Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

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

Thread

My initial take on the panel discussion

My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Paul Schreiber

a) I think that the discussion is mainly for continuing the Stooge panels. 
Production MOTM panels will remain as they are (even as such a pain as they are) 
simply because changing this late in the game (6500+ shipped) doesn't make 
sense. The slight cost savings to me is overshadowed by having a completely 
different finish.

b) anodized panels *will* show fingerprints. Which is odd is that the rougher 
the initial finish (aluminum is belt-sanded before painting/plating), the more 
likely anodized panels will show prints. You can get glossy anodizing and you 
can 'overcoat' with a clear finish. For example, I think the Millennia Media 
Origin is drop-dead gorgeous and it's anodized:

http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/origin.shtml

For painted panels, having a textured finish (which is a special nozzle that 
'splatters' the paint) *reduces* fingerprints (and glare).

c) anodizing is sensitive to the aluminum. Most people do not realize that there 
are about 8 *different* alloys of aluminum. The most common (and what is used on 
MOTM now) is called 5052-H3. However, anodized aluminum is better with a 
*different* alloy called 6061-T6. Of course, 6061-T6 is about 15% more cost that 
5052 (6061-T6 is commonly used on hang gliders and small aircraft). Blacet 
panels are anodized, 120 grit sanded, 6061-T6 aluminum. As well as Moog modular 
panels (they are sanded to a finer grain, around 320 grit).

Also, the current press-fitting PEM studs and standoffs (on the rear of the 
panels) have a tougher time gripping 6061. A solution is to eliminate the older 
black pc brackets (that use threaded PEMs and KEPS nuts to attach to the panel) 
for 100% Stooge brackets (the silver ones that fasten behind the pot nuts). This 
still leaves issues with the 900, 950, 600 and 650, though :(

d) I really don't see a point to changing, just for the sake of "fancier" 
graphics like the CMS modular:

http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/CMS/Modular/images/mc24b.jpg

without having to jack up the price. I think Paul H. is trying to find a 
solution +-10% of what I am paying now for say 50 pieces at a time, that now I 
can only fab say 7 pieces. The reasoning behind *this* is that there are 
some...errr..."slow selling" modules that may need 14 panels/year.

Certainly, that CMS modular is quite a sight to behold, but so is the pricetag 
:)

So, official MOTM panels will remain as they are for 2006. For DIY/Stooge 
panels, those can be whatever is best in terms of cost and delivery. Stooge 
panels are a 'pretty big business' and help to promote the MOTM form factor as 
the leading industry standard in 1/4" jacks.

If I do decide to make a change, it will be 'radical' like the Modcan Series B: 
something removed far away from the original. Let's face it: I never dreamed of 
selling 6500 of these things in the first place. I was hoping for 500 so I could 
get a good stereo :)

Paul S.

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by mate_stubb

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> d) I really don't see a point to changing, just for the sake of 
> "fancier" graphics like the CMS modular:

I agree, I wouldn't suggest it for factory MOTM modules. If somebody
really dug the CMS look however, a really streamlined process for
custom panels might make it feasible to "reskin" your entire synth.

Moe

Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Paul Haneberg

We are in fact trying to find a solution in terms of a way to make panels 
for Paul S. a few at a time.
It is an unreasonable situation for us all to expect Paul S. to buy 50 of a 
given panel at a time and hold them for 4 years.
The only alternatives at present are a higher selling price so that Paul S. 
can offset the higher per unit panel cost that would come with not buying so 
many, or to find a different process.

To get an idea of how panel costs go up with a smaller quantity just look at 
what the cost of the present Stooge Panels are, or look at what FPE charges.

We think we can solve part of Paul's problem by punching out panels in 
house.  This would also mean that we could punch out Stooge Panels.  The 
panel finish could be anodized, powder coated or Polan painted.  For Paul S. 
we would stick with the Polan, expensive though it is.  For Stoge Panels the 
possibilities are open.  That is why we are asking your opinion.

This leaves the silk screen problem and the associated costs.  We do not yet 
know if we can come up with an alternative for Paul S., but we do know that 
we can come up with an alternative for Stooge Panels if some of you are 
willing to switch away from silk screening.  That is where the trade-off 
comes in.  A lot cheaper and  lot faster, but not quite identical.

Personally, I love the idea of new panels with enhanced graphics.  I fully 
intend to replace all my panels with something different.  The form factor 
of the panels could stay true to the well established MOTM standard although 
it wouldn't absolutely have to.
Every modular synth is in someway unique and reflects the tastes and 
personality of its owner.  This is a way of making it a little more personal 
and a little more unique.

There are a lot of different ways we can go with this.  The possibilites are 
endless.  Over the next couple of months we will be experimenting.  As much 
as we would like to get to making a Stooge Panel run immediately, we are 
still trying to line up a reliable source of the panel blanks.  Whether we 
stay with the present Stooge Panel format or change, the time before we do 
an actual run will be about the same.

Please let us know what you think.  Your opinions will influence our 
decision.

Paul H.




----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:07 PM
Subject: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion


> a) I think that the discussion is mainly for continuing the Stooge panels.
> Production MOTM panels will remain as they are (even as such a pain as 
> they are)
> simply because changing this late in the game (6500+ shipped) doesn't make
> sense. The slight cost savings to me is overshadowed by having a 
> completely
> different finish.
>
> b) anodized panels *will* show fingerprints. Which is odd is that the 
> rougher
> the initial finish (aluminum is belt-sanded before painting/plating), the 
> more
> likely anodized panels will show prints. You can get glossy anodizing and 
> you
> can 'overcoat' with a clear finish. For example, I think the Millennia 
> Media
> Origin is drop-dead gorgeous and it's anodized:
>
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/origin.shtml
>
> For painted panels, having a textured finish (which is a special nozzle 
> that
> 'splatters' the paint) *reduces* fingerprints (and glare).
>
> c) anodizing is sensitive to the aluminum. Most people do not realize that 
> there
> are about 8 *different* alloys of aluminum. The most common (and what is 
> used on
> MOTM now) is called 5052-H3. However, anodized aluminum is better with a
> *different* alloy called 6061-T6. Of course, 6061-T6 is about 15% more 
> cost that
> 5052 (6061-T6 is commonly used on hang gliders and small aircraft). Blacet
> panels are anodized, 120 grit sanded, 6061-T6 aluminum. As well as Moog 
> modular
> panels (they are sanded to a finer grain, around 320 grit).
>
> Also, the current press-fitting PEM studs and standoffs (on the rear of 
> the
> panels) have a tougher time gripping 6061. A solution is to eliminate the 
> older
> black pc brackets (that use threaded PEMs and KEPS nuts to attach to the 
> panel)
> for 100% Stooge brackets (the silver ones that fasten behind the pot 
> nuts). This
> still leaves issues with the 900, 950, 600 and 650, though :(
>
> d) I really don't see a point to changing, just for the sake of "fancier"
> graphics like the CMS modular:
>
> http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/CMS/Modular/images/mc24b.jpg
>
> without having to jack up the price. I think Paul H. is trying to find a
> solution +-10% of what I am paying now for say 50 pieces at a time, that 
> now I
> can only fab say 7 pieces. The reasoning behind *this* is that there are
> some...errr..."slow selling" modules that may need 14 panels/year.
>
> Certainly, that CMS modular is quite a sight to behold, but so is the 
> pricetag
> :)
>
> So, official MOTM panels will remain as they are for 2006. For DIY/Stooge
> panels, those can be whatever is best in terms of cost and delivery. 
> Stooge
> panels are a 'pretty big business' and help to promote the MOTM form 
> factor as
> the leading industry standard in 1/4" jacks.
>
> If I do decide to make a change, it will be 'radical' like the Modcan 
> Series B:
> something removed far away from the original. Let's face it: I never 
> dreamed of
> selling 6500 of these things in the first place. I was hoping for 500 so I 
> could
> get a good stereo :)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Scott K Warren

Me again --

If the Stooges do supply punched Polan panels to Paul S, I hope you'll
also offer punched Polan for Stooge Panels and my custom panel designs,
even if you don't want to mess with silk screening them.

