Modular Synth Panels

Hello Group!

I am glad this is now available as I have been using Schaeffer
panels for awhile now, love the quality but the shipping is pricey.
I plan to jump on board of some of the CGS stuff. My one
suggestion would be the size of the engraving tool for text. I
started with the.4mm because that is what Tony's files had. Then
I started experimenting with the .2mm tool. It is so much clearer
and better looking especially for text in the 2.5 to 4mm range.
Anybody else notice this? Charles.

Welcome Charles,

> started with the.4mm because that is what Tony's files had. Then
> I started experimenting with the .2mm tool. It is so much clearer
> and better looking especially for text in the 2.5 to 4mm range.
> Anybody else notice this? Charles.
>

I never experimented much with the text, so this is interesting. By "text
in the 2.5 to 4mm range" are you referring to the Text height in the Text
engraving Properties box? Have you looked at fonts other than DIN 1451, 1
stroke? Is it "clearer" under varying lighting conditions?
Jeff

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I am referring to the text height. All text sizes for that matter. I have always used DIN 1451 for text except for some logos where I use a script font which looks awesome. When I say clearer it is more aesthetic than functional. The .4mm looks more "stamped" for lack of a better word. Text appears to run into the next letter more. The appearance is coarser and not as refined. The .2mm is detailed and just looks better to my eye. It does have less of that engraved look though. I still use .4mm for tick marks although lately I have been alternating between the two per 15 degree tick. Charles.  

Welcome Charles,
> started with the.4mm because that is what Tony's files had. Then
> I started experimenting with the .2mm tool. It is so much clearer
> and better looking especially for text in the 2.5 to 4mm range.
> Anybody else notice this? Charles.
>
I never experimented much with the text, so this is interesting.  By "text
in the 2.5 to 4mm range" are you referring to the Text height in the Text
engraving Properties box?  Have you looked at fonts other than DIN 1451, 1
stroke?  Is it "clearer" under varying lighting conditions?
Jeff


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
motmpanels-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hi Charles,

I'd be willing to try .2mm. Sometimes I think the .4mm looks a bit...
clunky. As long as it's legible, it's good by me :)

I used Arch font for a design once. It looks really good -- not too
fancy. I heard once that Schaeffer can take any fonts you send them.
Anyone else heard of this?

Scott

--- In motmpanels@y..., Charles Stella <scelectronics@e...> wrote:
> Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I am referring to the text height. All
text
> sizes for that matter. I have always used DIN 1451 for text except
for some
> logos where I use a script font which looks awesome. When I say
clearer it
> is more aesthetic than functional. The .4mm looks more "stamped"
for lack of
> a better word. Text appears to run into the next letter more. The
appearance
> is coarser and not as refined. The .2mm is detailed and just looks
better to
> my eye. It does have less of that engraved look though. I still
use .4mm for
> tick marks although lately I have been alternating between the two
per 15
> degree tick. Charles.
>
>
> Welcome Charles,
> > started with the.4mm because that is what Tony's files had. Then
> > I started experimenting with the .2mm tool. It is so much clearer
> > and better looking especially for text in the 2.5 to 4mm range.
> > Anybody else notice this? Charles.
> >
> I never experimented much with the text, so this is interesting.
By "text
> in the 2.5 to 4mm range" are you referring to the Text height in
the Text
> engraving Properties box? Have you looked at fonts other than DIN
1451, 1
> stroke? Is it "clearer" under varying lighting conditions?
> Jeff
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hello,

I just saw both examples on Charles' MOTM last Saturday and would concur
with his assessment that the .2mm is easier to read.

My .02

Scott
------------------------------------------------
Charles Stella wrote:

>
> Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I am referring to the text
> height. All text sizes for that matter. I have always used
> DIN 1451 for text except for some logos where I use a script
> font which looks awesome. When I say clearer it is more
> aesthetic than functional. The .4mm looks more "stamped" for
> lack of a better word. Text appears to run into the next
> letter more. The appearance is coarser and not as refined.
> The .2mm is detailed and just looks better to my eye. It
> does have less of that engraved look though. I still use
> .4mm for tick marks although lately I have been alternating
> between the two per 15 degree tick. Charles.
>
> Welcome Charles,
> > started with the.4mm because that is what Tony's files
> had. Then
> > I started experimenting with the .2mm tool. It is so much
> clearer
> > and better looking especially for text in the 2.5 to 4mm
> range.
> > Anybody else notice this? Charles.
> >
> I never experimented much with the text, so this is
> interesting. By "text
> in the 2.5 to 4mm range" are you referring to the Text
> height in the Text
> engraving Properties box? Have you looked at fonts other
> than DIN 1451, 1
> stroke? Is it "clearer" under varying lighting conditions?
> Jeff
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> [Image] [Image]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>
> I just saw both examples on Charles' MOTM last Saturday and would concur
> with his assessment that the .2mm is easier to read.
>

Well, I'm interested enough that I will modify a few cgs panels that I am
now working on to text of .2mm, and then compare when I receive the
panels.

Thanks Charles and Scott, Jeff

There are closeup photos of these panels here:

http://www.retrosynth.com/slideshow/baah02/

John Loffink
jloffink@...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Evans, Gen Mgr [mailto:esresource@...]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:40 PM
> To: motmpanels@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motmpanels] Hello
>
> Hello,
>
> I just saw both examples on Charles' MOTM last Saturday and would

concur

> with his assessment that the .2mm is easier to read.
>
> My .02
>
> Scott

Wow cool! If you look at the photo in the upper right hand corner you can see the Oakley EFG on the left and the Oakley Phaser on the right. The EFG is .4mm and the Phaser is .2mm. Thanks John!

