MOTM

Hello all.  Sorry, I've not posted on here for quite some time, I've
been mainly working, playing when I get time - not much time to post
to boards/fora.

Anyway, for a while, I've had a bit of a bad space problem in my
little music room.  I have 3 x small-ish modulars - a Wiard/Blacet, a
MOTM and a ModCan, and I only have room for 2.  They are all excellent
instruments, that I get a lot of enjoyment out of playing/playing w/,
but the space thing is a real problem.  I though about sellling one of
them, but thinking of selling any one of them doesn't really make me
happy.  The Wiard/Blacet tends to sit on the left of the shelf, and
the I rotate the ModCan and the MOTM as whim takes me.  There's also a
Serge panel, but that doesn't take up much space, and it just sits on
top of one of the other boxes.

Last week, I had a fairly radical idea, which is to transfer all my
MOTM-format modules to ModCan panel format:

Disadvantages:

Though the MOTM "wall of black" gets a bit of stick here & there, I do
actually really like it & will miss it.

bye-bye to the totally shielded MOTM philosophy.

Advantages:

ModCan's "A" style front panel is IMO the nicest-looking ever made.

The big/killer advantage is that I'll be able to put all my modules on
the shelf, and be able to use them all at once.  If I go the other way
round (which I did think about) it won't work - I won't have enough
space.

About the only technical issue I can think of is the resistors on the
CV inputs of the MOTM-300 VCO.  What will happen if these are omitted?
 What other tech issues might I face that haven't occured to me?  The
few switching jacks that are in the modular (eg on the dual mixer) can
be easily changed to toggle switches.  The MOTM VCOs output a higher
level than the ModCan ones, but I've used them together loads of times
with no issues in the past.

I should have a cascaded mult and a patch panel, as well as a bunch of
1/4" patch leads & some rack rails going spare, I'll advise & put up a
FS notice in a week or so.

Also, in the unlikely event that anyone else onlist is looking at
doing the same thing (this is my space issue, obv, other people might
not face this) now would be a good time, as I'm proceeding w/this in
the next month or so, and higher quantities of faceplates = lower
prices per faceplate, so Cynthia tells me.

Here's a pic of the beast, awaiting it's facelift:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/Vietgrove/Studio%20May%202006/Picture003.jpg

Best wishes to you all

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Norman Fay" <vietgrove@...> wrote:
>
> Anyway, for a while, I've had a bit of a bad space problem in my
> little music room.  I have 3 x small-ish modulars - a Wiard/Blacet, a
> MOTM and a ModCan, and I only have room for 2. 

Great problem to have!

> Last week, I had a fairly radical idea, which is to transfer all my
> MOTM-format modules to ModCan panel format:
> 
> Disadvantages:
> 
> Though the MOTM "wall of black" gets a bit of stick here & there, I do
> actually really like it & will miss it.
> 
> bye-bye to the totally shielded MOTM philosophy.

You left out a big disadvantage - this will cost a boatload of money
to do, and you'll have less valuable modules when you're finished. 

> Here's a pic of the beast, awaiting it's facelift:
> 
>
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/Vietgrove/Studio%20May%202006/Picture003.jpg
> 

It's so pretty!

Have you thought about a custom case, mounting the modulars to the
wall, or anything like that to improve your work area? The new
faceplates, though an interesting project, sound like a ton of work to
fix a space issue.

.

> Here's a pic of the beast, awaiting it's facelift:
>
>
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/Vietgrove/Studio%20May%202006/Picture003.jpg
>

It's so pretty!

Have you thought about a custom case, mounting the modulars to the
wall, or anything like that to improve your work area? The new
faceplates, though an interesting project, sound like a ton of work to
fix a space issue.

I don't agree about the value of the modded modules.  A unique modular
that is in its heart MOTM but has a ModCan face may be worth more than
yet another MOTM rig.  From what I ve read from Norman around the
community, I know it will be done well, so quality won't be an issue.

