MOTM

On Tuesday 28 October 2003 23:09, Paul Schreiber wrote:
> NOW.......explain those "critical gaps" in the product
> line!

Err, that ARP filter? ;P

- Robert

Well, it is a 2-edged sword. IBM invented the PC format, paniced when others "muscled in", and
anyone remember Microchannel and the TopView OS (snicker). How about the EISA buss connector from
Compaq? Eck.......

Having a universal format is only good for business. Doesn't it really "dilute" the business, or
one can argue that there's not that much business left to dilute in the first place :)

The only way I think to "lose business" in the manner Mike speaks of is for someone who has *no
idea* that "this stuff is still made" (I heard that just yesterday), doesn't know that Doepfer,
AS, Modcan, etc exist. So, the Stooge panels 'tips them off' and they take $$$ elsewhere. On the
other hand, page visits originating from www.modularsynth.com are the #1 way people arrive to the
site indirectly.

Something tells me Stooge panels are the best thing to happen to Blacet in years :)

Like IBM, I can't 'prevent' anybody from directly competing with a MOTM-format module. Heck, 5 of
Cynthia's models ARE MOTM pc boards :)

So, I'd rather worry about stuff I can control, like delivery and new designs. I agree 110% that
what hurts me most is slow delivery. Another paradox: I'd have faster delivery if I wasn't so
popular :)

I am putting several things in place to speed up delivery. I just received 30 '190 stuffed/wave
soldered pc boards. All the solder , resistors and caps for the kits is done outside. I'm
expanding the R&D design and firmware effort to more and more people.

I consider Larry & Moe *critical* to MOTM's success (group hug!). I mean, if you would have told
me when I started in 1998 that I would sell 5,000 modules, I'd have laughed my a** off.

NOW.......explain those "critical gaps" in the product line!

Paul S.

On Oct 28, 2003, at 2:09 PM, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> Well, it is a 2-edged sword. IBM invented the PC format, paniced when 
> others "muscled in", and
> anyone remember Microchannel and the TopView OS (snicker). How about 
> the EISA buss connector from
> Compaq? Eck.......

True, true. There are some other lessons to learned from that analogy 
as well. It could easily be argued that IBM lost that war a long time 
ago. Intel's market cap is higher than IBM's these days. So is 
Microsofts. Of course IBM is still in business, but I think we're 
comparing apples and squid here ^_^

Okay, now for some crazy talk: Maybe MOTM could work on licensing out 
MOTM designs? Or offer some sort of MOTM seal-of-approval. You review a 
design, approve it if it lives up to the MOTM level of quality, and 
then offer for a small cut to sell "MOTM-Approved modules" on the 
Synthtech website. Or maybe something closer to THX certification? I 
also aspire to build some of my own custom modules, but I don't have 
any desire to try and design a whole synth system, or try  and run a 
whole business on these few modules. As a customer my loyalty to the 
MOTM brand has to do with the quality of the modules. I wonder how much 
that factors into others purchasing decisions?

> Something tells me Stooge panels are the best thing to happen to 
> Blacet in years :)

I personally wish the blacet modules where laid out in a more MOTM 
friendly manner. Maybe there is something you and John could work out 
there. As much as I love soldering, hooking up Blacet modules in MOTM 
format is a pain. It's worth extra to me to not have to go source the 
parts, beg you for knobs, and cut custom pcb mounts just for an analog 
delay.

> I am putting several things in place to speed up delivery. I just 
> received 30 '190 stuffed/wave
> soldered pc boards. All the solder , resistors and caps for the kits 
> is done outside. I'm
> expanding the R&D design and firmware effort to more and more people.

This is the best news on any subject I've heard in months ^_^

> I consider Larry & Moe *critical* to MOTM's success (group hug!). I 
> mean, if you would have told
> me when I started in 1998 that I would sell 5,000 modules, I'd have 
> laughed my a** off.

No argument there. Larry & Moe are definitely a part of what makes the 
MOTM format special. It's hard not to see them as a branch of 
Synthtech.

> NOW.......explain those "critical gaps" in the product line!

*cough* um, uh, eh.... ^_^

I've been thinking about delays for a while now. I got all excited 
about BBDs a few months ago when chip availability got removed from the 
equation, but BBDs are just one answer. And if the question is "high 
bandwidth" the answer sucks. I still think the MOTM format needs a 
really good delay. Delay is crucial for making many interesting sounds. 
Delay is also one of those things that works better in the digital 
domain, and that starts to run afoul of the tired analog/digital 
argument. I personally don't care, I want a good, high quality digital 
delay with CV controlled parameters. I don't want some outboard wart on 
my modular, and I don't want a DIY hack solution.

I want a musical delay with full CV control/syncing of time/feedback 
parameters. This is worth about 500$ to me.

I've been looking at cypress 192KHz AD/DA chipsets, they seem very nice 
from the spec sheets. I also know that the filters and input limiter 
stages are what separates a good from a bad AD. How delay sounds as it 
changes time is extremely important to me too. (no clipping, ever!!) 
This sort begs for a proper DSP in the signal path which sort of make 
things expensive. It hasn't gotten to the point where I'm willing to 
pony up the money for dev boards and prototypes yet, but it's getting 
close. I wouldn't complain if someone *cough* beat me to the punch!

