MOTM

jwbarlow@... writes:

>>Of all the designs I've seen or heard about, I have to admit (as 
humiliating as it is to do) I like Bradley's the best. I've always preferred 
that "C" shape to a standard straight or sloped cabinet.<<

"C" shaped cases can look impressive.  It makes you feel like your piloting a 
spaceship.  But you have to be careful about too much of a C shape.  
Otherwise you get cables dangling down like spagetti too far infront of the 
synth and cable piling up on the bottom modules, and also possibly nudging 
knobs.  It's not neccessarily as practical as it seems.

-Elhardt

In a message dated 2/21/01 12:49:31 AM Central Standard Time, elhardt@... 
writes:

> >>Of all the designs I've seen or heard about, I have to admit (as 
>  humiliating as it is to do) I like Bradley's the best. I've always 
preferred 
> 
>  that "C" shape to a standard straight or sloped cabinet.<<
>  
>  "C" shaped cases can look impressive.  It makes you feel like your 
piloting 
> a 
>  spaceship.  But you have to be careful about too much of a C shape.  
>  Otherwise you get cables dangling down like spagetti too far infront of 
the 
>  synth and cable piling up on the bottom modules, and also possibly nudging 
>  knobs.  It's not neccessarily as practical as it seems.

 With the C shape angles, I wonder if the cables' metal housing at the bottom 
of an upper row would interfere with the top most knobs of the row directly 
below ?  The C shape is pretty neat though.

 Andrew Sanchez

Good point.

I, too, have always loved the TONTO / Star Trek idea of having the arching
cabinets. A while ago I set up my equipment in that kind of rough
configuration just by bracing it in place, and while it looked really cool,
I was less than happy with it for working, and it didn't last.

The patchcord drooping is a problem, as you've mentioned. I moved my
rack-mount effects devices to the top to get rid of that kind of thing. But
I still learned something about the way I work by using that setup---I don't
stay seated! The curved control panel idea is great for a Gemini space
capsule where you're strapped into a chair and want the control surfaces to
remain a uniform distance from your shoulder. But in my studio I'm always
hopping up and down and rolling my chair from one end of the room to the
other. And quite frankly, I'm not always the only person using the equipment
at the same time, as I do a lot of work with a partner. So for my own new
MOTM cabinets I'm probably going to keep with a flat vertical surface with
maybe one 70-degree 'break' for the low modules and the option of an upper,
slight break as well. (I need to post some sketches), depending on how high
it gets.

Still, I'm the first person to admit that part of the joy of a modular is
that it looks more impressive than any other instrument short of a pipe
organ, and the "C"-shaped consoles sure add to that!! What's needed I guess
is a standard case made of metal with pivots that allow you to adjust the
bend to taste! Now THERE's an industrial design project for somebody!

Or how about the reverse---mounting your modules to the outside of a large
sphere that's on a pivot, like a globe! You could spin it around to see the
other modules... that way the convexity doesn't cramp the control surfaces.

Jest kidding.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	elhardt@... [mailto:elhardt@...] 
Sent:	Wednesday, 21 February, 2001 1:48 AM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Re: [motm] Rack Rails -> "C" shaped cases

jwbarlow@... writes:

>>Of all the designs I've seen or heard about, I have to admit (as 
humiliating as it is to do) I like Bradley's the best. I've always preferred

that "C" shape to a standard straight or sloped cabinet.<<

"C" shaped cases can look impressive.  It makes you feel like your piloting
a 
spaceship.  But you have to be careful about too much of a C shape.  
Otherwise you get cables dangling down like spagetti too far infront of the 
synth and cable piling up on the bottom modules, and also possibly nudging 
knobs.  It's not neccessarily as practical as it seems.

-Elhardt

Good points both. I've tried to work through those issues by making a 
template of the side first, and by bolting modules into the rails and 
checking the knob / jack / plug interaction between rows. I found 
that a 20 degree tilt between 2 rows (that's 160 degrees total angle 
for the math challenged) still allowed for comfortable reaching of 
the top knob in a module with plugs directly above.

