Paul, you make some excellent points here.
Like many on this list and elsewhere, I applaud your execution of a
no-compromise modular, and there's no doubt in my mind that MOTM
modules will be in service for many, many years to come. And like many
MOTM owners/users, I appreciate the quality that goes in to MOTM - it's
one of the reasons I purchased it in the first place.
My only additional comment on all of this is by way of a clarification.
I think that where electronic musical instruments are concerned,
there's an important difference between "best built" or "best
engineered" and "the best". The former is usually quantifiable, the
latter is qualitative and therefore brings us back to subjective
territory again. Which is to say that sometimes the "best built" -is-
"the best" - but not necessarily. For example, if you are using a
synthesizer in a context in which extremely stable VCOs are important,
the best-built (and presumably most stable) oscillator is indeed the
best for that application. The same holds true for things like noise
floor, tracking, and countless other technical details that have a
tangible impact on a synthesizer's sound, musicality, usability, and so
forth.
But these are not the only considerations that exist for electronic
musicians when choosing an instrument. Consider for a moment the EMS
Synthi-A/VCS-3. I think that most people who are familiar with the
Synthi will agree that it's by no means the best-built synthesizer ever
made. Not even close; a popular modification for the Synthi involves
improving the stability of the oscillators to the point where they're
considered musically useful! And of course there are the somewhat
(in)famous comments made by Wendy Carlos, in which she derides the EMS
product as having the qualities of "a toy".
And yet... for many people this instrument is much more than the sum of
its (sometimes questionable) components. In the case of the Synthi,
it's interesting and musically useful in part -because- of its inherent
manufacturing limitations. Its unpredictable behavior becomes part of
its musicality, at least to those who appreciate that sort of thing -
and it's by no means everyone's cup of tea.
In other words, the specific qualities that define "the best" will
always be different from one person to the next (even among MOTM
enthusiasts, I'd wager). For some people, the Synthi is "the best"
synthesizer despite its obvious flaws. For others it's just a quirky,
overpriced synth that needs extensive modifications to even approach
the specs of a current synthesizer.
Your comments make a compelling argument for why quality matters, and
why MOTM may well be the best-built modular. I'm just saying that for
the sake of clarity, I think this point should be separated from the
very different and vastly more elusive issue of what's "the best
modular" for any given person or situation.
On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 09:49 PM, Paul Schreiber wrote:
> Hmmm...it seems that my use of the word 'best' gets me into more hot
> water than anything (except
> the time I said the Moog modular VCA had the same sonics as AM radio).
>
> I have even heard comments to the effect that there is like an
> unwritten 'rule' that musicians
> avoid using 'best' at all, because it implies a sort of arrogant
> snooty air (like "...so-and-so
> is the best bass player...") so the prevailing attitude is a
> neutral-at-best "hey, everything's
> cool!"
>
> This is 180 degrees out-of-phase with engineering. The whole ∗point∗
> of engineering is to
> show/prove that A is a better solution than B, because blah blah blah.
> There are always multiple
> criteria about what constitutes "good, better, best".
>
> And certainly I have learned that the clashes between 'unemotional'
> engineering and 'emotional'
> music can go all over the place, and in many cases I think musicians
> don't WANT to know specifics
> as it somehow removes a 'layer of magic' between the musician and the
> audience.
>
> There are cases that seem to be a 'no brainer' to the engineering side
> and no amount of
> explaining will change the attitude of the user side. My favorite
> example:
>
> "Does MOTM come with banana jacks?"
> "No, because they are unshielded."
> "I like the colors, and the fact you can stack them."
> "Err...they are unshielded. Do you see any other pro audio gear using
> them?"
> "Well, synths that use them sound pretty good to me!"
> "That may be true, but what about a case when you DO get hum or noise
> induced?"
> "Why do you slag other synth manufacturers?"
>
> For me, any audio gear (not just synths) has no business using bananas
> because of this one fact.
> It doesn't matter if, to your ears, Synth A with bananas sounds as
> pure and clean as the driven
> snow. It's a bad ∗engineering∗ decision. The reality is, the use of
> banana jacks is a leftover
> from the early '70s based on cost. In 1974 I bough 50 Switchcraft
> jacks for like $110! 50 banana
> jacks would have been about $35. That is a significant difference.
> That gap is still there today:
> $1 versus about 30 cents.
