Analogue-sequencer

I just received an email from J. Larry Hendry, one of the 
'Stooges' that make beautiful true MOTM style panels, with 
the same coating and print style.

He told me that a 10 unit wide P3 panel is possible, and 
that they can even help with the layout (the changes needed 
to make the P3 fit the MOTM grid, tickmarks around the 
buttons, different led holes, whatever, graphics, etc.)

All he could say about the price is that it would certainly 
exceed $100 (US) if only one panel was to be made, but if 4 
or 5 would be made, he could do better.

Even if I'm the only one going for the Stooge panel, I'm 
still very tempted (I'm building a Motm modular). But if 
anyone wants to join this operation, now is the time! 

- Robert

At 04:02 PM 12/9/03 +0100, you wrote:
>
>I just received an email from J. Larry Hendry, one of the 
>'Stooges' that make beautiful true MOTM style panels, with 
>the same coating and print style.
>
>He told me that a 10 unit wide P3 panel is possible, and 
>that they can even help with the layout (the changes needed 
>to make the P3 fit the MOTM grid, tickmarks around the 
>buttons, different led holes, whatever, graphics, etc.)
>
>All he could say about the price is that it would certainly 
>exceed $100 (US) if only one panel was to be made, but if 4 
>or 5 would be made, he could do better.
>
>Even if I'm the only one going for the Stooge panel, I'm 
>still very tempted (I'm building a Motm modular). But if 
>anyone wants to join this operation, now is the time! 


I'd be interested in a Stooge panel if you can get enough interest (and the
price drops a bit).  Exceeding $100 is a bit much for me, but a *little
under $100* and I'd be able to afford it.

You mentioned making the P3 fit the MOTM grid:  Do you think that's
absolutely necessary?  It obviously wants to look very similar to the
style... but the P3 is going to look considerably different than the
average MOTM module.  Not too many of Paul's SynthTech modules have an LCD
display :)  

What I'm saying is: I'd prefer the design to favor ergonomics rather than
meeting the MOTM specs exactly.

Dave

Resonant Frequency:
resfreq@hoohahrecords.com
http://www.hoohahrecords.com/resfreq/index.html

  ----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/03


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 16:22, Dave Magnuson wrote:
> At 04:02 PM 12/9/03 +0100, you wrote:

> I'd be interested in a Stooge panel if you can get enough
> interest (and the price drops a bit).  Exceeding $100 is
> a bit much for me, but a *little under $100* and I'd be
> able to afford it.

Okay, I'll keep you up to date through this list.
Larry sent me another email saying that he is going to check 
whether or not 10 units wide is possible. 8 units was the 
widest so far. If limited to 8 units, a separate 2 unit 
wide control center panel could be done, holding the keypad 
and LCD. Hmm...

>
> You mentioned making the P3 fit the MOTM grid:  Do you
> think that's absolutely necessary?  It obviously wants to
> look very similar to the style... but the P3 is going to
> look considerably different than the average MOTM module.
>  Not too many of Paul's SynthTech modules have an LCD
> display :)

Well, two digital modules are on their way, the MIDI->CV and 
the sequencer module. 

>
> What I'm saying is: I'd prefer the design to favor
> ergonomics rather than meeting the MOTM specs exactly.

Same here. I like the ergonomics of Colin's original panel 
(sans the SF font, that is ;P ). Knobs on the left, control 
on the right, nicely fit under the LCD. My idea is to keep 
this layout, but use MOTM style knobs (but smaller ones), 
only white printing, maybe other knobs, other leds (as 
found on the MOTM panels), etc.

It's still very vague. But everyone joining this deal has 
his/her say of course.

- Robert

Hi all--

I'd be provisionally interested as well.  A couple thoughts: $100 (or a bit
more) would be OK with me, pricewise.

The MOTM grid is all well and good, but not at the expense of having to
remote the pots from the PC boards or change the button spacing. My vote
would be to maintain the spacings for controls as set up on Colin's boards.
I'd also prefer to have the 9 button matrix under the display so that the
function keys line up!

