Modular Synth Panels

Standardization is an issue, since we save money if we get 5 or more of any
design. I'm already spending more money than I make, so I don't go for tick
marks. But if four others do want them for a certain design, then I'd go for
it and everybody wins -- they save 10%, and I get free tick marks :) So we
can deal with it on a design-by-design basis, and discuss it if it comes up
for multiple orders of any single design.

A standardized macro would be good -- whatever's closest to MOTM, though
even MOTM changed to a simpler style, didn't they? Maybe in a while we could
put it to a vote, once we get them all together. It's not an issue for me,
but if you're trying to match MOTM, it is. Be aware, though, that even
Schaeffer's black panels don't match MOTM's panels, which have that fancy
texturing...

>From: "Richard Brewster" <pugix@...>
>Reply-To: motmpanels@yahoogroups.com
>To: <motmpanels@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [motmpanels] Greetings, my uploaded files, and the tick mark issue
>Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:25:39 -0400
>
>Greeting fellow MOTM-Schaeffer'ers.
>
>I am really into panel design and glad to share anything I design. I'm
>also glad to talk about the module design issues behind the panel.
>
>I have just ordered my first panels from Schaeffer. The FPD files have
>been uploaded for you to look at (and use or modify if you want). I'm
>crossing my fingers that I will like the results, they sure cost a lot. I
>put a bunch of tick marks on my dials to be MOTM like. I was thinking this
>could become a bit of a contentious issue when it comes to bulk orders.
>The tick marks are costly.
>
>I wonder if we can standardize on a tick mark macro? I emailed J. Haible,
>whose panels are awesome. He advised me how to do my tick marks. Now,
>mine are just that -- my design. So it's completely non-standard. I just
>tried to emulate the MOTM style.
>
>I am just about to do a new design for the Blacet VC EG/LFO. Somebody
>already uploaded a file for it! Fantastic! I will use that as a resource
>for ideas. I will be glad to upload any alternative design I come up with.
> That way we'll have plenty of choice.
>
>Choice vs. standards could be difficult. But I would be glad to go with an
>existing design in some cases to save us all money.
>
>Looking forward to a collaborative effort!
>
>-Richard Brewster
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

If you scrutinize the tick marks on MOTM modules, you will see at least
three different styles, the main difference being the length and thickness
of the intermediate tick marks. So even MOTM isn't self-consistent here.
If we agreed to leave out the intermediate tick marks it would save 10
engravings per dial. I'm guessing at 25 cents per tick, this would save
$2.50 per dial.

I am not worried about exactly matching MOTM. I would just like to have 11
main detent tick marks on each dial, like the MOTM.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Deyo" <thom_s4@...>
To: <motmpanels@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: [motmpanels] Greetings, my uploaded files, and the tick mark
issue


>
>
> Standardization is an issue, since we save money if we get 5 or more of
any
> design. I'm already spending more money than I make, so I don't go for
tick
> marks. But if four others do want them for a certain design, then I'd go
for
> it and everybody wins -- they save 10%, and I get free tick marks :) So we
> can deal with it on a design-by-design basis, and discuss it if it comes
up
> for multiple orders of any single design.
>
> A standardized macro would be good -- whatever's closest to MOTM, though
> even MOTM changed to a simpler style, didn't they? Maybe in a while we
could
> put it to a vote, once we get them all together. It's not an issue for me,
> but if you're trying to match MOTM, it is. Be aware, though, that even
> Schaeffer's black panels don't match MOTM's panels, which have that fancy
> texturing...
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Richard Brewster" <pugix@...>
> >Reply-To: motmpanels@yahoogroups.com
> >To: <motmpanels@yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: [motmpanels] Greetings, my uploaded files, and the tick mark
issue
> >Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 19:25:39 -0400
> >
> >Greeting fellow MOTM-Schaeffer'ers.
> >
> >I am really into panel design and glad to share anything I design. I'm
> >also glad to talk about the module design issues behind the panel.
> >
> >I have just ordered my first panels from Schaeffer. The FPD files have
> >been uploaded for you to look at (and use or modify if you want). I'm
> >crossing my fingers that I will like the results, they sure cost a lot.
I
> >put a bunch of tick marks on my dials to be MOTM like. I was thinking
this
> >could become a bit of a contentious issue when it comes to bulk orders.
> >The tick marks are costly.
> >
> >I wonder if we can standardize on a tick mark macro? I emailed J.
Haible,
> >whose panels are awesome. He advised me how to do my tick marks. Now,
> >mine are just that -- my design. So it's completely non-standard. I
just
> >tried to emulate the MOTM style.
> >
> >I am just about to do a new design for the Blacet VC EG/LFO. Somebody
> >already uploaded a file for it! Fantastic! I will use that as a
resource
> >for ideas. I will be glad to upload any alternative design I come up
with.
> > That way we'll have plenty of choice.
> >
> >Choice vs. standards could be difficult. But I would be glad to go with
an
> >existing design in some cases to save us all money.
> >
> >Looking forward to a collaborative effort!
> >
> >-Richard Brewster
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN!
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hi panel designers and users,

