MOTM

> 
> I was looking over some posts from the past week... several of the good
> folks on the list had expressed the desire that any 'extra' panel space on
> modules like the 320 & 820 be filled up with something, either some kind of
> modification or a small multiple block, _something_ to make use of that
> waste.
> 
> Unless I missed it (possible), it seems that no one has expressed a contrary
> viewpoint, so I thought I'd volunteer to pipe up. (Not that I'm feeling
> particularly 'contrary' today or anything... but often silence is
> interpreted as agreement...I've learned that the hard way with the local
> power company.) No offense to those that started leading the cheer for this
> kind of thing; I just wanted to throw this opinion into the arena.
> 
> Personally, I really *like* the fact that some of the modules have a little
> breathing room on them. Visually, it helps break up the look of the system
> and adds some individual flavor to the modules. Functionally, one of the
> things that I love about the MOTM form factor is that it holds usability as
> a primary concern, never cramping up knobs and switches, and keeping the
> jacks to the lower portion of the modules so that cords are as
> out-of-the-way as they can be in a modular. I dunno, maybe I have big hands.
> But I *like* those empty spaces!
> 
> It seems to me that filling up the space because it's there just adds cost
> to the modules (even just putting in four jacks for a multiple will add at
> least $10, I'm sure, maybe more if Paul is 'charged by the hole' for
> drilling on the panels) and just generally flies in the face of one of the
> MOTM industrial design principles. Plus, adding a 'foreign' function to the
> module just for the sake of it makes me kind of grimace. I mean, if a "Rev
> B" version of these modules can add some related functionality, such as what
> is being done with the '101 over the '100, I'm absolutely all for it. But I
> kind of grimace at the suggestion of just cramming some stuff on the panel
> because there's a square inch free. I know that *I* didn't get into building
> myself a monster modular in order to save space...!
> 
> For those who want to mod their own modules or add multiples to that space,
> God bless you, _go for it!_ Make them your own! A modular should be a
> personal synthesizer like no other, and if that brings yours closer to your
> dream machine, I'm behind you all the way! But I would like to cast a quiet
> vote that Paul *not* start sticking jacks in those small oases of blank
> space. I like them.
> 
> And in the case of multiples, this is a function available in two other
> modules. Or as I say, go ahead and add them yourself---making a multiple
> block is the easiest DIY project you are likely to ever encounter, so go for
> it! But does Paul really need to put them permanently on the module for you?
> 
> I never went with the vertical rack idea for my system, opting more for the
> horizontal console. My system plan is for three rows, with (very roughly)
> sound "sources" in the top tier, "modifiers" in the middle, and "control"
> modules in the bottom tier, where feasible. For the way I tend to work, this
> generally allows me to use shorter patchcords and to think of the sound in a
> left-to-right fashion. So when I lay this out, the density of the bank of
> VCOs along the top contrasts nicely with the filters and such below, and
> along the bottom there are the "sparser" panels such as the LFOs, the Lag
> Processors, and even the Router. It's a real nice look! MOTM doesn't have a
> secondary module format like the old Moog 'utility' panels, but this does
> something similar, visually, and gives [my system at least] some real subtle
> character that I like a lot.
> 
> I don't know if that makes any sense to any of you... sometimes I feel
> almost embarrassed speaking up for the "look" of the layout over wedging
> more functionality into it. But then I see the gorgeous cabinets that many
> of you are slaving over and I'm confident that we must all love the
> appearances of our machines, too---not just their sounds---so a few of you
> at least might feel the same way about this subject.
> 
> Just my $0.02.
> 
> Mr. T

> I couldn't have said it better myself; I'm squeemish about adding LEDs
> to the '800 EGs I have, even tho it's a useful mod. Something like
> putting flames and pinstriping on a well-cared-for '39 Buick. Not my
> style.
>
> Chuck
>
> --- In motm@y..., "Tkacs, Ken" <ken.tkacs@j...> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking over some posts from the past week... several of the good
> > folks on the list had expressed the desire that any 'extra' panel space on
> > modules like the 320 & 820 be filled up with something, either some kind of
> > modification or a small multiple block, _something_ to make use of that
> > waste.
> >
> > Unless I missed it (possible), it seems that no one has expressed a contrary
> > viewpoint, so I thought I'd volunteer to pipe up. (Not that I'm feeling
> > particularly 'contrary' today or anything... but often silence is
> > interpreted as agreement...I've learned that the hard way with the local
> > power company.) No offense to those that started leading the cheer for this
> > kind of thing; I just wanted to throw this opinion into the arena.
> >
> > Personally, I really *like* the fact that some of the modules have a little
> > breathing room on them. Visually, it helps break up the look of the system
> > and adds some individual flavor to the modules. Functionally, one of the
> > things that I love about the MOTM form factor is that it holds usability as
> > a primary concern, never cramping up knobs and switches, and keeping the
> > jacks to the lower portion of the modules so that cords are as
> > out-of-the-way as they can be in a modular. I dunno, maybe I have big hands.
> > But I *like* those empty spaces!
> >
> > It seems to me that filling up the space because it's there just adds cost
> > to the modules (even just putting in four jacks for a multiple will add at
> > least $10, I'm sure, maybe more if Paul is 'charged by the hole' for
> > drilling on the panels) and just generally flies in the face of one of the
> > MOTM industrial design principles. Plus, adding a 'foreign' function to the
> > module just for the sake of it makes me kind of grimace. I mean, if a "Rev
> > B" version of these modules can add some related functionality, such as what
> > is being done with the '101 over the '100, I'm absolutely all for it. But I
> > kind of grimace at the suggestion of just cramming some stuff on the panel
> > because there's a square inch free. I know that *I* didn't get into building
> > myself a monster modular in order to save space...!
> >
> > For those who want to mod their own modules or add multiples to that space,
> > God bless you, _go for it!_ Make them your own! A modular should be a
> > personal synthesizer like no other, and if that brings yours closer to your
> > dream machine, I'm behind you all the way! But I would like to cast a quiet
> > vote that Paul *not* start sticking jacks in those small oases of blank
> > space. I like them.
> >
> > And in the case of multiples, this is a function available in two other
> > modules. Or as I say, go ahead and add them yourself---making a multiple
> > block is the easiest DIY project you are likely to ever encounter, so go for
> > it! But does Paul really need to put them permanently on the module for you?
> >
> > I never went with the vertical rack idea for my system, opting more for the
> > horizontal console. My system plan is for three rows, with (very roughly)
> > sound "sources" in the top tier, "modifiers" in the middle, and "control"
> > modules in the bottom tier, where feasible. For the way I tend to work, this
> > generally allows me to use shorter patchcords and to think of the sound in a
> > left-to-right fashion. So when I lay this out, the density of the bank of
> > VCOs along the top contrasts nicely with the filters and such below, and
> > along the bottom there are the "sparser" panels such as the LFOs, the Lag
> > Processors, and even the Router. It's a real nice look! MOTM doesn't have a
> > secondary module format like the old Moog 'utility' panels, but this does
> > something similar, visually, and gives [my system at least] some real subtle
> > character that I like a lot.
> >
> > I don't know if that makes any sense to any of you... sometimes I feel
> > almost embarrassed speaking up for the "look" of the layout over wedging
> > more functionality into it. But then I see the gorgeous cabinets that many
> > of you are slaving over and I'm confident that we must all love the
> > appearances of our machines, too---not just their sounds---so a few of you
> > at least might feel the same way about this subject.
> >
> > Just my $0.02.
> >
> > Mr. T
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/