I say: go for it!  And be sure to post pix for us :)

Mike


--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Greg Amann <greg.amann@...> wrote:

>
> > .
> >
> > > Here's a pic of the beast, awaiting it's facelift:
> > >
> > >
> > http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/Vietgrove/Studio%20May% 
> > 202006/Picture003.jpg
> > >
> >
> > It's so pretty!
> >
> > Have you thought about a custom case, mounting the modulars to the
> > wall, or anything like that to improve your work area? The new
> > faceplates, though an interesting project, sound like a ton of work to
> > fix a space issue.
> >
> I have to agree here.  For what you will spend on this you could add  
> significantly more modules to your rig(s).
> 
> Modular synths need space to grow.  Modular synths are inherently  
> large.  Anyone of a different view is.....AAARGHHHHHHHH
> 
> Sorry.  Seriously, you are aboot to spend a TON of $ and time that  
> will not improve the sound (or value) of your synths.
> 
> Please reconsider and buy more modules (oh here I go  
> AAGGGGAAAAIIINNNNNNNNNNN)
> 
> PLL, BFG
> 
> >
>

To each his/her own on this one! I decided to go multi-format, with MOTM as my core - 
augmented by frac and dot com formats, all rack mount. Neither of my secondary formats 
are complete synths in and of themselves (yet), but each is a standalone/self-powered 
patchable extension of the MOTM. I'll probably get some euro format in the mix at some 
point. It's not all that pretty, but it's easily extensible. I guess I'm with the camp that would 
rather buy more modules in their existing formats than spend time and money to re-face 
them - though I do respect and understand why one would want to unify to one format.

Barry S.

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Marsh" <michaelmarsh@...> wrote:

>
> I don't agree about the value of the modded modules.  A unique modular
> that is in its heart MOTM but has a ModCan face may be worth more than
> yet another MOTM rig.  From what I ve read from Norman around the
> community, I know it will be done well, so quality won't be an issue.
> 
> I say: go for it!  And be sure to post pix for us :)
> 
> Mike

On 2006-06-15 04:12 -0000, coyoteous wrote:

> I guess I'm with the camp that would rather buy more modules in
> their existing formats than spend time and money to re-face them
> - though I do respect and understand why one would want to unify
> to one format.

I think Norman's motivation is not looks but panel density. The
difference is on the order of 40% : 8.16 cm\ufffd per front panel
element for Modcan vs. about 11.6 cm\ufffd on average for MOTM.

To put things into perspective, the figure is about 4.5 cm\ufffd for
Doepfer and 16 cm\ufffd for Arrick.

-- 
Andr\ufffd Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
Do not use this account for regular correspondence.
See the URL above for contact information.

I'm in the mixed format group.  And I do understand the space issue,
as I struggle with it also.  However, in the mixed format system, the
different jacks are a pain in the a..!  So I 're-format' by mounting
the smaller panels into blanks and adding 1/4" jacks, leaving the
original module alone.  (I'm 6'3" with BIG hands and 1/8" jacks just
don't work well for me {I've broken them on several occasions}.) 
Banana systems are nice, but there are too many things that really
work better with switching jacks, which don't exist in a banana
system.  If possible, I hook the 1/4" jacks to the switched input on
the 1/8" jacks so I could, in fact, bypass a 1/4" patch using 1/8"
cables.  (My system is Synthesizers.com, MOTM, Blacet, CGS, and ...)

