Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-03-31 23:28 UTC

Thread

RE: [motm] 200 Series

RE: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-10 by Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)

Well, I would certainly NOT change the color. In terms of graphics, it depends on what you mean, i.e., something purely decorative would not be good (because you can't please everyone), whereas something that depicts signal flow would be good. I think it would be OK to change the knobs' size, placement, or color, and change the jack location.

--PBr

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:34 PM
To: MOTM listserv
Subject: [motm] 200 Series


So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels sizes. But I can:

a) change color
b) add graphics
c) change knobs/add colored knobs
d) not be "on grid"
e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

200 Series

2003-06-10 by Paul Schreiber

OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules. First up: 292 Low Pass
Gate.

What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the err..unique aspects of the
Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The SIZES were uniform multiples, and
in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:

a) Inputs on the bottom
b) CVs on the left side
c) outputs on the top

Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no CV).

So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels sizes. But I can:

a) change color
b) add graphics
c) change knobs/add colored knobs
d) not be "on grid"
e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Well??

Paul S.

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-10 by coyoteous

I like Keith Winstanley's MOTM-style 292:

http://home.freeuk.net/bandpass/292.html

Add some tick marks and CV jack legends and you're there.

Barry

Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules.
First up: 292 Low Pass
> Gate.
>
> What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the err..unique
aspects of the
> Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The SIZES were
uniform multiples, and
> in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
>
> a) Inputs on the bottom
> b) CVs on the left side
> c) outputs on the top
>
> Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no
CV).
>
> So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels sizes.
But I can:
>
> a) change color
> b) add graphics
> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> d) not be "on grid"
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
>
> Well??
>
> Paul S.

RE: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-10 by Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)

I should ammend-- I don't care for the idea of having jacks on top, as I think they would droop over knobs just a little too much (I know, so does putting one row of modules on top of another), but along the side is ok.

-----Original Message-----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Brousseau, Paul E (Paul)
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:25 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [motm] 200 Series


Well, I would certainly NOT change the color. In terms of graphics, it depends on what you mean, i.e., something purely decorative would not be good (because you can't please everyone), whereas something that depicts signal flow would be good. I think it would be OK to change the knobs' size, placement, or color, and change the jack location.

--PBr

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:34 PM
To: MOTM listserv
Subject: [motm] 200 Series


So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels sizes. But I can:

a) change color
b) add graphics
c) change knobs/add colored knobs
d) not be "on grid"
e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Scott Juskiw

At 6:33 PM -0500 2003/06/10, Paul Schreiber wrote:
>a) change color

Bad idea, that will look awful with the rest of the lineup.

>b) add graphics

Fine with me. But if you have space for graphics, maybe you could
fill that space with more features (inputs, outputs, knobs, etc.)
That will keep the hackers from drilling more holes in your panels.

>c) change knobs/add colored knobs

I've always liked having multiple knob sizes in the same style, but
coloured knobs will look awful.

>d) not be "on grid"

What grid? (smartass smirk)

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

I like your "jacks on the bottom" standard, stick with it.

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by ixqy@aol.com

Looking at the non-MOTM modules in my rack, everything visually blends in
fine, even though the grid is different and there are jacks all over the place
(on the non-MOTM modules). I think if panel or knob color is changed on any new
MOTM modules it would look too out of place. Modules like the UEG with the
different pot spacing and smaller knobs look fine to me.

Excepting panel or knob color changes, all changes on the list are fine by
me.

Andrew

In a message dated 6/10/03 6:21:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
synth1@... writes:

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> a) change color
> b) add graphics
> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> d) not be "on grid"
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by ixqy@aol.com

I've always like the ARP style of graphics for signal flow and function
(2600, Odyssey). I think it looks great, and it helps to see what's going on
inside, signal-wise.

Andrew

In a message dated 6/10/03 6:27:00 PM Central Daylight Time, noise@...
writes:

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> In terms of graphics, it depends on what you mean, i.e., something purely
> decorative would not be good (because you can't please everyone), whereas
> something that depicts signal flow would be good.

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by J. Larry Hendry

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
a) change color

No, and don't even think about it.

b) add graphics

no problem with this if yiou want them to "stand out" without "sticking
out." There is a huge difference.

c) change knobs/add colored knobs

Varied know size sounds good. Colors, only if you must.

d) not be "on grid"

which version <snicker> Sure, no problem.

e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Shut your mouth. Don;t even think about it.

Stooge Larry

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Jeffrey Pontius

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules.
> First up: 292 Low Pass Gate.
>


> a) Inputs on the bottom
> b) CVs on the left side
> c) outputs on the top
>

Never could figure out why out's are above in's, given our convention of
'top-down' construction (e.g., reading English, information signs, ...).
Always seems bass-ackward to me.
>
> a) change color
Keep "basic black" since this would be an 'integral' panel (e.g., not
a stand alone sequencer).

> b) add graphics

If it enhances module function, yes. Graphics could be in different
colors if this also enhances human interfacing.

> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
Again, yes, if it enhances human interfacing.

> d) not be "on grid"
If an added function requires changing of the the 'grid', I'm all for it,
especially if the function would not be included because of strict
adherence to the 'grid'.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
I'm not greatly in favor of jacks above knobs. However, jacks
horizontal from associated knobs is a plus (better human interface
instead of trying to figure out which jack at the bottom is associated
with some knob I want to adjust (e.g., cv in)). If this would be a quad
low pass gate, then if a panel could be constructed with 4 sections,
each section with jacks and knobs associated with 1 gate) this would be
better than trying to locate which jacks at the bottom are associated
with its low pass gate knobs.
Jeff

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by synthworld@aol.com

In a message dated 6/10/03 4:21:53 PM, synth1@... writes:

<< a) change color

b) add graphics

c) change knobs/add colored knobs

d) not be "on grid"

e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom>>

I cast my vote for: consistency in color, graphics, knobs, switches, on-grid
and jacks.
I would prefer that new modules look like MOTM modules.
(I really don't want a Frankensynth).
This is one of the reasons I have an Encore UEG and people like Stooge panels.
They match.

