Good counter points Paul! I will buy one either way it comes out. The added siwtch is a big bonus for me, Thanks Tony Thomas White >From: "Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)" <noise@...> >Reply-To: motm@egroups.com >To: "'motm@egroups.com'" <motm@egroups.com> >Subject: RE: [motm] static feedback >Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:17:27 -0700 > >I totally appreciate this point of view, you make wonderful points-- >however... > >My main thought is that Tony's come up with a *fantastic* module, and I'd >hate to see it less usable due to cramped conditions. Keep in mind that >Blacet's modules use (typically?) 1 row of knobs. Tony's has two rows, >plus >another row of switches-- that's a lot of pieces for a relatively small >amount of space. > >Making the panel twice as wide, I'd wager, doesn't add much to the price-- >you still have the same number of holes for jacks and knobs. Using larger >pots will raise the price, indeed-- but I wouldn't want to purchase a >product with cheap feeling knobs (I don't want to have to deal with >possible >scratchiness or repairs). I'm not aware of anything else that would >change, >price-wise... am I wrong here? > >I agree that restraint is called for at the right time. However, don't >prevent me from mad-twiddling when I want to. (Incidently, I've never >written a lick of music, so "my music" is neither restrained nor out of >control... :) My bottom line is that a module with this much potential and >power *deserves* a large space, so that when I'm fumbling around and >searching for that perfect preset slope and curve (or just plane playing >with the sound), I'm not knocking everything else out of whack. > >--PBr :) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: thomas white [SMTP:djthomaswhite@...] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 9:15 AM > > To: motm@egroups.com > > Subject: [motm] static feedback > > > > Just a thought, > > > > Not every song or composition is best presented by madly twidling all > > possible knobs on your modular. Some songs require restraint and preset > > slopes and curves to have the right impact. I think it is a very limited > > view to state... > > > > Or your music is a little more static that it should be? > > > > Sometimes music is "too" static because all you are doing is twisting >the > > knobs all the time. Things can get out of hand fast with all of the > > options > > we have on our MOTM's, especially for those of us who own two or more > > modulars. Knob twiddling on a classic LFO is only one knob that >determines > > > > the whole frequency while this modules is multiple stages (15 knobs for > > **** > > sake) with room for delicate transitions if you program the thing right. >I > > > > am willing to hider the real time tweakability with the smaller knobs to > > save cost since my modular money is running low :~( It will in no way be > > impossible to tweak on this proposed module and I am hyped about the >step > > sequencer type functions. > > > > I am very excited to look at this possible new module for the positive > > things that it might bring to the MOTM system. I have no other module >like > > > > this and I would for sure like to add one of these to my modular. I > > commend > > Tony for trying to keep it in a 2-space panel. > > > > Some of the people on this list complaining right now about the 2-space > > panel will most assuredly be the ones complaining about the price of a 4 > > space module with the fatty alco knobs and classic spacing. And maybe >not > > even buy one in the end because it will cost as much or more than a MOTM > > VCO. Although at times my Blacet and Doepfer stuff does seem cramped in > > comparison to my MOTM, it always gets the job done even with the cheap > > pots > > and thimble sized knobs. How long it will continue to get the job done >is > > another question (Doe****) > > > > Bottom line is I will deviate from the classic MOTM format even though >my > > MOTM is the most carefully laid out and planned (Sound and Visual) synth >I > > > > have. Of course it might make the rack look spaced oddly, but I want to > > get > > the function of this module to add to my sound creating power and for >this > > I > > am willing to trade off the classic spacing and fat knobs. Yes, I do >have > > smaller fingers but my band members are much bigger (MBI, try and figure > > this abrev out) than me and have never complained. > > > > Rant, rant, rant I know, but this module can and will be a very valuable > > addition to my MOTM system. I think it will compliment the modules Paul > > has > > available and I hope that it will mean Tony will be making more MOTM > > format > > modules. Now we can try to get John Blacet involved! Thanks for >listening > > and getting this far into this mini novella > > > > Thomas White > > > > PS. MBI= More Beer Intake > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Message
RE: [motm] static feedback
2000-08-23 by thomas white
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.