MOTM

In a message dated 1/24/2000 7:47:37 PM, PaulBr@... writes:

>John, I'll likely take you
>up on your offer, since I'd rather not have Larry Stooge wrench his hand
>off!  

Not much chance of that given Larry's penchant for building his muscles while 
assembling MOTM modules (look it up in the archives <g>).


Although I'm thinking the 800-form would be best... maybe we can
>stick
>a power distributer on that?  Hmm, likely not easily with too many
>Switchcrafts.  Oh dear, this signoff comment has gotten significantly longer
>than the message...

Only just now did I realize that my comment yesterday did not make literal 
sense, since I'd mentioned the 940 as a 1U (not a 2U) module -- but I still 
think that both the 800 and 940 provide the two best standard punch patterns 
for the general MOTM diyer for the reasons I mentioned. That said, are you 
sure you wouldn't want a 2U multiple panel (which I believe would hold a 
power block) "similar" in hole pattern to the 940, but with an extra flare 
due to the occasional "oops! No, I meant to do that, to give it that 
personalized look"?

Send me details, Paul knows my address all too well.
John (I agree about lengthy comments in the signoff message which can 
distract the reader from the basic content of the message, which is why I try 
never to have such ponderous additions to an otherwise concise message) Barlow

> PaulBr@... writes:
> Although I'm thinking the 800-form would be best...
> maybe we can stick a power distributer on that?
> Hmm, likely not easily with too many Switchcrafts.

OK, I just finished the math and fitting exercise.  Here is the scoop:

If you stay 100% with Paul's jack spacing (which the astute will notice is
a different spacing high than wide, you could do a 1U multiple with 16
jacks that would look super.  Only about 1/32 of an inch compromise was
made in top-to-bottom spacing.  However, using that exact spacing, the
bracket that Paul uses to mount circuit boards will NOT fit the gaps.  The
good news however, is that the power distribution board that Paul does sell
will fit nicely (some drilling required) on the bracket and it will have
plenty of clearance toward the front for all the 1/4 inch multiples.

So, I see three solutions Paul Br:

1. 4 X 4 multiple normal spacing, no power distribution

2. 4 X 4 multiple, slightly larger gap between multi 1 and 2 then again
between 3 and 4 and the bracket bolts right on and you have power
distribution.  But, not exactly standard MOTM spacing.

3. 2 X 4 and 1 X 6 normal multiple spacing and the power bracket fits right
in there.  So you have power distribution, normal spacing, one less
multiple, but one of this is a 6-way.  You have a four way at each end and
the 6 way in the middle.

Two holes would be required in the panel front for bolts to hold the
bracket.  They would not be in the way of the multiples.  I have found that
if you use the small (# 6? I'll have to check my size) black allen-head
bolts, they do not detract from the panel appearance.

What would be YOUR choice PaulBr ??

Larry H.

Could the bracket legs be narrowed to fit between the jacks and maintain the
correct front panel spacing?

If that doesn't work, how about cutting off one or both of the legs,
fabricating your own that fit between the jacks and then riveting them to
the bracket plate?

Dave Bradley
Principal Software Engineer
Engineering Animation, Inc.
daveb@...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 11:16 PM
> To: motm@onelist.com
> Subject: Re: [motm] PaulBr's multiples
>
>
> From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
>
> > PaulBr@... writes:
> > Although I'm thinking the 800-form would be best...
> > maybe we can stick a power distributer on that?
> > Hmm, likely not easily with too many Switchcrafts.
>
> OK, I just finished the math and fitting exercise.  Here is the scoop:
>
> If you stay 100% with Paul's jack spacing (which the astute will notice is
> a different spacing high than wide, you could do a 1U multiple with 16
> jacks that would look super.  Only about 1/32 of an inch compromise was
> made in top-to-bottom spacing.  However, using that exact spacing, the
> bracket that Paul uses to mount circuit boards will NOT fit the gaps.  The
> good news however, is that the power distribution board that Paul
> does sell
> will fit nicely (some drilling required) on the bracket and it will have
> plenty of clearance toward the front for all the 1/4 inch multiples.
>
> So, I see three solutions Paul Br:
>
> 1. 4 X 4 multiple normal spacing, no power distribution
>
> 2. 4 X 4 multiple, slightly larger gap between multi 1 and 2 then again
> between 3 and 4 and the bracket bolts right on and you have power
> distribution.  But, not exactly standard MOTM spacing.
>
> 3. 2 X 4 and 1 X 6 normal multiple spacing and the power bracket
> fits right
> in there.  So you have power distribution, normal spacing, one less
> multiple, but one of this is a 6-way.  You have a four way at each end and
> the 6 way in the middle.
>
> Two holes would be required in the panel front for bolts to hold the
> bracket.  They would not be in the way of the multiples.  I have
> found that
> if you use the small (# 6? I'll have to check my size) black allen-head
> bolts, they do not detract from the panel appearance.
>
> What would be YOUR choice PaulBr ??
>
> Larry H.
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Was the salesman clueless?  Productopia has the answers.
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/productopiacpc2 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

> From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
> 
> Could the bracket legs be narrowed to fit between the jacks and maintain
the
> correct front panel spacing?