...my two hertz

Zon

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Mark

On 6/10/03, Paul Schreiber put forth:
>
>OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based
>modules. First up: 292 Low Pass Gate.

Paul probably doesn't want to hear this, but it needs too be said.
Considering the massive size of the current design backlog, there
should be plenty of time to think this over. Imho, he should work on
finishing modules already planned before announcing any more new
designs. Right now, Synthesis Technology is carrying as much
vaporware as actual products.

>What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the
>err..unique aspects of the Buchla was that *every* module had a
>different front panel. The SIZES were uniform multiples, and in
>general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
>
>a) Inputs on the bottom
>b) CVs on the left side
>c) outputs on the top
>
>Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no CV).
>
>So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM
>panels sizes. But I can:
>
>a) change color

No, I don't think so.

>b) add graphics

I wouldn't have a problem with that if they added functionality. In
other words, no tribal etchings, chimera pin-up girls, or a different
font on each module :)

>c) change knobs/add colored knobs
>d) not be "on grid"

I would not want colored knobs.

Changing the size of the knobs and the grid spacing would go
together. One of the great things about MOTM is its accuracy, so big
knobs make ergonomic sense. In comparison, Buchla designs are much
less exacting. So perhaps smaller or differently shaped knobs would
not compromise their functionality. Regardless, I still would want
this newly-proposed series to be as rugged and mechanically reliable
as the rest of the MOTM system.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

While that works with banana plugs or even 1/8" jacks. With 1/4"
connectors placing the jacks near the knobs creates a problem. All
1/4" plugs are big, and military surplus Switchcraft and the best
Neutrik plugs are even bigger. So the plugs would get in the way of
the knobs. I suppose placing all the jacks on the top instead of the
bottom would work, if it were important to make the modules look
different, but imho that seems rather gimmicky for a system with such
high standards.

There are ways to work with this. For example, instead of a quad low
pass gate, make a 1U dual low pass gate like at 190 with one less
knob (or add a knob for an additional feature on one channel).

While there are detractors (including one crank in particular) who
like Buchla and hate the MOTM layout, Paul did an excellent job
making some very tough decisions. The vast majority of MOTM's loyal
customers love the current format. Otherwise they wouldn't have
chosen it in the first place, and even prefer to convert modules from
other manufacturers to that format with Stooge Panels.

In short, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Inform3r

Wow Paul! Great to hear about the latest addition to the MOTM line!
A large part of the Buchla mystique besides the sound, is in the
phsyical aesthetics (at least I think so).

I think it would be great for the "MOTM-Buchlas" to at least have
something like the signal flow on the face plate. Don was never shy about
filling his panel designs with lots of info. It really added to the "Lab
instrument" vibe.
It would also be amazing to use the classic Davies knobs Don used on his
modules. The colored ones look really neat as well as the plain black ones
typically seen on the 292 Lopass Gate.
If you really want to get weird, you can even use the same color metal
and silk screening as the originals. I dont think you should hold back with
the looks. From what I gather these modules aren't suppose to be "standard
MOTM" anyway! So what if they dont look exactly like people's current
systems. I would love to have a small rack of these sitting on top of my
MOTM rig!!

cheers,
John
on 6/10/03 7:33 PM, Paul Schreiber at synth1@... wrote:

> OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules. First
> up: 292 Low Pass
> Gate.
>
> What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the err..unique
> aspects of the
> Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The SIZES were
> uniform multiples, and
> in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
>
> a) Inputs on the bottom
> b) CVs on the left side
> c) outputs on the top
>
> Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no CV).
>
> So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels sizes.
> But I can:
>
> a) change color
> b) add graphics
> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> d) not be "on grid"
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
>
> Well??
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----------------------
ELECTRO:DISCO:NEUWAVE
*HONG KONG COUNTERFEIT*
http://www.hongkongcounterfeit.com

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Jay

> From what I gather these modules aren't suppose to be "standard
> MOTM" anyway! So what if they dont look exactly like people's current
> systems. I would love to have a small rack of these sitting on top of my
> MOTM rig!!

I'd even buy a set.

(gasp!)

Jay

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Josue Arias

I don`t see the point of cloning the Buchla LP gates, the work is done yet:
Cynthia Webster (www.cyndustries.com) is selling the Quad Buchla Lopass
gates. OK, it`s in modcan format but ask her, they will sell you a PCB or
complete prepopulated board. just add a schaeffer or stooge panel and you
are right!
Also Doepfer is cloning the SOU module (in 2 or 3 separate modules) and you
can convert it to motm (I did that with some doepfer modules).
Why not begin with a new module not available at other manufactures??
err...., M(otm)ARF????

;)

Josue Arias.

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "coyoteous" <satori@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:40 AM
Subject: [motm] Re: 200 Series


> I like Keith Winstanley's MOTM-style 292:
>
> http://home.freeuk.net/bandpass/292.html
>
> Add some tick marks and CV jack legends and you're there.
>
> Barry
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> > OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules.
> First up: 292 Low Pass
> > Gate.
> >
> > What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the
err..unique
> aspects of the
> > Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The SIZES
were
> uniform multiples, and
> > in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
> >
> > a) Inputs on the bottom
> > b) CVs on the left side
> > c) outputs on the top
> >
> > Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no
> CV).
> >
> > So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels
sizes.
> But I can:
> >
> > a) change color
> > b) add graphics
> > c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> > d) not be "on grid"
> > e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
> >
> > Well??
> >
> > Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by jwbarlow@aol.com

A LOT of interesting discussion here. But I thought, as I was reading the replies, I'd expect Paul to put banana jacks on these modules long before he'd consider shipping "purple microdot" colored panels -- if only for manufacturing reasons.

But just to go on record about this:
Paul, don't change anything for this series unless function completely dictates it (like the lines on the MOTM 1u mult, or if you have a 1u module but it needs 5 knobs). The only things I can imagine being up for consideration are minor graphics additions, and changing the grid (again).

When I mentioned a "Buchla influence" on MOTM, I was thinking more about the weirdness of the way the modules were designed to be used, not the weird looks and not the 74 engineering.