If you don't want to offer silk screening, then I will be happy to buy
blank (non-engraved) punched Polan panels and silk screen them myself.
This would be easier if you gave away artwork for Stooge Panels, but
I would also be willing to create my own artwork for silk screening.

FrontPanelExpress says they will take my blank Polan panel (which I buy
from Paul S) and fabricate my .fpd design into it. If my design has just
the holes and not the graphics, this is not too expensive. But it would
really be great if I could get the same result from Stooge Industries
without the hassle of ordering a blank, waiting for it to arrive, and
then shipping it to FPE. Even better for Stooge Panels, since I probably
wouldn't need to provide an fpd file.

In any of these cases I'd do my own silk screening. I would rather have
somebody else do it, but I'll do it rather than switch to engraving.

Thanks,

skw
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Dec 1, 2005, at 10:41 PM, Paul Haneberg wrote:

> We are in fact trying to find a solution in terms of a way to make  
> panels
>  for Paul S. a few at a time.
>  It is an unreasonable situation for us all to expect Paul S. to buy  
> 50 of a
>  given panel at a time and hold them for 4 years.
>  The only alternatives at present are a higher selling price so that  
> Paul S.
>  can offset the higher per unit panel cost that would come with not  
> buying so
>  many, or to find a different process.
>
>  To get an idea of how panel costs go up with a smaller quantity just  
> look at
>  what the cost of the present Stooge Panels are, or look at what FPE  
> charges.
>
>  We think we can solve part of Paul's problem by punching out panels in
>  house.  This would also mean that we could punch out Stooge Panels.   
> The
>  panel finish could be anodized, powder coated or Polan painted.  For  
> Paul S.
>  we would stick with the Polan, expensive though it is.  For Stoge  
> Panels the
>  possibilities are open.  That is why we are asking your opinion.
>
>  This leaves the silk screen problem and the associated costs.  We do  
> not yet
>  know if we can come up with an alternative for Paul S., but we do  
> know that
>  we can come up with an alternative for Stooge Panels if some of you  
> are
>  willing to switch away from silk screening.  That is where the  
> trade-off
>  comes in.  A lot cheaper and  lot faster, but not quite identical.
>
>  Personally, I love the idea of new panels with enhanced graphics.  I  
> fully
>  intend to replace all my panels with something different.  The form  
> factor
>  of the panels could stay true to the well established MOTM standard  
> although
>  it wouldn't absolutely have to.
>  Every modular synth is in someway unique and reflects the tastes and
>  personality of its owner.  This is a way of making it a little more  
> personal
>  and a little more unique.
>
>  There are a lot of different ways we can go with this.  The  
> possibilites are
>  endless.  Over the next couple of months we will be experimenting.   
> As much
>  as we would like to get to making a Stooge Panel run immediately, we  
> are
>  still trying to line up a reliable source of the panel blanks.   
> Whether we
>  stay with the present Stooge Panel format or change, the time before  
> we do
>  an actual run will be about the same.
>
>  Please let us know what you think.  Your opinions will influence our
>  decision.
>
>  Paul H.
>
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
>  To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
>  Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:07 PM
>  Subject: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion
>
>
>  > a) I think that the discussion is mainly for continuing the Stooge  
> panels.
>  > Production MOTM panels will remain as they are (even as such a pain  
> as
>  > they are)
>  > simply because changing this late in the game (6500+ shipped)  
> doesn't make
>  > sense. The slight cost savings to me is overshadowed by having a
>  > completely
>  > different finish.
>  >
>  > b) anodized panels *will* show fingerprints. Which is odd is that  
> the
>  > rougher
>  > the initial finish (aluminum is belt-sanded before  
> painting/plating), the
>  > more
>  > likely anodized panels will show prints. You can get glossy  
> anodizing and
>  > you
>  > can 'overcoat' with a clear finish. For example, I think the  
> Millennia
>  > Media
>  > Origin is drop-dead gorgeous and it's anodized:
>  >
>  > http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/origin.shtml
>  >
>  > For painted panels, having a textured finish (which is a special  
> nozzle
>  > that
>  > 'splatters' the paint) *reduces* fingerprints (and glare).
>  >
>  > c) anodizing is sensitive to the aluminum. Most people do not  
> realize that
>  > there
>  > are about 8 *different* alloys of aluminum. The most common (and  
> what is
>  > used on
>  > MOTM now) is called 5052-H3. However, anodized aluminum is better  
> with a
>  > *different* alloy called 6061-T6. Of course, 6061-T6 is about 15%  
> more
>  > cost that
>  > 5052 (6061-T6 is commonly used on hang gliders and small aircraft).  
> Blacet
>  > panels are anodized, 120 grit sanded, 6061-T6 aluminum. As well as  
> Moog
>  > modular
>  > panels (they are sanded to a finer grain, around 320 grit).
>  >
>  > Also, the current press-fitting PEM studs and standoffs (on the  
> rear of
>  > the
>  > panels) have a tougher time gripping 6061. A solution is to  
> eliminate the
>  > older
>  > black pc brackets (that use threaded PEMs and KEPS nuts to attach  
> to the
>  > panel)
>  > for 100% Stooge brackets (the silver ones that fasten behind the pot
>  > nuts). This
>  > still leaves issues with the 900, 950, 600 and 650, though :(
>  >
>  > d) I really don't see a point to changing, just for the sake of  
> "fancier"
>  > graphics like the CMS modular:
>  >
>  >  
> http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/CMS/Modular/images/ 
> mc24b.jpg
>  >
>  > without having to jack up the price. I think Paul H. is trying to  
> find a
>  > solution +-10% of what I am paying now for say 50 pieces at a time,  
> that
>  > now I
>  > can only fab say 7 pieces. The reasoning behind *this* is that  
> there are
>  > some...errr..."slow selling" modules that may need 14 panels/year.
>  >
>  > Certainly, that CMS modular is quite a sight to behold, but so is  
> the
>  > pricetag
>  > :)
>  >
>  > So, official MOTM panels will remain as they are for 2006. For  
> DIY/Stooge
>  > panels, those can be whatever is best in terms of cost and delivery.
>  > Stooge
>  > panels are a 'pretty big business' and help to promote the MOTM form
>  > factor as
>  > the leading industry standard in 1/4" jacks.
>  >
>  > If I do decide to make a change, it will be 'radical' like the  
> Modcan
>  > Series B:
>  > something removed far away from the original. Let's face it: I never
>  > dreamed of
>  > selling 6500 of these things in the first place. I was hoping for  
> 500 so I
>  > could
>  > get a good stereo :)
>  >
>  > Paul S.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> 	▪ 	 Visit your group "motm" on the web.
>  
> 	▪ 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> 	▪ 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of  
> Service.
>
>
>
>

Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Scott K Warren

Jeff Brown has a great writeup here:

	http://www.guitarfool.com/Silkscreen.html

I've silk screened pcb layouts, but haven't tried a MOTM panel yet.
I'm not saying it would be easy, but hey, it would be DIY.

skw
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:23 AM, mcb, inc. wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Scott K Warren wrote:
>
>> In any of these cases I'd do my own silk screening. I would rather 
>> have
>> somebody else do it, but I'll do it rather than switch to engraving.
>
> Not to make work for you but I'd love to read a writeup on
> doing this well.
>
> m
>
> --
> Monty Brandenberg
>

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by mate_stubb

Scott,

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking for here. Prepainted panels,
I understand. When you say "give away the artwork", I don't have any
fpd artwork to give away, and I really don't have any interest in
creating it. It's a LOT of work, and not really directly related to
doing stooge panels. I happen to work in CorelDraw since that's what
our original screen printer required. I hope I don't have to learn a
new art program if we switch to engraving.

With regards to doing you own silkscreening: if you don't have
professional equipment already and experience, good luck. I went
through the stage of trying to do it myself trying to produce the very
first stooge panel. Those kits that you can buy to spread the emulsion
on yourself, expose to light, etc. are hardly adequate for t shirts,
much less high resolution text on metal. The screens I came out with
were also flimsy, hardly able to print more than 1 pass. It was pretty
disgusting!

