Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:35 UTC

Thread

Final word on cables

Final word on cables

2003-04-08 by J. Larry Hendry

Since everyone may be sick of all my post on cables, I promise this is the
last one for a while.

Some facts to ponder:
1890 cables were ordered.
280 different combinations of color/shrink/length

Smallest order = 4 cables
Largest order = 128 cables
Average order = 39 cables
Number of countries = 6

Total number of mistakes by Rapco = 0
Total errors by me = 5 cables
- 1 was filled out of my own personal order
- 4 blue / black instead of black / blue - free to customer

Total estimated and collected for shipping $690
Actual cost of shipping including postage, boxes & packing tape = $680.63
2 customers got free shipping:
- Russell Brower for being 1st to order
- John Parks for being the guy to push us over 1000

Discount negotiated for over 1000 cables = $907
1/2 of that returned to customers as instant rebate
1/2 went to offset Paul's cost of logo printing

Larry's profit =  enough to make this well worth my trouble.

Next planned cable order late June 2002 for delivery in July.
Stooge Larry

Cables make it out west

2003-04-08 by strohs56k

My cable order arrived today.  (This is my first time ordering 
anything from Stooge Industries :)

After a quick count, I thought I was short by a single 1' purple/white 
cable (which wouldn't be too bad out of 104 cables total) but, 
actually, the one "missing" cable turned out to be hiding in some of 
the packing material.  So, 100% correct after all.


As to the look - the translucent yellow is actually more of a 
yellow/gold - not a really vibrant yellow color.  (I think Larry might 
have mentioned this already.)  The blue and purple are a little bit 
dark.  The cables look great regardless.

Also, the cable seems plenty flexible which is something I was a bit 
concerned about.



If anyone had any doubt, Larry rocks :)  Eagerly awaiting a chance to 
order panels...

Seth

Re: Cables make it out west

2003-04-08 by elle_webb

> If anyone had any doubt, Larry rocks :)  Eagerly awaiting a chance to 
> order panels...
> 
> Seth

You'll find that the panels are excellent quality, too.

Nothing beats a MOTM kit, though!

Consider the drilling service on panels. Drilling dozens of holes cleanly through steel takes time, patience and lots of high-end drill bits. (Or you can look at it like I did. It's a chance to get a cool new drill press!)

Re: [motm] Re: Cables make it out west

2003-04-09 by J. Larry Hendry

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: elle_webb <elle_webb@...>
Nothing beats a MOTM kit, though!

LH:   AMEN

Consider the drilling service on panels. Drilling dozens of holes cleanly
through steel takes.... <snip>

LH:  Just to clarify, Stooge panels are aluminum like MOTM panels.

vias question

2003-04-09 by media.nai@rcn.com

I have a feeling this has been asked before, and might have even been
the one to answer it, but I forget now...

If a kit doesn't say anything about the vias, I know we are supposed
to fill them in anyway, but what if you don't remember until the
board is populated with unwashable parts??  Should I use "no clean"
to fill the vias??

Also, what's the deal with those silver 100pF axial caps -- why can't
they be washed??  I figured if they weren't sealed they would oxidize.


Yes, it's like Christmas in April considering the ground is covered in snow.

So I bought a Hakko 493 solder fumes gizmo.  It seem to work very
well.  I strongly recommend one for anyone who solders with the
windows closed.

RE: [motm] vias question

2003-04-09 by Chris Walcott

Use the no clean solder.  Not all the user guides explicitly tell you to fill in the via holes but it's proper procedure to do it.  I've actually gone back to a few modules I finished to fill them in which meant taking it apart to get at the back of the board.

 

I don't know the answer to the 100pF caps.  I'm confident that Paul has a good reason to not wash them.

 

- chris
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: media.nai@... [mailto:media.nai@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 3:12 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] vias question

 


I have a feeling this has been asked before, and might have even been
the one to answer it, but I forget now...

If a kit doesn't say anything about the vias, I know we are supposed
to fill them in anyway, but what if you don't remember until the
board is populated with unwashable parts??  Should I use "no clean"
to fill the vias??

Also, what's the deal with those silver 100pF axial caps -- why can't
they be washed??  I figured if they weren't sealed they would oxidize.


Yes, it's like Christmas in April considering the ground is covered in snow.

So I bought a Hakko 493 solder fumes gizmo.  It seem to work very
well.  I strongly recommend one for anyone who solders with the
windows closed.








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT
 <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1705032277:HM/A=1529139/R=2/id=noscript/*http:/www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300_mapG/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl> 

  <http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/expert_city/093002_weather300x250_map.gif> 


  <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1529139/rand=411967816> 


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Service.