Scuse me, I've got synths to buy!
JB


In a message dated 6/10/2003 4:21:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, synth1@... writes:

Show quoted textHide quoted text
What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the err..unique aspects of the
Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The SIZES were uniform multiples, and
in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:

a) Inputs on the bottom
b) CVs on the left side
c) outputs on the top

Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no CV).

So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels sizes. But I can:

a) change color
b) add graphics
c) change knobs/add colored knobs
d) not be "on grid"
e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Well??

Paul S.


[motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Frank Vanaman

Hi all--

Let me say about the same as others have said:

> a) change color
please don't. While I've home-brewed a few panels which depart in other
ways from the layout, I've kept the color black.

> b) add graphics
I'm not opposed to graphics if they're truly helpful (Tony's 'representative
envelope' on the UEG is a helpful graphic to me), if they're not helpful or
needed, then, again, please don't! I'd also root for maintaining the same
font and the same tick mark scheme (er, ah, the most recent tick mark
scheme, I guess)

> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
Knobs of the same design currently in use, but in differing sizes would be
very welcome to me. I would not be happy to see different styles of knobs,
or different colors of knobs, except possibly for some extraordinarily
different function. :-)

> d) not be "on grid"
Dpeartures from the grid are just fine with me, provided that the
color/fonts/knob style isn't also changed radically.

> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
Much like Jeff P. wrote, placing some jacks nearer their specific controls
wouldn't bother me at all. A wacky arrangement for the sake of wackiness
*would* bother me!

I made an attenuator very early on in a 2U panel. It has 8 jacks in the
standard location at the bottom, forming 2 four-way multiples. On one side
of the panel, there are 4 attenuator pots arranged 'on-grid', on the other
side there are two jacks for each pot, side by side, which could be most
easily imagined by looking at Keith W's 292 clone
http://home.freeuk.net/bandpass/292front2.jpg
and imagining a jack where each of the holes for the filter/VCA switches are
located. I find it a sensible solution, and prefer that to having a group of
ins and outs along the bottom.

Er, so there, that's what I think.

Frank

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by groovyshaman@snet.net

> Paul wrote:
> OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules.
> <snip>

Excellent! Will these be subscription? (heh)

> So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels
> sizes. But I can:
>
> a) change color

Please! Keep black panels!!

> b) add graphics

Signal flow = Fine.
Fancy smancy = No.
white & color2 = Interesting - could look good if done right.
white & color2 & color3 = Nah.
Acid trip = Please, don't.

> c) change knobs/add colored knobs

Different size knobs = Good.
One or two colored knobs = Could look cool.
Psycho knobs = NO.

> d) not be "on grid"

Jacks not on grid = OK.
Knobs not on grid = Ok - if not too closely spaced.
Tons of closely spaced knobs = don't go there!

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Overall, I think varied placement and knob sizes would provide easier module
identification and I'm all for it, provided it's done in a well thought out
manner. <bfg>

My 21 pesos.
George

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by J. Larry Hendry

I would live to see photos of the Doepfer conversions. I looked at one for
someone else with a sizeable system and they looked much more difficult than
the average Blacet Conversion.

Larry


Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Josue Arias <josue@...>
Also Doepfer is cloning the SOU module (in 2 or 3 separate modules) and you
can convert it to motm (I did that with some doepfer modules).

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by alt-mode

I'm not so concerned about where the knobs and jacks go as long as it is
clear what they are and they don't get in the way too much. If that takes
moving things around, then fine. I think the signal graphics would be cool
and differentiating. Paul is aware of the tradeoff he made for the
consistent "grid" vs. different layouts for each module. I do find that I
go for the wrong knob often because of the similarities between the
modules. If this series causes a bit of change to that scheme, great! I
find the filter cutoff on a Moog 904A a whole lot faster than I do on any
MOTM filter.

However, I think *the most important thing* for doing modules that are
trying to mimic the behavior of a former manufacturers module is to do just
that, "mimic the behavior". That means getting the knob throws and
responses the same. I think that the 490 filter is a prime example of
something that has "the sound" but misses on the knob responses. Paul and
Jurgen have demonstrated that they can make the circuits behave the same, I
think the last item is to make the controls do the same. I would go so far
as to say that some modules might require a slider instead of a knob! (I
know, heresy...burn me at the stake if you must). Of course, he doesn't
need to duplicate the err... performance of a 30 year old slider ;)

Eric

At 06:33 PM 6/10/2003 -0500, Paul Schreiber wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules.
>First up: 292 Low Pass
>Gate.
>
>What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the
>err..unique aspects of the
>Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The SIZES were
>uniform multiples, and
>in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
>
>a) Inputs on the bottom
>b) CVs on the left side
>c) outputs on the top
>
>Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no CV).
>
>So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels
>sizes. But I can:
>
>a) change color
>b) add graphics
>c) change knobs/add colored knobs
>d) not be "on grid"
>e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
>
>Well??

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Richard Brewster

My sentiments are close to what Frank said. I'd like to see a style that
would blend in nicely with other MOTM modules, while at the same time having
distinctive differences. Like two knob sizes -- the standard and a smaller
size, different jack arrangement -- maybe co-locating some jacks near
associated pots, and possibly a different grid. A different typeface or
tick mark scheme could be nice.

Whatever the particulars, I'd like to see a consistent design theme for the
whole 200 series. It should pay homage to Buchla and still be instantly
recognizable as MOTM.

I would be inclined to buy at least a few 200 modules. And I would be a bit
more inclined if they would blend visually with other MOTM modules in the
same cabinet.