I am also trying to combat cable pile up by tilting the 'C' slightly 
backward, so that the top row is still pointing slightly downward, 
but is not at so drastic an angle as the front.

So it's really more of a 'tilted parenthesis' shape than a C shape. 
I'll build the thing, stuff it full, and report back to the list 
honestly on any ergonomic problems I find.

The template for the side as I plan on building it is at:

http://motm.retrosynth.com/moe_stuff/case_pics/case_profiles2.jpg

Moe

--- In motm@y..., ixqy@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/21/01 12:49:31 AM Central Standard Time, 
> elhardt@a... writes:

>>  spaceship.  But you have to be careful about too much of a C 
>> shape. Otherwise you get cables dangling down like spagetti too 
>> far infront of the synth and cable piling up on the bottom 
>> modules, and also possibly nudging knobs.  It's not neccessarily 
>> as practical as it seems.
> 
>  With the C shape angles, I wonder if the cables' metal housing at 
> the bottom of an upper row would interfere with the top most knobs 
> of the row directly below ?  The C shape is pretty neat though.
> 
>  Andrew Sanchez

Moe and I discussed this at length when he first showed me his design.
Hopefully he can speak more to the exact nature of his trials.  But,
obviously, anytime you use cabinets that come together at an inside angle
this is an issue.  I think the amount of angle has to be a big factor in
whether is works well or not.  Moe did a lot of "mock up" work to assure it
wasn't an issue in his case.

How 'bout it Moe?  Did you come up with any magic guidelines like "X number
of degrees seem to be the magic angle between two modules, one above the
other, without space between, that can be used without unacceptable
interference."

Larry H

----- Original Message -----
From: <ixqy@...>
With the C shape angles, I wonder if the cables' metal
housing at the bottom of an upper row would interfere
with the top most knobs of the row directly below ?

Andrew Sanchez

In the industrial design world, when you are designing something like this,
you usually refer to the holy-of-holies, the Dreyfus Charts. These are a
detailed ergonomic study of every way that you can think of for the human
body to move and interact with something, all age groups, developed over
many decades of study.

Basically with a curved control console, you try to figure out how the
person will be seated, correct posture, etc. That always comes first. Then
you scribe an arc (in profile) using the ball & socket joint of the shoulder
as the pivot point, and try to get your control surfaces to conform roughly
to this arc. It creates a theoretical inside-sphere for each arm, and then
you kind of average them out, if you are going for a "full-surround control
cabin" kind of thing.

In the case of MOTM modules, you then have the secondary consideration, as
was mentioned, of the patchcords interfering with the knobs under them, so
you may have to adjust them out from there. (Do a little "stretch tuning.")

And finally, there is another arc that needs to be considered, that from the
eyes to the control surfaces.

But that's the ID theory of approaching this kind of thing, anyway. A lot of
it is common sense, but there have been MANY studies for this done,
especially for things like nuclear power plant control rooms (a friend of
mine's father, a psychologist actually, was one of a team of designers doing
the design of nuclear plant control consoles... fascinating stuff).

If you don't have a copy of the Dreyfus ergonomic studies, pick up and old
Star Trek [TOS] Technical Manual and look for the sectional cutaways of the
bridge consoles. They look like they were lifted right out of the former.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...] 
Sent:	Wednesday, 21 February, 2001 9:10 AM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Re: [motm] Rack Rails -> "C" shaped cases

Moe and I discussed this at length when he first showed me his design.
Hopefully he can speak more to the exact nature of his trials.  But,
obviously, anytime you use cabinets that come together at an inside angle
this is an issue.  I think the amount of angle has to be a big factor in
whether is works well or not.  Moe did a lot of "mock up" work to assure it
wasn't an issue in his case.

How 'bout it Moe?  Did you come up with any magic guidelines like "X number
of degrees seem to be the magic angle between two modules, one above the
other, without space between, that can be used without unacceptable
interference."

> Or how about the reverse---mounting your modules to the 
> outside of a large
> sphere that's on a pivot, like a globe! You could spin it 
> around to see the
> other modules... that way the convexity doesn't cramp the 
> control surfaces.
> 
> Jest kidding.

Heh. This was emulated on the cover of Stereolab's "Mars Audiac Quintet"
album with an E-Mu modular!

