MOTM

I agree with the sentiments that the new module should not look too foreign
alongside the MOTM modules, but I think the difference will be a lot smaller
than people may be thinking.

Dave, would it be much work to whip up a graphic showing the FFB sandwiched
in between two other MOTM modules?

The difference in spacing is guaranteed to be MUCH more evident in a flat,
head-on JPEG graphic than it would in "real-life," where perspective and
wads of patchcords will hide any differences. But it may be worth looking at
a mockup just to allay fears.

Also, regarding the UEG (as an example of a module that really deviated), it
doesn't really look particularly foreign in an MOTM system. Yes, it deviates
from the grid, but it still uses the same ALCO knob style, etc.

There's an old axiom in visual design that if you make a mistake, just do it
two more times and it will look intentional. Same goes for the UEG---if you
think one sticks out like a sore thumb in your system, buy five more and
they will just look like "variation 2" modules.

(I think the addition of the big painted "Encore" logo on the forthcoming
Pitch Shifter will detract much, much more than the knob size and spacing of
the UEG does, personally, and may be tempted to paint over it....)

This notion is also what I was getting at when I said maybe more modules
should use the tighter grid; for instance, if SuperMoe (another
knob-intensive module) used the tighter spacing, then SuperMoe alongside the
'450 would "justify" the variation-2-grid, visually. As modules with loads
of knobs come out, a solution needs to be found for this kind of
thing...might as well do it now.

I fully understand the unease about the deviation, I really, really do. I'm
not in any way balking at people's fears about the change. It's an important
decision. I just think it would be a mistake to go to a 4u panel for this,
or to stick the HP/LP knobs out of frequency sequence over on the left, and
my feeling is that no one will even notice the small difference when the
module is complete and "3D."

The funny thing is, right now, there are MANY small deviations in the MOTM
panel layouts, little "cheats" that I imagine Paul had to make for
this-or-that module. Many of them are right in the first handful of modules
to be released! I never noticed them until I started scrutinizing my modules
and taking measurements to do my DIY stuff, and suddenly I looked at my
notes and said, "Hey... WAIIIIIT a minute...!" The paint finish varies in
texture slightly, the number and density of 'tick-marks' have changed,
numerals have been dropped to cheat room for jacks, some jacks are labeled
above and some below... one is even labeled off to the right! And more
subtle things, too.

Not many people at all seem to have noticed them up until now (I probably
shouldn't even have started people squinting), and it's normal for there to
be variations in a product line over time. It may very well be that if the
'450 was released without mentioning the graphic design grid adjustment,
only one or two people would have even noticed!

But, in the words of Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion; I could be
wrong.


Mr. T

> The funny thing is, right now, there are MANY small deviations in the MOTM
> panel layouts ...

The other funny thing--well, I think it's funny, anyway--is that not long
ago people were talking about grinding the paint off the edges of their
panels or putting white stripes on them to differentiate them visually.
Laying out the knobs differently would create visual differentiation, no?

--Adam
(whose happiness in the process of building a MOTM system far exceeds his
concern about the appearance of any one module)