-Richard Brewster

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Frank Vanaman" <fvanaman@...>
To: "Motm-L" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:33 PM
Subject: [motm] 200 Series


> Hi all--
>
> Let me say about the same as others have said:
>
> > a) change color
> please don't. While I've home-brewed a few panels which depart in other
> ways from the layout, I've kept the color black.
>
> > b) add graphics
> I'm not opposed to graphics if they're truly helpful (Tony's
'representative
> envelope' on the UEG is a helpful graphic to me), if they're not helpful
or
> needed, then, again, please don't! I'd also root for maintaining the same
> font and the same tick mark scheme (er, ah, the most recent tick mark
> scheme, I guess)
>
> > c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> Knobs of the same design currently in use, but in differing sizes would be
> very welcome to me. I would not be happy to see different styles of knobs,
> or different colors of knobs, except possibly for some extraordinarily
> different function. :-)
>
> > d) not be "on grid"
> Dpeartures from the grid are just fine with me, provided that the
> color/fonts/knob style isn't also changed radically.
>
> > e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
> Much like Jeff P. wrote, placing some jacks nearer their specific controls
> wouldn't bother me at all. A wacky arrangement for the sake of wackiness
> *would* bother me!
>
> I made an attenuator very early on in a 2U panel. It has 8 jacks in the
> standard location at the bottom, forming 2 four-way multiples. On one side
> of the panel, there are 4 attenuator pots arranged 'on-grid', on the other
> side there are two jacks for each pot, side by side, which could be most
> easily imagined by looking at Keith W's 292 clone
> http://home.freeuk.net/bandpass/292front2.jpg
> and imagining a jack where each of the holes for the filter/VCA switches
are
> located. I find it a sensible solution, and prefer that to having a group
of
> ins and outs along the bottom.
>
> Er, so there, that's what I think.
>
> Frank
>

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by jwbarlow@aol.com

In a message dated 6/10/2003 6:58:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, yahoo@... writes:

Show quoted textHide quoted text
I would go so far
as to say that some modules might require a slider instead of a knob! (I
know, heresy...burn me at the stake if you must).


I agree, and (unfortunately) I think the Interpolating Scanner might be one of the best examples of where sliders are warranted.

JB

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by John

Just curious what this might do to the current schedule of modules.
The 480, 510, 520, 600, 650 are coming out this summer/fall last I
heard. But what about the Pan/Fade VCA, SEM filter, Pre
Amp/Envelope Follower and the rest of the 500 series (Rhythm Wheel,
Envelope nest, Pulse Divider etc)? To be honest I'd rather see a
lot more of these get into production than a low pass gate.

Not that a low pass gate isn't cool (I dunno, never played with
one), in fact I would like to see one, but but but. What about all
the other cool modules that have been proposed?

So my $.02 would be to get the above modules into production before
thinking about adding another module to the growing list of "modules
to come..."

John

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Fred Becker

At 06:33 PM 6/10/2003, Paul wrote:
>...So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels
>sizes. But I can:....

I'd like to see some oversized panels in standard MOTM widths (3U, 4U, etc.).

If the functionality or historicity calls for it, I'd be OK with jacks on
top or other varied patterns reflecting the uniqueness of a module.

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Mike Marsh

My absolute strongest vote is to keep it MOTM!

Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based
modules. First up: 292 Low Pass
> Gate.
>
> What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the
err..unique aspects of the
> Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The
SIZES were uniform multiples, and
> in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
>
> a) Inputs on the bottom
> b) CVs on the left side
> c) outputs on the top
>
> Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there
is no CV).
>
> So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM
panels sizes. But I can:
>
> a) change color
> b) add graphics
> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> d) not be "on grid"
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
>
> Well??
>
> Paul S.

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Mike Marsh

This is true. See my very bad pic of an unfinished Cyndustries Quad
Low Pass Gate in a Schaeffer panel (Files Section)...

However, had I known Paul was contemplating this, I would have
waited.

Mike

Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Josue Arias" <josue@A...> wrote:
> I don`t see the point of cloning the Buchla LP gates, the work is
done yet:
> Cynthia Webster (www.cyndustries.com) is selling the Quad Buchla
Lopass
> gates. OK, it`s in modcan format but ask her, they will sell you a
PCB or
> complete prepopulated board. just add a schaeffer or stooge panel
and you
> are right!
> Also Doepfer is cloning the SOU module (in 2 or 3 separate
modules) and you
> can convert it to motm (I did that with some doepfer modules).
> Why not begin with a new module not available at other
manufactures??
> err...., M(otm)ARF????
>
> ;)
>
> Josue Arias.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "coyoteous" <satori@t...>
> To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:40 AM
> Subject: [motm] Re: 200 Series
>
>
> > I like Keith Winstanley's MOTM-style 292:
> >
> > http://home.freeuk.net/bandpass/292.html
> >
> > Add some tick marks and CV jack legends and you're there.
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...>
wrote:
> > > OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based
modules.
> > First up: 292 Low Pass
> > > Gate.
> > >
> > > What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of
the
> err..unique
> > aspects of the
> > > Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel.
The SIZES
> were
> > uniform multiples, and
> > > in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
> > >
> > > a) Inputs on the bottom
> > > b) CVs on the left side
> > > c) outputs on the top
> > >
> > > Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since
there is no
> > CV).
> > >
> > > So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM
panels
> sizes.
> > But I can:
> > >
> > > a) change color
> > > b) add graphics
> > > c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> > > d) not be "on grid"
> > > e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
> > >
> > > Well??
> > >
> > > Paul S.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Adam Schabtach

> a) change color

I would rather stick with black. If you change color now, systems will start
to look like patchwork quilts, and not in a good way.

> b) add graphics

That's fine with me. Bonus points if the graphics have some meaning. :-)

> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
> d) not be "on grid"

Those are both fine with me, too, although I didn't much like the baby-blue
Buchla knobs.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Hmm, well, if there was some compelling reason to do so. I suppose this
could tie in with the graphics somehow. The graphics could tell you
something about the signal flow through the module, and the jacks could be
placed appropriately.

--Adam

Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by elle_webb

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the
err..unique aspects of the
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel.

It sounds like everybody is voting for the status quo on this topic.

Are you guys working for the man, or what?

Paul, if you want to capture the Buchla spirit, you're going to have
to put on some head music, tune in, and turn on! Maybe you could even
have a love-in.

Seriously, you can't do Buchla justice without:
* Embracing the complexity that comes from randomness
* Separating structural controls from audio ones

In other words, you're going to have to let go of the grid if you
want to do this series right.

Much of what makes Buchla's & Moog's instruments great is
interesting "mistakes". These guys were trying out a lot of new ideas
and discovered a lot of cool serendipities.