Only if you bent them inward and that would end up looking like crap.
 
> If that doesn't work, how about cutting off one or both of the legs,
> fabricating your own that fit between the jacks and then riveting them to
> the bracket plate?

Oh sure, that would work Dave.  Geesh, that sure is a hell of a lot of work
though.  You could keep one leg, cut off the other and rivet or bolt on a
corner brace (commonly called "L" bracket).  Damn, I thought I was going to
get out of this easy.

Larry (the lazy stooge) Hendry

Well, it's your choice, Stooge brother. You can avoid 15 minutes of work and
stare at those unevenly spaced rows of jacks for the rest of your
synthesizing life...

Stooge Leader Moe

> > If that doesn't work, how about cutting off one or both of the legs,
> > fabricating your own that fit between the jacks and then
> riveting them to
> > the bracket plate?
>
> Oh sure, that would work Dave.  Geesh, that sure is a hell of a
> lot of work
> though.  You could keep one leg, cut off the other and rivet or bolt on a
> corner brace (commonly called "L" bracket).  Damn, I thought I
> was going to
> get out of this easy.
>

In my expirience with the Clavia Nord Modular, I at most chain 4 connections
(I.E., 1 source and 3 destinations), so a 4-unit multi is sufficient for me.
And you can always chain several 4-units, although wasteful.  OTOH, why be
limited?  This is MOTM, after all.  In that respect, the 2x4 + 1x6 sounds
like a good combination, plus it has the extra-visible split in multis, and
easy mount for power distribution.

Stupid question: when soldering the jacks together, does it make any
difference if the wires are in a star configuration or networked?  I would
imagine they would be best networked, for ease of solder and reliability.

Another (maybe less) stupid question:  If many people can come up with a
suitably agreeable configuration, would one person be willing to do many
faceplates (rather than a one-off) (note: I am NOT NOT NOT volunteering
anyone!!!)?  And if so, I would propose that we bulk-order sockets.  Unless,
of course, the extra shipping/handling from the main reciever to each person
out-weighs the lower socket price.  And above/beyond that, would we be
detracting from Paul S.'s business (not desirable!)?

--PBr, three nots, that's still a not.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	J. Larry Hendry [SMTP:jlarryh@...]
> Sent:	Tuesday, January 25, 2000 3:24 PM
> To:	motm@onelist.com
> Subject:	Re: [motm] PaulBr's multiples
> 
> From: "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...>
> 
> Damn it !!  I hate it when you are THAT right.
> I thought the 6 unit correctly space mult in the middle would catch a
> fancy.  But, I guess 6 would rarely be used?  You tell me, of "leader" of
> the Stooges <snicker>  Ever thin you need more than 4 in a mult?
> Larry H
> 
> ----------
> > From: Dave Bradley <daveb@...>
> > To: motm@onelist.com
> > Subject: RE: [motm] PaulBr's multiples
> > Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 3:55 PM
> > 
> > From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
> > 
> > Well, it's your choice, Stooge brother. You can avoid 15 minutes of work
> and
> > stare at those unevenly spaced rows of jacks for the rest of your
> > synthesizing life...
> > 
> > Stooge Leader Moe
> > 
> > 
> > > > If that doesn't work, how about cutting off one or both of the legs,
> > > > fabricating your own that fit between the jacks and then
> > > riveting them to
> > > > the bracket plate?
> > >
> > > Oh sure, that would work Dave.  Geesh, that sure is a hell of a
> > > lot of work
> > > though.  You could keep one leg, cut off the other and rivet or bolt
> on
> a
> > > corner brace (commonly called "L" bracket).  Damn, I thought I
> > > was going to
> > > get out of this easy.
>

At 05:24 PM 1/25/00 -0600, "J. Larry Hendry" wrote:
>I thought the 6 unit correctly space mult in the middle would catch a
>fancy.  But, I guess 6 would rarely be used?  You tell me, of "leader" of
>the Stooges <snicker>  Ever thin you need more than 4 in a mult?