Re: vias question

2003-04-09 by paulhaneberg

I solder all the vias holes with organic, but I do it before the 
final wash.  The organic seems to flow better.  I am very careful to 
not solder the remaining holes which are to get wires etc.

Yeah, I know I'm not following the directions.

As far as the caps, I think its because the leads are very thin and 
fragile and might break off when scrubbing.

RE: [motm] Re: vias question

2003-04-09 by Chris Walcott

no, you are doing it right.  We're supposed to fill in the via holes before the final wash.  What I was referring to was what you do if you are passed that point.  You never want to use the organic if you can't wash it.

 

- chris
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: paulhaneberg [mailto:phaneber@...] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 3:32 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] Re: vias question

 

I solder all the vias holes with organic, but I do it before the 
final wash.  The organic seems to flow better.  I am very careful to 
not solder the remaining holes which are to get wires etc.

Yeah, I know I'm not following the directions.

As far as the caps, I think its because the leads are very thin and 
fragile and might break off when scrubbing.

[motm] Re: vias question

2003-04-10 by media.nai@rcn.com

>Use the no clean solder.  Not all the user guides explicitly tell 
>you to fill in the via holes but it's proper procedure to do it. 
>I've actually gone back to a few modules I finished to fill them in 
>which meant taking it apart to get at the back of the board.

OK :)  I didn't know if "no clean" was safe.

>I don't know the answer to the 100pF caps.  I'm confident that Paul 
>has a good reason to not wash them.

I wonder what that is...

>As far as the caps, I think its because the leads are very thin and
>fragile and might break off when scrubbing.

I don't think it's that.  I've been scrubbing the same set of teeth 
with the same type of brush for over thirty years, and haven't broke 
anything yet.

rack cases for motm

2003-04-13 by media.nai@rcn.com

I think this is a good topic to discuss, as many of us either have or
are in the process of building systems we would like to be able to
move around (for use in other studios, performing live, etc.) that
while tiny compared to many MOTM systems, are still way too big for
an SKB pop-up case.

Some of you might remember I was planning to put my system in a 40U
rack.  After I found a good deal on a custom rack, the salesman
flaked out.  So I never bought it.  As it turns out that, that might
have been a good thing.  The more I think about it, a 40U rack case isn't
such a good idea.  It's too big to be portable.  The Sentinel
theme doesn't work either, as its proportions are 1:4:9.  So I'm
thinking two or more smaller rack cases would be better.

If you count all the modules I have now, plus what I have on order,
then toss in the the Encore Freq Shifter, is 50 motm units.  That's
25U right there.

Yet, that doesn't leave any room for upcoming MOTM modules such as
the envelope generator, VC pulse divider, OC EG, SEM VCF, pan & fade
VCA, Rhythm Wheel, Nest of Envelopes, etc. or any modules already in
production I might want to add, such another LFO, duplicate filter or
VCA.  That's at least another 10U, for a total of 35U.

Then toss in another 5U for an AMT-8, Kenton Pro-4, and a big ass
power supply, and we're back to 40U.  Do the math.  See, I'm not
crazy :)

Two 20U cases doesn't work.  Ergonomically, it's very difficult to
reach modules sitting in the bottom of a rack case.  So it only works
for one case, as 5U from the bottom is OK, and the interfaces and PS
rarely need to be touched.  Stacking one 20U case on top of the other
seems like a bad idea -- not only could the top cabinet tip over, it
would also be difficult to reach.

The interfaces and PS could even go in a separate 5U case, although
the remaining 35U would not be divisible by two.

Also, I do not want to use too many separate cases for the modules
themselves, as each would require it's own power distribution board.

While I'm sure Larry's cabinets reflect the level of quality we
expect from Stooge Industries, they are not intended to be portable
(is it just me, or does Larry sell more MOTM stuff than Paul?? :)
Besides, I already bought seven sets of rack rails.

Just to give you an idea how I'm organizing things, if you only
count modules already purchased, this is how the "panels" break down
so far:

Mod Sources:               101, 320, 800 (X5), 910
Time Line:                 410, 480, 440, 490, 190, 110
Oscillator Bank:           820, 300 (X3), 830
Baroque Bank:              510, 520, 600, 700, 910
Island of Misfit Modules:  Oakley MultiMix2, Dual CGS ASR, Blacet MiniWave,
                            Time Machine, Encore UEG, (Frequency Shifter)

Of course, it's not a modular unless you can swap the modules around :)

Any ideas??

