MOTM

I have planned for some time to increase prices Aug. 1st to cover costs of
"outsourcing" more of the MOTM kitting work.

However, I have received notice that as of May 1st, the prices for Spectrol
pots, the Switchcraft jacks, the NKK switches AND the Tyco knobs have all
increased *25%* !! As you know, these components are the bulk of my expenses in
the MOTM product (the 2 others are the front panel and the pc board/bracket).

Therefore I am going to raise prices effective ***JULY 1st ***, and the increase
will be **SIGNIFICANT**. I will have to spend untold hours with Excel to figure
it all out (not in the schedule!)

This is something of a shock, as the prices for these items have held steady for
over 4 YEARS. But sadly, there is nothing I can do about it. MOTM is NOT a huge
money-maker for me (about $28,000 after taxes on average per year). I am
thankful for all the loyal, waiting customers but I realize that this increase
WILL cause people to look elsewhere.

So....orders place prior to July 1st will of course will be shipped at the
current rate. Trust me, I am NOT HAPPY AT ALL about this.

Paul S.

>Spectrol pots, the Switchcraft jacks, the NKK switches AND the Tyco 
knobs have all increased *25%* !!<

This may be blasphemy, but...

The knobs I can understand keeping, but do you have to stick to 
Spectrol and Switchcraft? There surely are cheaper alternatives that 
will work just as well and last just as long.

You could offer the masses the cheaper alternatives, whereas people 
who insist on Switchcraft jacks and sealed pots could pay the extra 
bucks.

Just a thought...

johnm

Switches and jacks are possible to change of course since they are always
connected by wires.  However the Spectrol pots define the specific
footprints on the PCBs and I doubt Paul wants to redesign and retool all
those.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: konkuro [mailto:konkuro@...]
> 
> This may be blasphemy, but...
> 
> The knobs I can understand keeping, but do you have to stick to
> Spectrol and Switchcraft? There surely are cheaper alternatives that
> will work just as well and last just as long.
> 
> You could offer the masses the cheaper alternatives, whereas people
> who insist on Switchcraft jacks and sealed pots could pay the extra
> bucks.
> 
> Just a thought...
> 
> johnm
>

The reason we went to MOTM in the first place is the quality, isn't it?  
Sure, we like the layout,
and the selection of modules, but isn'tthe stability of the modules one 
of the major reasons we're
not 'saving money' by going for a (I won't name names) cheaper but 
inferior company?  I'm sure
all of you with years of experience have dealt with scratchy pots 
before.  They're loads of fun,
aren't they?  Especially when they're so bad you have to replace them.  
Yes, there's nothing I'd
look forward to more than having to tear one of my modules out of my 
rack, and hack it apart
so I can replace a pot that's gone foul.  Sure, there are probably 
'in-between' solutions, better
than cheap Alpha carbon pots, but not as nice as the high-end of the 
bourns and spectrol pots
we're used to.  But I like the idea that I can leave my knobs in their 
current position, and leave
my rack for a year, come back to it, fire it up, and have it be 
*roughly* the same as it was when
I left... and if I need to turn a pot, the initial movement isn't going 
to sound staticky, or send random
insane control voltages everywhere.  *Maybe* you can make do with 
cheaper jacks, but for one
thing, they're not as nice to work with (IMO) on the component side.  
And yes, I've got projects
from many years ago (not all of which were done by me) using cheaper 
jacks.  Some of these are
fine, but some aren't.  It's more of a gamble when you're using contacts 
of unknown quality, with
unknown impurities in the metal.  Maybe your jacks will stay fine for 
many years if you live in
Arizona, but here in CT, where I'm a few hundred feet from the ocean, 
I've got to deal with
relatively high humidity coupled with a noticably higher amount of SALT 
everywhere.  Pots get
scratchy here, and jacks get crappy.  I think the whole price increase 
thing is a non-issue.
If money is your only concern, what the hell are you doing building an 
analog modular synth?
(Sometimes my friends and family ask me this, as I'm not exactly 
wealthy, and I'm making *no*
money with my debatable musical talent, but we've all got to have 
hobbies.)  I look forward to
the day when I can pass my MOTM synth on to my kids, or grandkids, and 
show them how
we used to make music.  "You know, even analog electronics can be reliable."