Moe


--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott K Warren <scott@r...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Me again --
> 
> If the Stooges do supply punched Polan panels to Paul S, I hope you'll
> also offer punched Polan for Stooge Panels and my custom panel designs,
> even if you don't want to mess with silk screening them.
> 
> If you don't want to offer silk screening, then I will be happy to buy
> blank (non-engraved) punched Polan panels and silk screen them myself.
> This would be easier if you gave away artwork for Stooge Panels, but
> I would also be willing to create my own artwork for silk screening.
> 
> FrontPanelExpress says they will take my blank Polan panel (which I buy
> from Paul S) and fabricate my .fpd design into it. If my design has just
> the holes and not the graphics, this is not too expensive. But it would
> really be great if I could get the same result from Stooge Industries
> without the hassle of ordering a blank, waiting for it to arrive, and
> then shipping it to FPE. Even better for Stooge Panels, since I probably
> wouldn't need to provide an fpd file.
> 
> In any of these cases I'd do my own silk screening. I would rather have
> somebody else do it, but I'll do it rather than switch to engraving.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> skw

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Scott K Warren

Moe,

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to sound like I was demanding anything, or 
asking
for anything extra for free. By "give away artwork" I just meant that 
since
you would already have artwork for Stooge Panels that you'd use for the
engraving, you could consider putting that up for download by people who
want to try to stick with the original MOTM appearance. If for any 
reason
that's not something you want to do, I understand completely and 
certainly
don't have any hard feelings. And I wouldn't expect you to do new custom
art for me or anyone else -- I will do my own, I was just talking about 
the
preexisting art for official Stooge Panels.

So let's say I'm just asking for prepainted punched panels.

As for the difficulty of personal silk screening, I'm sure you are 
right. That is
not something I would choose to attempt if I have a better alternative. 
It has
been great for us that the Stooges took care of all that hassle -- a 
gift to the
MOTM community that we're all grateful for. I'm just saying that for my 
own
personal part, I would try to learn how to do nice silk screening 
before I
would put engraved modules into my synth.

I hope I don't sound like a jerk. As I said, I understand that silk 
screened
panel runs have been a lot of trouble in the past and I understand why 
the
Stooges may reasonably decide to offer something else instead, and I am
absolutely acknowledging the Stooges' right to do so, and certainly
neither I nor anyone else in the MOTM community will be mad or think any
less of the Stooges for it, and I will still gratefully buy other 
products that the
Stooges choose to offer. (Cables! Please, more cables!)

I just don't want non-matching modules in my synth, that's all.

skw
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:46 AM, mate_stubb wrote:

> Scott,
>
>  I'm not exactly sure what you are asking for here. Prepainted panels,
>  I understand. When you say "give away the artwork", I don't have any
>  fpd artwork to give away, and I really don't have any interest in
>  creating it. It's a LOT of work, and not really directly related to
>  doing stooge panels. I happen to work in CorelDraw since that's what
>  our original screen printer required. I hope I don't have to learn a
>  new art program if we switch to engraving.
>
>  With regards to doing you own silkscreening: if you don't have
>  professional equipment already and experience, good luck. I went
>  through the stage of trying to do it myself trying to produce the very
>  first stooge panel. Those kits that you can buy to spread the emulsion
>  on yourself, expose to light, etc. are hardly adequate for t shirts,
>  much less high resolution text on metal. The screens I came out with
>  were also flimsy, hardly able to print more than 1 pass. It was pretty
>  disgusting!
>
>  Moe
>
>
>  --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Scott K Warren <scott@r...> wrote:
>  >
>  > Me again --
>  >
>  > If the Stooges do supply punched Polan panels to Paul S, I hope 
> you'll
>  > also offer punched Polan for Stooge Panels and my custom panel 
> designs,
>  > even if you don't want to mess with silk screening them.
>  >
>  > If you don't want to offer silk screening, then I will be happy to 
> buy
>  > blank (non-engraved) punched Polan panels and silk screen them 
> myself.
>  > This would be easier if you gave away artwork for Stooge Panels, but
>  > I would also be willing to create my own artwork for silk screening.
>  >
>  > FrontPanelExpress says they will take my blank Polan panel (which I 
> buy
>  > from Paul S) and fabricate my .fpd design into it. If my design has 
> just
>  > the holes and not the graphics, this is not too expensive. But it 
> would
>  > really be great if I could get the same result from Stooge 
> Industries
>  > without the hassle of ordering a blank, waiting for it to arrive, 
> and
>  > then shipping it to FPE. Even better for Stooge Panels, since I 
> probably
>  > wouldn't need to provide an fpd file.
>  >
>  > In any of these cases I'd do my own silk screening. I would rather 
> have
>  > somebody else do it, but I'll do it rather than switch to engraving.
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > skw
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
> Label
> Cd music label
> Independent music label
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> 	▪ 	 Visit your group "motm" on the web.
>  
> 	▪ 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> 	▪ 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>
>
>

RE: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Paul Haneberg

The problem with this is that I don't think we can punch a panel after
the Polan is applied.  We haven't tried it yet, but our tool & die guys
here think the paint will chip badly if it's punched after the painting.
The panel would have to be punched first.  If the panel is punched
first, then the registration of the silkscreen must be within a very
tight tolerance, much tighter than if the holes are put in afterwards.
 
We are looking at all sorts of possibilities.  We could mill or drill
the holes after the Polan is applied.  It is also possible that we may
be able to take a Polan panel, laser etch the lettering, etc. and then
wipe the panel with a paint or ink so that the paint or ink remains in
the etched lettering creating a look virtually identical to the present
panels.  We will be experimenting with this as well.
 
Paul H.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Scott K Warren
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:17 AM
To: MOTM list
Subject: Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion
 
Me again --

If the Stooges do supply punched Polan panels to Paul S, I hope you'll
also offer punched Polan for Stooge Panels and my custom panel designs,
even if you don't want to mess with silk screening them.

If you don't want to offer silk screening, then I will be happy to buy
blank (non-engraved) punched Polan panels and silk screen them myself.
This would be easier if you gave away artwork for Stooge Panels, but
I would also be willing to create my own artwork for silk screening.

FrontPanelExpress says they will take my blank Polan panel (which I buy
from Paul S) and fabricate my .fpd design into it. If my design has just
the holes and not the graphics, this is not too expensive. But it would
really be great if I could get the same result from Stooge Industries
without the hassle of ordering a blank, waiting for it to arrive, and
then shipping it to FPE. Even better for Stooge Panels, since I probably
wouldn't need to provide an fpd file.

In any of these cases I'd do my own silk screening. I would rather have
somebody else do it, but I'll do it rather than switch to engraving.

Thanks,

skw



On Dec 1, 2005, at 10:41 PM, Paul Haneberg wrote:
We are in fact trying to find a solution in terms of a way to make
panels 
for Paul S. a few at a time.
It is an unreasonable situation for us all to expect Paul S. to buy 50
of a
given panel at a time and hold them for 4 years.
The only alternatives at present are a higher selling price so that Paul
S. 
can offset the higher per unit panel cost that would come with not
buying so 
many, or to find a different process.

To get an idea of how panel costs go up with a smaller quantity just
look at 
what the cost of the present Stooge Panels are, or look at what FPE
charges.

We think we can solve part of Paul's problem by punching out panels in 
house.  This would also mean that we could punch out Stooge Panels.  The

panel finish could be anodized, powder coated or Polan painted.  For
Paul S.
we would stick with the Polan, expensive though it is.  For Stoge Panels
the 
possibilities are open.  That is why we are asking your opinion.

This leaves the silk screen problem and the associated costs.  We do not
yet 
know if we can come up with an alternative for Paul S., but we do know
that 
we can come up with an alternative for Stooge Panels if some of you are 
willing to switch away from silk screening.  That is where the trade-off

comes in.  A lot cheaper and  lot faster, but not quite identical.

Personally, I love the idea of new panels with enhanced graphics.  I
fully 
intend to replace all my panels with something different.  The form
factor 
of the panels could stay true to the well established MOTM standard
although 
it wouldn't absolutely have to.
Every modular synth is in someway unique and reflects the tastes and 
personality of its owner.  This is a way of making it a little more
personal 
and a little more unique.

