MOTM

Does any one have this unit from CGS.synth passive
module? I am courious what it sound like.
Will it add more Fx?
DIY project.


 


	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

I have (so does Chub Osthelder - Thankds Chub!).  It has a rough,
organic, gnarly timbre to it.  It's a nice contrast to the 190, for
example.  If I had to pick, I'd stay with the 190, but the Real Ring
adds a different twist.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Don Ojeman <dfojeman@y...> wrote:

> Does any one have this unit from CGS.synth passive
> module? I am courious what it sound like.
> Will it add more Fx?
> DIY project.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
> http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Message: 8         
>    Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:37:15 -0800
>    From: Jason Proctor <jason@...>
> Subject: RE: Real Ring Modulator
> 
> >i have mine unadorned in an Altoids tin w/ 1/8" jacks
> 
> this sentence gave me hallucinations of a modular synth built into 
> all kinds of boxes and tins and jars and what-have-you.
> 
> does anyone have a frankensynth like this? it would be rad. want to 
> change your modular's layout? just put the boxes you want near each 
> other.... near each other. that MOTM-300 (green giant corn tin) needs 
> to plug into the MOTM-440 (paul newman pasta sauce jar). want to take 
> it somewhere? just throw all the boxes into a milk crate.
> 
> power is a slight irritation. you could power each module off a 
> battery (sigh, if only paul had powered everything off 9v, he says, 
> expecting a shower of hieroglyphics), or just run some stereo 1/8" 
> jacks in a star configuration off an MOTM-950 planted in a paint tin.
> 
> THIS is how i want my modular. it's just too random and daft not to 
> do it this way.
> 

Man, this is how I want *my* modular; I posted a question about building modules
into separate boxes (and how to power them) a few weeks ago, but no one
responded. :-(  Which raises that question once again-- what would be the best
way to power separately-housed modules?  Is the idea of building modules this
way even worth pursuing?  I've got my MOTM-120 waiting to be built, and I'd
love to build it as a box...

I've got to jump in too.

Even though I just got on Larry's cabinet waiting list, I've been thinking
about all this myself. The reason is I'm trying to plan out my system for
what
I want today vs. where I want to go in the future. Ultimately, I've
concluded
that I really want more flexibility than even what a cabinet-mounted modular
gives. But I'm a ways off from there!

I would love to be able to easily pull modules out of the cabinet and
re-arrange
them within minutes. If I want a classic "boston-style" layout (as Cynthia
recently posted somewhere), then I can place them in a cabinet that way. If
I
want to experiment with some wild envelope modulations, I can arrange a
bunch
of VCOs, LFOs, etc. around/near some EGs. If I want to emulate a classic
mono/poly keyboard's architecture, then I can plug them in that way. I think
you get the idea.

Anyway, what I'm cooking up in my head is a pluggable cabinet, sort of like
what I've seen in some old electronic lab equipment many years ago. Each
module has a standard backplane that plugs into a cabinet bus. Want to
rearrange
your modules, just pull 'em out and plug 'em back in the way you want.

This would require a pretty slick mounting system (read $$$). Instead of
stationary screws through the face-plate's mounting holes, posts would be
inserted that fit through the bracket's holes. Perhaps these posts would
be a rubber material that provides the perfect amount of friction to hold
the modules in, but also allow easy removal. There would also have to be
some
elegant way of being able to remove the modules without having to resort
to screwdrivers - we don't want rack rash or screwdriver scars all over our
faceplates!

I'm just dreaming - but someday I might really sit down and try this. But
there's
a lot of details. Ahhhh, details, details. In the meantime, I'm looking
forward
to some real, nice, classic walnut cabinets...

-Greg

Greg,

I have thought of this kind of arrangement as well. It has a real 
functional advantage in my  thinking. I believe you are correct in your 
thought that it would add "$$$" to the equation.

One pitfall I can imagine in this idea is the build up of heat. The 
cabinet with the front panel screw mounting allows an open back to the 
module which allows heat to dissipate readily through the open back. 
Such a mounting scheme might require some form of controlled venting or 
air circulation that would add yet another layer of cost.

