Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:35 UTC

Thread

Re: Future Panel Options (also long)

Re: Future Panel Options (also long)

2005-12-01 by paulhaneberg

Hi all,

I wanted to elaborate on what Dave has just posted.

First, let me reiterate what Dave has said about Paul S.
Do not hassle him about a possible change in panel design.
This is a Stooge concept we are talking about.

What we are engaged in here is educated speculation.
The panels are a nightmare.  

First you have to find a sheet metal vendor/machine shop.  This is 
difficult, because they all want to do runs of 10,000 pieces. not 
100 or 200.  Secondly, they are all flaky.  They do not deliver on 
time, they don't return phone calls, etc.
Did I mention that the sheet metal company that was doing the work 
for the stooges was sold to a large company that has no interest in 
continuing?

Secondly you have to find a painter.  The paint is a special 
superhard multipart epoxy coating which must be applied in three 
coats, a primer, the main coat (this is what you see on the back of 
the panel) and a "spatter" coat which gives the panel it's textured 
look.  Most painter hate this stuff and won't do it.

Thirdly you have to have a silk screener.  There is a setup charge 
every time the screen must be changed.  There is an initial charge 
for making the screen.  Sometimes the graphics come out blurred.  If 
the holes are punched out ahead of time (as is the case with 
official SynthTech panels) there can be registration errors, meaning 
the silkscreen graphics are not perfectly aligned with the holes.

This is why the Stooge Panels are run so infrequently.  So we have 
been investigating alternatives.  Here's the general idea:

First the metalwork might be done in house.  We are investigating 
this.  The panel itself, together with the corner holes would be 
stamped out on a 60 ton press.  We could do up to 3U this way.  
Larger panels would probably have to be milled out.

A second 40 ton press would be equipped with a die using a system of 
removable punches and bushings.  In most cases all the holes would 
be punched out at once.  There would be a few situations where holes 
would be milled.

For reasonably sized runs there would be little or no drilling 
required.

Secondly, panels would be anodized rather than painted.  Anodizing 
creates pores in the metal itself which are then filled with a die 
and sealed.  This is an electrochemical process.  The finish becomes 
part of the panel rather than being bonded to the surface.

Thirdly, panels would be laser etched.  This would be done using a 
computer controlled laser.  The etching penetrates and burns off the 
anodizing where the beam contacts the metal and actually penetrates 
a short distance into the aluminum by vaporizing the metal.  The 
graphics can be extremely sharp and detailed as the accuracy of the 
laser is a few ten thousandths of an inch.  There can be edge 
graphics to delineate one module from another.  There can be more 
precise tick marks, there can be flow diagrams where there is room.
Pretty much anything you can draw can be etched.

In addition to offering Stooge Panels for those custom designs or 
mods of other manufacturers products we could offer a complete line 
of replacement panels for existing MOTM modules with high definition 
graphics.  There would be no setup charge for mounting the 
sinkscreen.  There would be no charge for making the silkscreen.  
For those esoteric designs we could stock blank panels which would 
only require etching (and drilling or milling.)  We could 
essentially reduce the lead time from a year or so down to a week or 
two.

So, to summarize, in exchange for going with a slightly different 
finish on panels we could reduce the lead time to a week or two, 
reduce the cost by as much as 70%, and improve the graphics.  That's 
the trade off.  

But, we could even go beyond that!  It may be possible (at a higher 
cost of course) to combine silkscreening of areas on the panel with 
the laser etching process for something truly spectacular.  You 
could truly customize your synth!

And while you're thinking about that, how about custom made wooden 
cabinets with computer controlled customized carving?  How cool 
would that be?

Re: Future Panel Options (also long)

2005-12-01 by mate_stubb

BTW, if you change your mind during this discussion, you can go back
and change your vote any time before the poll closes.

Moe

RE: [motm] Re: Future Panel Options--one off prototype panels

2005-12-02 by don relyea

I am no panel expert nor am I machine fabrication expert but I think you can
design and computer cut your own panels out of all sorts of materials from
this place online:

http://www.emachineshop.com/

Not sure how much it would cost and the painting and stuff would have to be
done somewhere else but for one off prototypes might be useful....at least I
think. A panel expert would have to check it out.