Re: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-13 by J. Larry Hendry

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <media.nai@...>
> While I'm sure Larry's cabinets reflect the level of quality we expect
from Stooge Industries, they are not intended to be portable

I would second this comment.  I think there are plenty of portable solutions
out there.  I am shooting to fill the "studio" walnut cabinet gap.  While I
am happy to sell cabinets and make a $25 profit each (I'm rich, I'm rich in
my best Daffy Duck voice), I am certianly not going to recommend them for
someone intending to road warrior his stuff.   Now, if you are as particular
and careful as I know Robert Rich is with his (snicker) it's OK. :)

Larry

RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-14 by Paul Haneberg

Regarding the Sentinel, I believe the proper proportions are 1:4:9:16 !!!!
I'd love to see someone build a case like that.
I'm not sure I'd want to get too close to it though.
Paul Haneberg
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From:	media.nai@... [SMTP:media.nai@...]
Sent:	Sunday, April 13, 2003 3:19 PM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	[motm] rack cases for motm
Importance:	Low


I think this is a good topic to discuss, as many of us either have or
are in the process of building systems we would like to be able to
move around (for use in other studios, performing live, etc.) that
while tiny compared to many MOTM systems, are still way too big for
an SKB pop-up case.

Some of you might remember I was planning to put my system in a 40U
rack.  After I found a good deal on a custom rack, the salesman
flaked out.  So I never bought it.  As it turns out that, that might
have been a good thing.  The more I think about it, a 40U rack case isn't
such a good idea.  It's too big to be portable.  The Sentinel
theme doesn't work either, as its proportions are 1:4:9.  So I'm
thinking two or more smaller rack cases would be better.

If you count all the modules I have now, plus what I have on order,
then toss in the the Encore Freq Shifter, is 50 motm units.  That's
25U right there.

Yet, that doesn't leave any room for upcoming MOTM modules such as
the envelope generator, VC pulse divider, OC EG, SEM VCF, pan & fade
VCA, Rhythm Wheel, Nest of Envelopes, etc. or any modules already in
production I might want to add, such another LFO, duplicate filter or
VCA.  That's at least another 10U, for a total of 35U.

Then toss in another 5U for an AMT-8, Kenton Pro-4, and a big ass
power supply, and we're back to 40U.  Do the math.  See, I'm not
crazy :)

Two 20U cases doesn't work.  Ergonomically, it's very difficult to
reach modules sitting in the bottom of a rack case.  So it only works
for one case, as 5U from the bottom is OK, and the interfaces and PS
rarely need to be touched.  Stacking one 20U case on top of the other
seems like a bad idea -- not only could the top cabinet tip over, it
would also be difficult to reach.

The interfaces and PS could even go in a separate 5U case, although
the remaining 35U would not be divisible by two.

Also, I do not want to use too many separate cases for the modules
themselves, as each would require it's own power distribution board.

While I'm sure Larry's cabinets reflect the level of quality we
expect from Stooge Industries, they are not intended to be portable
(is it just me, or does Larry sell more MOTM stuff than Paul?? :)
Besides, I already bought seven sets of rack rails.

Just to give you an idea how I'm organizing things, if you only
count modules already purchased, this is how the "panels" break down
so far:

Mod Sources:               101, 320, 800 (X5), 910
Time Line:                 410, 480, 440, 490, 190, 110
Oscillator Bank:           820, 300 (X3), 830
Baroque Bank:              510, 520, 600, 700, 910
Island of Misfit Modules:  Oakley MultiMix2, Dual CGS ASR, Blacet MiniWave,
                            Time Machine, Encore UEG, (Frequency Shifter)

Of course, it's not a modular unless you can swap the modules around :)

Any ideas??



 

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

RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-14 by media.nai@rcn.com

At 10:51 PM -0400 4/13/03, Paul Haneberg wrote:
>Regarding the Sentinel, I believe the proper proportions are 1:4:9:16 !!!!
>I'd love to see someone build a case like that.
>I'm not sure I'd want to get too close to it though.

How do you get the 16??  If it's proportions are 1:4:9, and the 
minimum depth is 10", then it would be 90" tall and 40" wide.

It would also be 200 MOTM units worth of modules, and if you built 
kits at an average price of $100 per unit, that's $20K!!  We'll all 
be living in outer space before I can afford that on a modular.

Re: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-14 by Paul Haneberg

-----Original Message-----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From:	Paul Haneberg [SMTP:phaneber@...]
Sent:	Monday, April 14, 2003 6:24 PM
To:	'media.nai@...'
Subject:	RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

Okay, an explanation:

First off, building a case with those proportions was not my idea, I'm just 
commenting on someone else's idea.
A 200U case would not only be large it would also be quite heavy, perhaps 
weighing 400 or 500 lbs. If the power supply were included.  It might be 
possible to go to 8" deep instead of 10"  if you didn't include any Blacet 
conversions. That would make the case 32" wide and 72" tall for roughly 
170U which is how many units my own cabinet holds (I wish I could say it 
was filled!)