There's got to be a lot more interesting "mistakes" for you to
discover.

Buchla expressed his openness to experimentation in his instruments.
His instruments encouraged, maybe even forced, musicians to try new
ideas. "Until Spring" may not be for everybody, but then neither
is "Switched on Bach". We could use more of that openness in this day
and age.

MOTM has proven that you can refine and update Moog's ideas for
sythesizers. You can't do the same to Buchla by wedging his ideas
into a Moog mold.

It would be great if you could use the 200 series not to put Buchla's
ideas in MOTM panels, but instead to experiment and make some
interesting mistakes of your own.

About the panels - you mentioned you could tell the Buchla modules'
functions across the room. That clarity of function, combined with
some arbitrary weirdness, is opposite the established pattern of MOTM
modules.

It doesn't look like Buchla made his panel controls conform to a
predefined grid or organizational structure. I'd bet that if you
asked him why he put a knob where he did, he reply, "Because that's
where it belongs..."

Freak out a little.

Whatever you end up doing, I'm sure these modules will be interesting!

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by Inform3r

on 6/11/03 12:14 AM, elle_webb at elle_webb@... wrote:

> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
>> What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the
> err..unique aspects of the
>> Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel.
>
> It sounds like everybody is voting for the status quo on this topic.
>
> Are you guys working for the man, or what?

My sentiments EXACTLY! It seems like 98% of you guys are looking at this
like "a new MOTM module." I look at it more like a special "series" or
"edition" to my existing MOTM set-up. The only thing I think should stay is
the actual physical dimensions of the MOTM. The rest should be redesigned to
be as Buchla-esque as possible.

-John

----------------------
ELECTRO:DISCO:NEUWAVE
*HONG KONG COUNTERFEIT*
http://www.hongkongcounterfeit.com

RE: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by John Loffink

> So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels
> sizes. But I can:
>
> a) change color

If you were starting from scratch, that'd be okay. But now keep it
black. For variety you could have larger painted areas, such as white
blocks with inverse lettering.

> b) add graphics

Yes, please! Arp and CMS are good examples, but don't go overboard with
entire block diagrams of everything. Not surprisingly I tend to prefer
Wavemakers level of graphics, some, but not too much. Good examples are
shown on the following photos:

http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/245.html
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/308.html
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/wm4pic21.html

> c) change knobs/add colored knobs

Different size knobs are okay, but this won't buy you much in 1U or 2U
panels. You still won't be able to fit more controls in. To me the UEG
controls are too small and cramped, but there is an intermediate PKES
knob between that and the standard MOTM that might be okay. Larger knobs
are also available for that special control, like a Frequency Shifter
frequency knob. :-) I don't like colored knobs, it reminds me too much
of the current plastic dayglo synthesizer designs, even if Buchla
preceeded them.

> d) not be "on grid"

Rather, have multiple grids for component placements. This would also
help differentiate modules. Again, this is tough to do in 1U or 2U.

> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Along a vertical column would be okay as long as no controls were in
that column, otherwise I'd say no. Definitely nothing at the top.

A few ideas for graphics enhancements are shown on a prototype Schaeffer
panel, GIF image located here:
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com/motm/synthacon_vcf.gif . I would have
rounded the corners on the white outlines, but Schaeffer's panel drawing
program won't let you do this. To me this is a bit less severe that the
sharp corners. Adding simple sections visually distinguishes this module
from others. This also shows an alternate tick mark scheme for knobs
that is easier to scope: thin lines between small dots. One final
recommendation, real parameters such as frequencies in Hertz for those
controls where it makes sense. For a VCA and modulation controls, the
standard 0 to 10 marking is the most common, however.

I wouldn't limit the changes to just Buchla inspired modules, by the
way...

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/

RE: [motm] Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by John Loffink

I disagree. No one requested the 420 look like a Korg module, or the
820 look like an Emu module. It will be pretty tough to make any MOTM
format look like a Buchla when the MOTM will have 1/4 inch jacks instead
of 1/8 jacks and bananas. If you really want to look like Buchla, then
keep the same panel size and jacks as Buchla. Otherwise it just becomes
a bastard offspring.

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/

>
> My sentiments EXACTLY! It seems like 98% of you guys are looking
at
> this
> like "a new MOTM module." I look at it more like a special "series" or
> "edition" to my existing MOTM set-up. The only thing I think should
stay
> is
> the actual physical dimensions of the MOTM. The rest should be
redesigned
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> to
> be as Buchla-esque as possible.
>
> -John

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by Inform3r

on 6/11/03 12:53 AM, John Loffink at jloffink@... wrote:

> I disagree. No one requested the 420 look like a Korg module, or the
> 820 look like an Emu module.

The 420 and 820 were created under completely different circumstances.
And plus... Paul didnt ask anyone if they wanted it to look like a Korg or
an Emu. Another huge difference is that the Buchlas Paul proposed are a
series. The 420 and 820 were not.

> It will be pretty tough to make any MOTM
> format look like a Buchla when the MOTM will have 1/4 inch jacks instead
> of 1/8 jacks and bananas. If you really want to look like Buchla, then
> keep the same panel size and jacks as Buchla. Otherwise it just becomes
> a bastard offspring.

It should be a bastard offspring. Thats the whole idea. I definitely
agree that it will be hard to make a MOTM format look like a Buchla, but no
one is trying to. Paul was simply testing the waters and trying to see if
his customers wanted to think "out of the box" on this one.

Sincerely,
John




----------------------
ELECTRO:DISCO:NEUWAVE
*HONG KONG COUNTERFEIT*
http://www.hongkongcounterfeit.com

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Robert van der Kamp

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 01:33, Paul Schreiber wrote:
> So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the
> MOTM panels sizes. But I can:
>
> a) change color

Yuck!

> b) add graphics

White on black graphics is okay.

> c) change knobs/add colored knobs

Different sized knobs in the same style is okay. Different
colored knobs, nah.

> d) not be "on grid"

I like the grid layout of the current panels. All outputs
neatly aligned, knobs aligned. Better stick to that.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom

Please no!