Scott E.
============================================================
Greg James wrote:

> I've got to jump in too.
>
> Even though I just got on Larry's cabinet waiting list, I've been thinking
> about all this myself. The reason is I'm trying to plan out my system for
> what
> I want today vs. where I want to go in the future. Ultimately, I've
> concluded
> that I really want more flexibility than even what a cabinet-mounted 
> modular
> gives. But I'm a ways off from there!
>
> I would love to be able to easily pull modules out of the cabinet and
> re-arrange
> them within minutes. If I want a classic "boston-style" layout (as Cynthia
> recently posted somewhere), then I can place them in a cabinet that 
> way. If
> I
> want to experiment with some wild envelope modulations, I can arrange a
> bunch
> of VCOs, LFOs, etc. around/near some EGs. If I want to emulate a classic
> mono/poly keyboard's architecture, then I can plug them in that way. I 
> think
> you get the idea.
>
> Anyway, what I'm cooking up in my head is a pluggable cabinet, sort of 
> like
> what I've seen in some old electronic lab equipment many years ago. Each
> module has a standard backplane that plugs into a cabinet bus. Want to
> rearrange
> your modules, just pull 'em out and plug 'em back in the way you want.
>
> This would require a pretty slick mounting system (read $$$). Instead of
> stationary screws through the face-plate's mounting holes, posts would be
> inserted that fit through the bracket's holes. Perhaps these posts would
> be a rubber material that provides the perfect amount of friction to hold
> the modules in, but also allow easy removal. There would also have to be
> some
> elegant way of being able to remove the modules without having to resort
> to screwdrivers - we don't want rack rash or screwdriver scars all 
> over our
> faceplates!
>
> I'm just dreaming - but someday I might really sit down and try this. But
> there's
> a lot of details. Ahhhh, details, details. In the meantime, I'm looking
> forward
> to some real, nice, classic walnut cabinets...
>
> -Greg

Not to burst a bubble, but guide rails are often found in schemes like 
this. I suspect that without them, the boards would have enough 
potential warp to make mating up with the backpane connector uncertain. 
More $$$$.

Scott E. wrote:

> Greg,
>
> I have thought of this kind of arrangement as well. It has a real
> functional advantage in my  thinking. I believe you are correct in your
> thought that it would add "$$$" to the equation.
>
> One pitfall I can imagine in this idea is the build up of heat. The
> cabinet with the front panel screw mounting allows an open back to the
> module which allows heat to dissipate readily through the open back.
> Such a mounting scheme might require some form of controlled venting or
> air circulation that would add yet another layer of cost.
>
> Scott E.
> ============================================================
> Greg James wrote:
>
> > I've got to jump in too.
> >
> > Even though I just got on Larry's cabinet waiting list, I've been 
> thinking
> > about all this myself. The reason is I'm trying to plan out my 
> system for
> > what
> > I want today vs. where I want to go in the future. Ultimately, I've
> > concluded
> > that I really want more flexibility than even what a cabinet-mounted
> > modular
> > gives. But I'm a ways off from there!
> >
> > I would love to be able to easily pull modules out of the cabinet and
> > re-arrange
> > them within minutes. If I want a classic "boston-style" layout (as 
> Cynthia
> > recently posted somewhere), then I can place them in a cabinet that
> > way. If
> > I
> > want to experiment with some wild envelope modulations, I can arrange a
> > bunch
> > of VCOs, LFOs, etc. around/near some EGs. If I want to emulate a classic
> > mono/poly keyboard's architecture, then I can plug them in that way. I
> > think
> > you get the idea.
> >
> > Anyway, what I'm cooking up in my head is a pluggable cabinet, sort of
> > like
> > what I've seen in some old electronic lab equipment many years ago. Each
> > module has a standard backplane that plugs into a cabinet bus. Want to
> > rearrange
> > your modules, just pull 'em out and plug 'em back in the way you want.
> >
> > This would require a pretty slick mounting system (read $$$). Instead of
> > stationary screws through the face-plate's mounting holes, posts 
> would be
> > inserted that fit through the bracket's holes. Perhaps these posts would
> > be a rubber material that provides the perfect amount of friction to 
> hold
> > the modules in, but also allow easy removal. There would also have to be
> > some
> > elegant way of being able to remove the modules without having to resort
> > to screwdrivers - we don't want rack rash or screwdriver scars all
> > over our
> > faceplates!
> >
> > I'm just dreaming - but someday I might really sit down and try 
> this. But
> > there's
> > a lot of details. Ahhhh, details, details. In the meantime, I'm looking
> > forward
> > to some real, nice, classic walnut cabinets...
> >
> > -Greg
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here 
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129nh6rpj/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=grplch/S=1705032277:HM/EXP=1110580992/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

