| previous by date | index | next by date |
| previous in topic | topic list |
What’s best about MOTM includes manyof the reasons we have bought our systems:
John Loffink
jloffink@...
-----Original Message-----
From: phaeton777 [mailto:phaeton777@...]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 12:28 AM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] Re: Can there be a'best'? [long rant]
Very well said Paul. I don't see why you should even have to defend
yourself on this issue since most of us would sayyou're preaching to
the converted.
I take great pride in KNOWING that my MOTM systemwill be around a
LONG time. The blasted thing doesn't go out oftune...ever. The
output is so quiet I've already blown a pairtweeters in my NFMs
because I thought the level was much lower than itreally was. And,
it sounds like heaven. Like my Leatherman, mySnap-on tools, and my
Rocky Mountain bike, it's something I don't haveto baby. I often
wish I was put together as well!
The technically-minded amongst us know why you doit, and the
musically-minded amongst us know why you do it.Stop explaining
yourself and get back to work! :)
Z.
--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber"<synth1@a...> 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 thesame sonics as AM
radio).
>
> I have even heard comments to the effect thatthere is like an
unwritten 'rule' that musicians
> avoid using 'best' at all, because it impliesa sort of arrogant
snooty air (like "...so-and-so
> is the best bass player...") so theprevailing attitude is a
neutral-at-best "hey, everything's
> cool!"
>
> This is 180 degrees out-of-phase withengineering. The whole
∗point∗ of engineering is to
> show/prove that A is a better solution thanB, because blah blah
blah. There are always multiple
> criteria about what constitutes "good,better, best".
>
> And certainly I have learned that the clashesbetween 'unemotional'
engineering and 'emotional'
> music can go all over the place, and in manycases 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 'nobrainer' to the engineering
side and no amount of
> explaining will change the attitude of theuser side. My favorite
example:
>
> "Does MOTM come with banana jacks?"
> "No, because they are unshielded."
> "I like the colors, and the fact you canstack them."
> "Err...they are unshielded. Do you seeany other pro audio gear
using them?"
> "Well, synths that use them sound prettygood to me!"
> "That may be true, but what about a casewhen you DO get hum or
noise induced?"
> "Why do you slag other synthmanufacturers?"
>
> For me, any audio gear (not just synths) hasno business using
bananas because of this one fact.
> It doesn't matter if, to your ears, Synth Awith bananas sounds as
pure and clean as the driven
> snow. It's a bad ∗engineering∗ decision. Thereality is, the use of
banana jacks is a leftover
> from the early '70s based on cost. In 1974 Ibough 50 Switchcraft
jacks for like $110! 50 banana
> jacks would have been about $35. That is asignificant difference.
That gap is still there today:
> $1 versus about 30 cents.
>
> There are a 100 ways to shave pennies, thatadd up to dollars. Back
in the '70s you could lower
> your pcb price by not having a solder maskand silkscreen. This
made board stuffing a royal pain,
> and you can get copper foil delamination ifyou 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 soldermask/silkscreen. In fact, the
pcb house I use charges
> ∗more∗ to leave it off because of yieldissues. Yet, I still see
these types of boards being
> made. If there is a difference, it can't beover $1 or so.
>
> Besides the obvious electro-mechanicalscrimping, there is the
design and the corresponding parts
> selection. In electro-mechanical intensivedesigns 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 areself-limited in the parts
selection. However, in many cases
> the difference between a nominal part and aREALLY GOOD part can be
50 cents. The mind-game you
> start playing is you start wanting that 50cents for yourself, and
so you say "Heck, no ones
> gonna know the difference".
>
> I played that game for many years at Tandyand 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 like28 cents, 40 cents and
$1. I had over 50 schematics
> from every stereo receiver on the planet, allbrands. 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 boardsfor it and the $1 one
to measure and listen. Also, it
> turned out the $1 one used a 33 cent Tokotuned 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 almostCD quality. I was
dragging everyone into the lab for
> A/B tests and they all agreed the moreexpensive one was the way to
go. Except my boss. "Can't
> afford it!" I said I could scrimpelsewhere (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 soundsgreat! Who did the design?"
> "Schreiber. Did I mention he used themost expensive Sanyo FM chip?"
> Stunned silence, followed by nervous papershuffling and coughs.
> "He....did.....what??!Oh....my....GOD!!"
>
> This is why I am producing MOTM. I want it torepresent what it
means to be the best. I don't go
> out and hunt expensive parts for the sake ofa "gold plated
toothpick" as MOTM has been called. I
> just refuse to use inferior parts when thereare better ones out
there. The R&D in the 500 and
> 600 reflect this even more (there are rotaryencoders that I could
get for $7, but I'm using a
> Greyhill avionics-grade optical encoder with1 MILLION full cycle
rotations guaranteed with
> stainless steel housing. This way, 20 yearsfrom now, it's still
working perfectly. My cost is
> about $26).
>
> Even if my use of 'best' make you squirm, I'mnot gloating,
bragging or slagging. This is just
> the engineer in me talking facts. I wanted MOTMto raise the bar,
to show the 'unclean' that
> there is an alternative way to design audiogear (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 inmany areas. I am
grateful that they feel that MOTM is
> where they themselves have decided tocontribute.
>
> I admit that when I hear the end result, themusic, I want to shout
from the rooftops. I just
> make paint and brushes, others use themodules to ∗create∗. I
listen to every audio synth demo
> and CD I can find. If I was in the market fora modular, it is
a 'no-brainer'. I have yet to hear
> ANY other synth demo that made me want tochunk MOTM in a rat hole
and say "That kicks my butt!
> It's time to close shop." Rather, theopposite.
>
> OK, the therapy session is over :) Pleasedon't start in over
bananas (Les!). I know several of
> you have replaced the 1/4 with them: don'ttell me (my poor babies!
Sob....)
>
> Paul S.