- Robert

Re: [motm] 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Robert van der Kamp

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 02:26, ixqy@... wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I've always like the ARP style of graphics for signal
> flow and function (2600, Odyssey). I think it looks
> great, and it helps to see what's going on inside,
> signal-wise.

Totally agree, I too love the orange on black layout. But
the current MOTM layout is sober white on black graphics,
large, widely spaced knobs, jacks at the bottom. Though not
as exciting as the ARP, it looks/works great. I wouldn't
like to see a totally new style added to the MOTM range.

- Robert

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by gareII@aol.com

This could make a good starting point.
Some 'tick' marks..maybe some functional graphics
And different size knobs could be helpful.

Gary

Show quoted textHide quoted text
>I like Keith Winstanley's MOTM-style 292:
>
>http://home.freeuk.net/bandpass/292.html
>
>Add some tick marks and CV jack legends and you're there.
>
>Barry
>
>--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
>> OK, the cat's out of the bag. Yes, I do plan some Buchla-based modules.
>First up: 292 Low Pass
>> Gate.
>>
>> What I want discussion on is the front panel styling. One of the err..unique
>aspects of the
>> Buchla was that *every* module had a different front panel. The SIZES were
>uniform multiples, and
>> in general flow was bottom-to-top-from the side :) Meaning:
>>
>> a) Inputs on the bottom
>> b) CVs on the left side
>> c) outputs on the top
>>
>> Some modules have everything on the top (filter banks, since there is no
>CV).
>>
>> So, what are thoughts about this? I want to still use the MOTM panels sizes.
>But I can:
>>
>> a) change color
>> b) add graphics
>> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
>> d) not be "on grid"
>> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
>>
>> Well??
>>
>> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by RogerPellegrini

It's great to see this discussion again. I think it has been
admitted by Paul that the knob/jack "grid", "single knob size", and
the simplicity of other module panel design elements were settled on
as a compromise to cost. In an ideal world (at least in my ideal
world) form would follow function. MOTM panel design would imply
module function, at least in some abstract sense, such as a flowchart
of the underlying electronic process, or some other spacial
representation of function.

As Paul's designs become more elaborate and the percentage
cost/benefit of adherence to the initial panel design compromises
changes in relation to the cost of the modules (i.e. the total cost
of more expensive modules are less effected on a percentage basis by
fixed cost savings in panel design), it would seem as if it could be
time to address the compromise.

Many users are trying to address the problem themselves by coding
functions with colored washers, stickers, labels, etc. Paul himself
marveled at how the Buchla module functions could be ascertained from
across the room. I vote for EVERY new module's form to follow its
function, rather than be limited by a compromise made years ago in
manufacturing cost context somewhat different from today's.

-Roger

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Speth, John

If the only justification for the 200 series to to have the *appearance* of Buchla modules then I would suggest you drop the idea. It's the sound and function that matters to me.

If the justification for the 200 series is some sonic, ergonomic, or useability values of Buchla modules, then I would suggest keeping with an MOTM style layout (if there is truly one). I want good sound and good useability at a fair price, not Buchla visual nostalgia.

John Speth

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by paulhaneberg

I have mixed feelings about this. I think you should go in either
of two directions.

Option 1: Stay completely with the MOTM format. Same panel color,
same knob size and color, graphics as they are and same jack
placement. This way the Motmized Buchla modules can be placed
interchangeably with standard MOTM in the same cabinet.

Option 2: Stay with the same panel size, but go with a white
background. (Why white? In my experience silver panels tend to look
grungy as they age.) Use colored and different size knobs. (I would
prefer a darker blue rather than the baby blue.) Please do not use
sliders. They always get dirt in them and cannot be sealed unless
you use belt driven rotary pots, which are cumbersome. Go with the
graphics on the panel as Don did. Go "off-grid." Please stick with
the 1/4" phone jacks. Do not use 1/8" jacks or banana plugs.

Option 3: Give the customer a choice. Connect all pots to the PCB
with wires so the customer can go with either panel/layout/knob
color. Offer the modules with your choice of panel and knobs.
Either Buchla Style or Classic MOTM.

If I had the choice I would probably go with option 2. I would put
all the Buchla related modules in a separate cabinet.

If you choose some halfway option of remaining with the black panels
but using colored knobs, etc I would myself consider having
Schaeffer or Stooge panels made and going one way or the other. I
have at times considered having new panels made for all my modules.
Given the choice from the beginning I would have put borders around
the modules for one thing. But I do like the layout, I like the
knob size and spacing and the jack placement. I disagree with
whoever said that the modules are too large.

I would also point out to some of the list members that the biggest
cost items in putting out a module are hardware related. The
panels, the knobs, switches, pots, jacks and of course the PCBs.
With very few exceptions the PCB mounted parts are relatively
cheap. I doubt you'd gain much in cost by using surface mount.

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Mike Marsh

Well said, John. This is my position exactly.

Paul has made cogent arguments elsewhere about 'mystique' vs.
engineering, lately in regard to Buchla systems. Part of
the 'mystique' of a Buchla is its looks. But I'm not after
mystique, I'm after sound.

And I'm after preserving my MOTM's mystique :)

Mike

Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Speth, John" <john.speth@c...> wrote:
> If the only justification for the 200 series to to have the
*appearance* of Buchla modules then I would suggest you drop the
idea. It's the sound and function that matters to me.
>
> If the justification for the 200 series is some sonic, ergonomic,
or useability values of Buchla modules, then I would suggest keeping
with an MOTM style layout (if there is truly one). I want good
sound and good useability at a fair price, not Buchla visual
nostalgia.
>
> John Speth

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by gareII@aol.com

Have to agree with John..form should follow function.
One reason I find this format attractive is that the panels are not distractive.
After all, the main purpose of these machines is to allow creativity..the less distractions the better.
Well, thats just me, but I am kind of simple (minded).

