MOTM

http://www.synthtech.com/pix/m450_3u.jpg


The arrangement of the bands is not fixed. But, this *general* layout appeals to me. Note the
knobs are *slightly* closer together than the normal modules: 1.5"" center-to-center versus
1.625".

Well??!?

Paul S.

I think it looks great. Please explain the Hi Pass and Low pass functions. 
Are they related to the rows they're in vertically? If not should they be on 
the leftmost part of the panel so as not to have the bottom pots of this 
module be between jacks on surrounding modules? Just a thought. I'll but it 
for sure, maybe 2 depending on the price and end-up features. Finally a 3u 
panel!

Thomas White

PS. Any word on the micro VCO stocks, I still await my subscription module? 
Back in soon?


>From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
>To: "MOTM listserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [motm] MOTM-450 peek
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:46:47 -0500
>
>http://www.synthtech.com/pix/m450_3u.jpg
>
>
>The arrangement of the bands is not fixed. But, this *general* layout 
>appeals to me. Note the
>knobs are *slightly* closer together than the normal modules: 1.5"" 
>center-to-center versus
>1.625".
>
>Well??!?
>
>Paul S.
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Man, whoever that graphic artist is, give him a BIG RAISE!

;>)

Moe

This would fit in a 2U, wouldn't it?  Either way, too cool...

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> http://www.synthtech.com/pix/m450_3u.jpg
> 
> 
> The arrangement of the bands is not fixed. But, this *general* 
layout appeals to me. Note the
> knobs are *slightly* closer together than the normal modules: 1.5"" 
center-to-center versus

> 1.625".
> 
> Well??!?
> 
> Paul S.

Looks sweet.  The 3U layout is great.

Does this use active filters, or RLC networks like the Moog?
What are the band frequencies?
Would a feedback control be possible?
Kit price range?

George

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
To: MOTM listserv <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:46 AM
Subject: [motm] MOTM-450 peek


> http://www.synthtech.com/pix/m450_3u.jpg
>
>
> The arrangement of the bands is not fixed. But, this *general* layout
appeals to me. Note the
> knobs are *slightly* closer together than the normal modules: 1.5""
center-to-center versus

> 1.625".
>
> Well??!?
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

hello,

my only suggestions would be to change the layout of
the columns to:

hp 8  7
6  5  4
3  2  1
lp led

three columns 4 rows. 

or

hp 4
8  3
7  3
6  1
5  lp

same as the peek but different knob lay out.

also any chance of two inputs so we can do feedback
into itself (by way of another module perhaps?

Voltage control of the cut off of every filter would
be cool too, but this would make the panel far to big,
and way too expensive. Maybe there could be an
expander module for it? (the expander could have the
second input). 

I am also curious as to whether there is a VC mixer
anywhere on the agenda, or if there is one that is of
quality anywhere to be had?

Mark
(Still trying to get the money to start building
together)



--- Paul Schreiber <synth1@...> wrote:
> http://www.synthtech.com/pix/m450_3u.jpg
> 
> 
> The arrangement of the bands is not fixed. But, this
> *general* layout appeals to me. Note the
> knobs are *slightly* closer together than the normal
> modules: 1.5"" center-to-center versus
> 1.625".
> 
> Well??!?
> 
> Paul S.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

HA HA HA!

I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could 
agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've 
done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly 
like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run 
up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.

RE: LP and HP - Ken is correct. There are 8 peaking bands in the 
middle of the spectrum, tuned for maximum musical effect (I don't 
know the frequencies, perhaps JH can chime in here). The LP knob 
controls a different frequency passing everything BELOW the lowest 
peaking band, and HP passes everything ABOVE the highest peaking 
band. They are not tuned however to the exact same freq. as the 
nearest peaking band. Just like a multiband console EQ conceptually, 
not in terms of operation and filter type, but in terms of how the 
bands are laid out.

Note that this will NOT fit on a 2U panel. There are 10 knobs, 2 
jacks, a switch and an LED. Also, I hope people will not freak out 
about 5 pots in a row, or 1/8" less space between pots. It really is 
the best layout ergonomically IMO. We shouldn't be slaves to the 
format, but make it work for us in nonstandard situations. Also, I'd 
point out that the bottom knobs are not in fact 'getting down in the 
jacks'. If there is a module below, the only thing there will be more 
knobs!