LarryT

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Andre Majorel <aym-htnys@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-06-15 04:12 -0000, coyoteous wrote:
> 
> > I guess I'm with the camp that would rather buy more modules in
> > their existing formats than spend time and money to re-face them
> > - though I do respect and understand why one would want to unify
> > to one format.
> 
> I think Norman's motivation is not looks but panel density. The
> difference is on the order of 40% : 8.16 cm² per front panel
> element for Modcan vs. about 11.6 cm² on average for MOTM.
> 
> To put things into perspective, the figure is about 4.5 cm² for
> Doepfer and 16 cm² for Arrick.
> 
> -- 
> André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
> Do not use this account for regular correspondence.
> See the URL above for contact information.
>

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Andre Majorel <aym-htnys@...> wrote:
>
Those panel acreage figures are interesting!  Yes, it's purely down to
space/panel density in my case.  My studio room is an attic, and a
fairly small attic at that.  I tried attaching the cases to the inner
roof surfaces (?) but the walls were closing in a bit.  If it was in a
straight-walled room, I would not have a problem at all.

The dotcom is even bigger?  Wow.

The price is not an issue - Cynthia has quoted me a price which I
thought quite reasonable.  The Banana sockets and the davis knobs as
used on Serge, ModCan and Wiard synthesisers are cheap to buy.  I'm
not planning on doing it all in one go - I'll do the Oakley MIDI-DAC
first, then the VCOs, then the envelopes, and so on.  She already has
panel designs for the sub-octave multiplexer c/w tellun add-on and the
MOTM440 filter.  Several of the existing modules I was going to
re-panel anyway - the multiplexer + Tellun mod, the ultra-LFO + Tellun
mod and the 480 VCF + Pugix/m.u.u.b. mod (many, many thanks for
posting all that info on yr site BTW, Mr Brewster).  The resale thing
isn't an issue for me either - I generally tend to keep stuff I like
for a long time, I was playing my Chroma the other day, and reflecting
on the fact that I've had it for something like 20 years!  That's a
long time...    I'm not planning on selling on any of my modular gear
until I'm really old.

Anyway, the 2 possible issues are the resistors on the VC input jacks
on the VCOs, and a kind soul emailed me suggesting that w/o shielded
cable, the signal returns might try to go back through the power
supply?  If I keep the shielded cables, and attach the shields to the
back of the panel, would that avoid this?

Many thanks

> 
> I think Norman's motivation is not looks but panel density. The
> difference is on the order of 40% : 8.16 cm² per front panel
> element for Modcan vs. about 11.6 cm² on average for MOTM.
> 
> To put things into perspective, the figure is about 4.5 cm² for
> Doepfer and 16 cm² for Arrick.
> 
> -- 
> André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
> Do not use this account for regular correspondence.
> See the URL above for contact information.
>

Hi

Sounds interesting but I dont exactly understand how you "reformat", 
have you got a picture or something?

Im "mixing" to, but only MOTM and dotcom. And thats no problem, only
esthetical, I´ve got one row of each in my current (DIY) cabinet.
But there are things I´d like from some of the euro format guys.
The Blacet Miniwave, a quantizer, a gate delay. (Doefer) But I´m not 
much for the minijacks. And I do like big knobs. 
Anybody else with good ideas in mixing small format with MOTM format.
Or should I buy Modcan? (more expensive)

hi

Gregory

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Larry T." <larry@...> wrote:
>
> I'm in the mixed format group.  And I do understand the space 
issue,
> as I struggle with it also.  However, in the mixed format system, 
the
> different jacks are a pain in the a..!  So I 're-format' by 
mounting
> the smaller panels into blanks and adding 1/4" jacks, leaving the
> original module alone.  (I'm 6'3" with BIG hands and 1/8" jacks 
just
> don't work well for me {I've broken them on several occasions}.) 
> Banana systems are nice, but there are too many things that really
> work better with switching jacks, which don't exist in a banana
> system.  If possible, I hook the 1/4" jacks to the switched input 
on
> the 1/8" jacks so I could, in fact, bypass a 1/4" patch using 1/8"
> cables.  (My system is Synthesizers.com, MOTM, Blacet, CGS, 
and ...)
> 
> LarryT
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Andre Majorel <aym-htnys@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2006-06-15 04:12 -0000, coyoteous wrote:
> > 
> > > I guess I'm with the camp that would rather buy more modules in
> > > their existing formats than spend time and money to re-face 
them
> > > - though I do respect and understand why one would want to 
unify

