MOTM

Psychedelic panel colors - bah humbug.
Colored knobs - bah humbug.
Colored panel graphics - bah humbug.
Modules laid out like Buchla modules - bah humbug.
Gratuitous nonfunctional panel graphics - bah humbug.

Tasteful use of different sized knobs - great!
Logical placement of jacks near input attenuators - great!
Tasteful use of functional panel graphics - great!

To those who ask for more function-based layout, remember: the MOTM 
format is absolutely the most space efficient format out there. 
Don't ask for other types of layouts, then complain that the 
resulting 3 and 4U modules won't fit in your 19" racks!

I don't find the Buchla layouts desireable or aesthetically 
pleasing. For the most consistent and functionally logical layout, 
look no further than (list old-timers groan in unison here) the E-MU 
modular. Signal inputs on the left, CV inputs on the bottom, outputs 
on the right. But the cost is a huge panel. For great functional 
graphics, see CMS/Arp 2500.

My Supermoe modules break MOTM rules by using smaller grids, jacks 
up the sides, etc. - but I feel that they still adhere to the spirit 
of the format.

Moe (grumpy from moving his office to a new location today)

I'm not sure how many people (including myself) were suggesting things 
be "wacky"  or psychedelic ,but, rather to entertain the idea of some 
experimentation--especially in the realm of parameter control and I/O 
placement. Its always easier to dream first and then reduce to reality 
later, rather than the other way around.

I do sound and UI interface design for big and rather conservative 
hardware manufacturers--this issue comes up time and time again and 
we've found it rewarding to try and throw a little chaos in first 
before the hammers of Josef Müller Brockmann,  Tog, et al are allowed 
to fall.

I'll be quiet now.

Best,

ad



On Donnerstag, Juni 12, 2003, at 04:37  Uhr, mate_stubb wrote:

> Psychedelic panel colors - bah humbug.
> Colored knobs - bah humbug.
> Colored panel graphics - bah humbug.
> Modules laid out like Buchla modules - bah humbug.
> Gratuitous nonfunctional panel graphics - bah humbug.
>
> Tasteful use of different sized knobs - great!
> Logical placement of jacks near input attenuators - great!
> Tasteful use of functional panel graphics - great!
>
> To those who ask for more function-based layout, remember: the MOTM
> format is absolutely the most space efficient format out there.
> Don't ask for other types of layouts, then complain that the
> resulting 3 and 4U modules won't fit in your 19" racks!
>
> I don't find the Buchla layouts desireable or aesthetically
> pleasing. For the most consistent and functionally logical layout,
> look no further than (list old-timers groan in unison here) the E-MU
> modular. Signal inputs on the left, CV inputs on the bottom, outputs
> on the right. But the cost is a huge panel. For great functional
> graphics, see CMS/Arp 2500.
>
> My Supermoe modules break MOTM rules by using smaller grids, jacks
> up the sides, etc. - but I feel that they still adhere to the spirit
> of the format.
>
> Moe (grumpy from moving his office to a new location today)
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
_____________________
Receive-Transmit
Marienburgerstr. 33
10405 Berlin
Germany
_____________________
www.receive-transmit.com
+49 030.231.80965
+49 179.750.1854

Don't be put off by my use of the term "wacky" - although I 
definitely consider the Serge pictured here to be a prime example:

http://www.scampers.com/egres/gallery.html

I was stating my opinion as a listmember, but not trying to squelch 
anyone else. Perhaps my message came off a little obnoxious. 

This list has a tradition of being one of the most tolerant and flame-
free on the net, certainly in the synth world.

Moe
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Day <aaron@r...> wrote:
> I'm not sure how many people (including myself) were suggesting 
things 
> be "wacky"  or psychedelic ,but, rather to entertain the idea of 
some 
> experimentation--especially in the realm of parameter control and 
I/O 
> placement. Its always easier to dream first and then reduce to 
reality 
> later, rather than the other way around.
> 
> I do sound and UI interface design for big and rather conservative 
> hardware manufacturers--this issue comes up time and time again and 
> we've found it rewarding to try and throw a little chaos in first 
> before the hammers of Josef Müller Brockmann,  Tog, et al are 
allowed 
> to fall.
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Day <aaron@r...> wrote:
> I'm not sure how many people (including myself) were suggesting 
things 
> be "wacky"  or psychedelic ,but, rather to entertain the idea of 
some 
> experimentation--especially in the realm of parameter control and 
I/O 
> placement. Its always easier to dream first and then reduce to 
reality 
> later, rather than the other way around.

Great point!

I think a lot of people are hung up on the idea that the panel 
experimentation Paul asked about means that MOTM is going to go 
psychedelic or use blue knobs or be wacky.