The last thought is this: what kind of switches/buttons is everyone that'd
be interested in having a Stooge-P3 planning on using? I've opted for the
funky square buttons (except for the two mode select buttons) like the setup
shown on the main page of the Yahoo pages, so if everyone else opted for the
round buttons, then I might have to opt-out.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Magnuson [mailto:resfreq@hoohahrecords.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:22 AM
To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [analogue-sequencer] Stooged P3 panel is an option.
Interested?
>
>He told me that a 10 unit wide P3 panel is possible, and
>that they can even help with the layout (the changes needed
>to make the P3 fit the MOTM grid, tickmarks around the
>buttons, different led holes, whatever, graphics, etc.)
>

I'd be interested in a Stooge panel if you can get enough interest (and the
price drops a bit).  Exceeding $100 is a bit much for me, but a *little
under $100* and I'd be able to afford it.

You mentioned making the P3 fit the MOTM grid:  Do you think that's
absolutely necessary?  It obviously wants to look very similar to the
style... but the P3 is going to look considerably different than the
average MOTM module.  Not too many of Paul's SynthTech modules have an LCD
display :)

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 16:49, Frank Vanaman wrote:
> Hi all--
>
> I'd be provisionally interested as well.  A couple
> thoughts: $100 (or a bit more) would be OK with me,
> pricewise.

Okay, this would make four of us already. :)

>
> The MOTM grid is all well and good, but not at the
> expense of having to remote the pots from the PC boards
> or change the button spacing. My vote would be to
> maintain the spacings for controls as set up on Colin's
> boards. 

That may or may not be possible. I *really* like to use the 
smaller motm style knobs *with* tickmarks. The marks need 
some space. Maybe it's possible with the current spacings. 
We'll have to find out. Personally, I don't mind soldering 
the pots away from the pcboard.

> I'd also prefer to have the 9 button matrix under
> the display so that the function keys line up!

Very much agree with this one.


> The last thought is this: what kind of switches/buttons
> is everyone that'd be interested in having a Stooge-P3
> planning on using? I've opted for the funky square
> buttons (except for the two mode select buttons) like the
> setup shown on the main page of the Yahoo pages, so if
> everyone else opted for the round buttons, then I might
> have to opt-out.

What buttons are you referring to?

- Robert

At 10:49 AM 12/9/03 -0500, you wrote:
>

>The last thought is this: what kind of switches/buttons is everyone that'd
>be interested in having a Stooge-P3 planning on using? I've opted for the
>funky square buttons (except for the two mode select buttons) like the setup
>shown on the main page of the Yahoo pages, so if everyone else opted for the
>round buttons, then I might have to opt-out.
>
>Frank



I prefer the square buttons, too.

Dave

Resonant Frequency:
resfreq@hoohahrecords.com
http://www.hoohahrecords.com/resfreq/index.html

  ----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/03


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hi all--

>That may or may not be possible. I *really* like to use the
>smaller motm style knobs *with* tickmarks. The marks need
>some space. Maybe it's possible with the current spacings.
>We'll have to find out. Personally, I don't mind soldering
>the pots away from the pcboard.

Um. Well, if that made the difference between having a stooge panel and not,
then I could be convinced with little effort on that one!  :-)


>> The last thought is this: what kind of switches/buttons
>> is everyone that'd be interested in having a Stooge-P3
>> planning on using? I've opted for the funky square
>> buttons (except for the two mode select buttons) like the
>> setup shown on the main page of the Yahoo pages, so if
>> everyone else opted for the round buttons, then I might
>> have to opt-out.
>
>What buttons are you referring to?

The square ones, of course!  :-)  I guess if you're asking, then the
proposed Stooge panel probably will not accommodate them.  You can see them
on the rack-mounted version shown at the main page of the Yahoo group pages
for this list.

Oh, wait, a link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analogue-sequencer/
*those* square buttons...

Hope I got the link right. You should not have to sign in to Yahoo to see
the image, as it's on the top level of the pages.