There goes my patent! <g>

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	David Bivins [mailto:dbivins@...] 
Sent:	Wednesday, 21 February, 2001 10:54 AM
To:	'motm@yahoogroups.com'
Subject:	RE: [motm] Rack Rails -> "C" shaped cases

> Or how about the reverse---mounting your modules to the 
> outside of a large
> sphere that's on a pivot, like a globe! You could spin it 
> around to see the
> other modules... that way the convexity doesn't cramp the 
> control surfaces.
> 
> Jest kidding.

Heh. This was emulated on the cover of Stereolab's "Mars Audiac Quintet"
album with an E-Mu modular!

One other point (someone may have mentioned but I may have missed): The
C-shape assumes that you will be looking up toward the top modules, as
opposed to looking forward, or down, at them. This means you may have to
raise your arms above your shoulders to reach those modules for patching or
tweaking. Over time, this will probably lead to greater fatigue than moving
your arms forward or down to accomplish the same tasks. This isn't to say
the same fatigue can't happen with a flat, vertical arrangement, but the
C-shape assumes you're beneath the top modules no matter what. 

I love the look, but like Ken, I'm always moving around and would probably
find that arrangement inconvenient.

Anyway, we're thinking of buying a home, so it looks like I'm stuck with the
SKB pop-up mixer cases I already have for the forseeable future! :)

David.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tkacs, Ken [mailto:ken.tkacs@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:46 AM
> To: 'motm@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: [motm] Rack Rails -> "C" shaped cases
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> I, too, have always loved the TONTO / Star Trek idea of 
> having the arching
> cabinets. A while ago I set up my equipment in that kind of rough
> configuration just by bracing it in place, and while it 
> looked really cool,
> I was less than happy with it for working, and it didn't last.
> 
> The patchcord drooping is a problem, as you've mentioned. I moved my
> rack-mount effects devices to the top to get rid of that kind 
> of thing. But
> I still learned something about the way I work by using that 
> setup---I don't
> stay seated! The curved control panel idea is great for a Gemini space
> capsule where you're strapped into a chair and want the 
> control surfaces to
> remain a uniform distance from your shoulder. But in my 
> studio I'm always
> hopping up and down and rolling my chair from one end of the 
> room to the
> other. And quite frankly, I'm not always the only person 
> using the equipment
> at the same time, as I do a lot of work with a partner. So 
> for my own new
> MOTM cabinets I'm probably going to keep with a flat vertical 
> surface with
> maybe one 70-degree 'break' for the low modules and the 
> option of an upper,
> slight break as well. (I need to post some sketches), 
> depending on how high
> it gets.
> 
> Still, I'm the first person to admit that part of the joy of 
> a modular is
> that it looks more impressive than any other instrument short 
> of a pipe
> organ, and the "C"-shaped consoles sure add to that!! What's 
> needed I guess
> is a standard case made of metal with pivots that allow you 
> to adjust the
> bend to taste! Now THERE's an industrial design project for somebody!
> 
> Or how about the reverse---mounting your modules to the 
> outside of a large
> sphere that's on a pivot, like a globe! You could spin it 
> around to see the
> other modules... that way the convexity doesn't cramp the 
> control surfaces.
> 
> Jest kidding.
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	elhardt@... [mailto:elhardt@...] 
> Sent:	Wednesday, 21 February, 2001 1:48 AM
> To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject:	Re: [motm] Rack Rails -> "C" shaped cases
> 
> jwbarlow@... writes:
> 
> >>Of all the designs I've seen or heard about, I have to admit (as 
> humiliating as it is to do) I like Bradley's the best. I've 
> always preferred
> 
> that "C" shape to a standard straight or sloped cabinet.<<
> 
> "C" shaped cases can look impressive.  It makes you feel like 
> your piloting
> a 
> spaceship.  But you have to be careful about too much of a C shape.  
> Otherwise you get cables dangling down like spagetti too far 
> infront of the 
> synth and cable piling up on the bottom modules, and also 
> possibly nudging 
> knobs.  It's not neccessarily as practical as it seems.
> 
> -Elhardt
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~-~>
> eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
> Click here for more details
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/kWP7PD/pYNCAA/4ihDAA/V8GVlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------_->
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

If you're buying a new house, see if you can mount your modules flush with a
wall somewhere! I figure you can probably remove some sheetrock and fit 8u
of modules between the studs!