If you've got a problem with Paul's *core* design decisions, then get 
out.  He doesn't control
the economy any more than any of us do.  Go bitch to his suppliers.

(Note, this wasn't intended as a response to any particular person's 
complaints, as most of
them have been relatively sane and reasonable, regardless of if I agree 
completely.  I just want
a response pre-made to the people who will inevitably bitch and moan, or 
are at least thinking
about it)

-Geoff, who should be heading off to work now.

konkuro wrote:

> >Spectrol pots, the Switchcraft jacks, the NKK switches AND the Tyco
> knobs have all increased *25%* !!<
>
> This may be blasphemy, but...
>
> The knobs I can understand keeping, but do you have to stick to
> Spectrol and Switchcraft? There surely are cheaper alternatives that
> will work just as well and last just as long.
>
> You could offer the masses the cheaper alternatives, whereas people
> who insist on Switchcraft jacks and sealed pots could pay the extra
> bucks.
>
> Just a thought...
>
> johnm

You're right.  It is.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: konkuro <konkuro@...>
This may be blasphemy, but...

Geoff wrote:

>The reason we went to MOTM in the first place is the quality, isn't 
it? Sure, we like the layout, and the selection of modules, but 
isn'tthe stability of the modules one of the major reasons we're 
not 'saving money' by going for a (I won't name names) cheaper but 
inferior company?<

In a word, no.

But I just can't limit myself to one word, so...

I generally do NOT like the MOTM format (The Black Sea), and I think 
Paul's mania for certain switches and jacks has more to do with 
marketing than functionality. Seriously, how many people have ever 
had problems with a toggle switch?!  In my 50 years on the planet, 
I've never had even the cheapest toggle switch cause problems. As for 
jacks, well, just about any *panel jack* is going to provide decades 
of use.

Also, sealed pots can indeed get scratchy and, when they do, your 
only recourse is to replace them. Indeed, one thing I very much 
dislike about MOTM pots is that they feel "cheap" to me, regardless 
of their expense. There is no dampening effect to them; they move far 
too easily. When you have lots of patchcords hooked up, all it takes 
is one tiny bump against a knob and you can be SOL. That is 
why "stiff" pots should always be used on a modular system--they tend 
to stay put.

My all-time favorite pots? Mouser pots from Rat Shack. Deliciously 
damped response and they never, EVER get scratchy. And I do mean 
after decades of use. Cheap too!

OK, so if I don't like the format and think the jacks, pots, 
switches, etc. are essentially a marketing gimmick, why MOTM?   
Because of the *circuits*. Some of the ones in the signal path, 
anyway. I love my sub-octave mux, and have a MOTM 440 on the way, as 
I was most impressed with it (if Synthtech ever comes up with a -24 
dB HPF, it is as good as sold). Having tested the MOTM FFB, I can 
vouch for the quality of that as well (IF THE DAMN THING EVER GETS 
PRODUCED!). I wouldn't buy one, as I no longer think FFB's make much 
sense, but it does what it is designed to do extremely well. Lordy, 
what a quiet design! 

My synthesizer is a dotcom. A very large one. And I love it. LOVE it, 
do you hear me?

OK, so if I love it so much, why am I buying MOTM modules here and 
there?

I can answer that, but first let me share a fantasy with you...

I'd love to rent a small motel room in Texas and invite Paul S. and 
Roger Arrick over for drinks.

Then I'd get them nice and liquored up.

When sufficiently pliable and willing, I would tenderly remove their 
shirts...

Then I'd tie them to a chair...

...And WHIP them with a Cat o' Nine Patchcords for not going into 
business together!  :-)

Just think-- Gorgeous dotcom aesthetics and cabinets and dotcom 
manufacturing! Those wonderful dotcom oscillators, ADSR's and that 
sequencer! MOTM filters and other signal path goodies! 'Tis enough to 
make my mind reel and my loins stir.

'Twas not to be, however.

