On 6/12/03, elle_webb put forth:
>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.
Well, that would make it more "Buchla-esqe" or at least more like the
Buchla 200-series modular that did look rather 60's, had blue knobs,
and was generally 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.
That's a typical problem with anything with so many knobs. It's
certainly no worse than your typical recording console. My advice
would be not make changes that you can't hear in the monitors.
>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?
I agree that informative graphics or different knob sizes could be
useful, but changing the size of the panels would cause much more
trouble than it is worth. I heard some people say that they would
like to put this new MOTM series in a seperate cabinet. Ignoring the
fact that it might be a very long time before there are enough of
these modules to even fill an entire rack panel, most MOTM customers
would want to be able to mount these new modules in with their
existing system.
>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?
Such limitations are not arbitrary. They are what Paul decided was
best for the system. Making those decisions took much time and
consideration. While I agree that he should make this new series as
innovative and powerful as possible, please keep in mind that Paul
has to be able to manufacture and sell them to existing customers,
and that we have to be willing and able to buy them.
>New modules should be the coolest possible modules, even if that
>means breaking the rules.
Synthesis Technology already makes the coolest possible modules :)