-- 
Regards,
John Blacet

Blacet Research
http://www.blacet.com

> I would love to be able to easily pull modules out of the cabinet and
re-arrange them within minutes. If I want a classic "boston-style" layout
(as Cynthia recently posted somewhere), then I can place them in a cabinet
that way. If I want to experiment with some wild envelope modulations, I can
arrange a bunch of VCOs, LFOs, etc. around/near some EGs. If I want to
emulate a classic mono/poly keyboard's architecture, then I can plug them in
that way. I think you get the idea.

That's what patch cords are for! ;-)

Yeah, I know what you're trying to do, but I couldn't resist. :-)

Separate boxes seem really cool until you have a bunch of them, at which
point they will seem unwieldy. The individual power connections will start
to get flaky, the extra weight will become a factor, etc.

Neat idea, but the implementation would have to be *just* right to keep it
from being a real pain in the attenuator.
--
john

At 5:21 PM -0500 3/10/05, Greg James wrote:
>I would love to be able to easily pull modules out of the cabinet and
>re-arrange
>them within minutes. If I want a classic "boston-style" layout (as Cynthia
>recently posted somewhere), then I can place them in a cabinet that way. If
>I
>want to experiment with some wild envelope modulations, I can arrange a
>bunch
>of VCOs, LFOs, etc. around/near some EGs. If I want to emulate a classic
>mono/poly keyboard's architecture, then I can plug them in that way. I think
>you get the idea.
>
>Anyway, what I'm cooking up in my head is a pluggable cabinet, sort of like
>what I've seen in some old electronic lab equipment many years ago. Each
>module has a standard backplane that plugs into a cabinet bus. Want to
>rearrange
>your modules, just pull 'em out and plug 'em back in the way you want.

Instead of a pluggable backplane and the money it would cost, why not 
put velcro strips where the rails would go? Instead of bolts mounting 
modules to rails, you could put "drawer pull" handles (you know the 
kind, the squared off "U" shaped knob protecting handles) on each 
module. This would allow you to easily pull out and remount the 
modules in any way you desire. It would also have the advantages of 
an open back design so heat wouldn't be a problem. You could easily 
hook up the power connectors as well with a design like this. All the 
advantages of a reconfigurable modular without the high cost.

    Seth

You are looking at something called a Card Cage.  Vector makes them but
they are _very_ pricey .
Without the backplane (this means you provide your own edge connectors
and mechanical support -- they provide the sheet-metal for mounting
_their_ plugins, a 19" wide by 3U tall unit is $227
 
These are frequently available on the surplus market though. When I was
starting out in synthesys (building Electronotes circuits), I was able
to get a bunch of them from a computer mainframe manufacturer that went
belly up and they worked out well. (The company made peripherals for DEC
equipment.  I was living in Boston at the time)
 
Vector
http://www.vectorelect.com/Product/Subracks/CCK13-Series.htm
 
Newark -- Vector cardcage without backplane and plugins
http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSearch/search
Page2.jsp?x=0
<http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSearch/searc
hPage2.jsp?x=0&Ntt=categorynumber78006&Nty=1&showImages=true&N=4&y=0&Ntk
=gensearch>
&Ntt=categorynumber78006&Nty=1&showImages=true&N=4&y=0&Ntk=gensearch

-----Original Message-----
From: John Blacet [mailto:blacet@...] 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:49 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] Reconfigurable Modular


Not to burst a bubble, but guide rails are often found in schemes like
this. I suspect that without them, the boards would have enough
potential warp to make mating up with the backpane connector uncertain.
More $$$$.

Scott E. wrote:


Greg,

I have thought of this kind of arrangement as well. It has a real 
functional advantage in my  thinking. I believe you are correct in your 
thought that it would add "$$$" to the equation.

