If you don't like MOTM, but everybody here does, do you think Paul
is going to change his entire design philosophy because of that?
Stick with your favorite manufacturer, you'll be happier in the long
run.
This smacks of troll to me.
Mike
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
>
> >The reason we went to MOTM in the first place is the quality,
isn't
> it? Sure, we like the layout, and the selection of modules, but
> isn'tthe stability of the modules one of the major reasons we're
> not 'saving money' by going for a (I won't name names) cheaper but
> inferior company?<
>
> In a word, no.
>
> But I just can't limit myself to one word, so...
>
> I generally do NOT like the MOTM format (The Black Sea), and I
think
> Paul's mania for certain switches and jacks has more to do with
> marketing than functionality. Seriously, how many people have ever
> had problems with a toggle switch?! In my 50 years on the planet,
> I've never had even the cheapest toggle switch cause problems. As
for
> jacks, well, just about any ∗panel jack∗ is going to provide
decades
> of use.
>
> Also, sealed pots can indeed get scratchy and, when they do, your
> only recourse is to replace them. Indeed, one thing I very much
> dislike about MOTM pots is that they feel "cheap" to me,
regardless
> of their expense. There is no dampening effect to them; they move
far
> too easily. When you have lots of patchcords hooked up, all it
takes
> is one tiny bump against a knob and you can be SOL. That is
> why "stiff" pots should always be used on a modular system--they
tend
> to stay put.
>
> My all-time favorite pots? Mouser pots from Rat Shack. Deliciously
> damped response and they never, EVER get scratchy. And I do mean
> after decades of use. Cheap too!
>
> OK, so if I don't like the format and think the jacks, pots,
> switches, etc. are essentially a marketing gimmick, why MOTM?
> Because of the ∗circuits∗. Some of the ones in the signal path,
> anyway. I love my sub-octave mux, and have a MOTM 440 on the way,
as
> I was most impressed with it (if Synthtech ever comes up with a -
24
> dB HPF, it is as good as sold). Having tested the MOTM FFB, I can
> vouch for the quality of that as well (IF THE DAMN THING EVER GETS
> PRODUCED!). I wouldn't buy one, as I no longer think FFB's make
much
> sense, but it does what it is designed to do extremely well.
Lordy,
> what a quiet design!
>
> My synthesizer is a dotcom. A very large one. And I love it. LOVE
it,
> do you hear me?
>
> OK, so if I love it so much, why am I buying MOTM modules here and
> there?
>
> I can answer that, but first let me share a fantasy with you...
>
> I'd love to rent a small motel room in Texas and invite Paul S.
and
> Roger Arrick over for drinks.
>
> Then I'd get them nice and liquored up.
>
> When sufficiently pliable and willing, I would tenderly remove
their
> shirts...
>
> Then I'd tie them to a chair...
>
> ...And WHIP them with a Cat o' Nine Patchcords for not going into
> business together! :-)
>
> Just think-- Gorgeous dotcom aesthetics and cabinets and dotcom
> manufacturing! Those wonderful dotcom oscillators, ADSR's and that
> sequencer! MOTM filters and other signal path goodies! 'Tis enough
to
> make my mind reel and my loins stir.
>
> 'Twas not to be, however.
>
> So I'm solving the problem myself by creating the Ultimate
Efficiency
> Synthesizer, which will be my base dotcom system plus modules from
> Synthtech, Blacet, and maybe a touch of Modcan/Cynthia. All in
dotcom
> format, however. I have one more tier to go on my system, but will
> keep my vow never to create a modular that is taller than Wendy
> Carlos' Moog.
>
> Did I ramble? Sorry. ;-)
>
> Oh, and Geoff, what are you doing working on a Saturday?!
>
> johnm