Re: [motm] In appreciation of MOTM design quality
2001-12-10 by The Old Crow
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, mate_stubb wrote: > There are some who pooh-pooh the MOTM design philosophy as 'gold- > plating toothpicks', but apparently sometimes you DO get what you pay > for. I will never understand why essential design practices are glossed over in favor of economy, then said users of that economy lampoon those essentials even as the differences become apparent. Of course, I am somewhat of an odd bird in that I am a musician (piano since age 7, competition recitals and all that up through college, not to mention jazz trombone) who also happened to like electronics enough to obtain an EE degree. Thus as an engineer-musician I might have the right to speak from both sides--though, of course, what I find acceptable may not be what others fine acceptable, and in no way am I trying to cram my ideals down anyone else's throat--it is just my personal feeling on the matter. Now, I personally find MOTM's design practices *necessary* toward achieving an ideal design goal. Of course, compromises have to be made, but those compromises happen at the abstract level and never at the practical nut-and-bolts-here-are-the-electrons level. Hypothetical example: I would rather know that the circuit board and circuit are optimally designed for lowest noise and highest stability and lack an input mixer than know that a mixer can be thrown in at the expense of plated boards/good noise specs, panel ergonomics, etc. If this means it costs more, so be it. Personal peeve: "You don't need sealed pots". The hell you don't. I have cleaned/replaced _thousands_ of flaky panel pots and open trimmers over the past twenty years because the damned things weren't sealed. Guess what I use. :) I suppose what I'm saying is I like MOTM because out of the box it lines up with my personal sense of fitness better than anything else. Others' mileage of course may vary. Crow /**/