--mikes

> > Well, it is a 2-edged sword. IBM invented the PC format, paniced when
> > others "muscled in", and
> > anyone remember Microchannel and the TopView OS (snicker). How about
> > the EISA buss connector from
> > Compaq? Eck.......

> but I think we're  comparing apples and squid here ^_^

My point was: history has shown (in a VERY dramatic way) that trying to "claim ownership" of a de
facto standard is not viewed favorably. You are better off giving it away and battling it out in
the marketplace, stop making up arbitrary proprietary crap just to lock people in, and not use
the courts as a short-term revenue stream :)

The reason I picked a large format is the first place is that it *automatically* prevents
low-balling competition. I elected not to participate in the Balset/Doepfer/AS market-space. Been
there, done that, got the tee shirt.

>
> Okay, now for some crazy talk: Maybe MOTM could work on licensing out
> MOTM designs?

I'm not clear on what you mean. I already license out stuff to Cynthia. Because she's the only
one that has *asked*. Again, my "protection" against cloning is based on the circuit parts. You
can't buy SSM2210s any cheaper than me, and if you substitute a 33 cent part, it's NOT THE SAME
CIRCUIT. Won't behave the same or sound the same.

I asked Rex if he would consider a joint Serge/MOTM deal. No go. For some reason only he can
explain, he feels that no one has yet "figured out" what makes a Serge 'tick'. Errr...give me, JH
and Old Crow about 10 days and the ENTIRE Serge line is cloned. But since Serge is still in
business, I have elected not to go there. However, this last price increase may open that
door..... :))

>Or offer some sort of MOTM seal-of-approval

I'm not clear on how this generate revenue for me. Is this like the 'Intel Inside' sticker? What
benefit would Doepfer see if they said "Paul Schreiber think's we are great!"

I pay royalities to 4 different people (soon to be 7). Anybody can pick up the phone or email me
with offers. Operators are standing by :)

>
> I want a musical delay with full CV control/syncing of time/feedback
> parameters.

Well, this is something that is non-trival from the SW side. Heck, you can get DSP eval boards
from *Mouser*, fer cryin' out loud! But the SW and seeming endless listening tests ("it doesn't
sound as good as my (filling in the blank with any of 4000 possible answers, from Lexicon to free
VST plugins)......").

I guess I'm spoiled, as I have a Eventide DSP7000 and a tc electronic M3000, both fully
programmable in real-time (over MIDI). It's also a matter of economics: if me or someone else is
writing algorithms for 7 months and I sell say 60 of them, it has to make $$$ sense. Because
there's ALWAYS the ''but I like my (any one of 4000 possible answers) better!"

This is why I didn't come out with a Moog filter until I has absolutely 110% convinced the design
was correct. This is why the '480 is 1 year in development.

Paul S.

Two years in development. ;)  Original prototype was built 2 years ago.
Of course, it was tweaked a lot in those 2 years...

Crow

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> This is why the '480 is 1 year in development.
> 
> Paul S.

> I'm not clear on how this generate revenue for me. Is this like the 
> 'Intel Inside' sticker? What
> benefit would Doepfer see if they said "Paul Schreiber think's we are 
> great!"

This would be the "crazy" part of crazy talk ;)  At least amongst the 
small group of people who I've shown the MOTM to, they pretty much 
universally agree that your synth sounds really, really nice. I think 
the cynthia example is a fine one.

>> I want a musical delay with full CV control/syncing of time/feedback
>> parameters.
>
> Well, this is something that is non-trival from the SW side. Heck, you 
> can get DSP eval boards
> from *Mouser*, fer cryin' out loud! But the SW and seeming endless 
> listening tests ("it doesn't
> sound as good as my (filling in the blank with any of 4000 possible 
> answers, from Lexicon to free
> VST plugins)......").

Hmm, maybe because I'm a software engineer that part doesn't seem to 
bother me too much. On the other hand, those DSP eval boards are a 
little to expensive for me to bolt into a stooge panel and call it a 
day.

> I guess I'm spoiled, as I have a Eventide DSP7000 and a tc electronic 
> M3000, both fully
> programmable in real-time (over MIDI). It's also a matter of 
> economics: if me or someone else is
> writing algorithms for 7 months and I sell say 60 of them, it has to 
> make $$$ sense. Because
> there's ALWAYS the ''but I like my (any one of 4000 possible answers) 
> better!"

I have an eclipse, and access to a 7000 too. Neither of these boxes 
integrates into the signal and control path of my modular worth a damn. 
They are all post processing equipment. Way overpowered for adding a 
little delay  to one input of a '440. This is the crux of the problem. 
I don't think this theoretical module should try to compete with an 
M3000 or an Orville.   It doesn't need multitapped echo chambers with 
variable room size and a preset called "Mountain Goat 3" It just needs 
delay time, feedback, and a low pass. All CV controllable.

Maybe I'll pick up a 56k eval board with my next mouser order ;)

--mikes