MOTM

In a message dated 7/4/2000 3:36:57 PM, thudson@... writes:

>Just curious as to other "MOTM layout philosophies (TM)."


I don't want to get into a debate about idealism/materialism, but it would be 
ideal for me to have more MOTM material!

>I'm wondering how people have arranged their modules and why.
>I'm on my fourth row now and they're pretty much installed in the
>order I built them.


I'm hoping that Moe will chime in on this since he owned large Emu modular, 
I'd like to hear Eric too since he has a 55 style cabinet (maybe a 35). I 
hope others will too. I know Ken likes the IIIP type set up and at least has 
got me thinking in this regard. But I'm still really looking forward to 
laying out a cabinet that is 24U wide, though I'm also having some trouble in 
imagining laying it out in the most "ideal" fashion since 24U is pretty wide 
for one voice.

>I've thought about laying them out so that each row would
>represent a voice:
>
>voice  320 | 300 | 800 | 420 | 800 | 110 
>       ---------------------------------
>voice  320 | 300 | 800 | 420 | 800 | 110
>       ---------------------------------
>misc   320 | 300 | 410 | 440 | 100 | 700
>       ---------------------------------
>misc   900 | 940 | ....

You must have stretched your rack rails to 11U and 12U (or you're probably 
planing on what to do with those 12U flat cabinet rails).

I like the general idea but it might be useful to think of one voice for two 
rows (signal on the top, CV sources on the bottom). For 10U rails, let me 
suggest the following alternative, when the 12U flat rails come available I 
suggest go to a larger cabinet format like 3 rows of 24U.

Example:

300-300-420-420-110 
--------------------------
320-320-800-100-440-800
--------------------------
700-300-300-410-110
--------------------------
940-320-800-800- -900 
(I'm probably the only person who has their PSU on the right side of the rack 
but it seems more out of the way there for some reason). 

Two things I think are kind of important IMHO are to get the 940 on the left 
side (since it will have a bunch of cables coming into the MOTM, possibly 
used as signal sources as well as CV) and the 700 towards the left in a CV 
row (this is just how I use this module). I don't really like the way I've 
set this up, but it's the best I can come up with on the spur of the moment. 

If I were you I'd be getting some more EGs, and I'd scatter them through both 
the upper (signal) rows (like between the VCOs and VCO and VCF) and the lower 
(CV) rows. I'd also consider scattering a 320 or two on both rows -- same 
with the 820. Maybe a 300 on the left of the CV rows. You get the idea.

>It seems trying to make things flow from left to right
>rather than top to bottom would minimize cable lengths
>and avoid clutter across the knobs.

Also think about Larry's Magic Buss!
JB

--- Thomas Hudson <thudson@...> wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering how people have arranged their modules and why.
> I'm on my fourth row now and they're pretty much installed in
> the order I built them.
 
I have laid my modules out in a voice per row format, with VCO,
VCF, EG, EG, VCA on a row, with Switcher, LFO, S&H, etc. on
alternate rows.  This works well for chord-type layouts, but not
so well for complex modulation and feedback stuff.  Either a
"magic bus" or multiples would help tremendously to avoid that
cord-tangled mess that always seems to accompany an interesting
patch.  The down-side to a "voice" layout is that it could
encourage you to do the same old patches that your grandfather
used, instead of trying out new stuff.

I know one thing ... I need more MOTM-440s and more MOTM-320s. 
And I really need some multiples!  I don't want to buy another
couple of 940s just for the pair of 1/4" jacks.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

I know that there was some lengthy discussions about mult panels and I
think the verdict was that Paul was going to make a 1U 3x4 multiple. I'm
pretty sure it's in the planning, I just don't think it's high on the
priority list. -Nate H (anxiously (and patiently) awaiting multiples)

> I know one thing ... I need more MOTM-440s and more MOTM-320s.
> And I really need some multiples!  I don't want to buy another
> couple of 940s just for the pair of 1/4" jacks.

In a message dated 00-07-04 20:40:58 EDT, you write:

<< 
 >It seems trying to make things flow from left to right
 >rather than top to bottom would minimize cable lengths
 >and avoid clutter across the knobs.
  >>


john,
i used a different layout in my modulars. in the earlier serge, i had modules 
grouped by function with the understanding that patchcords would be all over 
the place. over the years, i never regretted that layout. it was "busy" but 
as the serge had very high functional density on the modules anyway a more 
"voice" oriented layout didn`t seem to make sense to me. plus, for whatever 
personal stylistic reason, i don`t think of the modular in terms of "voices" 
anyway. with the current doepfer, i have their "basic system 1" which has 
sources and modifiers on the top row and c.v. sources on the bottom row of a 
6u frame. another 6u frame is devoted to c.v. modules ( but isn`t completely 
filled yet ) while a third 6u frame has sources and modifiers ( also not 
filled yet ).  the panel control density is lower than the serge obviously 
but, in common with that machine, patchcords do seem to be all over the 
place. i`ve still never found it to be a major problem. everyone just needs 
to try out a few things and find what works best for them.
best,
dave v.