There are a lot of different ways we can go with this.  The possibilites
are 
endless.  Over the next couple of months we will be experimenting.  As
much 
as we would like to get to making a Stooge Panel run immediately, we are

still trying to line up a reliable source of the panel blanks.  Whether
we 
stay with the present Stooge Panel format or change, the time before we
do 
an actual run will be about the same.

Please let us know what you think.  Your opinions will influence our 
decision.

Paul H.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
To: "MOTM litserv" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:07 PM
Subject: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion


> a) I think that the discussion is mainly for continuing the Stooge
panels.
> Production MOTM panels will remain as they are (even as such a pain as

> they are)
> simply because changing this late in the game (6500+ shipped) doesn't
make
> sense. The slight cost savings to me is overshadowed by having a
> completely
> different finish.
>
> b) anodized panels *will* show fingerprints. Which is odd is that the 
> rougher
> the initial finish (aluminum is belt-sanded before painting/plating),
the 
> more
> likely anodized panels will show prints. You can get glossy anodizing
and 
> you
> can 'overcoat' with a clear finish. For example, I think the Millennia

> Media
> Origin is drop-dead gorgeous and it's anodized:
>
> http://www.mil-media.com/docs/products/origin.shtml
>
> For painted panels, having a textured finish (which is a special
nozzle 
> that
> 'splatters' the paint) *reduces* fingerprints (and glare).
>
> c) anodizing is sensitive to the aluminum. Most people do not realize
that 
> there
> are about 8 *different* alloys of aluminum. The most common (and what
is 
> used on
> MOTM now) is called 5052-H3. However, anodized aluminum is better with
a
> *different* alloy called 6061-T6. Of course, 6061-T6 is about 15% more

> cost that
> 5052 (6061-T6 is commonly used on hang gliders and small aircraft).
Blacet
> panels are anodized, 120 grit sanded, 6061-T6 aluminum. As well as
Moog 
> modular
> panels (they are sanded to a finer grain, around 320 grit).
>
> Also, the current press-fitting PEM studs and standoffs (on the rear
of 
> the
> panels) have a tougher time gripping 6061. A solution is to eliminate
the 
> older
> black pc brackets (that use threaded PEMs and KEPS nuts to attach to
the 
> panel)
> for 100% Stooge brackets (the silver ones that fasten behind the pot 
> nuts). This
> still leaves issues with the 900, 950, 600 and 650, though :(
>
> d) I really don't see a point to changing, just for the sake of
"fancier"
> graphics like the CMS modular:
>
>
http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/CMS/Modular/images/mc24b.jpg
>
> without having to jack up the price. I think Paul H. is trying to find
a
> solution +-10% of what I am paying now for say 50 pieces at a time,
that 
> now I
> can only fab say 7 pieces. The reasoning behind *this* is that there
are
> some...errr..."slow selling" modules that may need 14 panels/year.
>
> Certainly, that CMS modular is quite a sight to behold, but so is the 
> pricetag
> :)
>
> So, official MOTM panels will remain as they are for 2006. For
DIY/Stooge
> panels, those can be whatever is best in terms of cost and delivery. 
> Stooge
> panels are a 'pretty big business' and help to promote the MOTM form 
> factor as
> the leading industry standard in 1/4" jacks.
>
> If I do decide to make a change, it will be 'radical' like the Modcan 
> Series B:
> something removed far away from the original. Let's face it: I never
> dreamed of
> selling 6500 of these things in the first place. I was hoping for 500
so I 
> could
> get a good stereo :)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 




YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 


?  Visit your group "motm" on the web.
  
?  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
?  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Tom Adam

Paul Haneberg wrote:

> We will be experimenting with this as well.
>
>  
>
> Paul H.
>
When experimenting I would think that you guys would try to make a real 
panel.
I suggest you try making one of those Neural Agonizer panels. Even if 
the paint or lettering is terribly wrong, I still would like that panel ;-)

ToAd

-- 
Tom Adam
The Big Ear
http://users.pandora.be/the-big-ear/
Check out the download section!

RE: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-02 by Paul Haneberg

The Stooge name stands for quality.  We wouldn't want any bad looking
panels getting out there.  It could damage the vaunted stooge
reputation.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Tom Adam
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:00 PM
To: Paul Haneberg
Cc: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

Paul Haneberg wrote:

> We will be experimenting with this as well.
>
>  
>
> Paul H.
>
When experimenting I would think that you guys would try to make a real 
panel.
I suggest you try making one of those Neural Agonizer panels. Even if 
the paint or lettering is terribly wrong, I still would like that panel
;-)

ToAd

-- 
Tom Adam
The Big Ear
http://users.pandora.be/the-big-ear/
Check out the download section!




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by Tom Adam

Paul Haneberg wrote:

>The Stooge name stands for quality.  We wouldn't want any bad looking
>panels getting out there.  It could damage the vaunted stooge
>reputation.
>  
>
Well, don't put any reference to "stooge" on it ;-)
No seriously, I don't see any harm in selling - let's call it "lesser 
quality" - products to someone that "asks" for it?
I live in one of the most polluted area's around the globe and I hate to 
see something useful turn into waste... And than there is the economic 
advantage too...
But that's just my 0.02 and I understand your point of view. I have no 
experience whatsoever in running a business  so I leave it up to you..

Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
Tom

>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
>Tom Adam
>Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:00 PM
>To: Paul Haneberg
>Cc: motm@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion
>
>Paul Haneberg wrote:
>
>  
>
>>We will be experimenting with this as well.
>>
>> 
>>
>>Paul H.
>>
>>    
>>
>When experimenting I would think that you guys would try to make a real 
>panel.
>I suggest you try making one of those Neural Agonizer panels. Even if 
>the paint or lettering is terribly wrong, I still would like that panel
>;-)
>
>ToAd
>
>  
>

-- 
Tom Adam
The Big Ear
http://users.pandora.be/the-big-ear/
Check out the download section!

Re: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by Robert van der Kamp

I really hate the FPE panels. I've a (lovely) Oakley 
EFG-Deluxe sitting here among all my MOTM stuff, and can't 
stop noticing it. The finish of the panel is just butt ugly 
imo. So if possible, please please continue to make panels 
with the original MOTM finish. Those just look awesome, a 
good match with the sound.

I'm more relaxed regarding the graphic design of the panel. 
I wouldn't mind a little more 'busy' design as long as it 
is done with good taste. 

The biggest problem I now have with my MOTM modular is the 
fact that the modules do not have any separator lines, like 
the vertical stripes you see along the long sides of the 
dotcom modules (and original Moogs I guess). I still hope 
to find some sort of light colored or metal strip that I 
can insert between the modules. Alternatively, a panel 
design with a box drawn on it, or just two vertical lines 
would do equally well I think.

- Robert

RE: [motm] My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by John Loffink

Regarding module edge visibility, I find that a strong side light in a dimly
lit room is very effective for delineating the edges of the modules.  It
looks cool too.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert van der Kamp
> 
> The biggest problem I now have with my MOTM modular is the
> fact that the modules do not have any separator lines, like
> the vertical stripes you see along the long sides of the
> dotcom modules (and original Moogs I guess). I still hope
> to find some sort of light colored or metal strip that I
> can insert between the modules. Alternatively, a panel
> design with a box drawn on it, or just two vertical lines
> would do equally well I think.
> 
> - Robert
>

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by mate_stubb

Module edge separators are the single most important addition one
could make to the format, in my opinion.

It makes a HUGE visibility/useability difference. Look here for a pic
of my system in much smaller days, when I had taped the module edges
to try the look out:

http://www.hotrodmotm.com/images/3StoogesMOTM.jpg

Awesome enhancement.

Moe
http://www.hotrodmotm.com
http://wiseguysynth.com

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "John Loffink" <jloffink@a...> wrote:
>
> Regarding module edge visibility, I find that a strong side light in
a dimly
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> lit room is very effective for delineating the edges of the modules.  It
> looks cool too.
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by Robert van der Kamp

On Saturday 03 December 2005 19:15, mate_stubb wrote:
> Module edge separators are the single most important
> addition one could make to the format, in my opinion.