So I'm solving the problem myself by creating the Ultimate Efficiency 
Synthesizer, which will be my base dotcom system plus modules from 
Synthtech, Blacet, and maybe a touch of Modcan/Cynthia. All in dotcom 
format, however. I have one more tier to go on my system, but will 
keep my vow never to create a modular that is taller than Wendy 
Carlos' Moog.

Did I ramble?  Sorry.  ;-)

Oh, and Geoff, what are you doing working on a Saturday?!

johnm

In a message dated 6/12/2004 4:48:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
konkuro@... writes:

Seriously, how many people have ever 
had problems with a toggle  switch?!  In my 50 years on the planet, 
I've never had even the  cheapest toggle switch cause problems. As for 
jacks, well, just about any  *panel jack* is going to provide decades 
of use.

Also, sealed pots  can indeed get scratchy and, when they do, your 
only recourse is to  replace them.


I have to comment here: I have had to replace many toggle switches and  jacks 
in my slightly less than 50 years on this planet. The one small repair I  had 
to make on my Serge (now twenty years old) was to replace an open frame  
(though not a cheapo) pot.
 
No complaints about price increases here, though I wouldn't mind having a  
ballpark figure on what the word "substantial" might mean in terms of dollars or 
 percentage increase.
 
JB

If you don't like MOTM, but everybody here does, do you think Paul 
is going to change his entire design philosophy because of that?

Stick with your favorite manufacturer, you'll be happier in the long 
run.

This smacks of troll to me.

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
> 
> >The reason we went to MOTM in the first place is the quality, 
isn't 
> it? Sure, we like the layout, and the selection of modules, but 
> isn'tthe stability of the modules one of the major reasons we're 
> not 'saving money' by going for a (I won't name names) cheaper but 
> inferior company?<
> 
> In a word, no.
> 
> But I just can't limit myself to one word, so...
> 
> I generally do NOT like the MOTM format (The Black Sea), and I 
think 
> Paul's mania for certain switches and jacks has more to do with 
> marketing than functionality. Seriously, how many people have ever 
> had problems with a toggle switch?!  In my 50 years on the planet, 
> I've never had even the cheapest toggle switch cause problems. As 
for 
> jacks, well, just about any *panel jack* is going to provide 
decades 
> of use.
> 
> Also, sealed pots can indeed get scratchy and, when they do, your 
> only recourse is to replace them. Indeed, one thing I very much 
> dislike about MOTM pots is that they feel "cheap" to me, 
regardless 
> of their expense. There is no dampening effect to them; they move 
far 
> too easily. When you have lots of patchcords hooked up, all it 
takes 
> is one tiny bump against a knob and you can be SOL. That is 
> why "stiff" pots should always be used on a modular system--they 
tend 
> to stay put.
> 
> My all-time favorite pots? Mouser pots from Rat Shack. Deliciously 
> damped response and they never, EVER get scratchy. And I do mean 
> after decades of use. Cheap too!
> 
> OK, so if I don't like the format and think the jacks, pots, 
> switches, etc. are essentially a marketing gimmick, why MOTM?   
> Because of the *circuits*. Some of the ones in the signal path, 
> anyway. I love my sub-octave mux, and have a MOTM 440 on the way, 
as 
> I was most impressed with it (if Synthtech ever comes up with a -
24 
> dB HPF, it is as good as sold). Having tested the MOTM FFB, I can 
> vouch for the quality of that as well (IF THE DAMN THING EVER GETS 
> PRODUCED!). I wouldn't buy one, as I no longer think FFB's make 
much 
> sense, but it does what it is designed to do extremely well. 
Lordy, 
> what a quiet design! 
> 
> My synthesizer is a dotcom. A very large one. And I love it. LOVE 
it, 
> do you hear me?
> 
> OK, so if I love it so much, why am I buying MOTM modules here and 
> there?
> 
> I can answer that, but first let me share a fantasy with you...
> 
> I'd love to rent a small motel room in Texas and invite Paul S. 
and 
> Roger Arrick over for drinks.
> 
> Then I'd get them nice and liquored up.
> 
> When sufficiently pliable and willing, I would tenderly remove 
their 
> shirts...
> 
> Then I'd tie them to a chair...
> 
> ...And WHIP them with a Cat o' Nine Patchcords for not going into 
> business together!  :-)
> 
> Just think-- Gorgeous dotcom aesthetics and cabinets and dotcom 
> manufacturing! Those wonderful dotcom oscillators, ADSR's and that 
> sequencer! MOTM filters and other signal path goodies! 'Tis enough 
to 
> make my mind reel and my loins stir.
> 
> 'Twas not to be, however.
> 
> So I'm solving the problem myself by creating the Ultimate 
Efficiency 
> Synthesizer, which will be my base dotcom system plus modules from 
> Synthtech, Blacet, and maybe a touch of Modcan/Cynthia. All in 
dotcom 

