those of a general customer base. I won't
go into detail on my panel designs. However, I would like to say
that the MOTM panel design constraints (grid format, patch bay below
knobs, uniform knob size, etc.) result in a uniformity that I find
aesthetically quite pleasing. I experience the modular synthesizer
as a field of possibility, open to realization in often unexpected
ways. I like the indeterminate starting point, before any patch
cords are plugged. (Have you noticed that most photos of
synthesizers are sans patch cords, which make it look cluttered and
chaotic?) It must have been this predilection of mine that led me to
make my own modules quite minimal. For example my noise generator
had three output jacks (white, pink, random). Then I would use
separate S&H modules and patch the noise inputs there if desired.
This results in great flexibility, but also requires more patch cords.

I came to appreciate the combination of frequently used
functionality, such as patching the noise by default as input to a
S&H. (The 101 module is a great example of this design principle, by
the way. Can't wait to get my hands on it.) Also, the 410 Triple
Resonant Filter contains two embedded LFOs. I think the MOTM
designers have done an excellent job of packing functionality into
these modules, while not sacrificing flexibility. Some may
disagree. I was wondering what you all might have to say regarding
this aspect of module design, which is certainly as important -- if
not more so -- than the issue of knob sizes and panel placement.

Panel real estate has always seemed precious to me. I want to pack
as much function to the square inch as I can. I think MOTM is quite
good in this respect. But the 802 Lag Processor, (and the 320 LFO is
similar in this regard) seems to use a lot of panel space (2U) for
the function. I do understand that this has to do with the
circuitry, and with wanting all those IO jacks. But, as the 390
micro-LFO offers compromised features to gain more functional
density, might we not want a similar micro-Lag Processor that is 1U
in width? You catch my drift.

I look forward to your comments.

Richard Brewster