'Module edge separators'... didn't know you guys actually 
had a name for this. ;)


> It makes a HUGE visibility/useability difference. Look
> here for a pic of my system in much smaller days, when I
> had taped the module edges to try the look out:
>
> http://www.hotrodmotm.com/images/3StoogesMOTM.jpg

Very nice! That's the thing I'm after indeed. It doesn't 
have to be so close to the Moog/dotcom layout, the 
separators could be thinner too. 

Now is there no one here who found a way to get this done?
I hoped to find some sort of metal or plastic thin H-profile 
that I could slip between two modules, but you a problem on 
the outer edges of course. Next plan was to find a U-shaped 
profile and apply it similar to how the tape is applied. 
Never found it. 

- Robert

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by mate_stubb

Nope, never found it either. You can buy brass U channel at hobby
shops that will slip right on, but it's too thick, and pushes the
modules out of their mounting.

I always thought that the thing to find would be a thin foil, sticky
on one side. Then the problem becomes building a jig to install it
exactly aligned every time.

Moe

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Robert van der Kamp <robnet@w...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Now is there no one here who found a way to get this done?
> I hoped to find some sort of metal or plastic thin H-profile 
> that I could slip between two modules, but you a problem on 
> the outer edges of course. Next plan was to find a U-shaped 
> profile and apply it similar to how the tape is applied. 
> Never found it. 
> 
> - Robert
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by Paul Haneberg

Actually, if things work out we may be able to remedy this.

We may be able to offer a service where you could send us any existing panel 
and we could use the laser etcher to burn the paint off the edges, either 
all four or just the sides.  It really depends on just how fine an edge we 
could get with the etcher burning through the Polan finish.

Paul H.




----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Robert van der Kamp" <robnet@...>
To: "MOTM List" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion


> On Saturday 03 December 2005 21:34, mate_stubb wrote:
>> Nope, never found it either. You can buy brass U channel
>> at hobby shops that will slip right on, but it's too
>> thick, and pushes the modules out of their mounting.
>>
>> I always thought that the thing to find would be a thin
>> foil, sticky on one side. Then the problem becomes
>> building a jig to install it exactly aligned every time.
>
> Yes, I though of that too, and came with the same
> conclusions. Bleh.
>
> Could be a nice Stooge Inc. product if you actually can
> think of a solution (apart from new panels that is).
>
> - Robert
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by Robert van der Kamp

On Saturday 03 December 2005 21:34, mate_stubb wrote:
> Nope, never found it either. You can buy brass U channel
> at hobby shops that will slip right on, but it's too
> thick, and pushes the modules out of their mounting.
>
> I always thought that the thing to find would be a thin
> foil, sticky on one side. Then the problem becomes
> building a jig to install it exactly aligned every time.

Yes, I though of that too, and came with the same 
conclusions. Bleh. 

Could be a nice Stooge Inc. product if you actually can 
think of a solution (apart from new panels that is).

- Robert

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-03 by Robert van der Kamp

On Saturday 03 December 2005 22:07, Paul Haneberg wrote:
> Actually, if things work out we may be able to remedy
> this.
>
> We may be able to offer a service where you could send us
> any existing panel and we could use the laser etcher to
> burn the paint off the edges, either all four or just the
> sides.  It really depends on just how fine an edge we
> could get with the etcher burning through the Polan
> finish.

I see! That could do the trick alright. Too bad though I 
have the 'damage' the panels. No way back then. But I'd 
seriously consider it yes.

- Robert

Panel Discussion: predicting the future .... ooooo... spoooooky

2005-12-04 by Greg Amann


On 3-Dec-05, at 5:47 PM, Robert van der Kamp wrote:

> It really depends on just how fine an edge we
> could get with the etcher burning through the Polan
> finish.

I see! That could do the trick alright. Too bad though I
have the 'damage' the panels. No way back then. But I'd
seriously consider it yes.

- Robert


"Damage". Here's the thing. It's big, it's expensive and, hey we admit it, it's damn sexy. Will collectors of the future be buying our MOTM modulars based on the criteria that it's original equipment?

Does adding a Tellun daughterboard potentially decrease the resale value of this beast? I sure hope not. If is does, a lot of us will have DIYed the value right oot of our synths.

I hope and pray that collectors of MOTMs in the future (by collectors I do not necessarily mean effete New York intellectuals with money to burn, it could be the "Return of the Synth Geek III" in 2040.) base their purchase decision based on the modules and the condition of the unit and that it was somehow consistent.

Let me ask this: who owns the big Moog modulars now? What are they worth? What determines that value? Can we look to what has happened to this famous family of synths and extrapolate to MOTM?

I have no clue .... BFG

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by Geoff

I still think that the solution is clear plastic strips, I shaped, with
the top and bottom
section of the 'I' being secured underneath the panel's screw mounts,
and with a
white/whatever line silkscreened on the narrow part.  This sort of thing
*seems*
easy enough to do, assuming you could find the right company (companies?)
to cut the plastic and do the silkscreening.  I'm imagining plastic
strips no thicker
than 35mm film is, and about 2 or 3 mm wide in the long section.

-Geoff

Robert van der Kamp wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>On Saturday 03 December 2005 22:07, Paul Haneberg wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, if things work out we may be able to remedy
>>this.
>>
>>We may be able to offer a service where you could send us
>>any existing panel and we could use the laser etcher to
>>burn the paint off the edges, either all four or just the
>>sides.  It really depends on just how fine an edge we
>>could get with the etcher burning through the Polan
>>finish.
>>
>>
>
>I see! That could do the trick alright. Too bad though I
>have the 'damage' the panels. No way back then. But I'd
>seriously consider it yes.
>
>- Robert
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by Paul Haneberg

The problem with any plastic part is that, unless you can find exactly what 
you want already made by somebody, the plastic parts would require the 
making of a plastic injection mold.  The cost to have even the simplest mold 
made is up around $20,000.  Minimum parts quantity would probably be in the 
neighborhood of 20,000 pieces.  There are methods of doing very small runs 
of plastic parts (<10) but those methods have a high per part cost.

My company buys some plastic parts which are injection molded.  The cost is 
reasonable, but we buy 1.5 million identical parts every year.

Paul H.




----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Geoff" <overand@...>
To: "MOTM List" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion


>I still think that the solution is clear plastic strips, I shaped, with
> the top and bottom
> section of the 'I' being secured underneath the panel's screw mounts,
> and with a
> white/whatever line silkscreened on the narrow part.  This sort of thing
> *seems*
> easy enough to do, assuming you could find the right company (companies?)
> to cut the plastic and do the silkscreening.  I'm imagining plastic
> strips no thicker
> than 35mm film is, and about 2 or 3 mm wide in the long section.
>
> -Geoff
>
> Robert van der Kamp wrote:
>
>>On Saturday 03 December 2005 22:07, Paul Haneberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually, if things work out we may be able to remedy
>>>this.
>>>
>>>We may be able to offer a service where you could send us
>>>any existing panel and we could use the laser etcher to
>>>burn the paint off the edges, either all four or just the
>>>sides.  It really depends on just how fine an edge we
>>>could get with the etcher burning through the Polan
>>>finish.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I see! That could do the trick alright. Too bad though I
>>have the 'damage' the panels. No way back then. But I'd
>>seriously consider it yes.
>>
>>- Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [motm] Panel Discussion: predicting the future .... ooooo... spoooooky

2005-12-04 by Paul Haneberg

I like to think of my synth the same way that someone might think of having an old Steinway.
Every one is a little different. There are a whole lot of intangibles that go into determining value.
Ultimately the value is what someone is willing to pay.
Another definition of value would be replacement cost - what you would insure it for.
I really do not want my synth sold ever. My hope would be that if something happened to me one of my sons would keep it and play it.
So future value is not an issue for me. I'll mod the heck out of it if I can improve the sound or function.
Or make it more user friendly, or improve the looks of it.
Possibly it might be worth more in the future, but I doubt it. There are too few people who would know what to do with it.
And as good an engineer as Paul Schreiber is, it is doubtful that he will become an almost legendary figure like Bob Moog.
So it will likely never have the name value. Possibly someone on this list might be a famous musician.
Is Roger Powell's synth worth more? Is Joe Walsh's?
How much is a CS80 worth today? Or a Prophet 5? Or a DX7 compared to original cost?
To me, what matters is what is your synth worth to you?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Amann
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:17 PM
Subject: [motm] Panel Discussion: predicting the future .... ooooo... spoooooky


On 3-Dec-05, at 5:47 PM, Robert van der Kamp wrote:

> It really depends on just how fine an edge we
> could get with the etcher burning through the Polan
> finish.