Just thought I would add $.02 to several mentioned issues. Sorry if this
turns into a novella.

I suppose the basic (conflicting) issues are cost and customization. I'm
for standardization for ease of designing and reduced cost (by several of
us ordering the same panel - but see Cost Note below). However, I assume
like some others, I value being able to customize a panel to my viewpoint
and my limited physical space for inserting modules.

>
> A standardized macro would be good -- whatever's closest to MOTM, though
> even MOTM changed to a simpler style, didn't they?

I think MOTM changed to a more detailed design, especially tick marks and
numbering (I'm comparing the 110 style [11 tick marks, few numbers] to the
310).

One issue I have with motm numbers are their size. Given my aging
eyes, they are bit difficult to see, so in the panels I've designed I've
slightly increased the sizes of the numbers and changed the font a bit to
make the numbers more readable to me. This may not be an issue with
others, but it is one thing that I can do with Schaeffer panels that helps
me out. Stooge panels have smaller numbers and lettering than motm (tho'
similar in design). This is also one reason I prefer the simpler 110
style to the later motm module styles.

Cost Note: I'm not entirely convinced that the Schaeffer discounts apply
to only the same .fpd files. I previously placed an order that contained
5 different files (that totaled over $200) and asked Kai if I could possibly
receive a discount. If I remember correctly, he did take off 5% or 10%.
So, if we submit a 'reasonable' number of files, we could ask Kai if he
would apply a discount to the entire lot (we certainly couldn't lose by
asking).

>Richard wrote:
>I am not worried about exactly matching MOTM. I would just like to have
>11 main detent tick marks on each dial, like the MOTM.

Yes, here I am in agreement. Even a number on each of the tick marks
(like I have on my designs) isn't crucial to me (again, 110 as an
example).

>Richard wrote:
>Since we started the standards, topic, how about hole sizes?

Again this depends on what components are being used by individuals. For
example, on Oakley modules I buy the Omeg pots, which require a slightly
larger hole size than the Spectrol and Bourns that usually go into motm
modules. It becomes more complicated if one uses another pot
manufacturer, say Alpha, which I have used in some of my EFM and CGS
designs (just because I had the pot's on hand).

>The standard MOTM Lumex LED goes in a 5/16" hole.

This is true for the 'single color' Lumex's that are used in motm's, but
Lumex makes other sized led's. There is a bicolor Lumex led that I like
that takes a 1/4" hole.

>Another approach would be to make all LED holes 1/4" and
>let people who want to use the Lumex part just drill them out.

A possibility I would consider. However, one of the things I like about
getting Schaeffer panels is that I don't have to drill holes.

Comments? Jeff

> Cost Note: I'm not entirely convinced that the Schaeffer discounts apply
> to only the same .fpd files. I previously placed an order that contained
> 5 different files (that totaled over $200) and asked Kai if I could

possibly

> receive a discount. If I remember correctly, he did take off 5% or 10%.
> So, if we submit a 'reasonable' number of files, we could ask Kai if he
> would apply a discount to the entire lot (we certainly couldn't lose by
> asking).
>

Ah. This is really important to find out. I was assuming the discounts
applied only to multiples of the same .fpd file. If it is just a total
panel discount, then the standards becomes much less of an issue. (Geez, I
just ordered 4 panels, no discount.)

We'll have other details to work out for batch orders. Have you all done
any yet? How will the payment and shipping details be handled? I have done
group buys on a motorcycle list before. That is usually by one person
taking all the orders and payments and doing the shipping back to
individuals. Seems like a burden. Maybe we could offer a free panel to the
volunteer.