> format, however. I have one more tier to go on my system, but will 
> keep my vow never to create a modular that is taller than Wendy 
> Carlos' Moog.
> 
> Did I ramble?  Sorry.  ;-)
> 
> Oh, and Geoff, what are you doing working on a Saturday?!
> 
> johnm

Uh, wrong.  I have had a problem with a synthesizer toggle switch, not the
mechanism, but the cheap threads being stripped.  To protect the guilty, I
won't name the synth manufacturer, just say it is one you're intimately
familiar with.  This was recognized as obsolete switches at a synth meet and
I got replacements.

I quizzed Paul on several pertinent engineering design questions before
making selection for MOTM as my primary system in 2000.  He passed with
flying colors.  As I have a BSEE and 20 years of hardware design experience
including a year at Kurzweil (worked alongside Hal Chamberlin and Bob
Chidlaw, among others), I feel that I'm fairly well qualified to judge the
designs in the field.

Since 2001 I have bought PC boards, modules or units from CGS, Oakley,
Encore, Blacet, Wiard, Serge and Synthesizers.com.  Out of those, I have
noticed manufacturing or design issues with four of these sources.  Again, I
won't name names, but among the issues were PC board plated through holes
that were misdrilled causing an eventual failure, loose conductive metal
shavings within a module, knob inset falling off a cheap knob, and 16 Volt
rated Electrolytics for decoupling on 15 Volt DC power, ignoring good
derating practices.

Paul's module line is not over-engineered, it is engineered to work and to
last, based upon his many years of analog hardware engineering experience. 

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: konkuro [mailto:konkuro@...]
> 
> I generally do NOT like the MOTM format (The Black Sea), and I think
> Paul's mania for certain switches and jacks has more to do with
> marketing than functionality. Seriously, how many people have ever
> had problems with a toggle switch?!  In my 50 years on the planet,
> I've never had even the cheapest toggle switch cause problems. As for
> jacks, well, just about any *panel jack* is going to provide decades
> of use.
>

Mike Marsh wrote:

>If you don't like MOTM, but everybody here does,<


*Sigh.*  Where did I say I didn't like MOTM? If I didn't like MOTM, I 
wouldn't be BUYING it!

There are things about it I don't like (which I named) and there are 
things about it I like (which I named). 

It is funny how analog owners tend to have digital attitudes. That 
is, you are expected to love everything about a certain manufacturer 
or not to love everything. Such is not the case with me (ask Roger!). 
It is generally my practice to discuss the pros AND cons of the 
modules out there.  

>do you think Paul is going to change his entire design philosophy 
because of that?<

Don't know, though I've been working on him for years.  :-)


>Stick with your favorite manufacturer, you'll be happier in the long 
run.<

I'm happy now.  But I'd still like to incorporate modules from other 
manufacturers into my dotcom system, including MOTM (I forgot to 
mention my Stooge modules and Encore frequency shifter!)


>This smacks of troll to me.<

My opinions get me in enough trouble without trolling.  However, I 
meant everything I said in the last post. Except the part about the 
Cat o' Nine Patchcords. Perhaps.  

johnm

Paul's picked his niche in the market; best if he sticks with it. No point
in making the same modules another manufacturer is already making - better
if you can explain exactly how your product is different (and therefore
better) than another. Paul wins by using the highest quality components and
providing the best kits, for people who want those things. .com wins by
making less expensive Moog-styled modules for people who want that. Aiming
at different niches means the total market is bigger and supports more
manufacturers - if both did the same products, one probably wouldn't last.
Marketing weasels even have a word for it ("differentiation" I think).