Secondly, the "16" would be at right angles to the 1, 4 and 9.  The case 
would be 4 dimensional.

Thirdly, before anyone thinks I'm totally wacked, The Sentinel was a short 
story written by Arthur C Clarke as sort of a sketch of what later became 
2001.  The Sentinel became the black monolith of 2001 which had dimensions 
in a 1:4:9:16 ratio.  It was built in 4 spatial dimensions.  Being a lover 
of science fiction, I originally thought building a case with those 
dimensions was a fantastic idea, just as naming a synthesizer Darmok is 
truly inspired imho.

Paul Haneberg



-----Original Message-----
From:	media.nai@... [SMTP:media.nai@...]
Sent:	Monday, April 14, 2003 1:00 PM
To:	phaneber@...; 'motm@yahoogroups.com'
Subject:	RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

At 10:51 PM -0400 4/13/03, Paul Haneberg wrote:
>Regarding the Sentinel, I believe the proper proportions are 1:4:9:16 !!!!
>I'd love to see someone build a case like that.
>I'm not sure I'd want to get too close to it though.

How do you get the 16??  If it's proportions are 1:4:9, and the
minimum depth is 10", then it would be 90" tall and 40" wide.

It would also be 200 MOTM units worth of modules, and if you built
kits at an average price of $100 per unit, that's $20K!!  We'll all
be living in outer space before I can afford that on a modular.

Re: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-15 by jwbarlow@aol.com

In a message dated 4/13/2003 12:18:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
media.nai@... writes:

> The more I think about it, a 40U rack case isn't
> such a good idea.  It's too big to be portable.  The Sentinel
> theme doesn't work either, as its proportions are 1:4:9.  So I'm
> thinking two or more smaller rack cases would be better.

I think Moe has the best idea in cabinet size and style -- 18U wide by 4 MOTM 
rows. I seem to remember he came to this conclusion as it was about as big as 
he could "easily" move. I had asked Larry about looking into something like 
this shape when he first started talking about cabinet kits. 

I remember Mr. T had mentioned several years ago the advantage of the Moog 
IIIp style (which I think are about 12U wide). I wasn't convinced since it 
wouldn't be much better than a few racks, but I know think the 18U size would 
be a good width for my arms.

JB

RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-15 by John Loffink

18U by 4 rows may be too large \u2013 about 100 pounds fully loaded. Think how long you\u2019ll be out of synthesizing commission if you get a hernia. Try 18U by 3 rows if you want something that can be easily moved. Total weight using ¾\u201d birch plywood would be around 75 pounds. At least, that\u2019s what my calculations come out too. My cabinet is too, err, cumbersome to move to a scale right now.

John Loffink
jloffink@...

The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com/

The
Wavemakers Modular and Integrated Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/

I think Moe has the best idea in cabinet size and style -- 18U wide by 4 MOTM rows. I seem to remember he came to this conclusion as it was about as big as he could "easily" move. I had asked Larry about looking into something like this shape when he first started talking about cabinet kits.

I remember Mr. T had mentioned several years ago the advantage of the Moog IIIp style (which I think are about 12U wide). I wasn't convinced since it wouldn't be much better than a few racks, but I know think the 18U size would be a good width for my arms.

JB

RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-15 by Scott Juskiw

18U by 3 rows is what I used. Easy to move when empty. The bottom 
cabs are angled so they have a bit more wood and are a bit heavier. I 
have no idea what they weigh when full of modules (none of the cabs 
are full yet).

At 10:04 PM -0500 2003/04/14, John Loffink wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>18U by 4 rows may be too large - about 100 pounds fully loaded. 
>Think how long you'll be out of synthesizing commission if you get a 
>hernia. Try 18U by 3 rows if you want something that can be easily 
>moved.  Total weight using ¾" birch plywood would be around 75 
>pounds. At least, that's what my calculations come out too.  My 
>cabinet is too, err, cumbersome to move to a scale right now.

RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-15 by Scott Juskiw

Scratch that. 12U by 3 rows is what I used for each cab.

At 10:12 AM -0600 2003/04/15, Scott Juskiw wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>18U by 3 rows is what I used. Easy to move when empty. The bottom
>cabs are angled so they have a bit more wood and are a bit heavier. I
>have no idea what they weigh when full of modules (none of the cabs
>are full yet).
>

Re: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-15 by media.nai@rcn.com

At 6:32 PM -0400 4/14/03, Paul Haneberg wrote:
>
>Okay, an explanation:
>
>First off, building a case with those proportions was not my idea, I'm just
>commenting on someone else's idea.