-Richard

>I suppose the basic (conflicting) issues are cost and customization. I'm
>for standardization for ease of designing and reduced cost (by several of
>us ordering the same panel - but see Cost Note below). However, I assume
>like some others, I value being able to customize a panel to my viewpoint
>and my limited physical space for inserting modules.

I'm definitely on the saving-money tip, which is the main reason I don't use
tick marks.

>
>Cost Note: I'm not entirely convinced that the Schaeffer discounts apply
>to only the same .fpd files. I previously placed an order that contained
>5 different files (that totaled over $200) and asked Kai if I could
>possibly
>receive a discount. If I remember correctly, he did take off 5% or 10%.
>So, if we submit a 'reasonable' number of files, we could ask Kai if he
>would apply a discount to the entire lot (we certainly couldn't lose by
>asking).

Last time I ordered around 30 panels, and only received discounts on designs
w/ 5 or more panels ordered. But Jurgen also said something about asking for
discounts. Maybe Kai would be willing to knock a little of the entire order
if we told him it was for a bunch of people. Definitely worth a try.

>
> >Richard wrote:
> >I am not worried about exactly matching MOTM. I would just like to have
> >11 main detent tick marks on each dial, like the MOTM.
>Yes, here I am in agreement. Even a number on each of the tick marks
>(like I have on my designs) isn't crucial to me (again, 110 as an
>example).

Sounds good.

>
>
> >Richard wrote:
> >Since we started the standards, topic, how about hole sizes?
>Again this depends on what components are being used by individuals. For
>example, on Oakley modules I buy the Omeg pots, which require a slightly
>larger hole size than the Spectrol and Bourns that usually go into motm
>modules. It becomes more complicated if one uses another pot
>manufacturer, say Alpha, which I have used in some of my EFM and CGS
>designs (just because I had the pot's on hand).

10.5mm holes (or whatever are on Oakley files) work well for Omeg and Alpha.
I've used both. The Alphas have smaller bushings, but it looks the same
after they're secured.

>
>
> >The standard MOTM Lumex LED goes in a 5/16" hole.
>This is true for the 'single color' Lumex's that are used in motm's, but
>Lumex makes other sized led's. There is a bicolor Lumex led that I like
>that takes a 1/4" hole.
>
> >Another approach would be to make all LED holes 1/4" and
> >let people who want to use the Lumex part just drill them out.
>A possibility I would consider. However, one of the things I like about
>getting Schaeffer panels is that I don't have to drill holes.
>

I don't like to drill w/o a pilot either, because of the possibility of
scratching an expensive, time-consumingly designed panel, but if there's a
biggish hole there already, it is pretty much failproof and quick.

Scott

_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

In the past, I've ordered panels on two occasions and sent them to three
other people on this list. It's not that much extra work -- priority mail
boxes and newspaper. Though I did eat the Gummi Bears they sent :)

Scott

>From: "Richard Brewster" <pugix@...>
>Reply-To: motmpanels@yahoogroups.com
>To: <motmpanels@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [motmpanels] standardization & macros
>Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:46:44 -0400
>
> > Cost Note: I'm not entirely convinced that the Schaeffer discounts
>apply
> > to only the same .fpd files. I previously placed an order that
>contained
> > 5 different files (that totaled over $200) and asked Kai if I could
>possibly
> > receive a discount. If I remember correctly, he did take off 5% or 10%.
> > So, if we submit a 'reasonable' number of files, we could ask Kai if he
> > would apply a discount to the entire lot (we certainly couldn't lose by
> > asking).
> >
>
>Ah. This is really important to find out. I was assuming the discounts
>applied only to multiples of the same .fpd file. If it is just a total
>panel discount, then the standards becomes much less of an issue. (Geez, I
>just ordered 4 panels, no discount.)
>
>We'll have other details to work out for batch orders. Have you all done
>any yet? How will the payment and shipping details be handled? I have
>done
>group buys on a motorcycle list before. That is usually by one person
>taking all the orders and payments and doing the shipping back to
>individuals. Seems like a burden. Maybe we could offer a free panel to
>the
>volunteer.
>
>-Richard
>

_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls!�Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

If this is OT, please let me know.

I'm curious as to how you 'guys' (generic) mount your pcb's to the
Schaeffer panels. When I have 2 or more pots, I use Larry Hendry's
brackets. When I have one or less pots I've used some 'extra' motm pcb
brackets (which I would prefer not to use). When I have an Oakley pcb, I
use the Omeg pot brackets.

Any alternative suggestions?

Jeff