Don't recall anybody saying you had to like everything about it.

					...Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: konkuro [mailto:konkuro@...] 
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 9:22 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] Re: **PRICE INCREASES VERY SOON**

Mike Marsh wrote:

>If you don't like MOTM, but everybody here does,<


*Sigh.*  Where did I say I didn't like MOTM? If I didn't like MOTM, I
wouldn't be BUYING it!

There are things about it I don't like (which I named) and there are things
about it I like (which I named). 

It is funny how analog owners tend to have digital attitudes. That is, you
are expected to love everything about a certain manufacturer or not to love
everything. Such is not the case with me (ask Roger!). 
It is generally my practice to discuss the pros AND cons of the modules out
there.  

>do you think Paul is going to change his entire design philosophy
because of that?<

Don't know, though I've been working on him for years.  :-)


>Stick with your favorite manufacturer, you'll be happier in the long 
run.<

I'm happy now.  But I'd still like to incorporate modules from other 
manufacturers into my dotcom system, including MOTM (I forgot to 
mention my Stooge modules and Encore frequency shifter!)


>This smacks of troll to me.<

My opinions get me in enough trouble without trolling.  However, I 
meant everything I said in the last post. Except the part about the 
Cat o' Nine Patchcords. Perhaps.  

johnm




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi,
 General comments here (and all IMO)..

 About the toggle switches... I bought a cheaper subsitute once, and the 
bushing failed when I installed it. I didn't go crazy when tightening it, either. 
None of the "Paul-approved" toggles have ever failed on me.  

 I also prefer the pots' actions in the MOTM line over others. To me, the 
lighter action is similar to a high quality mixing desk's super smooth fader 
action. I've *really* appreciated the lighter MOTM pot action in some patches 
(ring mod, FM patches, etc). Some non-MOTM modules that I own do have firmer pot 
actions, and they feel comparatively cheap to me. In fact, I'm replacing them 
now with pots that match my MOTM modules. FWIW, my modular is 4 rows high, and 
I haven't had a problem with cables throwing my settings off.    

  Same goes with the action of the NKK switches, and J112a jacks. They are my 
favorites of all others I've tried. I think Paul did an excellent job in 
selecting all of these parts. Personally, I wouldn't change a thing. 

 Cheers,
 Andrew Sanchez
 


In a message dated 6/12/04 6:48:43 PM Central Daylight Time, konkuro@... 
writes:

> I generally do NOT like the MOTM format (The Black Sea), and I think 
>  Paul's mania for certain switches and jacks has more to do with 
>  marketing than functionality. Seriously, how many people have ever 
>  had problems with a toggle switch?!  In my 50 years on the planet, 
>  I've never had even the cheapest toggle switch cause problems. As for 
>  jacks, well, just about any *panel jack* is going to provide decades 
>  of use.
>  
>  Also, sealed pots can indeed get scratchy and, when they do, your 
>  only recourse is to replace them. Indeed, one thing I very much 
>  dislike about MOTM pots is that they feel "cheap" to me, regardless 
>  of their expense. There is no dampening effect to them; they move far 
>  too easily. When you have lots of patchcords hooked up, all it takes 
>  is one tiny bump against a knob and you can be SOL. That is 
>  why "stiff" pots should always be used on a modular system--they tend 
>  to stay put.
>  
>  My all-time favorite pots? Mouser pots from Rat Shack. Deliciously 
>  damped response and they never, EVER get scratchy. And I do mean 
>  after decades of use. Cheap too!

John Loffink wrote:

>I quizzed Paul on several pertinent engineering design questions 
before making selection for MOTM as my primary system in 2000. He 
passed with flying colors. As I have a BSEE and 20 years of hardware 
design experience including a year at Kurzweil (worked alongside Hal 
Chamberlin and Bob Chidlaw, among others), I feel that I'm fairly 
well qualified to judge the designs in the field.<

I feel I'm also qualified enough to make certain evaluations (that's 
been covered elsewhere, so I won't rehash it) and also did a lot of 
homework on MOTM. In fact (was it in 1999?), I was literally HOURS 
from making a sizable purchase from Synthtech when a certain person 
who shall remain nameless pointed me to Synthesizers.com. The rest is 
history, albeit minor history.

