no one else offers look and feel of MOTM. 730 is the 1st module to step away from the classic grid design. And other companies have designs with average parts, another thing MOTM has helped me to find less value in. I sure hope the cloud generator comes out. The frac version coming 1st was also a surprise w me, but I'll wait for the 520. I'd even pay in advance if it helps make it a reality. We have been assured the code process will be different than the 650 which is great news!
I hope Paul and the little company that could make it through this identity crisis and jeep releasing solid products. Still waiting on triple preamp, expanded filter, sem filter, cloud gen, and others! Fingers crossed!!!
Paul Schreiber wrote:
> I'm not ever going back to full-blown kits. That is not a good use of my
> time.
> [JH, close your ears a sec.....]
> There is only ∗so much∗ one can conjure up with resistors, caps and op amps.
> And with other people offering blank boards for as low as what, $12? I have
> no interest in that at all.
> I am now concerned about my future plans for things like the 520/521 and the
> '102 (digital noise with CV's delay cascaded S&H). There is no way to make a
> '102 with the same parts as a '420 VCF.
> But, I think having such a module would be really cool and useful, as
> (again....) there is nothing like that out there, now or since 1968.
> These designs take ∗lot of time and money∗. And the reality is: my time is
> ∗much∗ more valuable that your time. Because anyone can order something and
> set it aside in a closet for 2 years until use. But ∗I can't∗. I ∗have∗ to
> buy the parts, the CAD tools (I spent $5300 last year on CAD/computer
> upgrades) the literal 100,000 parts (and hold the inventory, and pay
> quarterly taxes ON the inventory).
> I can't compete with people sitting at the dining room table and laying out
> pc boards 'for fun' and selling them for $15.
> So, all ask it again: what sort of module, that I can offer as blank pc
> boards (no SMT) is of interest? Is there a filter, a function, what is
> "missing" in the MOTM equation that you ∗can't get elsewhere∗?
> Most of my current future module plans ∗assume∗ a SMT technology, simply
> because that is the form factor the parts are available in.
> Paul S.
>