Okay, I'm not really serious, but I sure love the idea of flush-mounting
electronics with a wall. I want to do that with my stereo system in the
worst way. They make 19" racks that flush-mount and hinge or hinge-swivel
out from walls. Very cool.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	David Bivins [mailto:dbivins@...] 
Sent:	Wednesday, 21 February, 2001 11:47 AM
To:	'motm@yahoogroups.com'
Subject:	RE: [motm] Rack Rails -> "C" shaped cases


Anyway, we're thinking of buying a home, so it looks like I'm stuck with the
SKB pop-up mixer cases I already have for the forseeable future! :)

I am actually thinking about doing this as I've run out of space for floor 
cases.  Normal 2x4 construction is not deep enough, but I was thinking of 
building a rack frame out from the wall about 4" and having it hinged on 
one side.  This to allow it to swing open for maintenance to the system and 
the USB (Universal Super Buss).

-dave-



At 11:53 AM 2/21/01 -0500, you wrote:

>If you're buying a new house, see if you can mount your modules flush with a
>wall somewhere! I figure you can probably remove some sheetrock and fit 8u
>of modules between the studs!
>
>Okay, I'm not really serious, but I sure love the idea of flush-mounting
>electronics with a wall. I want to do that with my stereo system in the
>worst way. They make 19" racks that flush-mount and hinge or hinge-swivel
>out from walls. Very cool.

In a message dated 2/21/01 10:56:23 AM Central Standard Time, 
ken.tkacs@... writes:

> Okay, I'm not really serious, but I sure love the idea of flush-mounting
>  electronics with a wall. I want to do that with my stereo system in the
>  worst way. They make 19" racks that flush-mount and hinge or hinge-swivel
>  out from walls. Very cool.

 My brother-in-law "kind of" did this back in the 70's for his stereo system. 
He used a closet and made shelves inside to mount everything and then cut the 
proper size shapes in the closet door to have the components' faceplates 
flush with the door. It was pretty neat looking and a plus was that all he 
had to do to when re-wiring anything was open the door..
  
 Andrew

--- David Bivins <dbivins@...> wrote:
> One other point (someone may have mentioned but I may have missed): The
> C-shape assumes that you will be looking up toward the top modules, as
> opposed to looking forward, or down, at them. This means you may have to
> raise your arms above your shoulders to reach those modules for patching or
> tweaking. Over time, this will probably lead to greater fatigue than moving
> your arms forward or down to accomplish the same tasks. 

I've had a bit of experience with this arm fatigue on my own system.  It isn't too
bad in most cases since I don't tend to keep my arms in the same location for long
periods.  I too tend to stand/sit/move around as I am working with my system.  The
worst problem I have had is trying to "tune" an analog sequencer row up high.  That
can tire out your arms quickly!  So, if you use an analog sequencer a lot, don't
copy the Moog modular model with the sequencer way up on top!  It looks great but it
can be a pain when you are tweaking those knobs for accurate tuning.  Actually, I
have found that a quantizer helps greatly in this situation.

Yet another issue you have to be aware of when making a tall system is the lighting.
 If you have lights right over your system and you start looking up, you can get
blinded by an overhead light.  I have a recessed ceiling light near my system that I
sometimes unscrew because of the brightness and glare.  I have found that some small
lights, like the gooseneck litlelites or small desk lamps, on top of the system
pointed at the panels, instead of down at the user, work very well to reduce this,
ummm, hazard.

Eric


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dave Hylander <david@...>
This to allow it to swing open for maintenance to the
system and the USB (Universal Super Buss).
----
This would not be anything like the magic buss would it??
Stooge Larry,(just protecting my trademark) <snicker>

I'm still reading and rereading this thread with interest.

