Stooge Panel Announcements, et al
2003-02-18 by mbedtom@aol.com
JLH Wrote:
"My question is does anyone have any objection to my mentioning the availability of our product on this list? I do no want to intrude or appear to be pushing our product over Schaeffer."
I am a huge stooge panel fan and, speaking for myself, would love to hear about "the next run". Actually, anything panel related interests me!
Most of my panel wants are for modules that don't commercially exist or are for select Oakley modules. But I have to ask, what sort of panels might fall into the "illegal" category of panels? I can think of one panel I have in mind that might be "bad"... I want a fixed filter bank similar to but not exactly like Paul's upcoming FFB. Is that one "illegal"? Paul published a silkscreen of the component layout for his FFB prototype. It was apparent to me there were no adjustment pots to trim the filter responses. That is something I want to have on mine. In fact, I would build a couple of these, tuned slightly different. I also want two more filter sections per bank to maximize panel usage and sonic contribution. By making the filter sections tunable, one can get unusual responses. I would not label the sections as to a specific frequency. Rather, I would label them a "Band A", "Band B", and so on. "Band A" on FFB #1 would probably be tuned very differently than "Band A" on a seemingly identical unit. So, my FFB would certainly be different from Paul's and my strong opinions on how I'd want a FFB done would preclude me as a customer for Paul's FFB. But would it be "too close for comfort"? I could always do a Schaeffer panel but I happen to like the look of stooge panels and would prefer to keep my synth limited to MOTM and stooge panels.
This whole synth interest is based on individual ideas on what would be cool and these ideas are as different as there are people involved. But I could also understand some reluctance to doing just anything. Maybe the big question is, are there any sort of guidelines that could be used to avoid making anyone uncomfortable? I could understand there being a big, fat, "no" written if someone wanted a VCO panel that said "MOTM 300" on it. But if I wanted my own VCO panel, would that be ruled out because Paul has a VCO in his lineup (assuming my VCO had little resemblance to Paul's)? Despite thunderous accolades for the 300, I have observed a number of anomalies that I don't care for. This is the wrong list to elaborate, but suffice it to say that I will eventually do my own VCOs. Will I have a problem getting panels? (No, my VCOs will look nothing like a 300. In fact, they will be a dual-VCOs in a 3U panel. Is that OK?)
Cheers!
Tom Farrand
"My question is does anyone have any objection to my mentioning the availability of our product on this list? I do no want to intrude or appear to be pushing our product over Schaeffer."
I am a huge stooge panel fan and, speaking for myself, would love to hear about "the next run". Actually, anything panel related interests me!
Most of my panel wants are for modules that don't commercially exist or are for select Oakley modules. But I have to ask, what sort of panels might fall into the "illegal" category of panels? I can think of one panel I have in mind that might be "bad"... I want a fixed filter bank similar to but not exactly like Paul's upcoming FFB. Is that one "illegal"? Paul published a silkscreen of the component layout for his FFB prototype. It was apparent to me there were no adjustment pots to trim the filter responses. That is something I want to have on mine. In fact, I would build a couple of these, tuned slightly different. I also want two more filter sections per bank to maximize panel usage and sonic contribution. By making the filter sections tunable, one can get unusual responses. I would not label the sections as to a specific frequency. Rather, I would label them a "Band A", "Band B", and so on. "Band A" on FFB #1 would probably be tuned very differently than "Band A" on a seemingly identical unit. So, my FFB would certainly be different from Paul's and my strong opinions on how I'd want a FFB done would preclude me as a customer for Paul's FFB. But would it be "too close for comfort"? I could always do a Schaeffer panel but I happen to like the look of stooge panels and would prefer to keep my synth limited to MOTM and stooge panels.
This whole synth interest is based on individual ideas on what would be cool and these ideas are as different as there are people involved. But I could also understand some reluctance to doing just anything. Maybe the big question is, are there any sort of guidelines that could be used to avoid making anyone uncomfortable? I could understand there being a big, fat, "no" written if someone wanted a VCO panel that said "MOTM 300" on it. But if I wanted my own VCO panel, would that be ruled out because Paul has a VCO in his lineup (assuming my VCO had little resemblance to Paul's)? Despite thunderous accolades for the 300, I have observed a number of anomalies that I don't care for. This is the wrong list to elaborate, but suffice it to say that I will eventually do my own VCOs. Will I have a problem getting panels? (No, my VCOs will look nothing like a 300. In fact, they will be a dual-VCOs in a 3U panel. Is that OK?)
Cheers!
Tom Farrand