FW: [motm] 200 Series
2003-06-11 by Tkacs, Ken
I can't see deviating from the MOTM standard. Why do it? I'm not sure why the introduction of Buchla-style modules warrants a change in appearance that was never considered for any other module or module clone. As the fantastic success of Stooge Industries panels shows, a lot of us are bending over backwards to make a lot of our other gear match our MOTM modules in precise appearance, not just mounting sizes, but color, fonts, labeling, spacing... so why now introduce a series of official modules that breaks the styling consistency? Are banana and 1/8th" jacks next? There have been many cases in the past where there has been a temptation to break grid, go with smaller knobs, and so on because of *functional* demands, and we've all agonized and gotten creative to avoid doing that. Here, we're talking about wrecking the uniformity out of... *what?* Frivolity? Boredom? I guess I just don't understand why there's been such a rigid adherence to the color scheme, styling, grid, etc. for all of these years, and now that there are a few Buchla designs on the table, it's up for discussion.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...] 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.