Dad and I first fell in among you when I was thirteen. I was the one who found your site, Paul, on line and pointed it out to my Dad when he was bemoaning the Synthi-A that got away and wanted a replacement. I was the one who started taking photos when we finally started building the thing a year or so later in 2007.
We are not true DIYers in the sense you described earlier. We have depended on the true engineers like yourself to do the circuit design and to help us in our stumbling progress. We've tried to contribute something to the community as we could, probably also trying the patience of our helpers in the process.
My opinion is that the large "MOTM" format is the preferable user-interface, as it were. And, as a DIYer of minimal sort, my personal interest, aside from the sounds the modules create, has been in how that interface (the panels) allows us to relate to the function of the modules. I have been very interested in their design.
For what it's worth, Dad and I are not particularly angry about this turn of events. Our orientation is different, I think - we are dabblers in comparison to most of you guys. Even though we've attempted some minor design (with the assistance of you truly wonderful engineers), our central interest has been in creating an instrument that we will play. Even after all this time, given the vagaries of our lives' course, we are only now really beginning to use the synth we built and it won't be for a while until we even have all the bugs out of it.
I recall my Dad saying, after getting off the phone with you some couple years ago, that it sounded like your concept for the smaller-format Morphong Terrarium, for instance, would exclude a couple features that might be available in the large-format equivalent module; perhaps because the larger-format would have more space for the extra features or that you would just design it somewhat differently or something. Perhaps I mis-recollect. Perhaps your ideas have changed.
At any rate, we find the frustration of those who are truly fanatics completely understandable. We share some of that frustration; Dad and I have wanted a Cloud Generator for years. Speaking for myself, I am not interested, however, in a lesser Euro-version even fitted out with big knobs and jacks. I prefer a truly MOTM module; a no-holds-barred completely stupidly-fanatically-engineered thing. I suspect this may be what you were getting at when you were saying that these are Euro Modules as distict from MOTM modules. They are different somehow?
So I am disappointed that I'll have to wait longer for the true-MOTM Cloud Generator. I am sorry to hear it may never be available. Frustrating, yes.
I do not think, however, that by virtue of having provided my Dad and I with the kits you designed and expertly packaged and organized with clear instructions, that you somehow owe us anything further. Your kits opened the door to a world we would otherwise not have experienced. This community - all of you - gave us safe harbor.
I do not think that our having made a completely worthy and very substantial investment of time and (Dad's) money gives us the right to expect you to continue to do anything you don't want to do.
It would surely be gratifying to have that damned Cloud Generator, though. Perhaps I should start a subliminal message campaign like I did when I wanted a Vocoder some years ago. I'll tragically be waiting somewhat longer yet for that too, alas.
Cloud Generator
Cloud Generator
Cloud Generator
Cloud Generator
Cloud Generator
Cloud Generator
Will
(Bill may or may not have approved this message; subliminal or no)
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
>
> For many years I did not have to worry about whether or not a new MOTM
> module would sell. The reason: Curtis IC sales.
>
> All of the module R&D budget was 100% paid for by me selling the CEM ICs
> that Doug Curtis had in his garage. This was true up until the '480.
>
> So really, the only 'out-of-pocket' funded MOTM module was the '730.
>
> When I say "funded", I mean:
>
> a) cost of all the prototype pc boards and parts
> b) FPE panels to verify the panel layout
> c) parts and production costs for the first 50 modules
>
> In many cases, there were parts used in every module (pots/jacks/knobs/etc)
> so there might be a few unique parts + the pc board but it was not that much
> overall (say $4500).
>
> The SMT model is much more, because there is the tooling cost (now about
> $850) and the fact you need parts on reels which is either full reels or
> partials and you part a LOT more for those. And, you have to pay to run ALL
> the board sets at once and the hard part: PAY for all the boards at once.
> The pc boards are now run 4-up on a panel so you have to break them apart.
> There is a lot more 'handling' of 'stuff' in SMT up front (as opposed to me
> & Paul H. putting 1.7 million parts into 128,000 little plastic bags).
>
> Paul S.
>