Well said, John. This is my position exactly.
Paul has made cogent arguments elsewhere about 'mystique' vs.
engineering, lately in regard to Buchla systems. Part of
the 'mystique' of a Buchla is its looks. But I'm not after
mystique, I'm after sound.
And I'm after preserving my MOTM's mystique :)
Mike
Paul has made cogent arguments elsewhere about 'mystique' vs.
engineering, lately in regard to Buchla systems. Part of
the 'mystique' of a Buchla is its looks. But I'm not after
mystique, I'm after sound.
And I'm after preserving my MOTM's mystique :)
Mike
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Speth, John" <john.speth@c...> wrote:
> If the only justification for the 200 series to to have the
*appearance* of Buchla modules then I would suggest you drop the
idea. It's the sound and function that matters to me.
>
> If the justification for the 200 series is some sonic, ergonomic,
or useability values of Buchla modules, then I would suggest keeping
with an MOTM style layout (if there is truly one). I want good
sound and good useability at a fair price, not Buchla visual
nostalgia.
>
> John Speth