Tony A, John B, Tony K, and anyone who cares,
I think you're being a little hasty in unsubbing from the list. I really
don't think anyone sees your excellent projects as a direct replacement
for Paul's. Even if they do, what does it matter? I think if you have
something of value for the MOTM or DIY
commynity, and get it to market first, go for it! That is what free enterprise
and capitalism is all about. Besides As I see it, only one guy on the
list is accusing you of "scabbing". and he's a self proclained "stooge".
I Like MOTM and have a big system 75% MOTM, 25% other stuff. But, I
am first and foremost a consumer. I waited all of last year for new modules
from Synthtech, but as everyone well knows, only 2 were produced. I needed
some modules that you and others produced, so I bought them. No remorse,
no guilt. Just market demand.
That is not to say, I will not buy the same functionality from Synthtech.
I certainly will, because I want to have one of the
complete MOTM Systems in 25 years when they become collector's items.
I think maybe this whole fray was caused by me due to a private mail
to Dave concerning the Superladder/Multi-ladder panels. If that is the
case, I apologise. I try not to complain openly, and in fact, remain
a lurker the majority of the time. I do feel that it is unfair to ostracize
a fellow member just because he may offer something which may or may
not compete.
As to the "AHEM" Superladder/Multiladder being in competition with something
Synthtech has, I'd like to see the Synthtech version. It will likely
be a year or two before that module hits the market.
While I agree that this list is the MOTM list and was in fact started
by Paul Schreiber I feel some degree of ownership for it by now and I
think we all should be free to communicate freely the pros and cons of
the subjects at hand. Instead I find some of us are afraid to criticize
the Synthtech business model, the product or anything about it.
I have seen the same thing happen to other "competitors" of Synthtech.
(Synthesisers.com) for instance. I remember someone having to eat a hearty
helping of Crow ( not old crow BTW) over that one.
I don't think this whole thing is a monopoly so let's not let our trivial
"Brand Loyalyty" get the best of us. Let the market decide the winner.
--
James Holloway
jimh54@... - email
(972) 993-2023 x1188 - voicemail/fax
---- "Tony Allgood" <
oakley@...> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I didn't know whether to reply or not. I will if only to put my point
> across. This is the way I see it:
>
> I do not compete directly with any of Paul's products for one simple
> reason. I do not produce full kits or ready made modules. I have no
> intention of doing that. I produce PCBs, but more than that I produce
> User Guides and full schematics for the DIY community. Not everyone
> buys
> a PCB, and many people will e-mail me asking about building this stuff
> on Veroboard etc. One of the reasons I 'advertise' my ideas, is to
> show
> off my designs.
>
> I try not to produce modules that are directly equivalent to any of
> Paul's line ups. However, I am trying to produce a range of modules
> that
> will enable the builder to create a whole synth or modular synth. Some
> overlap is inevitable, but I have tried to minimise this by providing
> either extras or omissions on each module. The latest Noise/Filter
> module is an example of this. Yes, it is a noise module, but it is
> not a
> sample and hold. It also has a filter. The ADSR is not just a EG, but
> one with a built in VCA for velocity control. Many of the ideas of
> for
> modules come from customers too. Those of you have seen my User Guide
> for the AD/AR EG will realise, that I am not a great fan of the ADSR,
> but I kept on getting asked for one, so I did one. Not for the MOTMites,
> but for the guys who are building their own systems.
>
> I cannot foresee what modules are planned, and in fact one of the
> reasons for me joining the list was not to advertise, but make sure
> I
> didn't spend two months of my time designing a new module that was
> an
> exact copy of something that Paul had planned. The Oakley VC-LFO is
> a
> case in point. I still have my prototype VC-LFO built around Don
> Tilman's waveshaper that I will not release as a design or PCB because
> of its similarity with the 320.
>
> My suggested layouts do adhere to the MOTM format (almost) for three
> reasons. Firstly, I wanted to build up a MOTM system of my own, and
> I
> wanted my stuff to match. I would have wanted to buy plenty of MOTM
> modules, but my expanding family put paid to that. So I have just one,
> a
> MOTM-410. Secondly, Paul himself said he would like the MOTM format
> to
> be an accepted standard for modular systems. A bit like Doepfer/Analogue
> Systems etc. but for grown ups :-) And thirdly, I was hoping for some
> knock off business from Paul's more experienced building customers.
> This
> is the bit that you don't like. I can understand that. But, please
> look
> at my site. Virtually on every page there is mention of SynthTech.
> Some
> hyperlinks, some just words, but in all cases I am recommending people
> to go there and buy MOTM. I also have to say that many, if not most,
> of
> my customers do not build their units into MOTM sized cases.
>
> Anyway, I feel to avoid any hard feelings in the future I will unsub
> myself from this list forthwith. I will be still on synth-DIY and AH.
>
> Kind regards to you all,
>
> Tony Allgood
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place.
Sign Up Now!
http://www.onebox.com