I occasionally use 5 or 6 jacks in a patch when I have 2 or 3 VCOs, and
2 filters.  An example would be using 2 of the 420 filters, one in 
low-pass, one in high-pass, with 3 VCOs chained through them.  An extreme
example, but that's one reason I'd like to have one 4-jack and one 6-jack 
mult for each 3 VCOs in my rack.

Regards,

Roy Tate

Roy Tate
roytate@...

Damn it !!  I hate it when you are THAT right.
I thought the 6 unit correctly space mult in the middle would catch a
fancy.  But, I guess 6 would rarely be used?  You tell me, of "leader" of
the Stooges <snicker>  Ever thin you need more than 4 in a mult?
Larry H

----------
> From: Dave Bradley <daveb@...>
> To: motm@onelist.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] PaulBr's multiples
> Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 3:55 PM
> 
> From: "Dave Bradley" <daveb@...>
> 
> Well, it's your choice, Stooge brother. You can avoid 15 minutes of work
and
> stare at those unevenly spaced rows of jacks for the rest of your
> synthesizing life...
> 
> Stooge Leader Moe
> 
> 
> > > If that doesn't work, how about cutting off one or both of the legs,
> > > fabricating your own that fit between the jacks and then
> > riveting them to
> > > the bracket plate?
> >
> > Oh sure, that would work Dave.  Geesh, that sure is a hell of a
> > lot of work
> > though.  You could keep one leg, cut off the other and rivet or bolt on
a

> > corner brace (commonly called "L" bracket).  Damn, I thought I
> > was going to
> > get out of this easy.
> >
> 
> 
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
> 
> Was the salesman clueless?  Productopia has the answers.
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/productopiacpc2 ">Click Here</a>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>

In a message dated 1/25/2000 8:08:58 AM, daveb@... writes:

>Could the bracket legs be narrowed to fit between the jacks and maintain
>the
>correct front panel spacing?

>If that doesn't work, how about cutting off one or both of the legs,
>fabricating your own that fit between the jacks and then riveting them
>to
>the bracket plate?

I really think using the bracket to hold a power supply bus is not a good 
idea. I don't think the bracket is designed to take the kind of force from 
repeatedly connecting and disconnecting those power plugs. It seems that the 
MOTM line's impressive strength is due to the combination of both the bracket 
AND the nuts on the pots. Since the power block would be subject to repeated 
insertions of the connectors with the force ON THE BRACKET, I think this 
would be noticeably inferior to any MOTM module.

I really like Paul's idea of having a smaller block (with 9 connectors) for 
the 1U modules, but my rather mundane idea is to mount the standard power 
block (the one which comes with the MOTM 900) on the back side of a 2U panel 
(drilled similarly to the 940 for multiple use) with some long standoffs.

JB

> From: JWBarlow@...
> I really think using the bracket to hold a power supply bus
> is not a good idea. I don't think the bracket is designed to
> take the kind of force from repeatedly connecting and
> disconnecting those power plugs. It seems that the 
> MOTM line's impressive strength is due to the combination
> of both the bracket AND the nuts on the pots. Since the
> power block would be subject to repeated insertions of the
> connectors with the force ON THE BRACKET, I think this 
> would be noticeably inferior to any MOTM module.
> 
> I really like Paul's idea of having a smaller block (with 9
> connectors) for the 1U modules, but my rather mundane idea
> is to mount the standard power block (the one which comes
> with the MOTM 900) on the back side of a 2U panel (drilled 
> similarly to the 940 for multiple use) with some long standoffs.

I have three of those standard 12 connector power blocks (like I guess
comes on the 940).  I mounted them in small plastic project boxes without
lids inside my metal rack  I guess they could be mounted as you suggested,
but they also fit quite nicely on the power bracket.  Your estimation of
constant plugging and unplugging is overstated in my opinion (at least for
me).  However, you do have a good point about the rigidness of the bracket
when attached only by the two nuts.  It can be bent one way, but not the
other.  This is not really the use that Paul had intended.  However, using
the Dave B method of adding a corner brace (on the opposite side) the
bracket gets REAL rigid real fast.  Or drilling an addition hole NEAR the
flat part on the legs and using 4 screws.

Larry H

> But, I guess 6 would rarely be used?  You tell me, of "leader" of
> the Stooges <snicker>  Ever thin you need more than 4 in a mult?
> Larry H

Sure, I need more than 4 sometimes. Jack 2 4 wides together temporarily, and
you've got a 6 wide.

Dave Bradley
Principal Software Engineer
Engineering Animation, Inc.
daveb@...

I just use the extra expansion cards Paul sells, screwed to the bottom of my
(wood) cabinet.

