MOTM

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Day <aaron@r...> wrote:
> I'm not sure how many people (including myself) were suggesting 
things 
> be "wacky"  or psychedelic ,but, rather to entertain the idea of 
some 
> experimentation--especially in the realm of parameter control and 
I/O 
> placement. Its always easier to dream first and then reduce to 
reality 
> later, rather than the other way around.

Great point!

I think a lot of people are hung up on the idea that the panel 
experimentation Paul asked about means that MOTM is going to go 
psychedelic or use blue knobs or be wacky.

The grid and panel rules that are established are built upon the idea 
that panel space needed to be minimized and components needed to be 
standardized to keep costs down. There seems to be general agreement 
that these decisions were sensible ones, but that they compromise 
usability to some degree. Even on a small setup, it's easy to grab
the wrong knob because of the panel sameness.

When the module costs are going to $200, $300, or $400, saving $10 or 
$15 bucks by using consistent knobs or smaller panels doesn't seem 
like an important criteria anymore. If a larger panel, multiple knob 
sizes or new graphics make a better module, why not try it?

Being open to new ideas doesn't mean we want day-glow panels; it just 
means that Paul should have the freedom to experiment, push designs a 
little, and try new things. Paul's said that the panel design and 
component choice is a huge part of the module design process. Why have
arbitrary limitations on that process?

New modules should be the coolest possible modules, even if that
means breaking the rules.

About the Serge from "Mysterious Collector"...

That is a freakishly weird instrument! Not the direction for MOTM, at 
all! Yet it's strangely cool, too. I'd like to check out each bizarre 
panel. How about those dual joy-sticks? It almost looks like a reject 
from the set of Star Trek.

Tell me there wasn't some head music coming out of this beast in its 
heyday!