MOTM

The problem with this is that I don't think we can punch a panel after
the Polan is applied.  We haven't tried it yet, but our tool & die guys
here think the paint will chip badly if it's punched after the painting.
The panel would have to be punched first.  If the panel is punched
first, then the registration of the silkscreen must be within a very
tight tolerance, much tighter than if the holes are put in afterwards.
 
We are looking at all sorts of possibilities.  We could mill or drill
the holes after the Polan is applied.  It is also possible that we may
be able to take a Polan panel, laser etch the lettering, etc. and then
wipe the panel with a paint or ink so that the paint or ink remains in
the etched lettering creating a look virtually identical to the present
panels.  We will be experimenting with this as well.
 
Paul H.
 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Scott K Warren
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:17 AM
To: MOTM list
Subject: Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion
 
Me again --

If the Stooges do supply punched Polan panels to Paul S, I hope you'll
also offer punched Polan for Stooge Panels and my custom panel designs,
even if you don't want to mess with silk screening them.

If you don't want to offer silk screening, then I will be happy to buy
blank (non-engraved) punched Polan panels and silk screen them myself.
This would be easier if you gave away artwork for Stooge Panels, but
I would also be willing to create my own artwork for silk screening.

FrontPanelExpress says they will take my blank Polan panel (which I buy
from Paul S) and fabricate my .fpd design into it. If my design has just
the holes and not the graphics, this is not too expensive. But it would
really be great if I could get the same result from Stooge Industries
without the hassle of ordering a blank, waiting for it to arrive, and
then shipping it to FPE. Even better for Stooge Panels, since I probably
wouldn't need to provide an fpd file.

In any of these cases I'd do my own silk screening. I would rather have
somebody else do it, but I'll do it rather than switch to engraving.

Thanks,

skw



On Dec 1, 2005, at 10:41 PM, Paul Haneberg wrote:
We are in fact trying to find a solution in terms of a way to make
panels 
for Paul S. a few at a time.
It is an unreasonable situation for us all to expect Paul S. to buy 50
of a
given panel at a time and hold them for 4 years.
The only alternatives at present are a higher selling price so that Paul
S. 
can offset the higher per unit panel cost that would come with not
buying so 
many, or to find a different process.

To get an idea of how panel costs go up with a smaller quantity just
look at 
what the cost of the present Stooge Panels are, or look at what FPE
charges.

We think we can solve part of Paul's problem by punching out panels in 
house.  This would also mean that we could punch out Stooge Panels.  The

panel finish could be anodized, powder coated or Polan painted.  For
Paul S.
we would stick with the Polan, expensive though it is.  For Stoge Panels
the 
possibilities are open.  That is why we are asking your opinion.

This leaves the silk screen problem and the associated costs.  We do not
yet 
know if we can come up with an alternative for Paul S., but we do know
that 
we can come up with an alternative for Stooge Panels if some of you are 
willing to switch away from silk screening.  That is where the trade-off

comes in.  A lot cheaper and  lot faster, but not quite identical.

Personally, I love the idea of new panels with enhanced graphics.  I
fully 
intend to replace all my panels with something different.  The form
factor 
of the panels could stay true to the well established MOTM standard
although 
it wouldn't absolutely have to.
Every modular synth is in someway unique and reflects the tastes and 
personality of its owner.  This is a way of making it a little more
personal 
and a little more unique.

There are a lot of different ways we can go with this.  The possibilites
are 
endless.  Over the next couple of months we will be experimenting.  As
much 
as we would like to get to making a Stooge Panel run immediately, we are

still trying to line up a reliable source of the panel blanks.  Whether
we 
stay with the present Stooge Panel format or change, the time before we
do 
an actual run will be about the same.

Please let us know what you think.  Your opinions will influence our 
decision.

Paul H.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:07 PM
Subject: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion


> a) I think that the discussion is mainly for continuing the Stooge
panels.
> Production MOTM panels will remain as they are (even as such a pain as

> they are)
> simply because changing this late in the game (6500+ shipped) doesn't
make
> sense. The slight cost savings to me is overshadowed by having a
> completely
> different finish.
>
> b) anodized panels *will* show fingerprints. Which is odd is that the 
> rougher
> the initial finish (aluminum is belt-sanded before painting/plating),
the 
> more
> likely anodized panels will show prints. You can get glossy anodizing
and 
> you
> can 'overcoat' with a clear finish. For example, I think the Millennia

> Media
> Origin is drop-dead gorgeous and it's anodized:
>
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/origin.shtml
>
> For painted panels, having a textured finish (which is a special
nozzle 
> that
> 'splatters' the paint) *reduces* fingerprints (and glare).
>
> c) anodizing is sensitive to the aluminum. Most people do not realize
that 
> there
> are about 8 *different* alloys of aluminum. The most common (and what
is 
> used on
> MOTM now) is called 5052-H3. However, anodized aluminum is better with
a
> *different* alloy called 6061-T6. Of course, 6061-T6 is about 15% more

> cost that
> 5052 (6061-T6 is commonly used on hang gliders and small aircraft).
Blacet
> panels are anodized, 120 grit sanded, 6061-T6 aluminum. As well as
Moog 
> modular
> panels (they are sanded to a finer grain, around 320 grit).
>
> Also, the current press-fitting PEM studs and standoffs (on the rear
of 
> the
> panels) have a tougher time gripping 6061. A solution is to eliminate
the 
> older
> black pc brackets (that use threaded PEMs and KEPS nuts to attach to
the 
> panel)
> for 100% Stooge brackets (the silver ones that fasten behind the pot 
> nuts). This
> still leaves issues with the 900, 950, 600 and 650, though :(
>
> d) I really don't see a point to changing, just for the sake of
"fancier"
> graphics like the CMS modular:
>
>
http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/CMS/Modular/images/mc24b.jpg
>
> without having to jack up the price. I think Paul H. is trying to find
a
> solution +-10% of what I am paying now for say 50 pieces at a time,
that 
> now I
> can only fab say 7 pieces. The reasoning behind *this* is that there
are
> some...errr..."slow selling" modules that may need 14 panels/year.
>
> Certainly, that CMS modular is quite a sight to behold, but so is the 
> pricetag
> :)
>
> So, official MOTM panels will remain as they are for 2006. For
DIY/Stooge
> panels, those can be whatever is best in terms of cost and delivery. 
> Stooge
> panels are a 'pretty big business' and help to promote the MOTM form 
> factor as
> the leading industry standard in 1/4" jacks.
>
> If I do decide to make a change, it will be 'radical' like the Modcan 
> Series B:
> something removed far away from the original. Let's face it: I never
> dreamed of
> selling 6500 of these things in the first place. I was hoping for 500
so I 
> could
> get a good stereo :)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 


?  Visit your group "motm" on the web.
  
?  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
?  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.