Moe

I am not quite sure why the 1/8" is needed.  It looks like there should be
enough room; I am sure there is something I am not seeing though.

Personally prefer only 4 pots in a row, but I don't have the "perfect"
solution either.

The original take on this:

	http://moogarchives.com/m907.htm

Moog CE sells these new for US$1295.00.  Ouch!

--Shemp

> I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could
> agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've
> done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly
> like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run
> up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.

> Also, I hope people will not freak out
> about 5 pots in a row, or 1/8" less space between pots. It really is
> the best layout ergonomically IMO.

This is interesting too:

	http://moogarchives.com/m914.htm

--Shemp

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

From: "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@...>
> I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could
> agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've
> done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly
> like the Moog 907.

hmm, 4U..?
i like the sound of this :-)

> format, but make it work for us in nonstandard situations. Also, I'd
> point out that the bottom knobs are not in fact 'getting down in the
> jacks'. If there is a module below, the only thing there will be more
> knobs!

sorry, i meant the adjacent module on the right
maybe there's an alco knob one size smaller we could use..?
love the idea of an expander module by the way (i can see paul with his head
in his hands already)

cheers
paul b

Just my $0.02....

Keeping future modules within the current MOTM form factor is very important to me.  

I have purchased several of the available third-party modules (Blacet, Oakley, Stooge, etc.) specifically because MOTM-format panels were available for them.  I have not purchased a UEG, mainly because I think the non-MOTM panel is not as aesthetically pleasing when seen against the MOTM system as a whole....I'm sure it's a fine module, but I also don't own any Paia, Doepfer, etc. modules because they just wouldn't "fit right".

It seems to me that the current design for the 450 could fit in the 3U panel by moving two of the pots to the same column as the switch/LED without sacrificing the MOTM format...or am I wrong?

If this is not possible, I'd vote for a 4U panel that kept the MOTM format.

-Chris-


>>> "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@...> 04/12/02 09:05AM >>>
HA HA HA!

I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could 
agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've 
done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly 
like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run 
up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.

RE: LP and HP - Ken is correct. There are 8 peaking bands in the 
middle of the spectrum, tuned for maximum musical effect (I don't 
know the frequencies, perhaps JH can chime in here). The LP knob 
controls a different frequency passing everything BELOW the lowest 
peaking band, and HP passes everything ABOVE the highest peaking 
band. They are not tuned however to the exact same freq. as the 
nearest peaking band. Just like a multiband console EQ conceptually, 
not in terms of operation and filter type, but in terms of how the 
bands are laid out.

Note that this will NOT fit on a 2U panel. There are 10 knobs, 2 
jacks, a switch and an LED. Also, I hope people will not freak out 
about 5 pots in a row, or 1/8" less space between pots. It really is 
the best layout ergonomically IMO. We shouldn't be slaves to the 
format, but make it work for us in nonstandard situations. Also, I'd 
point out that the bottom knobs are not in fact 'getting down in the 
jacks'. If there is a module below, the only thing there will be more 
knobs!

Moe



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Yes - a 4U w/Moog layout would be awesome! <grin>

Looked back and found Paul's "quick update" price estimate of $199-$209 -
brain cells slipping...doh!  So, I wonder how much more this would be for
4U?

George

----- Original Message -----
From: mate_stubb <mate_stubb@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] MOTM-450 peek


> HA HA HA!
>
> I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could
> agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've
> done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly
> like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run
> up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.
>
<snip>

>>>>
Keeping future modules within the current MOTM form factor is very 
important to
me. 

<snip>

It seems to me that the current design for the 450 could fit in the 
3U panel by
moving two of the pots to the same column as the switch/LED without 
sacrificing
the MOTM format...or am I wrong?
<<<<

Chris, yes indeed it's possible and I have one design drawn up that 
way. You'll get a chance to vote on it.

Moe

At 12:46 AM -0500 04/12/02, Paul Schreiber wrote:
>http://www.synthtech.com/pix/m450_3u.jpg
>
>
>The arrangement of the bands is not fixed. But, this *general* layout
>>appeals to me. Note the knobs are *slightly* closer together than the
>>normal modules: 1.5"" center-to-center versus
>1.625".
>
>Well??!?

d00D!!