As I said before, if you guys have Paul send me a 1U (or 2U for that matter) 
blank, I can drill it for a multiple. You'd just need to supply the jacks and 
solder them yourselves.

JB

In a message dated 7/4/2000 7:09:56 PM, nate@... writes:

>I know that there was some lengthy discussions about mult panels and I
>think the verdict was that Paul was going to make a 1U 3x4 multiple. I'm
>pretty sure it's in the planning, I just don't think it's high on the
>priority list. -Nate H (anxiously (and patiently) awaiting multiples)
>

> In a message dated 7/4/2000 3:36:57 PM, thudson@... writes:
>
> >Just curious as to other "MOTM layout philosophies (TM)."

hello, all

just pondering this one myself as i take the great leap into my second
cabinet (11u x 3row)
at the moment i,m looking at a "main" cabinet (vco / vca / vcf / eg) and an
"ancilliary" (everything else)
but that's just going to look plain ugly until i fill both cabinets
i used to have stuff laid out in "voices" or one voice with loads of stuff
at the bottom to be precise, but i got stuck in a rut with the same old
basic patch
my current logic (based on gravity) is this:
things i feel the need to tweak the most on the top row (filters & #120)
avoiding the cable clutter
things i need to tweak a little less in the middle (vco / lfo / eg / vca)
other stuff at the bottom (multiples, clock divider, midicv)

however, let's just say that as my modular keeps growing, all the modules
will keep moving around...

cheers
paul b

I don't have any fast rule, and as others have said, the modules will keep
moving around as the machine grows...

But in general, if I have three rows high, the top row is where I stick
sources, the middle are modifiers, and the bottom controllers. Since a lot
of modules have multiple functions, that still leaves lots of room for
playing around. Also, I do tend to lay them out for typical flow from left
to right within the above structure, so VCA's & EGs "tend" to be toward the
right and VCOs, LFOs, etc. to the left. But again, no concrete rules. It's a
modular after all; it's entire raison d'etre is to be flexible.

I don't concern myself with multiple voices. When I think of my modular,
polyphony never occurs to me. To paraphrase Carlos, the more modules I have
available, the more I can refine one single note. So with ten VCOs, I would
still be tweaking nuances of a single voice, not trying to make a 10-voice
Korg MS-10.

Sorry to chime in a bit later on this thread but I have been thinking about this
problem a bit too.  I picked up my MOTM cabinet at the end of last week and it is
waiting for me to sand and finish!  [Plus the flat rails!]

Here are some of my philosophies/opinions on module layout, YMMV:

- I tend to group like modules together instead of making "voices".  So, I only have
to think "I need an oscillator, those are over there..." and I know where to look.
There are places where this can be violated due to space and module geometry
considerations.  The other violation to this rule is for multiples.  They should be
sprinkled about for convenience.  [I have a set of multiples in the very center of
my Moog and a lot of patches end up looking like this centralized orifice spewing
long cables.  I find it a bit difficult at times.]

- Optimizing for patch cord length is futile and limiting.  Wacky Kovacy will sell
you good cables in lots of lengths and it is cheaper than worrying about placing
commonly used modules together or buying more modules so the patch cords are
shorter.  That said, the only scheme I have seen that would alter my opinion here is
Larry's Magic Buss (TM) but I think that tracking patch cables through the buss will
be a bit counter-intuitive for me, kinda like using an ARP 2500 matrix patch system
but slower (no offense, Larry).

- I still tend to think in terms of left-to-right signal flow so I tend to group
sources on the left, filters in the middle, and amplifiers on the right.  This isn't
optimal for left hand control and playing but it is so ingrained in me that anything
else would be confusing.  Ideally, control devices are below this left-to-right flow
so they can be applied anywhere.  I haven't been able to see this happen in any
system with the exception of the Serge.  If I was building a completely MOTM system,
I'd personally shoot for this layout.

- Moog console modulars (Ic, IIc, IIIc, 35, & 55) were set up with the oscillators
on the lower left.  It was hard to change this around because of the controller
wiring and harnesses on the back so it was rarely changed.  Beyond that, the models
vary a lot.  On my system, I have some EGs on the far lower right and in the upper
middle, making it a bit confusing at times.  VCAs tend to end up grouped next to EGs
for no really good reason.  OK, for one or two VCF/EG pairs it makes sense, but for
more than that, it doesn't.

My MOTM cabinet can hold 13+ 2U modules and with Paul's plans for more modules, I'm
going to expand into racks on either side.  I've been using these racks for the
modules I have so far and it has worked out OK but I'm anxious to get the
oscillators and filters closer to the center of the action!  

My current thinking for my cabinet is something like:

320..320..700..100..300..300..300.800.800.800.420..420..440..110..410

Of course, I don't have all these modules yet and I haven't left room for the 820,
940s or future modules, sigh!  This will probably take some trial and error to get
something that works.  Of course, no matter what you lay out, you will want to use
it differently for some patches so long patch cords are a must!

