MOTM

I'm happy with the layout. I agree that we need to respect, but be flexible,
with the 'grid.' It's makes more sense to cheat a few sixteenths than to go
to 4u, that's for sure.

Maybe future MOTM modules should even "creep" over to this new grid...? I
know that will cause a lot of screaming, not least of which from Paul, but
is it worth considering?


-----Original Message-----
From: mate_stubb [mailto:mate_stubb@...] 
Sent: Friday, 12 April, 2002 10:06 AM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-450 peek

HA HA HA!

I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could 
agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've 
done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly 
like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run 
up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.

RE: LP and HP - Ken is correct. There are 8 peaking bands in the 
middle of the spectrum, tuned for maximum musical effect (I don't 
know the frequencies, perhaps JH can chime in here). The LP knob 
controls a different frequency passing everything BELOW the lowest 
peaking band, and HP passes everything ABOVE the highest peaking 
band. They are not tuned however to the exact same freq. as the 
nearest peaking band. Just like a multiband console EQ conceptually, 
not in terms of operation and filter type, but in terms of how the 
bands are laid out.

Note that this will NOT fit on a 2U panel. There are 10 knobs, 2 
jacks, a switch and an LED. Also, I hope people will not freak out 
about 5 pots in a row, or 1/8" less space between pots. It really is 
the best layout ergonomically IMO. We shouldn't be slaves to the 
format, but make it work for us in nonstandard situations. Also, I'd 
point out that the bottom knobs are not in fact 'getting down in the 
jacks'. If there is a module below, the only thing there will be more 
knobs!

Moe