In a message dated 2/21/2001 10:03:14 AM, alt_mode@... writes:

>I have found that some small
>lights, like the gooseneck litlelites or small desk lamps, on top of the
>system
>pointed at the panels, instead of down at the user, work very well to reduce
>this,
>ummm, hazard.

I've been thinking about this lighting idea as well (incorporating it into 
the case design), is anyone else thinking about this.

BTW, I've recently seen a very "bright" looking tread plate (maybe steel but 
probably aluminum) at Home Depot which I briefly thought might make the most 
impressive case covering for a MOTM. I think I've seen some heavy metal 
guitar amps using this kind of covering, but really MOTM is the only real 
piece of tech gear worthy of that indestructible look.

JB

In a message dated 01-02-21 22:59:29 EST, you write:

<< 
 I've been thinking about this lighting idea as well (incorporating it into 
 the case design), is anyone else thinking about this.
  >>


john,
if i remember correctly, there used to be a picture at the wiard website 
where they had a system in a case with a flourescent light mounted on an 
overhanging top edge to illuminate the modules.
anaolg solutions sells a small, mountable lamp for their ( or other ) cases.
me ? - i just use an old gooseneck desk lamp on top of one of my frames and 
pointed down and back towards the modules. crude, perhaps, but on hand and no 
charge ! :^)
best,
dave v.

In a message dated 2/20/2001 10:49:32 PM, elhardt@... writes:

>But you have to be careful about too much of a C shape.  
>Otherwise you get cables dangling down like spagetti too far infront of
>the 
>synth and cable piling up on the bottom modules

This is a good point! I already hate long patch cables getting in the way, 
and catching them with the guitar neck. In this way I think one row of 
modules sloped forward on top would not be nearly the problem that two rows 
(or more) would. The other thing that helps minimize this phenomenon is 
Larry's Magic Buss (and you thought he was just another Stooge). 

For those of you who haven't heard of this idea it was Larry's suggestion to 
run multiples horizontally between the module rows (and below the lowest row) 
so that signals can be bussed across the system reducing the need for those 
unsightly longer cables. BTW, I was totally opposed to this idea, until I 
happened to look over at my other synths (with bananas) and realized that 
about 90% of the jacks had only one plug in them, 5% had two or three plugs 
in them, and the remainder had about 4 to 8 plugs in them. Ask Larry for more 
info -- there's no product (YET!)

JB

----- Original Message ----- 

From: <jwbarlow@...>
The other thing that helps minimize this phenomenon 
is Larry's Magic Buss (and you thought he was just
another Stooge). 

For those of you who haven't heard of this idea it was
Larry's suggestion to run multiples horizontally between
the module rows (and below the lowest row) so that
signals can be bussed across the system reducing the need
for those unsightly longer cables.
------------
Let me just say that the Magic buss is alive and well.  It is
waiting  for a shiny new wood case to be installed in  Let me
give some features.

My 24 U wide case will have a magic buss below each 
rows of modules.  The buss is exactly 1/2 U tall.  The jack
spacing is exactly MOTM standard, so the buss below the 
modules has the general appearance of just another row of
jacks on the module above it.  So, each buss has 48 jacks.
Now, the jack configuration can be just plain multiples of
anything you want.  In my case, it will be a combination of 
3 different things mixed together
1. grouped multiples (normal stuff)
2 distributed multiples - so that a single multiple appears repeatedly
across the buss. This makes bussing from something like the 3 outs 
of a VC Lag or 831 over to multiple oscillators, or bussing a gate to
multiple EGs very easy with just short cables that reach from the 
modules above to a jack below in easy reach with a short cable.
3. Multiple tiers.  A few of the mults will have an appearance
in each buss.  So, you can patch up and down between rows with 
the same short cables.  Getting just the right combination depends
on how you layout your modules.  It is flexible.  I plan to have mine
just pop out of the front so you can change it at will.  I am working
on a flexible marking system so you can change the IDs as easy as
you change the multi assignment.
------
> Ask Larry for more info -- there's no product (YET!)
-----
Well, I will just let you guys ahh and oohh over it when I do get the case
assembled with the magic buss.  Of course, in the DIY spirit, I will
share all the information concerning material and plans.  But, I don't 
think this will ever be a "product."

Larry