I am about to use them to fabricate some custom gearing for a side project
soon so I may have some experience in the future. The CAD software appears
pretty easy to use.  Wired reviewed them a while back, they got a good
review.
Regards,
Don Relyea
http://www.donrelyea.com

Re: Future Panel Options--one off prototype panels

2005-12-02 by crmatt99

Just my thoughts, I would like to see the MOTM style be the standard from synthtech and 
somehow still be available for DIY. Maybe the standard could be ordered once a year and 
the anodized could be made for those who don't want to wait. I think it would be good 
keep the current style as a standard but I am asuming that if the anodized panels were 
made more frequently that panels for things like the MOTM300 would be available, not 
just DIY. I also hope EAR-group is listening to this because they were going to offer there 
products in MOTM style sometime this year. To Moe I would love a Stooge Milton Panel. 

p.s. Here is a small yippie for anyone else in my shoes who needed to deliver pizzas as a 
second job to afford their modular, I know I can't be the only one.... now if I just had a 
midi/cv..... glad to be a part of this group! Matt.

Re: [motm] Re: Future Panel Options (also long)

2005-12-02 by mcb, inc.

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, paulhaneberg wrote:

> So, to summarize, in exchange for going with a slightly different
> finish on panels we could reduce the lead time to a week or two,
> reduce the cost by as much as 70%, and improve the graphics.  That's
> the trade off.
>
> But, we could even go beyond that!  It may be possible (at a higher
> cost of course) to combine silkscreening of areas on the panel with
> the laser etching process for something truly spectacular.  You
> could truly customize your synth!

I don't think I can vote because I have two completely contradictory
reactions to this possibility.  The first is a traditionalist's
reaction to the loss of a very good design:  textured surface with
crisp silkscreening, knobs that instill some confidence, secured
mounting of panel to rack and pcb to panel, knob-and-jack grouping
and the resulting workflow.  This backed up by a dislike of slightly
incompatible conventions (motm vs synth.com mounting, the lovely
AS vs doepfer 2mm gap, etc.) and knockoff stylings.

Then there's the radical:  Great we have a whole different technology
for surface treatment.  Why not completely revisit the whole layout
issue?  Laser etching gives you enough control that you could
probably do halftoning on the surface.  What can you do with that
possibility?  The fine and precise rulings might let you achieve
an instrumentation look something beyond cultoftheknobs or modcan.
Or go an entirely different direction with some kind of organic
look unlike anything previous (for some reason, Buchla's in this
direction in my mind).

I'm completely split on this one.  All I can say is beware of
committees and democracy, truth is found elsewhere...

m

--
Monty Brandenberg

RE: [motm] Re: Future Panel Options (also long)

2005-12-02 by Greg James

Folks,

I've voted for keeping the current standard. One of the benefits
that hasn't been mentioned is the ability to buy used modules and
know that they will fit-in well. I've bought a number of used
modules and have been extremely pleased with them. I like the idea
of having a "standard."

I also happen to have a number of PCBs and third-party modules
(i.e. Blacet, Tellun, Oakley, etc.) that I've bought and was looking
forward to buying Stooge-MOTM panels that look as close to Paul's as
possible. Maybe I'm being too picky, but that's what I was hoping
for.

A second concern is what effect will this have on future cottage
industry sales. Right now, if I was considering offering a new module
to the MOTM community, I pretty much know what the paneling needs to
be. If the "community" starts to splinter into several custom panel
formats, then I'd probably just forget about it.

I understand the hassels that go along with the current "standard,"
but I really hope to be able to stay with it. And I'm willing to pay
more and wait longer to stick with it.

That's my very personal opinion, respectfully submitted,
Greg James

Re: Future Panel Options (also long)

2005-12-02 by edibennardo

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Greg James" <gjames@k...> wrote:
>
> Folks,
> 
> I've voted for keeping the current standard. One of the benefits
> that hasn't been mentioned is the ability to buy used modules and
> know that they will fit-in well. I've bought a number of used
> modules and have been extremely pleased with them. I like the idea
> of having a "standard."
.... I second those and other opinions, after putting together 5 rows 
with roughly 180 space units i wouldn't love to redesign anything. A 
price increase reflects everything nowadays, it could reflect panels 
too though noone wants this of course.
Enrico (Sicily)

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.