Gary (who recently learned that MIDI is not just a skirt length)
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>If the only justification for the 200 series to to have the *appearance* of Buchla modules then I would suggest you drop the idea. It's the sound and function that matters to me.
>
>If the justification for the 200 series is some sonic, ergonomic, or useability values of Buchla modules, then I would suggest keeping with an MOTM style layout (if there is truly one). I want good sound and good useability at a fair price, not Buchla visual nostalgia.
>
>John Speth
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Re: [motm] re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Mike Fisher

Roger wrote:

> Paul himself
> marveled at how the Buchla module functions could be ascertained from
> across the room. I vote for EVERY new module's form to follow its
> function, rather than be limited by a compromise made years ago in
> manufacturing cost context somewhat different from today's.
>

Exactly! The problem with the argument that "all modules should stay
'on grid' and use the exact same knob sizes", is that it's a
significant limitation, especially when you start to talk about modules
with much greater complexity. One could even argue that some of the
-existing- modules would be a little more UI-friendly if they used
different knob sizes and/or weren't 'on the grid'.

I've probably said this before on the list, but one of the great things
about the Technosaurus line is the different knob sizes and logical
panel flow. Say what you want about the panel -graphics- (the blue
background - I'm not a big fan of it), but the layout is great and
having larger knobs to control important, oft-used functions makes
perfect sense and adds a great deal to the usability of the modules.
Example: the cutoff frequency knob on the VCF is really big. This makes
it easy to find even on a big system, and easy to adjust. The MOTM
layout spec is perfectly functional but there's no good reason to
constrain new designs by trying to shoehorn them in to that spec. The
solution is to expand upon the spec so that it remains tasteful but can
incorporate new designs a little more readily.

Mike

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Adam Schabtach

> If the only justification for the 200 series to to have the *appearance* of
> Buchla modules then I would suggest you drop the idea. It's the sound and
> function that matters to me.
>
> If the justification for the 200 series is some sonic, ergonomic, or
> useability values of Buchla modules, then I would suggest keeping with an MOTM
> style layout (if there is truly one). I want good sound and good useability
> at a fair price, not Buchla visual nostalgia.

Yup, I have to agree with that, too. I don't give a hoot whether or not my
modules are visually distinctive from across the room. I don't use my MOTM
from across the room!

I will intermix 200 series modules with my existing (and future) modules. If
I can't do this, I'm not interested in the modules. I absolutely do NOT
want to see a series of modules that for some reason should go in a
different cabinet, because of changes in module size, connectors, whatever.
If the 200 series modules are not easily interchangeable with modules in an
existing MOTM system, I simply won't buy them.

As I said previously, variations in layout, color, graphics, etc. are okay
with me, but these variations should be considered in light of juxtaposition
with existing modules, because this is how these modules will be used.

--Adam

Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Scott Evans, Gen Mgr

First, I think this is a great idea to bring this type of synthesis to
the MOTM line.

> a) change color
Please don't.

> b) add graphics
Only if necessary. I actually don't care for additional graphics on
panels. Keep it simple.

> c) change knobs/add colored knobs
Change of size OK, depending on function.

> d) not be "on grid"
Also OK

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> e) place jacks somewhere except across the bottom
No jacks on the top, please. However, if there is room in the next row
above the existing pot level, this is fine to save panel space

Scott

[motm] Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by Mark

Designing modules to be as Buchla as possible is the least Buchla
thing you can do. They were unique and original for their time.
Cloning Buchla modules thirty years later isn't experimental.
Designing modules to look more like a Buchla isn't creative. Serge
already offers updated versions of of many Buchla modules, including
the banana jacks and different color knobs. So it's already been
done.

Don Buchla went from making analogue modulars, to digital synths, to
allternative MIDI controllers. He could have continued to keep
offering his old designs, but he didn't. He kept moving on to new
territory.

Paul Schreiber is offering radically new and experimental designs
with his 500 series. Yet, they aren't non-repeatble or innaccurate
in the wacky way Buchla modules were. The 500 series is weird in
Paul's way. He's doing his own thing. And that's beautiful, man :)

Paul isn't Don. Remember that episode of the Simpsons when Homer
tried to be a hippy?? It didn't work.

You can't "capture the Buchla spirit". You can't turn back time.
You can't make mistakes on purpose. You can't make mistakes on
purpose. If you try to capture the Buchla spirit, it's no longer the
Buchla spirit.

While I'm sure there are many Buchla designs that are worthy
inspiration for upcoming MOTM modules, adding blue knobs isn't going
to make them any more useful. Puttting cheap electronics behind
expensive hardware is a waste of money. The way to improve them is
by adding features, and making them more reliable.

Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by echo7even

> Puttting cheap electronics behind
> expensive hardware is a waste of money. The way to improve them is
> by adding features, and making them more reliable.

I doubt the electronics Don used in the modules were cheap 30 years ago...this was a time
where LEDS could cost $20 each!

he has always pushed the envelope and didnt have the luxury of basing his designs on other
peoples synth circuits when he was developing his system in the 60's and 70's. Buchla
developed a lot of the concepts that you guys are taking for granted.. where would electronic
music be today without the envelope generator or those pesky sequencers? I would like to
see Paul break some ground and I am sure he has it in him.

I think the idea of adding some buchla funk to the MOTM line is cool but I also think Pauls new
ideas are more interesting and a better use of his time and talents. Why rehash something
when you have the gift to develop something new? thats REAL "buchla inspiration" in my
opinion.

Paul - just a quick side note, you may want to call Don and discuss your ideas with him regarding
the new line... I doubt he would mind you doing this but I am sure he'd appreciate a heads up....
I am pretty sure Cynthia called him and told him her plans before she went ahead with the
QLPG clone.

personally, I think the MOTM system could use some red and blue knobs.. that whole white
legend, black panel thing has kinda been over killed in the last 30 years :)

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Kevin B

While not the most popular view, I vote to make the 200 series as Buchla as
possible, in both look and sound (sound being the most important). I say go
all out. Keep the panel size format the same as MOTM, but make them bare
aluminum with blue silkscreening, with graphics. It would cool to see
similar if not exactly the same knobs as well, red and blue of different
sizes. Put the jacks and knobs in the same places as the Buchla modules.
For the LP Gate, put them in that cool diagonal layout with all the lines.
Of couse, the mechanical and electronic standards should conform with the
rest of MOTM: sealed pots, Switchcraft jacks, etc. While I think banana
jacks are cool, I don't see any reason to put them on these modules for
flexibility reasons.

