We are in fact trying to find a solution in terms of a way to make panels
for Paul S. a few at a time.
It is an unreasonable situation for us all to expect Paul S. to buy 50 of a
given panel at a time and hold them for 4 years.
The only alternatives at present are a higher selling price so that Paul S.
can offset the higher per unit panel cost that would come with not buying so
many, or to find a different process.
To get an idea of how panel costs go up with a smaller quantity just look at
what the cost of the present Stooge Panels are, or look at what FPE charges.
We think we can solve part of Paul's problem by punching out panels in
house. This would also mean that we could punch out Stooge Panels. The
panel finish could be anodized, powder coated or Polan painted. For Paul S.
we would stick with the Polan, expensive though it is. For Stoge Panels the
possibilities are open. That is why we are asking your opinion.
This leaves the silk screen problem and the associated costs. We do not yet
know if we can come up with an alternative for Paul S., but we do know that
we can come up with an alternative for Stooge Panels if some of you are
willing to switch away from silk screening. That is where the trade-off
comes in. A lot cheaper and lot faster, but not quite identical.
Personally, I love the idea of new panels with enhanced graphics. I fully
intend to replace all my panels with something different. The form factor
of the panels could stay true to the well established MOTM standard although
it wouldn't absolutely have to.
Every modular synth is in someway unique and reflects the tastes and
personality of its owner. This is a way of making it a little more personal
and a little more unique.
There are a lot of different ways we can go with this. The possibilites are
endless. Over the next couple of months we will be experimenting. As much
as we would like to get to making a Stooge Panel run immediately, we are
still trying to line up a reliable source of the panel blanks. Whether we
stay with the present Stooge Panel format or change, the time before we do
an actual run will be about the same.
Please let us know what you think. Your opinions will influence our
decision.
Paul H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:07 PM
Subject: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion
> a) I think that the discussion is mainly for continuing the Stooge panels.
> Production MOTM panels will remain as they are (even as such a pain as
> they are)
> simply because changing this late in the game (6500+ shipped) doesn't make
> sense. The slight cost savings to me is overshadowed by having a
> completely
> different finish.
>
> b) anodized panels ∗will∗ show fingerprints. Which is odd is that the
> rougher
> the initial finish (aluminum is belt-sanded before painting/plating), the
> more
> likely anodized panels will show prints. You can get glossy anodizing and
> you
> can 'overcoat' with a clear finish. For example, I think the Millennia
> Media
> Origin is drop-dead gorgeous and it's anodized:
>
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/origin.shtml
>
> For painted panels, having a textured finish (which is a special nozzle
> that
> 'splatters' the paint) ∗reduces∗ fingerprints (and glare).
>
> c) anodizing is sensitive to the aluminum. Most people do not realize that
> there
> are about 8 ∗different∗ alloys of aluminum. The most common (and what is
> used on
> MOTM now) is called 5052-H3. However, anodized aluminum is better with a
> ∗different∗ alloy called 6061-T6. Of course, 6061-T6 is about 15% more
> cost that
> 5052 (6061-T6 is commonly used on hang gliders and small aircraft). Blacet
> panels are anodized, 120 grit sanded, 6061-T6 aluminum. As well as Moog
> modular
> panels (they are sanded to a finer grain, around 320 grit).
>
> Also, the current press-fitting PEM studs and standoffs (on the rear of
> the
> panels) have a tougher time gripping 6061. A solution is to eliminate the
> older
> black pc brackets (that use threaded PEMs and KEPS nuts to attach to the
> panel)
> for 100% Stooge brackets (the silver ones that fasten behind the pot
> nuts). This
> still leaves issues with the 900, 950, 600 and 650, though :(
>
> d) I really don't see a point to changing, just for the sake of "fancier"
> graphics like the CMS modular:
>
> http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/CMS/Modular/images/mc24b.jpg
>
> without having to jack up the price. I think Paul H. is trying to find a
> solution +-10% of what I am paying now for say 50 pieces at a time, that
> now I
> can only fab say 7 pieces. The reasoning behind ∗this∗ is that there are
> some...errr..."slow selling" modules that may need 14 panels/year.
>
> Certainly, that CMS modular is quite a sight to behold, but so is the
> pricetag
> :)
>
> So, official MOTM panels will remain as they are for 2006. For DIY/Stooge
> panels, those can be whatever is best in terms of cost and delivery.
> Stooge
> panels are a 'pretty big business' and help to promote the MOTM form
> factor as
> the leading industry standard in 1/4" jacks.
>
> If I do decide to make a change, it will be 'radical' like the Modcan
> Series B:
> something removed far away from the original. Let's face it: I never
> dreamed of
> selling 6500 of these things in the first place. I was hoping for 500 so I
> could
> get a good stereo :)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>