>
> There are a 100 ways to shave pennies, that add up to dollars. Back in
> the '70s you could lower
> your pcb price by not having a solder mask and silkscreen. This made
> board stuffing a royal pain,
> and you can get copper foil delamination if you aren't careful. PC
> boards were relatively
> expensive as there were no CAD tools, no DRC (design rule checking:
> the schematic net list is
> checked by the computer against the routing). However, there is
> absolutely NO REASON that today's
> electronic products not have a solder mask/silkscreen. In fact, the
> pcb house I use charges
> ∗more∗ to leave it off because of yield issues. Yet, I still see these
> types of boards being
> made. If there is a difference, it can't be over $1 or so.
>
> Besides the obvious electro-mechanical scrimping, there is the design
> and the corresponding parts
> selection. In electro-mechanical intensive designs like a modular
> synth, the actual parts content
> can be as low as 5% of the overall cost (things like EGs and simple
> LFOs). If you serve a low
> cost market, in many cases you are self-limited in the parts
> selection. However, in many cases
> the difference between a nominal part and a REALLY GOOD part can be 50
> cents. The mind-game you
> start playing is you start wanting that 50 cents for yourself, and so
> you say "Heck, no ones
> gonna know the difference".
>
> I played that game for many years at Tandy and elsewhere. The 'moment
> of truth' for me came when
> I was designing a compact AM/FM receiver. Sanyo makes all the radio
> chips in the world, and they
> have 3 different FM demod chips, priced like 28 cents, 40 cents and
> $1. I had over 50 schematics
> from every stereo receiver on the planet, all brands. About 60% used
> the 28 cent one, 40% used
> the 40 cent one and ZERO used the $1 one. Even the most expensive,
> stand-alone FM tuner (Marantz)
> used the 40 cent one. So, I get demo boards for it and the $1 one to
> measure and listen. Also, it
> turned out the $1 one used a 33 cent Toko tuned trap coil for the 19.2
> demode filter (any hams
> out there?).
>
> The difference between the 2 was STUNNING. The $1 + 33 cent coil blew
> the doors off the 40 cent
> one. Local classical FM radio sounded almost CD quality. I was
> dragging everyone into the lab for
> A/B tests and they all agreed the more expensive one was the way to
> go. Except my boss. "Can't
> afford it!" I said I could scrimp elsewhere (power supply was a
> favorite scrimp, ie the OB-8),
> but I realized that the ∗idea∗ of using "the most expensive" brought
> horror and shame to the
> manager. Picture the staff meeting:
>
> "Johnson, that new FM radio sounds great! Who did the design?"
> "Schreiber. Did I mention he used the most expensive Sanyo FM chip?"
> Stunned silence, followed by nervous paper shuffling and coughs.
> "He....did.....what??! Oh....my....GOD!!"
>
> This is why I am producing MOTM. I want it to represent what it means
> to be the best. I don't go
> out and hunt expensive parts for the sake of a "gold plated toothpick"
> as MOTM has been called. I
> just refuse to use inferior parts when there are better ones out
> there. The R&D in the 500 and
> 600 reflect this even more (there are rotary encoders that I could get
> for $7, but I'm using a
> Greyhill avionics-grade optical encoder with 1 MILLION full cycle
> rotations guaranteed with
> stainless steel housing. This way, 20 years from now, it's still
> working perfectly. My cost is
> about $26).
>
> Even if my use of 'best' make you squirm, I'm not gloating, bragging
> or slagging. This is just
> the engineer in me talking facts. I wanted MOTM to raise the bar, to
> show the 'unclean' that
> there is an alternative way to design audio gear (like looking inside
> a Mark Levinson or Krell
> audio amplifier). I think I have succeeded, and it's not just me. I
> have other people designing
> HW and SW that have more ability than me in many areas. I am grateful
> that they feel that MOTM is
> where they themselves have decided to contribute.
>
> I admit that when I hear the end result, the music, I want to shout
> from the rooftops. I just
> make paint and brushes, others use the modules to ∗create∗. I listen
> to every audio synth demo
> and CD I can find. If I was in the market for a modular, it is a
> 'no-brainer'. I have yet to hear
> ANY other synth demo that made me want to chunk MOTM in a rat hole and
> say "That kicks my butt!
> It's time to close shop." Rather, the opposite.
>
> OK, the therapy session is over :) Please don't start in over bananas
> (Les!). I know several of
> you have replaced the 1/4 with them: don't tell me (my poor babies!
> Sob....)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Sell a Home for Top $
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/VpLolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>