I think it was my idea.

>A 200U case would not only be large it would also be quite heavy, perhaps
>weighing 400 or 500 lbs. If the power supply were included.

Yes, but only with Earth gravity :)

>It might be possible to go to 8" deep instead of 10"  if you didn't
>include any Blacet conversions.

I have a TM and MW so I need the extra space.

>Secondly, the "16" would be at right angles to the 1, 4 and 9.  The case
>would be 4 dimensional.

Oh right!! I was thinking of the primate perceptual rendering in the
movie.  On cold days I could program my MOTM in my klein bottle hat :)

At 10:14 PM -0400 4/14/03, jwbarlow@... wrote:
>
>I think Moe has the best idea in cabinet size and style -- 18U wide
>by 4 MOTM rows. I seem to remember he came to this conclusion as it
>was about as big as he could "easily" move. I had asked Larry about
>looking into something like this shape when he first started talking
>about cabinet kits.

I agree that wider is better for studio use, and I could have a
flight case built to those dimensions, but it would much more
expensive -- not only would I need a custom case, I would also need
custom rails.

At this point I'm thinking two 20U cases.  Given the backlog, it
might be a year or more before all of the modules are available.  So
I could just leave the bottom 5U empty for now, then put both cases
up on something after the bottom rows are full.  Side by side that 
would be 20 MOTM units wide, similar to 18.  Maybe Moe has shorter 
arms :)

Then, if I need to fit even more modules, I could put the interfaces 
and power supply in a separate case.

--
"To Albert Einstein, time and space meant everything.
   To Paul Schreiber, time and space mean nothing."

Re: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-15 by Jeffrey Pontius

> 
> >It might be possible to go to 8" deep instead of 10"  if you didn't
> >include any Blacet conversions.

Only if you think you need a back panel.  I use 8" wide cabinets and the
Blacet modules protrude only by about an 1" from the back of the
cabinet.  And, yes, the cabinet backs are about 6" from a wall, so no one
is getting back there.  Even my cat can't squeeze inbetween the cabinets
to get in the back of them.

> 
> I agree that wider is better for studio use,

If the cabinets are free-standing, this makes sense. One of my cabinets is
5 motm module size rows (25U high) by standard rack width and is bolted
with 3, 3"X1/2" lag bolts to a sturdy 'table'.  The movement of the
cabinet is barely noticable when I plug/unplug cables into/out of the top
row of modules.

Jeff

RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-15 by Paul Haneberg

>>
>>Okay, an explanation:
>>
>>First off, building a case with those proportions was not my idea, I'm
>>just
>>commenting on someone else's idea.

>I think it was my idea.

>>A 200U case would not only be large it would also be quite heavy,
perhaps
>>weighing 400 or 500 lbs. If the power supply were included.

>Yes, but only with Earth gravity :)

Of course the mass would increase as you approach relativistic
velocities.

>>Secondly, the "16" would be at right angles to the 1, 4 and 9.  The
case
>>would be 4 dimensional.

>Oh right!! I was thinking of the primate perceptual rendering in the
>movie.  On cold days I could program my MOTM in my klein bottle hat :)

Actually I was going to suggest you could add the fourth dimension by
first putting the case through a large Klein Bottle.  The primordial
primate rendering and in fact the whole movie was actually a 2
dimensional representation.

BTW is your Time Machine one dimensional or multidimensional.
--
>"To Albert Einstein, time and space meant everything.
>   To Paul Schreiber, time and space mean nothing."

LOL!!!

RE: [motm] rack cases for motm

2003-04-16 by media.nai@rcn.com

>  >>A 200U case would not only be large it would also be quite heavy,
>perhaps
>>>weighing 400 or 500 lbs. If the power supply were included.
>
>>Yes, but only with Earth gravity :)
>
>Of course the mass would increase as you approach relativistic
>velocities.

And by the time I can afford 200U of MOTM, I could just turn off the 
artificial gravity in space station whenever I needed to move it.

>
>>Oh right!! I was thinking of the primate perceptual rendering in the
>>movie.  On cold days I could program my MOTM in my klein bottle hat :)
>
>Actually I was going to suggest you could add the fourth dimension by
>first putting the case through a large Klein Bottle.

Then you would also have to include the modules, and you know how the 
other Paul feels about mods -- he gets upset when we add LED's, 
nevermind another spatial dimension.

>BTW is your Time Machine one dimensional or multidimensional.

Oh, it's definitely multidimensional :)

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.