One pitfall I can imagine in this idea is the build up of heat. The 
cabinet with the front panel screw mounting allows an open back to the 
module which allows heat to dissipate readily through the open back. 
Such a mounting scheme might require some form of controlled venting or 
air circulation that would add yet another layer of cost.

Scott E.
============================================================
Greg James wrote:

> I've got to jump in too.
>
> Even though I just got on Larry's cabinet waiting list, I've been
thinking
> about all this myself. The reason is I'm trying to plan out my system
for
> what
> I want today vs. where I want to go in the future. Ultimately, I've
> concluded
> that I really want more flexibility than even what a cabinet-mounted 
> modular
> gives. But I'm a ways off from there!
>
> I would love to be able to easily pull modules out of the cabinet and
> re-arrange
> them within minutes. If I want a classic "boston-style" layout (as
Cynthia
> recently posted somewhere), then I can place them in a cabinet that 
> way. If
> I
> want to experiment with some wild envelope modulations, I can arrange
a
> bunch
> of VCOs, LFOs, etc. around/near some EGs. If I want to emulate a
classic
> mono/poly keyboard's architecture, then I can plug them in that way. I

> think
> you get the idea.
>
> Anyway, what I'm cooking up in my head is a pluggable cabinet, sort of

> like
> what I've seen in some old electronic lab equipment many years ago.
Each
> module has a standard backplane that plugs into a cabinet bus. Want to
> rearrange
> your modules, just pull 'em out and plug 'em back in the way you want.
>
> This would require a pretty slick mounting system (read $$$). Instead
of
> stationary screws through the face-plate's mounting holes, posts would
be
> inserted that fit through the bracket's holes. Perhaps these posts
would
> be a rubber material that provides the perfect amount of friction to
hold
> the modules in, but also allow easy removal. There would also have to
be
> some
> elegant way of being able to remove the modules without having to
resort
> to screwdrivers - we don't want rack rash or screwdriver scars all 
> over our
> faceplates!
>
> I'm just dreaming - but someday I might really sit down and try this.
But
> there's
> a lot of details. Ahhhh, details, details. In the meantime, I'm
looking
> forward
> to some real, nice, classic walnut cabinets...
>
> -Greg





-- 

Regards,

John Blacet



Blacet Research

http://www.blacet.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12989q7no/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/
D=grplch/S=1705032277:HM/EXP=1110581357/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*htt
p://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=grplc
h/S=:HM/A=2593423/rand=642317126> 	


  _____  

Yahoo! Groups Links


*	To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/motm/
  

*	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 
  

*	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

I actually did build my 80's era modular into Vector CCA 19" Card Cages.  Three cages in fact.  Each card was a fiberglass perfboard with a 44-pin double sided connector.  It was all hand wired, no printed circuits.  I had developed a method of building electronics on non-plated perfboard by simply soldering together the leads of components on the back side.  All ICs were in sockets.  All connections to the circuit went through the backplane connector.  I used a non-regulated dual supply with on-card regulation.  The panel was a single piece of aluminum.  All knobs, LEDs and switches were on the left side.  An unlabelled (but grouped by module) patch bay of minijacks adorned the right side.  The cages stacked up, so all patching was on the right side.  The hard part was wiring the backplane connectors making a huge cable harness to everything on the front.  I used military grade Teflon insulated #24 wire.  There was probably a lot of cross-talk.  I sold this synth and years later got a call from the buyer asking if I had the patch bay documentation!  I did not.  Somehow it had all been lost, including the schematics. 

BTW, notice my new email address.  I moved to a new house three miles from the old one, and had to switch DSL providers.  Sadly, my MOTM is still boxed up and will be for some time.

