MOTM

Well, the flat rails are here, and now it's time for many of us to start
building homes for our module collections. For myself, I find that I'm not
completely in love with my case ideas of three years ago. At the time, my
studio layout was different, as was my lifestyle. I was designing them with
the idea of gigging once in a blue moon, and of owning a small number of
modules and slowly adding to it. But now I have kids so I'm "studio-only,"
and it's taken me so long to get around to the cabinetry that I now have a
boat-load of modules that could fill up a large case right away.

Since the list is relatively quiet today, and since everyone here is full of
great ideas and observations, I figured I'd post my internal mullings and
see what, if any, comments come back. I imagine many of us are going through
(or HAVE gone through) the same questions, and most of these points below
have been voiced here at one time or another in the past few years. I would
especially love to hear/see-examples-of designs and experiences (especially
with shallow cases tipping over, etc.). Feel free to tell me that I'm
flat-out wrong if I am laboring under some awful misconceptions, below.

No matter which console options are chosen, the idea of future expansion
(probably 'upward') must be taken into account.

Thanks in advance for all creative input!




**Portable versus Console**
[In other words (and in Moog terms), something vaguely like a Moog IIIp
system  (www.isaotomita.net/tomita/images/fant13.jpg
<http://www.isaotomita.net/tomita/images/fant13.jpg> ) compared to something
vaguely like a System 55 (www.wendycarlos.com/photos/bsst2.jpg
<http://www.wendycarlos.com/photos/bsst2.jpg> ).]

*Portability*-Obviously, a series of smaller cabinets is easier to move and
fit into a VW Beetle than a huge console. Also, modules could be placed in
these cabinets in such a way that a single cabinet may contain a complete,
simple synthesizer voice (3 VCOs, VCF, VCA, 2 EGs, etc.), and for many
occasions, be all one needs to bring to a gig. *Winner: Portable*

*Expansion*-Either can be expanded, but with a series of smaller cases,
there would be fewer empty spaces to fill up with blanks during long-term
growth, and cabinets could be added incrementally as needed. With a console
style, tiers could of course be added, but they tend to be bigger 'jumps' in
size. *Winner: Portable*

*Stability*-because the depth of MOTM modules is modest, it doesn't make
sense to house them in a really deep cabinet or console. Eight inches
depth-overall should be plenty. But a tall, narrow case with a shallow depth
might tip over easily, whereas the size and weight of a single larger
console ought to make it sturdier. *Winner: Console*

*Ease of Construction*-it's easier to build one big console than three
smaller ones, plus there starts to be a lot of "wood" in there. That makes
having many cabinets, compared to one big one, heavier, more expensive, and
harder to build. Also, for those with less-than-perfect woodworking skills,
it's easier to get one console built properly than to make a series of
cabinets that should look exactly the same. *Winner: Console*

*Rigidit*y-On the other hand, a case with three or four rows of modules only
12u wide probably won't flex as much during patching, whereas a large
expanse of modules in a console may need extra internal bracing. *Winner:
Portable*

*Power*-It's easier to put one big power supply in a console than lots of
smaller ones in portable cabinets. You could rig a power-sharing system to
expansion cabinets, but that seems like an extra pain. *Winner: Console*

*Flexibility*-I tend to rearrange my studio a lot to shoe-horn in new stuff,
so a series of smaller cabinets offers more options than one mammoth console
with a few expansion tiers on it, which must always stay just as originally
envisioned. *Winner: Portable*

*Indefensible Rationalizations*-A huge console looks cool and serious, like
a pipe organ or a starship cockpit. But so does a wall of stacked IIIp
cabinets. The portable cabinets are sort of modular, so there's a
recursiveness to the whole thing. *Winner: None*



**Angled versus Flat**
[In other words, angling some or all tiers of the module faces about 70
degrees from the table surface. The two Moog systems, above, have examples
of these options (IIIp being flat and System 55 being a mix of flat and
angled), but there's no reason the bottom tier or two of portable cabinets
couldn't be angled. In fact, someone here recently posted a photo of a
3-tiered, bottom-row-angled Tolex-covered portable case that looks EXACTLY
like what I was thinking that I would do a year ago, sans the Tolex, so we
know that this works and looks good.]

*Stability*-Angling the case should add stability to the system by widening
the lower part and dropping the center of gravity. *Winner: Angled*

*Space*-Angled cases take up more desk space, but they also allow one to
make cabinets that have some extra room inside for power supplies, reverb
tanks, etc. and still keep the average depth minimal. On the other hand, in
the 'case' (ugh!) of the Moog IIIp styling, angling limits your ability to
arc the cabinets around you seamlessly. *Winner: Tie?*

*Ease of Construction*-Not having to deal with angles makes for easier
woodworking, especially trying to fashion multiple cabinets that all
[should] look exactly the same. Staying flat, one could probably find wood
of the proper width and just cross-cut them to length. *Winner: Flat*

*Ergonomics*-Cabinets and consoles with one or more angled tiers give the
appearance of being more ergonomic, but usually aren't, particularly, in
practice. You would have to design the angles around the idea that the
operator is in one fixed position for long periods of time, that the system
will always be at a particular table height, and so on, which for me at
least isn't realistic. *Winner: Flat (or no issue)*

*Appearance*-Sure, angled panels LOOK ergonomic, so they look serious. Who
hasn't looked at the TONTO setup and thought, "Ooh, cool...!" *Winner:
Angled*



**Wood versus Tolex**
[Tolex meaning any durable fabric covering, but for the most part this
refers to giving the cabinets a guitar-amp look.]

*Durability*-both can be damaged, but Tolex is more durable. Using a
covering also means that the wood could be press-board (particle board)
which is heavier and tends to warp less than 'real' wood. *Winner: Tolex*

*Appearance*-I doubt you would Tolex a big console (this is more for the
'portable cabinets' system) but you could use fine wood on either design.
Wood has class, warmth, depth... Tolex says "musical instrument" ... both
have merit, but I think a fine wood wins this one, based on personal
preference. *Winner: wood*

*Cost*-Tolex isn't cheap, but neither is fine wood. If covering the cabinet,
even press-board could be used, which is heavier and yet cheaper than wood.
Still, I think Tolex would come out as the more expensive alternative.
*Winner: wood*

*Ease of Construction*-I find working with fabric in all forms to be a
nightmare, personally, whereas working with sandpaper and stain is no big
deal. *Winner: wood*



**Back or No Back**

*Cost*-you could use cheap material for the back, even 1/8" thick so this is
negligible. *Winner: n/a*

*Performance*-Not having a back is great ventilation, but the MOTM doesn't
need a lot. Also, one could use pre-drilled peg board similar to old console
TVs, and that should offer plenty. *Winner: n/a*

*Ease of Construction*-Naturally it's more difficult to make backs than to
NOT make them, but it's hardly a big deal. *Winner: No Back*

*Protection*-Naturally, having a cover is more protective of the circuitry
than NOT having one. Keeps the cat out. Wont help if the cabinet topples
backward of the table. A screwed-in back also adds support to keep a
rectangular case from going trapezoidal, although the modules themselves do
a pretty good job of that too. *Winner: Back*