If this is going to far, and the panels must remain black and white, then at
the very least I'd like to see knob, switch, and jack placement similar to
the Buchla. Maybe there are some knobs out there that are similar in style
to the MOTM standard (black with metal disc insert) but a different size and
shape, maybe with a larger skirt or something (Maybe one of the other style
of Alco knobs). In any case, even if these end up in the grid format like
all other MOTM modules, I'd probaby still buy some.

Kevin

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

2003-06-11 by Steve Martin

I must agree with the below here.
If its gonna be done - do it properly.(i.e. keep everything Buchla-esque)
Make it a new range - a different concept.
A buchla is not the kind of synth that can be "reigned in" to a different format.
Instead of a 200 series, make it a an updated (electronically) tribute version.
People want to buy into the Buchla ideal, so give them (i.e. me) the real deal.
MOTM is fantastic as it is, shoehorning PseudoBuchla in, just isnt going to work.
Paul has the ability to take the Buchla 200 and add stablility with better electronics.
This would be a fantastic thing, please dont ruin it by going halfway.
My two pence worth.
Steve Martin
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin B
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: 200 Series

While not the most popular view, I vote to make the 200 series as Buchla as
possible, in both look and sound (sound being the most important). I say go
all out. Keep the panel size format the same as MOTM, but make them bare
aluminum with blue silkscreening, with graphics. It would cool to see
similar if not exactly the same knobs as well, red and blue of different
sizes. Put the jacks and knobs in the same places as the Buchla modules.
For the LP Gate, put them in that cool diagonal layout with all the lines.
Of couse, the mechanical and electronic standards should conform with the
rest of MOTM: sealed pots, Switchcraft jacks, etc. While I think banana
jacks are cool, I don't see any reason to put them on these modules for
flexibility reasons.

If this is going to far, and the panels must remain black and white, then at
the very least I'd like to see knob, switch, and jack placement similar to
the Buchla. Maybe there are some knobs out there that are similar in style
to the MOTM standard (black with metal disc insert) but a different size and
shape, maybe with a larger skirt or something (Maybe one of the other style
of Alco knobs). In any case, even if these end up in the grid format like
all other MOTM modules, I'd probaby still buy some.

Kevin

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



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

Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by Mike Marsh

Yes, this all well said. I would add that the Buchla has some
interesting and useful sound mangling 'modules' though, and I would
like them in my MOTM rig. I'm not after capturing a 'vibe' that is
associated with Buchla, I'm after exploring timbre. I trust Paul
will take interesting elements from Buchla's designs and make them
his own, to some degree. I can't wait!

I also can't wait for the Panning VCA. I couldn't wait for the
Preamp/Envelope Follower so I bought Tony's EFG Deluxe (and his SVF
for that matter).

Again, MArk, well said.

Mike

Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Mark <yahoogroups@p...> wrote:
>
> Designing modules to be as Buchla as possible is the least Buchla
> thing you can do. They were unique and original for their time.
> Cloning Buchla modules thirty years later isn't experimental.
> Designing modules to look more like a Buchla isn't creative.
Serge
> already offers updated versions of of many Buchla modules,
including
> the banana jacks and different color knobs. So it's already been
> done.
>
> Don Buchla went from making analogue modulars, to digital synths,
to
> allternative MIDI controllers. He could have continued to keep
> offering his old designs, but he didn't. He kept moving on to new
> territory.
>
> Paul Schreiber is offering radically new and experimental designs
> with his 500 series. Yet, they aren't non-repeatble or
innaccurate
> in the wacky way Buchla modules were. The 500 series is weird in
> Paul's way. He's doing his own thing. And that's beautiful,
man :)
>
> Paul isn't Don. Remember that episode of the Simpsons when Homer
> tried to be a hippy?? It didn't work.
>
> You can't "capture the Buchla spirit". You can't turn back time.
> You can't make mistakes on purpose. You can't make mistakes on
> purpose. If you try to capture the Buchla spirit, it's no longer
the
> Buchla spirit.
>
> While I'm sure there are many Buchla designs that are worthy
> inspiration for upcoming MOTM modules, adding blue knobs isn't
going
> to make them any more useful. Puttting cheap electronics behind
> expensive hardware is a waste of money. The way to improve them
is
> by adding features, and making them more reliable.

Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-11 by John

I think the most "Buchla" thing Paul could do would be to really
work on the 500 series. The 500's seems to be focused towards
experimentation and working with current technology to present
something new in a modular format. Isn't this what Don was doing so
many years ago? If there is a need to put the 200 LPG out I say go
for it. Do it in MOTM format as this is the MOTM not Buchla... But
I really put my vote [ok two votes now :)] towards the 500 series as
that seems more inline with Buchla thinking. I.E. taking current
technology and making something crazy-cool with it.

John


Show quoted textHide quoted text
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Mark <yahoogroups@p...> wrote:
>
> Paul Schreiber is offering radically new and experimental designs
> with his 500 series. Yet, they aren't non-repeatble or
>innaccurate in the wacky way Buchla modules were. The 500 series
>is weird in Paul's way. He's doing his own thing. And that's
>beautiful, man :)

[motm] Re: 200 Series - from the Devil's Advocate

2003-06-12 by Mark

On 6/11/03, Mike Marsh put forth:
>Yes, this all well said. I would add that the Buchla has some
>interesting and useful sound mangling 'modules' though, and I would
>like them in my MOTM rig. I'm not after capturing a 'vibe' that is
>associated with Buchla, I'm after exploring timbre. I trust Paul
>will take interesting elements from Buchla's designs and make them
>his own, to some degree. I can't wait!
>
>I also can't wait for the Panning VCA. I couldn't wait for the
>Preamp/Envelope Follower so I bought Tony's EFG Deluxe (and his SVF
>for that matter).
>
>Again, MArk, well said.

Thanks for the good thoughts :)