MOTM

Well, the flat rails are here, and now it's time for many of us to start
building homes for our module collections. For myself, I find that I'm not
completely in love with my case ideas of three years ago. At the time, my
studio layout was different, as was my lifestyle. I was designing them with
the idea of gigging once in a blue moon, and of owning a small number of
modules and slowly adding to it. But now I have kids so I'm "studio-only,"
and it's taken me so long to get around to the cabinetry that I now have a
boat-load of modules that could fill up a large case right away.

Since the list is relatively quiet today, and since everyone here is full of
great ideas and observations, I figured I'd post my internal mullings and
see what, if any, comments come back. I imagine many of us are going through
(or HAVE gone through) the same questions, and most of these points below
have been voiced here at one time or another in the past few years. I would
especially love to hear/see-examples-of designs and experiences (especially
with shallow cases tipping over, etc.). Feel free to tell me that I'm
flat-out wrong if I am laboring under some awful misconceptions, below.

No matter which console options are chosen, the idea of future expansion
(probably 'upward') must be taken into account.

Thanks in advance for all creative input!




**Portable versus Console**
[In other words (and in Moog terms), something vaguely like a Moog IIIp
system  (www.isaotomita.net/tomita/images/fant13.jpg
<http://www.isaotomita.net/tomita/images/fant13.jpg> ) compared to something
vaguely like a System 55 (www.wendycarlos.com/photos/bsst2.jpg
<http://www.wendycarlos.com/photos/bsst2.jpg> ).]

*Portability*-Obviously, a series of smaller cabinets is easier to move and
fit into a VW Beetle than a huge console. Also, modules could be placed in
these cabinets in such a way that a single cabinet may contain a complete,
simple synthesizer voice (3 VCOs, VCF, VCA, 2 EGs, etc.), and for many
occasions, be all one needs to bring to a gig. *Winner: Portable*

*Expansion*-Either can be expanded, but with a series of smaller cases,
there would be fewer empty spaces to fill up with blanks during long-term
growth, and cabinets could be added incrementally as needed. With a console
style, tiers could of course be added, but they tend to be bigger 'jumps' in
size. *Winner: Portable*

*Stability*-because the depth of MOTM modules is modest, it doesn't make
sense to house them in a really deep cabinet or console. Eight inches
depth-overall should be plenty. But a tall, narrow case with a shallow depth
might tip over easily, whereas the size and weight of a single larger
console ought to make it sturdier. *Winner: Console*

*Ease of Construction*-it's easier to build one big console than three
smaller ones, plus there starts to be a lot of "wood" in there. That makes
having many cabinets, compared to one big one, heavier, more expensive, and
harder to build. Also, for those with less-than-perfect woodworking skills,
it's easier to get one console built properly than to make a series of
cabinets that should look exactly the same. *Winner: Console*

*Rigidit*y-On the other hand, a case with three or four rows of modules only
12u wide probably won't flex as much during patching, whereas a large
expanse of modules in a console may need extra internal bracing. *Winner:
Portable*

*Power*-It's easier to put one big power supply in a console than lots of
smaller ones in portable cabinets. You could rig a power-sharing system to
expansion cabinets, but that seems like an extra pain. *Winner: Console*

*Flexibility*-I tend to rearrange my studio a lot to shoe-horn in new stuff,
so a series of smaller cabinets offers more options than one mammoth console
with a few expansion tiers on it, which must always stay just as originally
envisioned. *Winner: Portable*

*Indefensible Rationalizations*-A huge console looks cool and serious, like
a pipe organ or a starship cockpit. But so does a wall of stacked IIIp
cabinets. The portable cabinets are sort of modular, so there's a
recursiveness to the whole thing. *Winner: None*



**Angled versus Flat**
[In other words, angling some or all tiers of the module faces about 70
degrees from the table surface. The two Moog systems, above, have examples
of these options (IIIp being flat and System 55 being a mix of flat and
angled), but there's no reason the bottom tier or two of portable cabinets
couldn't be angled. In fact, someone here recently posted a photo of a
3-tiered, bottom-row-angled Tolex-covered portable case that looks EXACTLY
like what I was thinking that I would do a year ago, sans the Tolex, so we
know that this works and looks good.]