Lose the bypass switch and LED, and make it 2U.

Other than that it looks great :)

If you insist on wasting an entire panel unit (which would be one less 800
for many of us) just for a bypass feature, then at least include a bypass
jack.  Otherwise, I don't see what could be done with a bypass switch that
couldn't be done with patch cords and a typical monitoring setup.

If the 450 is 2U, anyone who buys two of them would save enough room for a
full-fledged MOTM-700.  You sell more modules.  They get a much better
system.  Everyone's happy :)

> Just my $0.02....
> 
My counter $0.02:
Audio and cv quality and options are *the* primary objectives over any
other consideration; with panel ergonomics second (enhances our
interfacing with the synthesizer - essential for concentration on 'noise' 
making), and 'looks' trailing a distant third.  Of course, cost constrains
all of these (from our viewpoints and from Paul's viewpoint - it is just
reality).

IMHO a synthesizer is to make noise, not be a 'sculpture' piece
(and one doesn't 'hear' the looks).  I would gladly trade a 'nice' look
for more audio/cv function.  This is one reason why I do have a UEG - it's
useful, functional aspects clearly outweigh it's semi-motm look.

Ergonomics not only involve spacings of knobs, jacks, readablity of pot
scales, ..., but also include spacings between modules on a 2-dimensional
surface (with some small angling in some systems). I would guess (but
maybe this is my own inability) that modules that are close are
connected more often than modules that are distant.  So given the behind
the panel layout constraints, I would think that a reasonably ergonomic
panel that is 3U would be preferable to a 4U panel that 'looks nicer.'  So
for the 450, a slightly narrower motm spacing of knobs to obtain a 3U vs.
a 4U is a good decision.  [Personal bias: There are some (maybe few) of us
that do have physical space constraints, which is why I think the
micro-modules are a motm plus].

Anyway, this is not targeted at Chris P. or anyone else; we all have our
preferences.  Mine just happens to be the noise making and I hope we keep
that up front.

Going for lunch, Jeff

media.nai@... wrote:
> 
> Lose the bypass switch and LED, and make it 2U.
> 
> I don't see what could be done with a bypass switch that
> couldn't be done with patch cords and a typical monitoring setup.
> 
I am in agreement here. If the intent is just to see how the sound is
modified by the bypass switch, this can easily be done with some
creative patching.

Also, what about having the panel graphic include the center frequency
for the filter, as they are not sweepable or parametric. Just a thought.

Scott

Bell/metallic patches are really fun to do on the MOTM.  There are 
many ways to get something interesting but here is a suggestion for a 
starting point:

  * Fire up a 300, use the SINE out. Put another audio SINE into FM1, 
EXP mode. I use the 420 with RES cranked up all the way for this but 
you could use any other oscillator.
  * Run the output of the 300 to a 440 (or other filter). Chop off 
highs to taste.  I use an 800 to shape the filter response: very fast 
attack, slower decay.
  * Run the output of the filter into a VCA, again shaped by an 800 
with fast attack and slow decay.

Now you can:

  * Play with the frequency of the modulating oscillator for fun and 
profit. Add an envelope to shape the response.
  * Play with the filter settings.
  * Play with the 800 settings.
  * Modulate another 300 with the output of the 1st 300 (!)
  * etc.

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Alan Wagner" <Aardvark-mi@a...> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was checking out some of the new demos today. The 310 Demos have 
some
> really nice FM Bells. Me still being a newbie have come up with all 
sorts of
> sounds with my MOTM but have yet to do bells. Would anyone care to 
jump in

> and share their favorite FM Bell Patch?
> 
> Tx
> Al

>>>>
d00D!!

Lose the bypass switch and LED, and make it 2U.

Other than that it looks great :)
<<<<

dOOD! Once again: 10 pots and 2 jacks WILL NOT FIT into 2U!

Moe

I assumed the LED was clip indicator, but I gather from other posts 
that it is really an ON indicator.  We have the space, how about a 
clip LED as well?