Dave Bradley
Principal Software Engineer
Engineering Animation, Inc.
daveb@...

> From: JWBarlow@...
>
> I really like Paul's idea of having a smaller block (with 9
> connectors) for
> the 1U modules, but my rather mundane idea is to mount the standard power
> block (the one which comes with the MOTM 900) on the back side of
> a 2U panel
> (drilled similarly to the 940 for multiple use) with some long standoffs.
>

Here;s a totally off the wall idea...
WARNING!!! thiese drawings are in no way menat to tell anyone how to do
their job! I have no work to do so I decided to through around  some ideas.
I hope no one take offense, esp Paul. These drawings aren't even close to
scale, they just give a rough idea of the blurred ideas going through my
head. THe MOTM number designation I gave it is also a joke, and should not
be taken as any kind of official  plans to manufacture this silly thing.
Any comments or ideas, please post to motm@onelist.com


and now for the files, they're in Acrobat 3


[This message contained attachments]

I would buy one of these over the 940 due to no banana plugs and the sheer 
number of multiples on it. What do you think people? Just my opinion-

Thomas White


>From: Nathan Alan Hunsicker <nate@...>
>Reply-To: motm@onelist.com
>To: motm@onelist.com
>Subject: RE: [motm] PaulBr's multiples
>Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:17:39 -0500
>
>Here;s a totally off the wall idea...
>WARNING!!! thiese drawings are in no way menat to tell anyone how to do
>their job! I have no work to do so I decided to through around  some ideas.
>I hope no one take offense, esp Paul. These drawings aren't even close to
>scale, they just give a rough idea of the blurred ideas going through my
>head. THe MOTM number designation I gave it is also a joke, and should not
>be taken as any kind of official  plans to manufacture this silly thing.
>Any comments or ideas, please post to motm@onelist.com
>
>
>and now for the files, they're in Acrobat 3
><< idea1.pdf >>
><< idea2.pdf >>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

And I must apologize for my mispelling on synthesis on the front of that
panel I sent around, this truly was me jsut throwing sone ideas around. I
never checked the spelling. Also for those of you who might notice, the
standoffs for the power connector board are supposed to go between the 1/4"
jacks, not right on top of them. -Nate (thinking it's amazing how many
mistakes you find after you send something like this out)

At 08:54 PM 01/25/2000 -0600, "J. Larry Hendry" <jlarryh@...> wrote:
>I have three of those standard 12 connector power blocks (like I guess
>comes on the 940).

Just to clarify, the -940 patch panel does not come with the power
connector card.  I think Paul said that it would be the 1U VC Lag Processor
that would have the extra power connector card.

I love Nathan's MOTM-910 multiples + power connector card idea, though.  No
reason why you couldn't wire two or more rows of the 1/4" jacks together if
you desire blocks of more than four multiples - I occasionally find that 3
gates/triggers from the controller keyboard is not enough, so I would
certainly find a use for > 4 multiples.

	-Doug
	 ceres@...

Actually, Paul said that the extra power connector block would be on the
back of a 1U reversible attenuator module. I'm pretty sure that the lag will
be 2U wide.

Dave

> From: Doug Pearson <ceres@...>
>
> At 08:54 PM 01/25/2000 -0600, "J. Larry Hendry"
> <jlarryh@...> wrote:
> >I have three of those standard 12 connector power blocks (like I guess
> >comes on the 940).
>
> Just to clarify, the -940 patch panel does not come with the power
> connector card.  I think Paul said that it would be the 1U VC Lag
> Processor
> that would have the extra power connector card.
>

Thanks for sharing Nathan.  Idea sharing is what this list is all about.  I
think this is just about what Stooge Curly had in mind.
Larry

----------
> From: Nathan Alan Hunsicker <nate@...>
> To: motm@onelist.com
> Subject: RE: [motm] PaulBr's multiples
> Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 10:17 AM
> 
> From: Nathan Alan Hunsicker <nate@...>
> 
> Here;s a totally off the wall idea...
> WARNING!!! thiese drawings are in no way menat to tell anyone how to do
> their job! I have no work to do so I decided to through around  some
ideas.
> I hope no one take offense, esp Paul. These drawings aren't even close to
> scale, they just give a rough idea of the blurred ideas going through my
> head. THe MOTM number designation I gave it is also a joke, and should
not

> be taken as any kind of official  plans to manufacture this silly thing.
> Any comments or ideas, please post to motm@onelist.com
> 
> 
> and now for the files, they're in Acrobat 3
> 
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
> 
> Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/Productopia ">Click Here</a>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>