> > > to one format.
> > 
> > I think Norman's motivation is not looks but panel density. The
> > difference is on the order of 40% : 8.16 cm² per front panel
> > element for Modcan vs. about 11.6 cm² on average for MOTM.
> > 
> > To put things into perspective, the figure is about 4.5 cm² for
> > Doepfer and 16 cm² for Arrick.
> > 
> > -- 
> > André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
> > Do not use this account for regular correspondence.
> > See the URL above for contact information.
> >
>

Hello Gregory (and everyone else)

At the bottom of my album in the DotComFormat group is an example of a
CGS and a Blacet module 're-formatted' into MOTM format.  There are 3
pictures at the bopttom of the page showing what it looks like and how
I did it.  I used a standard adapter that Blacet used to sell, but in
the future I will just cut holes in DotCom blank panels to do the same
thing.  (Maybe if enough people ask, John might do another run of
adapter panels???)

The Link is:
http://launch.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/dotcomformat/photos/browse/4ddf

Docvomformat is a spin-off group geared mostly to those that are
putting other gear into the Synthesizers.com format.  Since that
format is so close to the MOTM format, some of the ideas apply.

LarryT

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "gregorykjar" <g@...> wrote:

>
> Hi
> 
> Sounds interesting but I dont exactly understand how you "reformat", 
> have you got a picture or something?
> 
> Im "mixing" to, but only MOTM and dotcom. And thats no problem, only
> esthetical, I´ve got one row of each in my current (DIY) cabinet.
> But there are things I´d like from some of the euro format guys.
> The Blacet Miniwave, a quantizer, a gate delay. (Doefer) But I´m not 
> much for the minijacks. And I do like big knobs. 
> Anybody else with good ideas in mixing small format with MOTM format.
> Or should I buy Modcan? (more expensive)
> 
> hi
> 
> Gregory
>

I'm happy to know that my website is useful!  It will expand in the 
future too.

Way back in the list archives, you might find some posts I made about 
panel density.  I am probably the only one who ever built the three 
Sample and Holds in 2U project:

http://www.pugix.com/top-cabinet.htm#motm101

Panel density is important to me, but I am wedded to MOTM format.  I do 
admire the aesthetic of the Modcan format.  It is cool that Cynthia 
Webster has made some MOTM, CGS, and others available in it.  BTW, the 
Miniwave is available from Modcan, did you know?  
http://www.modcan.com/modhtml/modules.html

Regarding shielding on VC inputs.  It is possible to ground only one end 
of a shielded cable and still get shielding.  That is probably better 
than grounding to the panel.  At audio frequencies it is not as much of 
an issue as it would be for RF.  On a 1V/octave input, the frequencies 
are not often in the audio range anyway, but most often DC from a 
keyboard.  If you are hooking to a banana jack, the shielding stops 
there anyway.  The cable plugged in isn't shielded.  A few inches of 
shielding won't make a lot of difference if you have a 3-foot unshielded 
patch cord plugged in.  So I wouldn't worry about it if you are doing 
the banana jack thing.

Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com

NoRMaN PHaY wrote:

> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Andre Majorel <aym-htnys@...> wrote:
>   
> Those panel acreage figures are interesting!  Yes, it's purely down to
> space/panel density in my case.  My studio room is an attic, and a
> fairly small attic at that.  I tried attaching the cases to the inner
> roof surfaces (?) but the walls were closing in a bit.  If it was in a
> straight-walled room, I would not have a problem at all.
>
> The dotcom is even bigger?  Wow.
>
> The price is not an issue - Cynthia has quoted me a price which I
> thought quite reasonable.  The Banana sockets and the davis knobs as
> used on Serge, ModCan and Wiard synthesisers are cheap to buy.  I'm
> not planning on doing it all in one go - I'll do the Oakley MIDI-DAC
> first, then the VCOs, then the envelopes, and so on.  She already has
> panel designs for the sub-octave multiplexer c/w tellun add-on and the
> MOTM440 filter.  Several of the existing modules I was going to
> re-panel anyway - the multiplexer + Tellun mod, the ultra-LFO + Tellun
> mod and the 480 VCF + Pugix/m.u.u.b. mod (many, many thanks for
> posting all that info on yr site BTW, Mr Brewster).  The resale thing
> isn't an issue for me either - I generally tend to keep stuff I like
> for a long time, I was playing my Chroma the other day, and reflecting
> on the fact that I've had it for something like 20 years!  That's a
> long time...    I'm not planning on selling on any of my modular gear
> until I'm really old.
>
> Anyway, the 2 possible issues are the resistors on the VC input jacks
> on the VCOs, and a kind soul emailed me suggesting that w/o shielded
> cable, the signal returns might try to go back through the power
> supply?  If I keep the shielded cables, and attach the shields to the
> back of the panel, would that avoid this?
>
> Many thanks
>
>   
>> I think Norman's motivation is not looks but panel density. The
>> difference is on the order of 40% : 8.16 cm\ufffd per front panel
>> element for Modcan vs. about 11.6 cm\ufffd on average for MOTM.
>>
>> To put things into perspective, the figure is about 4.5 cm\ufffd for
>> Doepfer and 16 cm\ufffd for Arrick.
>>
>> -- 
>> Andr\ufffd Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
>> Do not use this account for regular correspondence.
>> See the URL above for contact information.
>>
>>     
>
>
>

reformatting basically involves taking the PCB 
from another form factor but not the panel or 
(generally) jacks, pots, knobs, etc. the new 
panel is made by stooge or schaeffer or (insert 
panel maker here).

my modular is MOTM format but has modules from 6 
(shortly to be 8) manufacturers. it contains a 
blacet miniwave and blacet vc-envelope, both of 
which were reformatted from blacet kits into MOTM 
panels.

mr blacet makes it a bit easier by selling 
minimal kits without hardware for us reformatters.

>Hi
>
>Sounds interesting but I dont exactly understand how you "reformat",
>have you got a picture or something?
>
>Im "mixing" to, but only MOTM and dotcom. And thats no problem, only
>esthetical, I´ve got one row of each in my current (DIY) cabinet.
>But there are things I´d like from some of the euro format guys.
>The Blacet Miniwave, a quantizer, a gate delay. (Doefer) But I´m not
>much for the minijacks. And I do like big knobs.
>Anybody else with good ideas in mixing small format with MOTM format.
>Or should I buy Modcan? (more expensive)
>
>hi
>
>Gregory

The availability of a PC board, bare or assembled, or a partial or full 
kit was essential to my purchase decisions.  I do find some Modcan and 
Synthesizers.com modules interesting.   I just don't want to buy a fully 
assembled module in another format, strip it all apart, add a $100 panel 
and $50 worth of pots and jacks, and throw away the original panel, all 
to have a MOTM format version.  I would have to be really, really 
attracted to a module that was available in no other form, and that 
hasn't happened yet.

The original topic on this thread was about going the other way:  
reformatting MOTM modules into a Modcan panel format.  It's a similar 
question.  If this were done, you would have a unique looking modular, 
and you would have expended a lot of time, money and effort.  To each 
his own.

-Richard Brewster
http://www.pugix.com

Jason Proctor wrote:

> reformatting basically involves taking the PCB 
> from another form factor but not the panel or 
> (generally) jacks, pots, knobs, etc. the new 
> panel is made by stooge or schaeffer or (insert 
> panel maker here).
>
> my modular is MOTM format but has modules from 6 
> (shortly to be 8) manufacturers. it contains a 
> blacet miniwave and blacet vc-envelope, both of 
> which were reformatted from blacet kits into MOTM 
> panels.
>
> mr blacet makes it a bit easier by selling 
> minimal kits without hardware for us reformatters.
>
>