Nicely considered and articulated. I particularly like (and agree
with) the comment regarding "uniformity" and "possibility". I see
the ocean of knobs and jacks and I just drool!
OK, so the drooling part is old age, but you get my drift.
Mike
--- In motm@y..., "pugix" <pugix@n...> wrote:
> 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