--- In
motm@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Day <aaron@r...> wrote:
> I'm not sure how many people (including myself) were suggesting
things
> be "wacky" or psychedelic ,but, rather to entertain the idea of
some
> experimentation--especially in the realm of parameter control and
I/O
> placement. Its always easier to dream first and then reduce to
reality
> later, rather than the other way around.
Great point!
I think a lot of people are hung up on the idea that the panel
experimentation Paul asked about means that MOTM is going to go
psychedelic or use blue knobs or be wacky.
The grid and panel rules that are established are built upon the idea
that panel space needed to be minimized and components needed to be
standardized to keep costs down. There seems to be general agreement
that these decisions were sensible ones, but that they compromise
usability to some degree. Even on a small setup, it's easy to grab
the wrong knob because of the panel sameness.
When the module costs are going to $200, $300, or $400, saving $10 or
$15 bucks by using consistent knobs or smaller panels doesn't seem
like an important criteria anymore. If a larger panel, multiple knob
sizes or new graphics make a better module, why not try it?
Being open to new ideas doesn't mean we want day-glow panels; it just
means that Paul should have the freedom to experiment, push designs a
little, and try new things. Paul's said that the panel design and
component choice is a huge part of the module design process. Why have
arbitrary limitations on that process?
New modules should be the coolest possible modules, even if that
means breaking the rules.
About the Serge from "Mysterious Collector"...
That is a freakishly weird instrument! Not the direction for MOTM, at
all! Yet it's strangely cool, too. I'd like to check out each bizarre
panel. How about those dual joy-sticks? It almost looks like a reject
from the set of Star Trek.
Tell me there wasn't some head music coming out of this beast in its
heyday!