MOTM

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, mate_stubb wrote:

> There are some who pooh-pooh the MOTM design philosophy as 'gold-
> plating toothpicks', but apparently sometimes you DO get what you pay
> for.

  I will never understand why essential design practices are glossed over
in favor of economy, then said users of that economy lampoon those
essentials even as the differences become apparent.

  Of course, I am somewhat of an odd bird in that I am a musician (piano
since age 7, competition recitals and all that up through college, not to
mention jazz trombone) who also happened to like electronics enough to
obtain an EE degree.  Thus as an engineer-musician I might have the right
to speak from both sides--though, of course, what I find acceptable may
not be what others fine acceptable, and in no way am I trying to cram my
ideals down anyone else's throat--it is just my personal feeling on the
matter.

  Now, I personally find MOTM's design practices *necessary* toward
achieving an ideal design goal. Of course, compromises have to be made,
but those compromises happen at the abstract level and never at the
practical nut-and-bolts-here-are-the-electrons level.  Hypothetical
example: I would rather know that the circuit board and circuit are
optimally designed for lowest noise and highest stability and lack an
input mixer than know that a mixer can be thrown in at the expense of
plated boards/good noise specs, panel ergonomics, etc.  If this means it
costs more, so be it. Personal peeve: "You don't need sealed pots".  The
hell you don't.  I have cleaned/replaced _thousands_ of flaky panel pots
and open trimmers over the past twenty years because the damned things
weren't sealed.  Guess what I use. :)

  I suppose what I'm saying is I like MOTM because out of the box it lines
up with my personal sense of fitness better than anything else.

  Others' mileage of course may vary.

Crow

/**/