Best,
Frank

> Ah, you mean the 'standard' Colin square buttons with the 
> <cough> beautiful <cough> SF printing? (You can always kick 
> me off the list Colin. ;)

There's no accounting for (your) taste ;-)

> I had square buttons in mind too. More space to hit at. ;)
> But what about the ones used in the MOTM-600 sequencer or 
> the MOTM-650 shown here:
> http://www.synthtech.com/new_stuff.html
> (Scroll down 75% of the page.)
> 
> These look a bit more stylish to me. More sober. Especially 
> the ones used on the MOTM-600. Maybe we can use those LEDs 
> too, to replace the standard row of LEDS in the original 
> panel.

You might have trouble finding tri-colour LEDs in the shape used on the
MOTM600.
The current P3 switch boards will take standard tact switches as well as
the Multimec and Maplin parts, and there are a huge range of different
caps for those. There are also companies who will custom make any shape
of key cap you like, for a price.
The caps on the MOTM650 look like they could be standard tact caps.

Personally I like the feel and appearance of the Maplin square keys
best, and they are pretty cheap too, which helps.
I just have to hope Maplin don't discontinue them.

Cheers,
Colin f

> <cough> beautiful <cough> SF printing?

I don't think this font is actually SF but MICR.

Early number recognition machines in large banks in the late 1950s
worked by detecting magnetic ink printed on the cheques that were being
read. A new font was made to carry this magnetic ink in a way that the
machines could read. They only actually read the thick bits of each
character, and the thin bits were to make a six actually look like a
normal 6.

By all accounts these machines weren't always 100% correct, but they
were still faster than humans. I don't know whether the numbers on UK
cheques still have the magnetic properties, or whether they just keep
them in that font for posterity.

More information:

http://www.xyntax.com/manuals7_0/MICR.html

Regards,

Tony Allgood                         www.oakleysound.co.uk

Oakley Modular Synthesisers      Penrith, Cumbria, England

> I don't think this font is actually SF but MICR.

Indeed. But the wide association of this type of font with 'hi-tech'
made it de rigeur for cheezy seventies SF shows.
Space 1999 used 'Data 70' (the MICR font) and 'Countdown'.
I use both in the P3 manual.

> By all accounts these machines weren't always 100% correct, but they
> were still faster than humans. I don't know whether the numbers on UK
> cheques still have the magnetic properties, or whether they just keep
> them in that font for posterity.

They still use them in my bank at least - they run cheques through the
same machine they swipe your card with.

Colin f

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 17:35, Frank Vanaman wrote:
> hi all--
>
> Um. Well, if that made the difference between having a
> stooge panel and not, then I could be convinced with
> little effort on that one!  :-)

Heh. ;)

> >What buttons are you referring to?
>
> The square ones, of course!  :-)  I guess if you're
> asking, then the proposed Stooge panel probably will not
> accommodate them.  You can see them on the rack-mounted
> version shown at the main page of the Yahoo group pages
> for this list.
>
> Oh, wait, a link:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/analogue-sequencer/
> *those* square buttons...
>
> Hope I got the link right. You should not have to sign in
> to Yahoo to see the image, as it's on the top level of
> the pages.

Ah, you mean the 'standard' Colin square buttons with the 
<cough> beautiful <cough> SF printing? (You can always kick 
me off the list Colin. ;)

I had square buttons in mind too. More space to hit at. ;)
But what about the ones used in the MOTM-600 sequencer or 
the MOTM-650 shown here:
http://www.synthtech.com/new_stuff.html
(Scroll down 75% of the page.)

These look a bit more stylish to me. More sober. Especially 
the ones used on the MOTM-600. Maybe we can use those LEDs 
too, to replace the standard row of LEDS in the original 
panel.

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 17:22, Dave Magnuson wrote:

> I prefer the square buttons, too.

Please have look at my proposal reg. the buttons in my other 
post. The *are* square. ;)

Let's see:

>Ah, you mean the 'standard' Colin square buttons with the
><cough> beautiful <cough> SF printing?

Yes, them. Heh. I like the feel of these particular switch assemblies, and
anyone that doesn't like, er, *that* font :-) could very easily change the
inserts, as the cap lifts off and allows you to put in whatever you like.

