MOTM

Will,

Thank you for your missive.  And than you VERY MUCH for your and your 
dad's website - it's an invaluable resource for MOTMers!

Cheers,
Jeffrey


At 08:52 PM 8/18/2012, wjhall11 wrote:
>Dad and I first fell in among you when I was thirteen.  I was the 
>one who found your site, Paul, on line and pointed it out to my Dad 
>when he was bemoaning the Synthi-A that got away and wanted a 
>replacement.  I was the one who started taking photos when we 
>finally started building the thing a year or so later in 2007.
>
>We are not true DIYers in the sense you described earlier.  We have 
>depended on the true engineers like yourself to do the circuit 
>design and to help us in our stumbling progress.  We've tried to 
>contribute something to the community as we could, probably also 
>trying the patience of our helpers in the process.
>
>My opinion is that the large "MOTM" format is the preferable 
>user-interface, as it were.  And, as a DIYer of minimal sort, my 
>personal interest, aside from the sounds the modules create, has 
>been in how that interface (the panels) allows us to relate to the 
>function of the modules.  I have been very interested in their design.
>
>For what it's worth, Dad and I are not particularly angry about this 
>turn of events.  Our orientation is different, I think - we are 
>dabblers in comparison to most of you guys.  Even though we've 
>attempted some minor design (with the assistance of you truly 
>wonderful engineers), our central interest has been in creating an 
>instrument that we will play.  Even after all this time, given the 
>vagaries of our lives' course, we are only now really beginning to 
>use the synth we built and it won't be for a while until we even 
>have all the bugs out of it.
>
>I recall my Dad saying, after getting off the phone with you some 
>couple years ago, that it sounded like your concept for the 
>smaller-format Morphong Terrarium, for instance, would exclude a 
>couple features that might be available in the large-format 
>equivalent module; perhaps because the larger-format would have more 
>space for the extra features or that you would just design it 
>somewhat differently or something.  Perhaps I 
>mis-recollect.  Perhaps your ideas have changed.
>
>At any rate, we find the frustration of those who are truly fanatics 
>completely understandable.  We share some of that frustration; Dad 
>and I have wanted a Cloud Generator for years.  Speaking for myself, 
>I am not interested, however, in a lesser Euro-version even fitted 
>out with big knobs and jacks.  I prefer a truly MOTM module; a 
>no-holds-barred completely stupidly-fanatically-engineered thing.  I 
>suspect this may be what you were getting at when you were saying 
>that these are Euro Modules as distict from MOTM modules.  They are 
>different somehow?
>
>So I am disappointed that I'll have to wait longer for the true-MOTM 
>Cloud Generator.  I am sorry to hear it may never be 
>available.  Frustrating, yes.
>
>I do not think, however, that by virtue of having provided my Dad 
>and I with the kits you designed and expertly packaged and organized 
>with clear instructions, that you somehow owe us anything 
>further.  Your kits opened the door to a world we would otherwise 
>not have experienced.  This community - all of you - gave us safe harbor.
>
>I do not think that our having made a completely worthy and very 
>substantial investment of time and (Dad's) money gives us the right 
>to expect you to continue to do anything you don't want to do.
>
>It would surely be gratifying to have that damned Cloud Generator, 
>though.  Perhaps I should start a subliminal message campaign like I 
>did when I wanted a Vocoder some years ago.  I'll tragically be 
>waiting somewhat longer yet for that too, alas.
>
>Cloud Generator
>Cloud Generator
>Cloud Generator
>Cloud Generator
>Cloud Generator
>Cloud Generator
>
>Will
>
>(Bill may or may not have approved this message; subliminal or no)
>
>
>
>
>--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
> >
> > For many years I did not have to worry about whether or not a new MOTM
> > module would sell. The reason: Curtis IC sales.
> >
> > All of the module R&D budget was 100% paid for by me selling the CEM ICs
> > that Doug Curtis had in his garage. This was true up until the '480.
> >
> > So really, the only 'out-of-pocket' funded MOTM module was the '730.
> >
> > When I say "funded", I mean:
> >
> > a) cost of all the prototype pc boards and parts
> > b) FPE panels to verify the panel layout
> > c) parts and production costs for the first 50 modules
> >
> > In many cases, there were parts used in every module (pots/jacks/knobs/etc)
> > so there might be a few unique parts + the pc board but it was 
> not that much
> > overall (say $4500).
> >
> > The SMT model is much more, because there is the tooling cost (now about
> > $850) and the fact you need parts on reels which is either full reels or
> > partials and you part a LOT more for those. And, you have to pay to run ALL
> > the board sets at once and the hard part: PAY for all the boards at once.
> > The pc boards are now run 4-up on a panel so you have to break them apart.
> > There is a lot more 'handling' of 'stuff' in SMT up front (as opposed to me
> > & Paul H. putting 1.7 million parts into 128,000 little plastic bags).
> >
> > Paul S.
> >
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>