MOTM

Hello everyone,

This is my first post since lurking for about a week.  I am awaiting 
my first MOTM order.  But I'm not a newbie.  I was building custom 
modular synthesizers over 20 years ago.  From scratch.  Mostly 
Electronotes based, but with some reverse-engineered Serge influence.

I faced the panel design issue, too, but I had the luxury of having 
my own requirments and not those of a general customer base. I won't 
go into detail on my panel designs.  However, I would like to say 
that the MOTM panel design constraints (grid format, patch bay below 
knobs, uniform knob size, etc.) result in a uniformity that I find 
aesthetically quite pleasing.  I experience the modular synthesizer 
as a field of possibility, open to realization in often unexpected 
ways.  I like the indeterminate starting point, before any patch 
cords are plugged.  (Have you noticed that most photos of 
synthesizers are sans patch cords, which make it look cluttered and 
chaotic?)  It must have been this predilection of mine that led me to 
make my own modules quite minimal.  For example my noise generator 
had three output jacks (white, pink, random).  Then I would use 
separate S&H modules and patch the noise inputs there if desired.  
This results in great flexibility, but also requires more patch cords.

I came to appreciate the combination of frequently used 
functionality, such as patching the noise by default as input to a 
S&H.  (The 101 module is a great example of this design principle, by 
the way.  Can't wait to get my hands on it.)  Also, the 410 Triple 
Resonant Filter contains two embedded LFOs.  I think the MOTM 
designers have done an excellent job of packing functionality into 
these modules, while not sacrificing flexibility.  Some may 
disagree.  I was wondering what you all might have to say regarding 
this aspect of module design, which is certainly as important -- if 
not more so -- than the issue of knob sizes and panel placement.

Panel real estate has always seemed precious to me.  I want to pack 
as much function to the square inch as I can.  I think MOTM is quite 
good in this respect.  But the 802 Lag Processor, (and the 320 LFO is 
similar in this regard) seems to use a lot of panel space (2U) for 
the function.  I do understand that this has to do with the 
circuitry, and with wanting all those IO jacks.  But, as the 390 
micro-LFO offers compromised features to gain more functional 
density, might we not want a similar micro-Lag Processor that is 1U 
in width?  You catch my drift.

I look forward to your comments.

Richard Brewster

Nicely considered and articulated.  I particularly like (and agree 
with) the comment regarding "uniformity" and "possibility".  I see 
the ocean of knobs and jacks and I just drool!

OK, so the drooling part is old age, but you get my drift.

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "pugix" <pugix@n...> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> This is my first post since lurking for about a week.  I am 
awaiting 
> my first MOTM order.  But I'm not a newbie.  I was building custom 
> modular synthesizers over 20 years ago.  From scratch.  Mostly 
> Electronotes based, but with some reverse-engineered Serge 
influence.
> 
> I faced the panel design issue, too, but I had the luxury of 
having 
> my own requirments and not those of a general customer base. I 
won't 
> go into detail on my panel designs.  However, I would like to say 
> that the MOTM panel design constraints (grid format, patch bay 
below 
> knobs, uniform knob size, etc.) result in a uniformity that I find 
> aesthetically quite pleasing.  I experience the modular 
synthesizer 
> as a field of possibility, open to realization in often unexpected 
> ways.  I like the indeterminate starting point, before any patch 
> cords are plugged.  (Have you noticed that most photos of 
> synthesizers are sans patch cords, which make it look cluttered 
and 
> chaotic?)  It must have been this predilection of mine that led me 
to 
> make my own modules quite minimal.  For example my noise generator 
> had three output jacks (white, pink, random).  Then I would use 
> separate S&H modules and patch the noise inputs there if desired.  
> This results in great flexibility, but also requires more patch 
cords.
> 
> I came to appreciate the combination of frequently used 
> functionality, such as patching the noise by default as input to a 
> S&H.  (The 101 module is a great example of this design principle, 
by 
> the way.  Can't wait to get my hands on it.)  Also, the 410 Triple 
> Resonant Filter contains two embedded LFOs.  I think the MOTM 
> designers have done an excellent job of packing functionality into 
> these modules, while not sacrificing flexibility.  Some may 
> disagree.  I was wondering what you all might have to say 
regarding 
> this aspect of module design, which is certainly as important -- 
if 
> not more so -- than the issue of knob sizes and panel placement.
> 
> Panel real estate has always seemed precious to me.  I want to 
pack 
> as much function to the square inch as I can.  I think MOTM is 
quite 
> good in this respect.  But the 802 Lag Processor, (and the 320 LFO 
is 
> similar in this regard) seems to use a lot of panel space (2U) for 
> the function.  I do understand that this has to do with the 
> circuitry, and with wanting all those IO jacks.  But, as the 390 
> micro-LFO offers compromised features to gain more functional 
> density, might we not want a similar micro-Lag Processor that is 
1U 

> in width?  You catch my drift.
> 
> I look forward to your comments.
> 
> Richard Brewster