*Stability*-Angling the case should add stability to the system by widening
the lower part and dropping the center of gravity. *Winner: Angled*

*Space*-Angled cases take up more desk space, but they also allow one to
make cabinets that have some extra room inside for power supplies, reverb
tanks, etc. and still keep the average depth minimal. On the other hand, in
the 'case' (ugh!) of the Moog IIIp styling, angling limits your ability to
arc the cabinets around you seamlessly. *Winner: Tie?*

*Ease of Construction*-Not having to deal with angles makes for easier
woodworking, especially trying to fashion multiple cabinets that all
[should] look exactly the same. Staying flat, one could probably find wood
of the proper width and just cross-cut them to length. *Winner: Flat*

*Ergonomics*-Cabinets and consoles with one or more angled tiers give the
appearance of being more ergonomic, but usually aren't, particularly, in
practice. You would have to design the angles around the idea that the
operator is in one fixed position for long periods of time, that the system
will always be at a particular table height, and so on, which for me at
least isn't realistic. *Winner: Flat (or no issue)*

*Appearance*-Sure, angled panels LOOK ergonomic, so they look serious. Who
hasn't looked at the TONTO setup and thought, "Ooh, cool...!" *Winner:
Angled*



**Wood versus Tolex**
[Tolex meaning any durable fabric covering, but for the most part this
refers to giving the cabinets a guitar-amp look.]

*Durability*-both can be damaged, but Tolex is more durable. Using a
covering also means that the wood could be press-board (particle board)
which is heavier and tends to warp less than 'real' wood. *Winner: Tolex*

*Appearance*-I doubt you would Tolex a big console (this is more for the
'portable cabinets' system) but you could use fine wood on either design.
Wood has class, warmth, depth... Tolex says "musical instrument" ... both
have merit, but I think a fine wood wins this one, based on personal
preference. *Winner: wood*

*Cost*-Tolex isn't cheap, but neither is fine wood. If covering the cabinet,
even press-board could be used, which is heavier and yet cheaper than wood.
Still, I think Tolex would come out as the more expensive alternative.
*Winner: wood*

*Ease of Construction*-I find working with fabric in all forms to be a
nightmare, personally, whereas working with sandpaper and stain is no big
deal. *Winner: wood*



**Back or No Back**

*Cost*-you could use cheap material for the back, even 1/8" thick so this is
negligible. *Winner: n/a*

*Performance*-Not having a back is great ventilation, but the MOTM doesn't
need a lot. Also, one could use pre-drilled peg board similar to old console
TVs, and that should offer plenty. *Winner: n/a*

*Ease of Construction*-Naturally it's more difficult to make backs than to
NOT make them, but it's hardly a big deal. *Winner: No Back*

*Protection*-Naturally, having a cover is more protective of the circuitry
than NOT having one. Keeps the cat out. Wont help if the cabinet topples
backward of the table. A screwed-in back also adds support to keep a
rectangular case from going trapezoidal, although the modules themselves do
a pretty good job of that too. *Winner: Back*

>>>
**Portable versus Console**
<<< 

Ken, I have an entire web page devoted to this very subject, complete 
with pictures (it's the page I posted YOUR cab designs on!) Are you 
sure you never looked there?

http://www.users.qwest.net/~daveb2/cab.htm

Moe

All of these issues are on my mind right now. My first design discussions 
with my sister were this past week-end. So, since it is fun for me to talk 
about this Im posting my thinking on the issues you presented. 

**Portable versus Console**

will you gig? will you not gig? will you gig once in bluemoon? I think this 
the most significant issue on which all others rely. 

This needs to be coupled with the question of what does the word "stage" mean?
Is it a raised platform, either in a theater like environment or something 
temporary in a hall of some sort? Or is it simply "where the band plays."

My whole conception of my case is based on the idea that I will use this on 
number of gigs and that for me the word stage is far more likely to be "the 
place where the band plays." 

therefor *Portability* is essential

BUT in terms of expansion, it seems somewhat rediculous to go out with a very 
large number of modules. As it stands, my case will house all the modules I 
own (or will own upon delivery and completion of my 410 and 120), but then it 
will be filled. It isnt out of the question that I will have more modules 
than can fit in my case by the time the case is finished (seiously, how long 
can I go using the Pro-2000 for my portamento...i mean I can have variable up 
and down lag time??? VC lag appears much more fun). But expansion for a live 
unit does not seem realistic. I will continue to add to my system, but those 
modules will be in a larger more sedintary case. I will first be expanding 
into a pop-up mixer case.

I think live one can easily have too many modules. Unless you have so many as 
to be able to prepatch a few sounds (see Keith's moog and his preset Tarkus 
patches)

Unless of course you are doing gigs in a tangerine dream style of music 
(which I think is very cool music, but I dont really play it) in which case 
you probably have tons of gear to begin with and are used to this sort of 
thing (or at least deal with it).

*Stability* see my definition of the word stage. that is the main force 
behind my keeping the cabinet 6 inches deep.

*Ease of Construction* granted I had a bit of apprehension before I soldered 
my modules together, I did not know I would both enjoy DIYing and have 
acceptable skill to do it. I have tried using a saw before......Im a piano 
player! Keep that thing away from me!