>I had square buttons in mind too. More space to hit at. ;)
>But what about the ones used in the MOTM-600 sequencer or
>the MOTM-650 shown here:
>http://www.synthtech.com/new_stuff.html

Supose we could, though making a long slot for PC mount switches seems to be
a bit easier to handle than making a whole boat-load of rectangular/square
holes, especially as I'd be 'machining' this with just about the simplest
metalworking tools. I can do round holes in metal just fine, thanks, but
when it comes to little square ones, I'd prefer to make as few as possible.

>Maybe we can use those LEDs
>too, to replace the standard row of LEDS in the original
>panel.

Presuming these would be the MOTM-600 style buttons with in-built LEDs?
Might be OK if they support the bi/tri-color function required by Colin's
board. I think I'd prefer separate LEDs in their own apertures, and a
channel (for 1-16 buttons) or big square hole (for the 9 function keys) for
the buttons, personally (it gets back to putting the non-round holes in the
panel, for me).

(not in this mail is the Stooge panel estimated delivery time)
May, 2004? Well, it seems a long way off, but I've got so many other
projects half-started that I could accept this as the earliest time for
getting a panel, keeping myself busy with other things in the mean-time. So,
eh, no problem!

Frank

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 18:46, Colin f wrote:


> There's no accounting for (your GOOD) taste ;-)

I think you're right Colin. ;)

> You might have trouble finding tri-colour LEDs in the
> shape used on the MOTM600.

Oh well, than we'll have to go for the standard MOTM lens 
thingies. I guess these *are* available in try-colour 
versions.

> The current P3 switch boards will take standard tact
> switches as well as the Multimec and Maplin parts, and
> there are a huge range of different caps for those. 

Are you talking about pin geometry here, or are there 
electrical issues?

> The caps on the MOTM650 look like they could be standard
> tact caps.

What does 'tact' mean? Is it a brand, or a some standard for 
fixing caps to a button? Just curious. You can hear there's 
a software guy talking, right? ;)


> Personally I like the feel and appearance of the Maplin
> square keys best, and they are pretty cheap too, which
> helps. I just have to hope Maplin don't discontinue them.

Do you think the Maplins last long? Can they take a good 
amount of beating?

- Robert

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 23:03, Frank Vanaman wrote:

> Yes, them. Heh. I like the feel of these particular
> switch assemblies, and anyone that doesn't like, er,
> *that* font :-) could very easily change the inserts, as
> the cap lifts off and allows you to put in whatever you
> like.

I know, but it's too much fun to tease Colin about it once 
in a while (okay, make that twice a day ;).

> Supose we could, though making a long slot for PC mount
> switches seems to be a bit easier to handle than making a
> whole boat-load of rectangular/square holes, especially
> as I'd be 'machining' this with just about the simplest
> metalworking tools. I can do round holes in metal just
> fine, thanks, but when it comes to little square ones,
> I'd prefer to make as few as possible.

I wonder if Stooge panels can have square holes. So far I 
only see round ones. Hmm.

> Presuming these would be the MOTM-600 style buttons with
> in-built LEDs? Might be OK if they support the
> bi/tri-color function required by Colin's board. I think
> I'd prefer separate LEDs in their own apertures, and a
> channel (for 1-16 buttons) or big square hole (for the 9
> function keys) for the buttons, personally (it gets back
> to putting the non-round holes in the panel, for me).

I like the MOTM lens style of LEDs. Hope they come in 
tri-colour versions. So let's agree on a row of LEDs, like 
on Colin's original panel.

- Robert

Sorry, I've been slow...

>I wonder if Stooge panels can have square holes. So far I
>only see round ones. Hmm.

Er, they can have whatever shaped hole the end user would like to put in!
Every stooge panel I've gotten (only a few in my case) came without holes--
I think Larry will drill holes for a modest price.

Round holes are quite easy to drill.  A myriad of square holes = yuck. I
*can* live wth making a few rectangular holes (two for buttons and one for
the LCD).

I suppose it would be possible to get a stooge panel with holes pre-cut, but
it would probably run the [rice up quite substantially.

Frank