I see! That could do the trick alright. Too bad though I
have the 'damage' the panels. No way back then. But I'd
seriously consider it yes.

- Robert


"Damage". Here's the thing. It's big, it's expensive and, hey we admit it, it's damn sexy. Will collectors of the future be buying our MOTM modulars based on the criteria that it's original equipment?

Does adding a Tellun daughterboard potentially decrease the resale value of this beast? I sure hope not. If is does, a lot of us will have DIYed the value right oot of our synths.

I hope and pray that collectors of MOTMs in the future (by collectors I do not necessarily mean effete New York intellectuals with money to burn, it could be the "Return of the Synth Geek III" in 2040.) base their purchase decision based on the modules and the condition of the unit and that it was somehow consistent.

Let me ask this: who owns the big Moog modulars now? What are they worth? What determines that value? Can we look to what has happened to this famous family of synths and extrapolate to MOTM?

I have no clue .... BFG

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by Geoff

I'm not thinking of a custom manufactured plastic part.  I'm thinking of
a custom silkscreen piece of plastic
etched off of a large roll of plastic of the same thickness.  It's not
an injection-mold thing I'm talking about,
I'm talking about laser-etching or otherwise cutting, on a computer
controlled system, a large thick set of
these things that would be cut from a continuous sheet of plastic, as i
described, at the same thickness
of 35mm film, or so.  I'll try to research it further.

-Geoff

Paul Haneberg wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>The problem with any plastic part is that, unless you can find exactly what
>you want already made by somebody, the plastic parts would require the
>making of a plastic injection mold.  The cost to have even the simplest mold
>made is up around $20,000.  Minimum parts quantity would probably be in the
>neighborhood of 20,000 pieces.  There are methods of doing very small runs
>of plastic parts (<10) but those methods have a high per part cost.
>
>My company buys some plastic parts which are injection molded.  The cost is
>reasonable, but we buy 1.5 million identical parts every year.
>
>Paul H.
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Geoff" <overand@...>
>To: "MOTM List" <motm@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion
>
>
>
>
>>I still think that the solution is clear plastic strips, I shaped, with
>>the top and bottom
>>section of the 'I' being secured underneath the panel's screw mounts,
>>and with a
>>white/whatever line silkscreened on the narrow part.  This sort of thing
>>*seems*
>>easy enough to do, assuming you could find the right company (companies?)
>>to cut the plastic and do the silkscreening.  I'm imagining plastic
>>strips no thicker
>>than 35mm film is, and about 2 or 3 mm wide in the long section.
>>
>>-Geoff
>>
>>Robert van der Kamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Saturday 03 December 2005 22:07, Paul Haneberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, if things work out we may be able to remedy
>>>>this.
>>>>
>>>>We may be able to offer a service where you could send us
>>>>any existing panel and we could use the laser etcher to
>>>>burn the paint off the edges, either all four or just the
>>>>sides.  It really depends on just how fine an edge we
>>>>could get with the etcher burning through the Polan
>>>>finish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I see! That could do the trick alright. Too bad though I
>>>have the 'damage' the panels. No way back then. But I'd
>>>seriously consider it yes.
>>>
>>>- Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Panel Discussion: predicting the future .... ooooo... spoooooky

2005-12-04 by crmatt99

I agree with you, but to me Paul is todays moog, most people that have a synthtech system 
feel that they have supperior options than the moog modulars. I also believe to be true, at 
least I think I do, I never owned a Moog and probaably never will (I deliver pizzas 
remember). I predict that if you were going to sell a system to be of value in 30 to 40 
years this would be the one to own, or maybe buchla.



--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote:
>
> I like to think of my synth the same way that someone might think of having an old 
Steinway.  
> 
> Every one is a little different.  There are a whole lot of intangibles that go into 
determining value.
> Ultimately the value is what someone is willing to pay.
> Another definition of value would be replacement cost - what you would insure it for.
> 
> I really do not want my synth sold ever.  My hope would be that if something happened 
to me one of my sons would keep it and play it.
> 
> So future value is not an issue for me.  I'll mod the heck out of it if I can improve the 
sound or function.
> Or make it more user friendly, or improve the looks of it.
> 
> Possibly it might be worth more in the future, but I doubt it.  There are too few people 
who would know what to do with it.
> And as good an engineer as Paul Schreiber is, it is doubtful that he will become an 
almost legendary figure like Bob Moog.
> 
> So it will likely never have the name value.  Possibly someone on this list might be a 
famous musician.
> Is Roger Powell's synth worth more? Is Joe Walsh's?  
> 
> How much is a CS80 worth today?  Or a Prophet 5?  Or a DX7 compared to original cost?
> 
> To me, what matters is what is your synth worth to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Greg Amann 
>   To: MOTM List 
>   Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 7:17 PM
>   Subject: [motm] Panel Discussion: predicting the future .... ooooo... spoooooky
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On 3-Dec-05, at 5:47 PM, Robert van der Kamp wrote:
> 
> 
>     > It really depends on just how fine an edge we
>     > could get with the etcher burning through the Polan
>     > finish.
> 
>     I see! That could do the trick alright. Too bad though I 
>     have the 'damage' the panels. No way back then. But I'd 
>     seriously consider it yes.
> 
>     - Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   "Damage".  Here's the thing.  It's big, it's expensive and, hey we admit it, it's damn 
sexy.  Will collectors of the future be buying our MOTM modulars based on the criteria that 
it's original equipment?
> 
> 
>   Does adding a Tellun daughterboard potentially decrease the resale value of this 
beast?  I sure hope not.  If is does, a lot of us will have DIYed the value right oot of our 
synths.
> 
> 
>   I hope and pray that collectors of MOTMs in the future (by collectors I do not 
necessarily mean effete New York intellectuals with money to burn, it could be the "Return 
of the Synth Geek III" in 2040.) base their purchase decision based on the modules and the 
condition of the unit and that it was somehow consistent.
> 
> 
>   Let me ask this: who owns the big Moog modulars now?  What are they worth?  What 
determines that value?  Can we look to what has happened to this famous family of synths 
and extrapolate to MOTM?
> 
> 
>   I have no clue .... BFG
> 
> 
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
>     a..  Visit your group "motm" on the web.
>       
>     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       
>     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
> 
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by djbrow54

I don't want to see my panel edges ... but if I did, I would think 
that a stamped piece of thin metal or aluminum would do the trick.  It 
would be in the shape of an I with two holes at the top and two holes 
at the bottom.  You put the panel in, lay the strip at the edge, and 
then put the screws through to sandwich the panel between the edge 
strip.  The top and bottom could have curves to match the screw heads 
so all you would see was the vertical strip and the piece between the 
two screw heads.  Simple and easy to do.  

