MOTM

I agree with the Suit & Tie Guy that the somewhat fanatical devotion to
exactly reproducing the Synthesis Technology look and feel exhibited by some
members of the MOTM-using community has stifled the growth of the market.

It's a double-edged sword.

a) The pots/jacks were 'on grid' for a very *specific reason*: people
complained that there was too much front panel wiring on prior kits, and it
was the #1 source of errors. Also, there were NO vertical mounted pots like
the P260T I use now in Euro. Third: I wanted a consistent 'build experience'
module-to-module, with common hardware and brackets.

I think I succeeded quite well in this regard. 

This slavish adoration of silkscreen-on-speckle-paint panels has always
puzzled me, for several reasons:

b) Me, too. I think the text on the powder coating "pops" more (easier to
read). But it seems some folks are just very particular about 'the synth as
fine furniture' thing.

Favorite: one person complained that all the jack nuts were not exactly
lined up as in the renders. So he told me he spent *hours* trying to line
them all up.

 1) it's the sound that counts in the end!

c) Correct, but that is not a major factor to some people. Trust me: I had
at least 6 heated discussions about the font. This would be the same font as
Moog used (and I should know, Bob & I talked about it at length. It
originated from Chart-Pak rub-on lettering)

 2) The MOTM products themselves are full of inconsistencies. In my system I
can count at least three different distinct versions of dial markings. Some
modules have labels above the jacks, some have them below.

d) I suck at panel design. Suck, I say! Now I use an outside person from
Euro and he does a great job.

 3) There isn't necessarily a consensus that the MOTM quasi-standard is a
good one. This mailing list itself has seen more than one debate about panel
appearance.
For instance, old-timers will recall people complaining that one module
isn't visually differentiated from the next, and putting strips of tape on
their modules to divide them.

e) I *purposely* did not want to look like a Moog modular in that regard. I
feel that is a specific "design embellishment" unique to Moog (and wish it
would have stayed that way....sigh....)

Given all that, what's an aspiring MOTM module maker to do? Doing a small
run of panels that exactly match the MOTM convention is expensive and
approaching impossible because of the lack of metal shops in this country
that will still do speckle painting. On the other hand, doing a small run of
panels by some other process (e.g. anodizing and in-filled engraving) runs
the risk of being rejected by the market because it doesn't match the
convention (overlooking the fact that the convention is not self-consistent
to begin with). On the other side of the fence, the Eurorack community
seemingly has accepted a diversity of panel appearances, knob styles, etc.

f) To misquote Hamlet: "Therein lies the rub."

Whether or not this diversity jibes with your personal taste is obviously a
personal choice, but it does contribute to a growing marketplace and hence
growing community. It's far easier for a manufacturer to enter a market
where diversity and originality are embraced rather than shunned.

So while it saddens me to hear from the Suit & Tie Guy that one of the very
few attempts for a new vendor of MOTM modules to enter the field was
discouraged by some members of the MOTM customer base itself, it doesn't
surprise me in the slightest. 

g) After the great RoHS debacle, at least 2 GOOD things emerged that solve
these issues

1 -- vertical Switchcraft jacks (first used on the MOTM-730/newer MOTM-910)
2 -- vertical P260T BI pots, so that makes all the modules 1" deep (so, yes
a MOTM skiff is possible), eliminated the pcb bracket AND allows the pots
'to be anywhere' on the panel.

The jacks WILL remain at the bottom......sorry.

And yes, the previous discourse is the result of both personal and
professional cogitation on the topic.

At least this is getting people to post. Some of which I haven't heard from
in years.

Paul S.





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links