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> http://www.synthtech.com/pix/m450_3u.jpg
> 
> 
> The arrangement of the bands is not fixed. But, this *general* 
layout appeals to me. Note the
> knobs are *slightly* closer together than the normal modules: 1.5"" 
center-to-center versus

> 1.625".
> 
> Well??!?
> 
> Paul S.

>>>>
Also, what about having the panel graphic include the center frequency
for the filter, as they are not sweepable or parametric. Just a 
thought.
<<<<

I'm down with that. If I could find out the center frequencies, I'd 
mock it up.

Moe

The layout looks great! I am pysched to have an MOTM quality EQ. As far
as the controls I am not sure if the board layout determined the
positioning or not. If the low shelf control is the 'lowest' band then
the bands should count up then descend with the high shelf control being
at the bottom right of the low shelf control.

Also, the 'bypass on' seems counter intuitive to me. I know the 820
works like this so there is some precedent for standardization, but I
would rather see 'EQ IN' or 'Engage' with the LED lit when the unit is
on like most equipment in ones studio. Charles.

mate_stubb wrote:

>  HA HA HA!
>
> I knew when Paul and I laid this one out that no two people could
> agree on the layout. You should see some of the other designs I've
> done already. My personal favorite is the 4U version laid out exactly
> like the Moog 907. I'll do another couple of versions tonight to run
> up the flagpole. Then we can have a vote.
>
> RE: LP and HP - Ken is correct. There are 8 peaking bands in the
> middle of the spectrum, tuned for maximum musical effect (I don't
> know the frequencies, perhaps JH can chime in here). The LP knob
> controls a different frequency passing everything BELOW the lowest
> peaking band, and HP passes everything ABOVE the highest peaking
> band. They are not tuned however to the exact same freq. as the
> nearest peaking band. Just like a multiband console EQ conceptually,
> not in terms of operation and filter type, but in terms of how the
> bands are laid out.
>
> Note that this will NOT fit on a 2U panel. There are 10 knobs, 2
> jacks, a switch and an LED. Also, I hope people will not freak out
> about 5 pots in a row, or 1/8" less space between pots. It really is
> the best layout ergonomically IMO. We shouldn't be slaves to the
> format, but make it work for us in nonstandard situations. Also, I'd
> point out that the bottom knobs are not in fact 'getting down in the
> jacks'. If there is a module below, the only thing there will be more
> knobs!
>
> Moe
>
>
>                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        ADVERTISEMENT


>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I haven't read all the e-mails following this yet, but I've just got to comment
now...

>    From: "CHRIS PARKER" <cparker@...>
> Subject: Re: MOTM-450 peek
>
> Keeping future modules within the current MOTM form factor is very important
> to me.
>
> I have not purchased a UEG, mainly because I think the non-MOTM
> panel is not as aesthetically pleasing when seen against the MOTM system as a
> whole....

I have a UEG, and it looks just fine in the rack next to the MOTM gear.  It's a
very very cool module, and worth every penny.  If this is all that's stopping
you from buying one, then you really need to give it another shot.  Why don't
you download the user's manual from the Encore site to see what it can do
before making your final decision to leave this one out of your rack.

Graham

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

At 6:03 PM +0000 04/12/02, mate_stubb wrote:
>
>>Lose the bypass switch and LED, and make it 2U.
>
>dOOD! Once again: 10 pots and 2 jacks WILL NOT FIT into 2U!

Are you 100% sure??  Even with a shoehorn and a bucket of grease, you can't
get them in there??  Wasting an entire panel unit just to add a useless
bypass feature would be a real shame.  I'd go back and try again.  Maybe
you have to slant the knobs a bit.

If it's going to be 3U, the knobs might as well go in their regular places.

As far as the electrical design is concerned, if you are keeping the bypass
switch, a 9th knob for MAKE-UP GAIN should then be added as well.
Otherwise, there is no point in having a bypass switch because making
comparisons without matching the levels is impossible!!  Look at any EQ
with a bypass switch.  If it's going to have a bypass feature, it needs a
pot for make-up gain.  Having one without the other looks retarded.