In summary, I tend to think of layout in terms of module function and not "voices". 
I think that lining up voices will cause you to get into a patching rut, IMHO.

    Eric



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 00-07-05 19:02:43 EDT, you write:

<< 
 In summary, I tend to think of layout in terms of module function and not 
"voices". 
 I think that lining up voices will cause you to get into a patching rut, 
IMHO.
  >>


eric,
while i`m not sure about the "patching rut" bit,
i tend to agree ( see earlier post) with grouping by function but, again, 
thats the great thing about modulars, everyone can do it their own way.
best,
dave v.

Great points Eric! Especially the idea of grouping like modules (e.g., VCFs 
in the center). This is definitely part of my consideration but of course 
some modules (like VCFs) are typically used alone (the 420 can often be used 
in a pair of course), so having six VCFs all adjacent to one another might be 
a bit much (but having six VCOs together, say two rows of three, is a real 
good idea).

But I don't think the "Magic Buss" will be as confusing as you might believe. 
I think for each row I'm considering there will be about 7 mults so it's most 
useful when used to buss around for example a keyboard or sequencer CV or a 
velocity CV, but I'll still need regular multiples scattered throughout my 
system.

In a message dated 7/5/2000 4:02:33 PM, alt_mode@... writes:

>My current thinking for my cabinet is something like:
>
>320..320..700..100..300..300..300.800.800.800.420..420..440..110..410


I'm lost, is this one row?

JB

> But I don't think the "Magic Buss" will be as confusing as you might believe. 
> I think for each row I'm considering there will be about 7 mults so it's most 
> useful when used to buss around for example a keyboard or sequencer CV or a 
> velocity CV, but I'll still need regular multiples scattered throughout my 
> system.
>
Yes, having a buss for keyboard CV, Gate, and other external signals is the right
kind of thing to bring out in a buss.  I was thinking of the linked busses for
running signals between modules to save on long patch cords.  I stand corrected.
 
> In a message dated 7/5/2000 4:02:33 PM, alt_mode@... writes:
> 
> >My current thinking for my cabinet is something like:
> >
> >320..320..700..100..300..300..300.800.800.800.420..420..440..110..410
> 
> 
> I'm lost, is this one row?

Yes, my cabinet has 27U of spaces.  With the 800s taking 1U and all the others
taking 2U, this arrangement yields 27U.  I know my arrangement is a bit different
since I made a cabinet that is exactly the same width and height as the Moog modular
cabinets.

    Eric


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

hi all...

I bought a tr606 trigger out kit ($75...!!!which sure seemed to be a lot of
money for 6 jacks & 1 piece of wire...)  and the triggers will not work
on my motm (or sh101), yet they will work on 2 other of my pieces of
gear, yet the old trigger outs (on the toms) work with my 101 & motm fine.

What's up?  I thought that when I was buying the kit, there would be some
buffers or something.  I'm worried that I'm going to blow up the cpu in my
606, in addition to the fact that the triggers won't trigger my beloved
motm...
what's up?   any advice/help?

paulw
www.mp3.com/puffboy
www.puffboy.com

> From: alt-mode <alt_mode@...>
> I tend to group like modules together instead of making "voices".

I like this approach too.  I have my current rack that way and like it.  I
may violate that somewhat by scattering some "conrol" stuff like EGs and
maybe mixers.  I tend to scatter EGs where they are close to useful
locations.  I know when I go from the metal rack to the wood cabinet, that
will likely change, again.

> Optimizing for patch cord length is futile and limiting.

Any way you stack it, you need a variety of lengths.

> That said, the only scheme I have seen that would alter my opinion
> here is Larry's Magic Buss (TM) but I think that tracking patch
> cables through the buss will be a bit counter-intuitive for me, kinda
> like using an ARP 2500 matrix patch system but slower (no offense, Larry).

Certainly, no offense taken.  The magic buss is just an idea that works for
some and not for others.  Essentially it is just multiples scattered
horizontally through your system instead of having them centralized on a
multiple panel.  I started this idea because I liked the idea of mults where
ever I needed them.  Whether you choose for any of the mults to be normalled
to anything is a personal choice.Essentially, it adds one row of jacks
directly below each row of MOTM modules. with the jacks directly below and
spaced like the MOTM jacks.  So, you have mults between each row.  For my 24
U wood cabinet (yet to be constructed), that will be 48 jacks per magic
buss.  I have the busses drilled and plan to incorporate them into my final
cabinet design as soon as flat rails come on the scene.  Some of the mults
will be connected across, and some will be connected between rows to allow
fewer "cross country" cables.  To deal with the intuitive issue, I plan to
number or color code my jacks (numbering is getting the latest nod).  Each
buss section gets a letter.  Each mult gets a number.  So, all A4 jacks (for
example) are connected).

Larry H