Keep in mind that I was impressed enough with MOTM that I was ready 
to send several thousand dollars to Texas.  But there were things 
that bugged me (at the time).  These were:

1.  A limited selection of modules.

My taste in modular synths is very "vanilla"--I HATE gimmicks.  I 
liked (and still like) the general "vanilla" aspect of MOTM. But the 
Synthtech line at that time just wasn't very big.

2.  No enclosure.

This was annoying in a major way.  Modules only a few inches deep 
shouldn't require racks that are 18-24" deep!  I searched rack 
company after rack company and finally found a compromise, but wasn't 
all that happy with having to do that. I wanted an *instrument*. Like 
a Moog. The rack solution seemed kind of kludgy to me.

3.  Price

Prices seemed a bit on the high side. I was somewhat uncomfortable 
having to pay for what I deemed to be engineering overkill (vide 
infra).

4.  Kit factor

Aside from having formal training, I used to design and build my own 
gear and have assembled countless kits.  I can solder with the best 
of 'em.  But at my tender advanced age, time is more precious and I'd 
rather not be building stuff, if it can be avoided. I had to deal 
with the cognitive dissonance of wanting factory modules, but at kit 
prices.

5.  Overkill.

OK, right now I'm looking at my beloved MOTM-120 Sub-Octave Mux (a 
factory unit).  The point about the pots, jacks and switches has 
already been made, but could somebody please tell me why 2.5" wires 
need to be shielded?  And let's look at the lugs on those switches 
and pots, shall we?  What's with the heat shrink tubing? It isn't 
like there is any danger of them shorting!  Such frills just add 
expense.

On the other hand...

It's all about marketing.  You see, Herr Schreiber is not as innocent 
as our good Dr. Moog was in such matters. The weight of the modules, 
the unnecessary heat shrink and the Lilliputian shielded cables 
create a certain effect that has less to do with electricity than it 
does with perception.  The modules are *decadent.*  They are meaty 
and weighty and fun to hold.  The switches (though less expensive 
ones would work every bit as well) make a satisfying "schip" sound 
when you flip them.  I could write a pamphlet on the marketing 
tactics of you-know-who, (and I'm not entirely convinced the recent 
price hike isn't among them...), but I don't see overkill for the 
sake of marketing as a bad thing. The decadence of the modules is 
part of their appeal.  I do love to fondle this module!  :-)


>I won't name names, but among the issues were PC board plated 
through holes that were misdrilled causing an eventual failure, loose 
conductive metal shavings within a module, knob inset falling off a 
cheap knob,<

Well, unless I'm mistaken, the knobs on a dotcom are the same ones 
Moog uses, so...

>and 16 Volt rated Electrolytics for decoupling on 15 Volt DC power, 
ignoring good derating practices.<

Hmmmm...  That can't be dotcom either, since I'm looking at the back 
of my dotcom FFB right now and it uses 50V 'lytics just like MOTM. 
That's plenty of headroom.

>Paul's module line is not over-engineered, it is engineered to work 
and to last, based upon his many years of analog hardware engineering 
experience.<

Indeed these modules WILL last.  But so will others...

All that aside, could somebody on the  MOTM crew please design a -24 
dB HPF before the price hike?   :-)

johnm

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:
> My opinions get me in enough trouble without trolling.  However, I 
> meant everything I said in the last post. Except the part about the 
> Cat o' Nine Patchcords. Perhaps.  
> 
> johnm

Uh, you might want to rethink this part, as well:

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "konkuro" <konkuro@a...> wrote:

>I can answer that, but first let me share a fantasy with you...
>
>I'd love to rent a small motel room in Texas and invite Paul S. and
>Roger Arrick over for drinks.
>
>Then I'd get them nice and liquored up.
>
>When sufficiently pliable and willing, I would tenderly remove their
>shirts...
>
>Then I'd tie them to a chair...