-Richard Brewster

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Halliday <dh@...>
Sent: Mar 10, 2005 9:57 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [motm] Reconfigurable Modular

You are looking at something called a Card Cage.  Vector makes them but
they are _very_ pricey .
Without the backplane (this means you provide your own edge connectors
and mechanical support -- they provide the sheet-metal for mounting
_their_ plugins, a 19" wide by 3U tall unit is $227
 
These are frequently available on the surplus market though. When I was
starting out in synthesys (building Electronotes circuits), I was able
to get a bunch of them from a computer mainframe manufacturer that went
belly up and they worked out well. (The company made peripherals for DEC
equipment.  I was living in Boston at the time)
 
Vector
http://www.vectorelect.com/Product/Subracks/CCK13-Series.htm
 
Newark -- Vector cardcage without backplane and plugins
http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSearch/search
Page2.jsp?x=0
<http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSearch/searc
hPage2.jsp?x=0&Ntt=categorynumber78006&Nty=1&showImages=true&N=4&y=0&Ntk
=gensearch>
&Ntt=categorynumber78006&Nty=1&showImages=true&N=4&y=0&Ntk=gensearch

Heh -- there sure were a lot of the 44 pin edge connectors around back
then.   Decent prices too...
That is what I used.  I had a small ARP style slider matrix switch that
I played around with for a while but then used 1/4" jacks - wired these
to a separate panel running up along the side. Built a wood case with
the 19" panels and the patch bay to the left (I'm left handed)

I ran into cross-talk problems too but cut this down a lot by using
pairs of wire peeled off ribbon cable that I twisted.  Soldered one end
to ground and the crosstalk problems were minimized.  Later on, I scored
a bunch of SCSI-1 wire that was twisted pair with a nice flat space
(about an inch long) every six inches.  The flat spaces were for IDC
connectors  (redundancy alert).  Hog heaven because now, I could run
multiple channels of audio for decent distances without crosstalk.

I sold the system too on arriving in Seattle.  Don't know what happened
to it and I really regret getting rid of it...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Brewster [mailto:pugix@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:58 PM
> To: Dave Halliday; motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] Reconfigurable Modular
> 
> 
> I actually did build my 80's era modular into Vector CCA 19" 
> Card Cages.  Three cages in fact.  Each card was a fiberglass 
> perfboard with a 44-pin double sided connector.  It was all 
> hand wired, no printed circuits.  I had developed a method of 
> building electronics on non-plated perfboard by simply 
> soldering together the leads of components on the back side.  
> All ICs were in sockets.  All connections to the circuit went 
> through the backplane connector.  I used a non-regulated dual 
> supply with on-card regulation.  The panel was a single piece 
> of aluminum.  All knobs, LEDs and switches were on the left 
> side.  An unlabelled (but grouped by module) patch bay of 
> minijacks adorned the right side.  The cages stacked up, so 
> all patching was on the right side.  The hard part was wiring 
> the backplane connectors making a huge cable harness to 
> everything on the front.  I used military grade Teflon 
> insulated #24 wire.  There was probably a lot of cross-talk.  
> I sold this synth and years later got a call from the buyer 
> asking if I had the patch bay documentation!  I did not.  
> Somehow it had all been lost, including the schematics. 
> 
> BTW, notice my new email address.  I moved to a new house 
> three miles from the old one, and had to switch DSL 
> providers.  Sadly, my MOTM is still boxed up and will be for 
> some time.
> 
> -Richard Brewster
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Halliday <dh@...>
> Sent: Mar 10, 2005 9:57 PM
> To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] Reconfigurable Modular
> 
> You are looking at something called a Card Cage.  Vector 
> makes them but
> they are _very_ pricey .
> Without the backplane (this means you provide your own edge connectors
> and mechanical support -- they provide the sheet-metal for mounting
> _their_ plugins, a 19" wide by 3U tall unit is $227
>  
> These are frequently available on the surplus market though. 
> When I was
> starting out in synthesys (building Electronotes circuits), I was able
> to get a bunch of them from a computer mainframe manufacturer 
> that went
> belly up and they worked out well. (The company made 
> peripherals for DEC
> equipment.  I was living in Boston at the time)
>  
> Vector
> http://www.vectorelect.com/Product/Subracks/CCK13-Series.htm
>  
> Newark -- Vector cardcage without backplane and plugins
> http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSea
rch/search
Page2.jsp?x=0
<http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSearch/searc
hPage2.jsp?x=0&Ntt=categorynumber78006&Nty=1&showImages=true&N=4&y=0&Ntk
=gensearch>
&Ntt=categorynumber78006&Nty=1&showImages=true&N=4&y=0&Ntk=gensearch

Attenuator?  more like *amplifier* for me...

> Neat idea, but the implementation would have to be *just* right to
keep it

> from being a real pain in the attenuator.
> --
> john