Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
  topic list next in topic

Subject: RE: [motm] static feedback

From: "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <noise@...>
Date: 2000-08-23

I totally appreciate this point of view, you make wonderful points--

My main thought is that Tony's come up with a ∗fantastic∗ module, and I'd
hate to see it less usable due to cramped conditions. Keep in mind that
Blacet's modules use (typically?) 1 row of knobs. Tony's has two rows, plus
another row of switches-- that's a lot of pieces for a relatively small
amount of space.

Making the panel twice as wide, I'd wager, doesn't add much to the price--
you still have the same number of holes for jacks and knobs. Using larger
pots will raise the price, indeed-- but I wouldn't want to purchase a
product with cheap feeling knobs (I don't want to have to deal with possible
scratchiness or repairs). I'm not aware of anything else that would change,
price-wise... am I wrong here?

I agree that restraint is called for at the right time. However, don't
prevent me from mad-twiddling when I want to. (Incidently, I've never
written a lick of music, so "my music" is neither restrained nor out of
control... :) My bottom line is that a module with this much potential and
power ∗deserves∗ a large space, so that when I'm fumbling around and
searching for that perfect preset slope and curve (or just plane playing
with the sound), I'm not knocking everything else out of whack.

--PBr :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:thomas white [SMTP:djthomaswhite@...]
> Sent:Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:15 AM
> Subject:[motm] static feedback
> Just a thought,
> Not every song or composition is best presented by madly twidling all
> possible knobs on your modular. Some songs require restraint and preset
> slopes and curves to have the right impact. I think it is a very limited
> view to state...
> Or your music is a little more static that it should be?
> Sometimes music is "too" static because all you are doing is twisting the
> knobs all the time. Things can get out of hand fast with all of the
> options
> we have on our MOTM's, especially for those of us who own two or more
> modulars. Knob twiddling on a classic LFO is only one knob that determines
> the whole frequency while this modules is multiple stages (15 knobs for
> ∗∗∗∗
> sake) with room for delicate transitions if you program the thing right. I
> am willing to hider the real time tweakability with the smaller knobs to
> save cost since my modular money is running low :~( It will in no way be
> impossible to tweak on this proposed module and I am hyped about the step
> sequencer type functions.
> I am very excited to look at this possible new module for the positive
> things that it might bring to the MOTM system. I have no other module like
> this and I would for sure like to add one of these to my modular. I
> commend
> Tony for trying to keep it in a 2-space panel.
> Some of the people on this list complaining right now about the 2-space
> panel will most assuredly be the ones complaining about the price of a 4
> space module with the fatty alco knobs and classic spacing. And maybe not
> even buy one in the end because it will cost as much or more than a MOTM
> VCO. Although at times my Blacet and Doepfer stuff does seem cramped in
> comparison to my MOTM, it always gets the job done even with the cheap
> pots
> and thimble sized knobs. How long it will continue to get the job done is
> another question (Doe∗∗∗∗)
> Bottom line is I will deviate from the classic MOTM format even though my
> MOTM is the most carefully laid out and planned (Sound and Visual) synth I
> have. Of course it might make the rack look spaced oddly, but I want to
> get
> the function of this module to add to my sound creating power and for this
> I
> am willing to trade off the classic spacing and fat knobs. Yes, I do have
> smaller fingers but my band members are much bigger (MBI, try and figure
> this abrev out) than me and have never complained.
> Rant, rant, rant I know, but this module can and will be a very valuable
> addition to my MOTM system. I think it will compliment the modules Paul
> has
> available and I hope that it will mean Tony will be making more MOTM
> format
> modules. Now we can try to get John Blacet involved! Thanks for listening
> and getting this far into this mini novella
> Thomas White
> PS. MBI= More Beer Intake