The grid and panel rules that are established are built upon the idea 
that panel space needed to be minimized and components needed to be 
standardized to keep costs down. There seems to be general agreement 
that these decisions were sensible ones, but that they compromise 
usability to some degree. Even on a small setup, it's easy to grab
the wrong knob because of the panel sameness.

When the module costs are going to $200, $300, or $400, saving $10 or 
$15 bucks by using consistent knobs or smaller panels doesn't seem 
like an important criteria anymore. If a larger panel, multiple knob 
sizes or new graphics make a better module, why not try it?

Being open to new ideas doesn't mean we want day-glow panels; it just 
means that Paul should have the freedom to experiment, push designs a 
little, and try new things. Paul's said that the panel design and 
component choice is a huge part of the module design process. Why have
arbitrary limitations on that process?

New modules should be the coolest possible modules, even if that
means breaking the rules.

About the Serge from "Mysterious Collector"...

That is a freakishly weird instrument! Not the direction for MOTM, at 
all! Yet it's strangely cool, too. I'd like to check out each bizarre 
panel. How about those dual joy-sticks? It almost looks like a reject 
from the set of Star Trek.

Tell me there wasn't some head music coming out of this beast in its 
heyday!

On 6/12/03, elle_webb put forth:
>I think a lot of people are hung up on the idea that the panel
>experimentation Paul asked about means that MOTM is going to go
>psychedelic or use blue knobs or be wacky.

Well, that would make it more "Buchla-esqe" or at least more like the
Buchla 200-series modular that did look rather 60's, had blue knobs,
and was generally wacky.

>The grid and panel rules that are established are built upon the idea
>that panel space needed to be minimized and components needed to be
>standardized to keep costs down. There seems to be general agreement
>that these decisions were sensible ones, but that they compromise
>usability to some degree. Even on a small setup, it's easy to grab
>the wrong knob because of the panel sameness.

That's a typical problem with anything with so many knobs.  It's
certainly no worse than your typical recording console.  My advice
would be not make changes that you can't hear in the monitors.

>When the module costs are going to $200, $300, or $400, saving $10 or
>$15 bucks by using consistent knobs or smaller panels doesn't seem
>like an important criteria anymore. If a larger panel, multiple knob
>sizes or new graphics make a better module, why not try it?

I agree that informative graphics or different knob sizes could be
useful, but changing the size of the panels would cause much more
trouble than it is worth.  I heard some people say that they would
like to put this new MOTM series in a seperate cabinet.  Ignoring the
fact that it might be a very long time before there are enough of
these modules to even fill an entire rack panel, most MOTM customers
would want to be able to mount these new modules in with their
existing system.

>Being open to new ideas doesn't mean we want day-glow panels; it just
>means that Paul should have the freedom to experiment, push designs a
>little, and try new things. Paul's said that the panel design and
>component choice is a huge part of the module design process. Why have
>arbitrary limitations on that process?

Such limitations are not arbitrary.  They are what Paul decided was
best for the system.  Making those decisions took much time and
consideration.  While I agree that he should make this new series as
innovative and powerful as possible, please keep in mind that Paul
has to be able to manufacture and sell them to existing customers,
and that we have to be willing and able to buy them.

>New modules should be the coolest possible modules, even if that
>means breaking the rules.

Synthesis Technology already makes the coolest possible modules :)

For me, I think Paul should stay within the general aesthetics of the
current MOTM line.

However, as long as the panel colour matches and the knobs match, even if
sized differently,  I do *not* have a problem if he moves "off the grid".

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Mark <yahoogroups@p...> wrote:

> Such limitations are not arbitrary.  They are what Paul decided was
> best for the system.  Making those decisions took much time and
> consideration.

Agreed. But those decisions were made 4 years ago for the situation 
at that time. Now Paul's asked if we're open to him making changes 
that might improve the system. It's arbitrary for him to have to play 
by old rules forever - it could limit the evolution of his line-up. 

If he's interested in trying out new design ideas, that's great. I 
trust his judgement.

Wider modules would still fit in our cabinets, but might give him
room to make more useful panels. Different knobs or types of controls
might improve usability, without looking out of place. I'd be 
interested in seeing whatever graphics he might be thinking of, too.

I'm guessing that anything he would come up with would fit into 
everybody's systems, mechanically and aesthetically.

On the other hand, if we keep griping about the backlog, he may take 
my suggestion to freak out more seriously...

> Synthesis Technology already makes the coolest possible modules :)
Agreed - to the tune of thousands of dollars.

Telling Paul we don't want him to try out new ideas...not cool, in my 
book. :(