Dave

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Geoff <overand@o...> wrote:
>
> I'm not thinking of a custom manufactured plastic part.  I'm 
thinking of
> a custom silkscreen piece of plastic
> etched off of a large roll of plastic of the same thickness.  It's 
not
> an injection-mold thing I'm talking about,
> I'm talking about laser-etching or otherwise cutting, on a computer
> controlled system, a large thick set of
> these things that would be cut from a continuous sheet of plastic, 
as i
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> described, at the same thickness
> of 35mm film, or so.  I'll try to research it further.
> 
> -Geoff

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by Dana Countryman

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@e...> wrote:
>
> I don't want to see my panel edges ... but if I did, I would think 
> that a stamped piece of thin metal or aluminum would do the trick.  It 
> would be in the shape of an I with two holes at the top and two holes 
> at the bottom.  You put the panel in, lay the strip at the edge, and 
> then put the screws through to sandwich the panel between the edge 
> strip.  The top and bottom could have curves to match the screw heads 
> so all you would see was the vertical strip and the piece between the 
> two screw heads.  Simple and easy to do.  
> 
> Dave>>


Yep, that's  how I do it.

http://www.danacountryman.com/misc/TopSynth.jpg

- Dana
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Geoff <overand@o...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not thinking of a custom manufactured plastic part.  I'm 
> thinking of
> > a custom silkscreen piece of plastic
> > etched off of a large roll of plastic of the same thickness.  It's 
> not
> > an injection-mold thing I'm talking about,
> > I'm talking about laser-etching or otherwise cutting, on a computer
> > controlled system, a large thick set of
> > these things that would be cut from a continuous sheet of plastic, 
> as i
> > described, at the same thickness
> > of 35mm film, or so.  I'll try to research it further.
> > 
> > -Geoff
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by Paul Haneberg

You cannot stamp out an I or H shape. It's not physically possible. You
must either mold it or extrude it.
It is possible to stamp out a U shape, but you'd have to be really thin to
fit two of them between two modules.
I doubt you could make the piece thin enough to fit and still stiff enough
so that you wouldn't catch your finger on the exposed edge and bend it, not
to mention hurting yourself.

My company does 90% of our own diemaking in house. I would guess the cost
to make such a die would be $15,000+
I don't think you could make this part on a CNC punch press either. On a
CNC punch press you would have to do the bending as a secondary operation.
The material is thin and the bends are only 1/8" apart. I just don't think
you could do it.

I have no doubt it could be stamped on a conventional press with a custom
made die. You would have to use what is called a progressive die, which has
multiple stations. The first station would cut out almost all the material
including the holes which would be on the backside of the module when
applied. The second station would bend the part into a U shape. The third
station would finish the cut.

If anyone out there is a machinist or die maker and wants to tell me I'm
wrong, I'm willing to listen. I'm not a machinist myself, but I do have a
couple of them in my employ.

Paul H.


----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "djbrow54" <davebr@...>
To: <
motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:29 PM
Subject: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion


>I don't want to see my panel edges ... but if I did, I would think
> that a stamped piece of thin metal or aluminum would do the trick. It
> would be in the shape of an I with two holes at the top and two holes
> at the bottom. You put the panel in, lay the strip at the edge, and
> then put the screws through to sandwich the panel between the edge
> strip. The top and bottom could have curves to match the screw heads
> so all you would see was the vertical strip and the piece between the
> two screw heads. Simple and easy to do.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In
motm@yahoogroups.com, Geoff <overand@o...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not thinking of a custom manufactured plastic part. I'm
> thinking of
>> a custom silkscreen piece of plastic
>> etched off of a large roll of plastic of the same thickness. It's
> not
>> an injection-mold thing I'm talking about,
>> I'm talking about laser-etching or otherwise cutting, on a computer
>> controlled system, a large thick set of
>> these things that would be cut from a continuous sheet of plastic,
> as i
>> described, at the same thickness
>> of 35mm film, or so. I'll try to research it further.
>>
>> -Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/u8TY5A/tzNLAA/yQLSAA/VpLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> 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
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by Paul Haneberg

One more thought.
If you have an H shapped piece of metal between each of your modules, how will you remove a module in the middle of a row?
Wouldn't it be necessary to remove the entire row?
Paul H.
----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

You cannot stamp out an I or H shape. It's not physically possible. You
must either mold it or extrude it.
It is possible to stamp out a U shape, but you'd have to be really thin to
fit two of them between two modules.
I doubt you could make the piece thin enough to fit and still stiff enough
so that you wouldn't catch your finger on the exposed edge and bend it, not
to mention hurting yourself.

My company does 90% of our own diemaking in house. I would guess the cost
to make such a die would be $15,000+
I don't think you could make this part on a CNC punch press either. On a
CNC punch press you would have to do the bending as a secondary operation.
The material is thin and the bends are only 1/8" apart. I just don't think
you could do it.

I have no doubt it could be stamped on a conventional press with a custom
made die. You would have to use what is called a progressive die, which has
multiple stations. The first station would cut out almost all the material
including the holes which would be on the backside of the module when
applied. The second station would bend the part into a U shape. The third
station would finish the cut.

If anyone out there is a machinist or die maker and wants to tell me I'm
wrong, I'm willing to listen. I'm not a machinist myself, but I do have a
couple of them in my employ.

Paul H.


----- Original Message -----
From: "djbrow54" <
davebr@...>
To: <
motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:29 PM
Subject: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion


>I don't want to see my panel edges ... but if I did, I would think
> that a stamped piece of thin metal or aluminum would do the trick. It
> would be in the shape of an I with two holes at the top and two holes
> at the bottom. You put the panel in, lay the strip at the edge, and
> then put the screws through to sandwich the panel between the edge
> strip. The top and bottom could have curves to match the screw heads
> so all you would see was the vertical strip and the piece between the
> two screw heads. Simple and easy to do.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In
motm@yahoogroups.com, Geoff <overand@o...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not thinking of a custom manufactured plastic part. I'm
> thinking of
>> a custom silkscreen piece of plastic
>> etched off of a large roll of plastic of the same thickness. It's
> not
>> an injection-mold thing I'm talking about,
>> I'm talking about laser-etching or otherwise cutting, on a computer
>> controlled system, a large thick set of
>> these things that would be cut from a continuous sheet of plastic,
> as i
>> described, at the same thickness
>> of 35mm film, or so. I'll try to research it further.
>>
>> -Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/u8TY5A/tzNLAA/yQLSAA/VpLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> 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
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by David Hylander

Yes it would.  The other problem with putting a strip like this 
between the modules is that it effectively increases the width of the 
module, and hence the center distance .  Not a big deal for the 
center modules, but the ones on the outside of a 12U or 16U row of 
modules would no longer line up with the mounting holes in the rail behind.

At 10:25 AM 12/4/2005, Paul Haneberg wrote:
>If you have an H shapped piece of metal between each of your 
>modules, how will you remove a module in the middle of a row?
>Wouldn't it be necessary to remove the entire row?

~david~

http://www.hylander.com
http://www.hylander.us

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-04 by djbrow54

A flat piece of metal. The "I" referred to the shape, not the cross 
section. It is held in by the two side screws of the module plus the 
two side screws of the adjacent module.  To replace a module you'd
need to take out 8 screws but the adjacent modules would stay in
place since they still had 2 screws each on their other respective
sides.

Nothing behind the panel, nothing in-between to change the spacing, 
simply a decorative piece of trim sandwiched between the screws and 
the modules on the surface.  I put a drawing in the files section.
'vertical.jpg'

Dave

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote:
>
> You cannot stamp out an I  or H shape.  It's not physically 
possible.

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-05 by coyoteous

Now I get it! That's a really good idea. I've been mulling over this problem (like 
others) for some time - it just never occured to me to put something in front of 
the modules, secured by the existing screws. Now, how about a material that 
won't mar or react with the paint? Also, I'm thinkin' this could look really cool or 
really dumb depending on the material, color, shape and execution. Anybody 
up for pursuing this? I'd be in for 50 or so, if they were say, between $1 and $2 
each. These would also act as washers. Good idea, Dave!

Barry S.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@e...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> A flat piece of metal. The "I" referred to the shape, not the cross 
> section. It is held in by the two side screws of the module plus the 
> two side screws of the adjacent module.  To replace a module you'd
> need to take out 8 screws but the adjacent modules would stay in
> place since they still had 2 screws each on their other respective
> sides.
> 
> Nothing behind the panel, nothing in-between to change the spacing, 
> simply a decorative piece of trim sandwiched between the screws and 
> the modules on the surface.  I put a drawing in the files section.
> 'vertical.jpg'
> 
> Dave
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> >
> > You cannot stamp out an I  or H shape.  It's not physically 
> possible.
>

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-05 by Robert van der Kamp

On Sunday 04 December 2005 16:25, Paul Haneberg wrote:
> One more thought.
>
> If you have an H shapped piece of metal between each of
> your modules, how will you remove a module in the middle
> of a row? Wouldn't it be necessary to remove the entire
> row?