Seriously, I lucked out on this one. My sister is building my cabinet. She 
worked for two years for a specialty furniture store in Burlington Vermont, 
is a scupltress (with degrees and everythang), and is starting a job a 
middlebury college as an assistant to the art and theater department...she 
has skills for both construction and the kind of problem solving needed for 
cabinet building. And perhaps we can put the art students at middlebury to 
work for us.

("You soldered it all yourself?....wow.....Robby, you were never ever a 
craft-y person")

ed. note: It is doubtful I could have assembled these things as well as i did 
if it wasn't for Paul's excellent writing skills. Do you think Roland would 
fly (and pay him a large sum of $) Paul to Japan so he can give their 
technical writers a seminar?

"Rigidity"--See ease of construction

"power" definately a pain in the butt. Power on the back? 10" deep. Power 
sharing between the cabinets....not really looking forward to that (must be 
done for next order of modules, I will have 11 powered modules when i get my 
newest order). I think the next cabinet will be both larger and have its own 
power supply. I gave up on "power on the back" partly because I realized that 
limitations (as in fewer modules) can lead to inspiration. 

*flexibility*  half my stuff stays set up in my studio and half of it gets 
packed up every thursday around 5:30pm, taken to gigs, and set back up 
saturday or sunday (or monday)...depending on gigs. Some stays in cases and 
only gets taken out for gigs (I have two set ups for my piano sounds) I 
wouldnt mind a large piece that stayed in one place next to my OB-8, but I 
also need to be able to move some of it around. 

*Indefensible Rationalizations*  modular always looks cool no matter what the 
size  :)

**Angled versus Flat**  tuff one. Im doing my current cabinet flat. If it was 
3 rows tall instead of 2, i would definately do it angled. My favorite 
looking MOTM 3 rows or smaller is the Eldhart one on David Bradley's page. 
The Synth of Doom is my favorite looking modular synth....reminds me of that 
big polyfusion that Toto had (or has) and of Keith Emerson's moog. 

call me crazy if you want, I like the way MOTM looks more than Moog 
(actually, my guess is most of you guys do too). In fact I like the way MOTM 
looks more than any of the other ones...except maybe a 2600 and Ill always 
have a special place in my heart for an 8 voice oberheim (cough cough...SEM 
filter?)  

I would love to have an angled, 4 tier, wood cabinet. Not unlike the synth of 
doom, but that puppy aint going nowhere. Although I would certainly belive it 
if David Bradley posted that he has taken it out for performances. 

Im doing it tolex as I am doing a small gig oriented cabinet. If it was not 
going to be visting the bars and lounges of Hoboken and Manhattan with me, I 
would make it wood.

**Back or No Back** Must have a back live. This is one of the reasons why I 
will not be happy with a pop-up mixer case. Live, my motm may be on the floor 
or may be on a chair. I am likely to put the filters on the top row and leave 
the CV and the gate lines plugged into VCOs and EGs. Refer to my definition 
of "stage." I dont trust patrons or audience or myself. Someone posted a few 
weeks back that their MOTM survived at least one beer attack. Thats a chance 
I'ld rather not take.

Heres one you missed:

Removable front cover? becomming more important to me. In transit it is 
likely to be a good idea. I havnt sprung this issue on my case builder 
yet.....but I could do something simple like a just a piece of wood with foam 
on the inside. 

anyway...there have been moments over the last couple of weeks for me where I 
wished Paul gave us cabinet options, but it is kinda fun working the cabinet 
thing out myself (with the help I have). And Paul is way too busy to worry 
about cabinets (SEM filter?). I had targetted this past sunday as my live 
debut of my MOTM, but that did not happen. I spend far more time performing 
in front of an audience than I do in a studio and I am dying to take my MOTM 
out. 

It was only a few years ago that I was doing gigs with a Roland u-220 and a 
DX7. People would come to see us play and ask other guys in the band how I 
could peform with toys. It didnt bother me much because I could play circles 
around most of those guys. Now live with a Kurzweil Sp76 (or fatar studio 
900--88 weighted keys--and kurzwiel micropiano, depending on gig), Roland 
xp30 (its a ROMpler, but lighter than a rhodes and not half bad at immitating 
one), Waldorf Q rack, and eventually my MOTM makes me very very happy. And 
gives me better equipment than most have. Certainly in Hoboken NJ. I cant 
even bring my self to even turn my SH-101 on anymore now that I have MOTM, 
let alone bring to a gig (cant sell it for more modules, I am the original 
owner and it was the first keybaord I had that was not a hand-me-down from my 
Dad).

Now if I could only figure out a way to fit the OB-8 on stage  (cough 
cough...SEM filter? old oberheims are my favorite synths after 
MOTM)..............

Rob