MOTM

In a message dated 10/20/99 9:17:51 AM, Ken.Tkacs@... writes:

>I'm thinking of putting controllers along the top row (Egs, LFOs, etc.),
>and
>on the second row-spanning cabinets-signal sources (VCOs, etc.) and
>modifiers (filters, etc.).

The standard arrangement (as you almost certainly already know) is to have 
signal sources move from left to right and CV and utility sources on the 
bottom.

>The utility panels will be tinkery stuff like multiples, inverters, logic
>gates, stuff like that.
>I probably wont adhere absolutely to this plan, but that's how I'm thinking.
>The signal moves left to right along the middle row with controllers
>"overlooking" from the row above, and the utility panels at the bottom
>for
>quick CV modifications. Actually, as I type this, maybe I should reverse
>the
>first & second rows so that the controller modules are closer to the utility
>panels. We'll see.

I think some of the motivation for CV sources on the bottom is that the 
keyboard is at the bottom any CV processors would be very handy right above 
it.

>Speaking of cabinets, I just got some rack rails in from Tech America and
>am
>disappointed. They're heavy duty, but have a huge radius in the bend that
>will leave a 1" gap between my module rows if I use them. I wasn't allowing
>for that in my cabinet blueprints. I hate buying hardware through catalogs
>without holding it in my hand first.

Since I mentioned getting my 21U rails from Tech Am previously I feel a 
little guilty about what you said regarding the 1" gap. This isn't what I 
found though upon inspection. I set both the rails next to each other as if I 
had bolted them together. Then I lined up spare MOTM panels on adjacent sides 
of each rail. I then measured the distance between the two edges of the 
panels which I believe to be about 1/4". Were the rails you got the Penn Fab 
rails? Did you measure the distance between the modules? I don't see the 
radius as being very large at all so I hope you didn't get different rails.

Sorry if I led you astray!
JB