I realize that motm is not intended as meat and potatoes gear.  Yet,
equalizers with a unique sound often become desirable, even legendary,
pieces of recording equipment.  I've never seen a Moog used that way, but
that doesn't mean it's never been done.  Perhaps the Moog was too noisy.
Thirty years ago, most solid state did not sound good.  Considering what it
takes to rackmount many popular board modules, mounting two synth modules
sideways and finding a +/-15 supply is nothing.

A more synthy feature would be a wet/dry knob.  An inverted output jack, or
an inverting switch before the wet/dry mix, could be added as well.  With
3U there would be room.

If it's going to be 3U it should have 3U worth of stuff.

> If it has a bypass switch then it needs a gain control.
>
> If it doesn't have a bypass switch then it doesn't need a gain control.
>
> It's ridiculous to have one without the other.  No one does that.

No one ?
Hmm, I did exactly that, it works great, and as my prototype is the only
unit in existence, I could even conclude that it works to 100% ! (;->)

Ok, this was spoken tongue-in-cheek, please don't take it seriously.
(And I always run my final mix thru a compressor.)

Now, more seriously: I see all your points, and I see reasons for all
three versions:
Switch and Gain control - most comfort, most panel space, most expensive.
None of these - cheaper, less panel space
Switch only - good if you want to remove it quickly from the signal chain,
                      without taking care of level matching. (For instance,
because
                      you have a lot of other gain pots in the signal
chain.)

And there are two more options:
Gain control and no switch - that's one I cannot find any use for (but
someone
                                              else surely will)
Gain control which adjusts itself with a motor pot, according to some
criteria
             like peak level or RMS level - now *that* would be the ultimate
             solution, wouldn't it ? (;>)

JH.

Just to clarify - you're not quoting me here, although I agree that 
the ideal would be a gain pot and a bypass switch (or neither!).

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "jhaible" <jhaible@d...> wrote:
> > If it has a bypass switch then it needs a gain control.
> >
> > If it doesn't have a bypass switch then it doesn't need a gain 
control.
> >
> > It's ridiculous to have one without the other.  No one does that.
> 
> No one ?
> Hmm, I did exactly that, it works great, and as my prototype is the 
only
> unit in existence, I could even conclude that it works to 100% ! (;-
>)
> 
> Ok, this was spoken tongue-in-cheek, please don't take it seriously.
> (And I always run my final mix thru a compressor.)
> 
> Now, more seriously: I see all your points, and I see reasons for 
all
> three versions:
> Switch and Gain control - most comfort, most panel space, most 
expensive.
> None of these - cheaper, less panel space
> Switch only - good if you want to remove it quickly from the signal 
chain,
>                       without taking care of level matching. (For 
instance,
> because
>                       you have a lot of other gain pots in the 
signal
> chain.)
> 
> And there are two more options:
> Gain control and no switch - that's one I cannot find any use for 
(but
> someone
>                                               else surely will)
> Gain control which adjusts itself with a motor pot, according to 
some
> criteria
>              like peak level or RMS level - now *that* would be the 
ultimate

>              solution, wouldn't it ? (;>)
> 
> JH.

At 9:42 PM +0200 04/17/02, jhaible wrote:
>
>Now, more seriously: I see all your points, and I see reasons for all
>three versions:

Oh, that's good.  There was snow last week, and it was 96ºF yesterday, so
it's hard to tell if I'm making any sense ;)

>Switch and Gain control - most comfort, most panel space, most expensive.
>None of these - cheaper, less panel space
>Switch only - good if you want to remove it quickly from the signal chain,
>without taking care of level matching. (For instance, because
>you have a lot of other gain pots in the signal chain.)

According to Moe, it will take 3U even if the bypass feature is omitted
entirely.  So I'm thinking, if it's going to take up 3U, it might as well
have 3U worth of stuff.  How much would adding a gain pot increase the
cost??

And now for the really good question:

Why does a bypass switch, that doesn't have a pedal input or any kind of
external control, need an LED??  Is that for people with some kind of weird
eye disease who can only see LED's but can't read switches?? :)

>Gain control which adjusts itself with a motor pot, according to some
>criteria like peak level or RMS level - now *that* would be the ultimate
>solution, wouldn't it ? (;>)

Oh, I'm sure that will fit behind the Mark Technology MARK-450 ;)