I assumed a little wiggling would do the trick.
Depends on the fit I guess.

- Robert

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-05 by Robert van der Kamp

On Sunday 04 December 2005 17:29, David Hylander wrote:
> Yes it would. \ufffdThe other problem with putting a strip
> like this between the modules is that it effectively
> increases the width of the module, and hence the center
> distance . \ufffdNot a big deal for the center modules, but
> the ones on the outside of a 12U or 16U row of modules
> would no longer line up with the mounting holes in the
> rail behind.

I'm using Paul's official rack mount strips, and with those 
I have some space between the modules. Not much, but I can 
see light coming through them from behind. 

- Robert

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-05 by Robert van der Kamp

On Sunday 04 December 2005 18:07, djbrow54 wrote:
> A flat piece of metal. The "I" referred to the shape, not
> the cross section. It is held in by the two side screws
> of the module plus the two side screws of the adjacent
> module.  To replace a module you'd need to take out 8
> screws but the adjacent modules would stay in place since
> they still had 2 screws each on their other respective
> sides.
>
> Nothing behind the panel, nothing in-between to change
> the spacing, simply a decorative piece of trim sandwiched
> between the screws and the modules on the surface.  I put
> a drawing in the files section. 'vertical.jpg'

That's a very nice idea!

Not sure about the cosmetics though. The construction near 
the screws could be ugly, especially since I'm looking for 
a very subtle separator. I think a single white or metal 
colored line, the width of the graphic lines on e.g. the 
MOTM-300 would be more than adequate. Anything thicker will 
probably not look very sexy, but I'd love to be wrong here.

- Robert

Re: [motm] Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-05 by Robert van der Kamp

On Sunday 04 December 2005 08:17, Dana Countryman wrote:

> Yep, that's \ufffdhow I do it.
>
> http://www.danacountryman.com/misc/TopSynth.jpg

Ah, nice! First time I actually see a separator on a MOTM 
module. Even though it nicely matches the dotcom format 
below, I still think the strip is too wide. A single fine 
line would do it for me.

- Robert

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-06 by djbrow54

I'm thinking you could do these in lexan.  To avoid any NRE, you could 
probably go with 0.030" clear and still laser cut it.  The top and 
bottom portions could be the dimensions of the screw head so that the 
only visible portion would be between the screws and the vertical.

You could use clear lexan so the black could show through.  It would 
probably need to be 0.25" wide to provide enough rigidity but could 
have a much thinner stripe silkscreened on it, perhaps 0.125".  This 
would then leave only a very narrow clear portion on either side.

There would be very little NRE but the piece price would be higher.  
At a certain volume it would make sense to stencil cut the lexan.

If there is enough interest I may be talked into checking further.

Dave


--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Robert van der Kamp <robnet@w...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> On Sunday 04 December 2005 18:07, djbrow54 wrote:
> > A flat piece of metal. The "I" referred to the shape, not
> > the cross section. It is held in by the two side screws
> > of the module plus the two side screws of the adjacent
> > module.  To replace a module you'd need to take out 8
> > screws but the adjacent modules would stay in place since
> > they still had 2 screws each on their other respective
> > sides.
> >
> > Nothing behind the panel, nothing in-between to change
> > the spacing, simply a decorative piece of trim sandwiched
> > between the screws and the modules on the surface.  I put
> > a drawing in the files section. 'vertical.jpg'
> 
> That's a very nice idea!
> 
> Not sure about the cosmetics though. The construction near 
> the screws could be ugly, especially since I'm looking for 
> a very subtle separator. I think a single white or metal 
> colored line, the width of the graphic lines on e.g. the 
> MOTM-300 would be more than adequate. Anything thicker will 
> probably not look very sexy, but I'd love to be wrong here.
> 
> - Robert
>

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-06 by mate_stubb

What's NRE?

Moe
--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@e...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I'm thinking you could do these in lexan.  To avoid any NRE, you could 
> probably go with 0.030" clear and still laser cut it.  The top and 
> bottom portions could be the dimensions of the screw head so that the 
> only visible portion would be between the screws and the vertical.
> 
> You could use clear lexan so the black could show through.  It would 
> probably need to be 0.25" wide to provide enough rigidity but could 
> have a much thinner stripe silkscreened on it, perhaps 0.125".  This 
> would then leave only a very narrow clear portion on either side.
> 
> There would be very little NRE but the piece price would be higher.  
> At a certain volume it would make sense to stencil cut the lexan.
> 
> If there is enough interest I may be talked into checking further.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Robert van der Kamp <robnet@w...> wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday 04 December 2005 18:07, djbrow54 wrote:
> > > A flat piece of metal. The "I" referred to the shape, not
> > > the cross section. It is held in by the two side screws
> > > of the module plus the two side screws of the adjacent
> > > module.  To replace a module you'd need to take out 8
> > > screws but the adjacent modules would stay in place since
> > > they still had 2 screws each on their other respective
> > > sides.
> > >
> > > Nothing behind the panel, nothing in-between to change
> > > the spacing, simply a decorative piece of trim sandwiched
> > > between the screws and the modules on the surface.  I put
> > > a drawing in the files section. 'vertical.jpg'
> > 
> > That's a very nice idea!
> > 
> > Not sure about the cosmetics though. The construction near 
> > the screws could be ugly, especially since I'm looking for 
> > a very subtle separator. I think a single white or metal 
> > colored line, the width of the graphic lines on e.g. the 
> > MOTM-300 would be more than adequate. Anything thicker will 
> > probably not look very sexy, but I'd love to be wrong here.
> > 
> > - Robert
> >
>

Re: My initial take on the panel discussion

2005-12-06 by djbrow54

NRE=non-recurring engineering.  I referred to it as in tooling and 
design costs.

Using laser cut there is no up front tooling charges but the parts 
would be a higher piece price.  I have no idea at what quantity the 
break even point would be but doubt that we'd come close to it.  Would 
be worth looking at, though.

Dave

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@y...> wrote:
>
> What's NRE?
> 
> Moe
> --- In motm@...m, "djbrow54" <davebr@e...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking you could do these in lexan.  To avoid any NRE, you 
could 
> > probably go with 0.030" clear and still laser cut it.  The top and 
> > bottom portions could be the dimensions of the screw head so that 
the 
> > only visible portion would be between the screws and the vertical.
> > 
> > You could use clear lexan so the black could show through.  It 
would 
> > probably need to be 0.25" wide to provide enough rigidity but 
could 
> > have a much thinner stripe silkscreened on it, perhaps 0.125".  
This 
> > would then leave only a very narrow clear portion on either side.
> > 
> > There would be very little NRE but the piece price would be 
higher.  
> > At a certain volume it would make sense to stencil cut the lexan.
> > 
> > If there is enough interest I may be talked into checking further.
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Robert van der Kamp <robnet@w...> 
wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > >
> > > On Sunday 04 December 2005 18:07, djbrow54 wrote:
> > > > A flat piece of metal. The "I" referred to the shape, not
> > > > the cross section. It is held in by the two side screws
> > > > of the module plus the two side screws of the adjacent
> > > > module.  To replace a module you'd need to take out 8
> > > > screws but the adjacent modules would stay in place since
> > > > they still had 2 screws each on their other respective
> > > > sides.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing behind the panel, nothing in-between to change
> > > > the spacing, simply a decorative piece of trim sandwiched
> > > > between the screws and the modules on the surface.  I put
> > > > a drawing in the files section. 'vertical.jpg'
> > > 
> > > That's a very nice idea!
> > > 
> > > Not sure about the cosmetics though. The construction near 
> > > the screws could be ugly, especially since I'm looking for 
> > > a very subtle separator. I think a single white or metal 
> > > colored line, the width of the graphic lines on e.g. the 
> > > MOTM-300 would be more than adequate. Anything thicker will 
> > > probably not look very sexy, but I'd love to be wrong here.
> > > 
> > > - Robert
> > >
> >
>

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.