There are closeup photos of these panels here:

http://www.retrosynth.com/slideshow/baah02/

John Loffink
jloffink@...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Evans, Gen Mgr [mailto:esresource@...]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:40 PM
> To: motmpanels@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [motmpanels] Hello
>
> Hello,
>
> I just saw both examples on Charles' MOTM last Saturday and would
concur
> with his assessment that the .2mm is easier to read.
>
> My .02
>
> Scott



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
motmpanels-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Yes, very nice to be able to compare. Thanks!
Anyone care if we switch to .2mm?
Scott

--- In motmpanels@y..., Charles Stella <scelectronics@e...> wrote:
>
> Wow cool! If you look at the photo in the upper right hand corner
you can
> see the Oakley EFG on the left and the Oakley Phaser on the right.
The EFG
> is .4mm and the Phaser is .2mm. Thanks John!
>
> There are closeup photos of these panels here:
>
> http://www.retrosynth.com/slideshow/baah02/
>
> John Loffink
> jloffink@a...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Evans, Gen Mgr [mailto:esresource@e...]
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:40 PM
> > To: motmpanels@y...
> > Subject: Re: [motmpanels] Hello
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just saw both examples on Charles' MOTM last Saturday and would
> concur
> > with his assessment that the .2mm is easier to read.
> >
> > My .02
> >
> > Scott
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> motmpanels-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, tsomneevich wrote:

> Yes, very nice to be able to compare. Thanks!
> Anyone care if we switch to .2mm?

I have several 1U cgs designs undergoing preparation, and I am going to
switch to the .2mm as an experiment. John, thanks for mentioning the
photos - the comparative photo that Charles mentioned is very
illustrative.

Jeff

Im bumping this thread because I found it extremely useful.
I'm preparing an FPE panel for a gated comparator and will be using
0.2mm for the text engraving.



--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, Jeffrey Pontius <jpont@...>
wrote:

>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, tsomneevich wrote:
>
> > Yes, very nice to be able to compare. Thanks!
> > Anyone care if we switch to .2mm?
> I have several 1U cgs designs undergoing preparation, and I am going to
> switch to the .2mm as an experiment. John, thanks for mentioning the
> photos - the comparative photo that Charles mentioned is very
> illustrative.
>
> Jeff
>

On 7/21/07, loopcycle <loopcycle@...> wrote:

>
> Im bumping this thread because I found it extremely useful.
> I'm preparing an FPE panel for a gated comparator and will be using
> 0.2mm for the text engraving.
>

Hey,

How do the engravings compare? Can You people make scans from the
panels made by FPE with information about fonts / engarving options
used?

Samppa

i have two oakley VCOs side by side in my rig - one has the 0.4mm
engraving and one has the 0.2mm engraving.

i put up some pics so you can get a general idea of the difference.
only a general idea because my camera blows at closeups. anyway i
always use 0.2mm now. it's less saturated and looks more refined. in
short, the panels look a lot better.

http://www.redfish.net/tool_compare/

i'm not sure about different fonts, i only use that one.

>
>Hey,
>
>How do the engravings compare? Can You people make scans from the
>panels made by FPE with information about fonts / engarving options
>used?
>
>Samppa

--- In ModularSynthPanels@yahoogroups.com, "Samppa Tolvanen"
<samppa.tolvanen@...> wrote:

>
> On 7/21/07, loopcycle <loopcycle@...> wrote:
> >
> > Im bumping this thread because I found it extremely useful.
> > I'm preparing an FPE panel for a gated comparator and will be using
> > 0.2mm for the text engraving.
> >
>
> Hey,
>
> How do the engravings compare? Can You people make scans from the
> panels made by FPE with information about fonts / engarving options
> used?

Hi Samppa,

Look a bit farther up in the thread where this was pointed out:

http://www.retrosynth.com/slideshow/baah02/

In the photo on the upper right hand corner, you can see the
difference between .04mm (EFG) and the .02mm (phaser).

There is paint fill to consider, too. The relative boldness of the
lettering is related to both the engraving tool size and the paint
fill. I have some 0.4mm letters with light paint fill that look about
the same as some other 0.2mm with heavier paint fill. After I got some
panels with 0.4mm that had heavy paint, I switched over to using 0.2mm
all the time. I only have one panel (the MOTM 480) where the 0.2mm
lettering is very light.

See these examples of the extremes.

CGS VCO with thick 0.4mm paint
http://www.pugix.com/middle-cabinet.htm#cgsvco

MOTM 480 modified with thin 0.2mm paint
http://www.pugix.com/bottom-cabinet.htm#motm480

The last several panels I ordered with 0.2mm were painted just right.
But you can't count on the paint fill being consistent.

Richard Brewster

Samppa Tolvanen wrote:

> On 7/21/07, loopcycle <loopcycle@...> wrote:
>
>> Im bumping this thread because I found it extremely useful.
>> I'm preparing an FPE panel for a gated comparator and will be using
>> 0.2mm for the text engraving.
>>
>>
>
> Hey,
>
> How do the engravings compare? Can You people make scans from the
> panels made by FPE with information about fonts / engarving options
> used?
>
> Samppa
>
>

Hi Pascal Barat,