SynthModules

Not to dissuade you from either MOTM or .com, but whatever your criteria
I think Blacet is also worthy of consideration. The prices are mid-range
(the VCO is $250, between the MOTM and .com), and the
features/capabilities of the modules are impressive (ie, the EG-1 is a
ADSR with VC on every stage, an LFO, a lag generator, etc).

Of course you can always build a Frankensynth with several different
brands.  I currently have 5 companies represented in mine :)

Andrew

>>> michaelmarsh@san.rr.com 01/18/05 1:39 PM >>>


John's analysis is very good.  The differences for me were the
signal-to-noise ratio and the MOTM community.  Many folks have made
some fine music with the .com synth, but it was not for me.  I had a
mix of .com and MOTM and was frustrated by the noisiness of the .com,
which I sold to a very happy buyer.

If price is truly not a concern, I would go with the MOTM.

Mike

--- In SynthModules@yahoogroups.com, "john mahoney" <jmahoney@g...>
wrote:
> > im getting ready to start on my modular...and in doing so i have
> > taken notice of the difference in price between the MOTM kits and
the
> > synth.com units.
> 
> This isn't really the best forum for this question; perhaps the
group name
> (SynthModules) is a little confusing. But I'll answer, anyway!
> 
> 
> > are the MOTM units really that much better? ... i took a look at a
> > few modules ..like the ring modulators for both... the MOTM is more
> > than 2x the price ...but it also has a ton of controls where as the
> > synth.com unit has none.
> 
> Quality? Let's look at signal-to-noise. According to the
Synthsizers.com
> FAQ, the dotcom VCA has "a signal to noise ratio of 82db (CD quality
is
> around 96db)." The MOTM-190 has a dynamic range of "better than
100dB."
> That's a very big difference.
> 
> Features and price difference? The MOTM-190 is 2 VCAs or a ring
mod+VCA. The
> dotcom Q116 is only a ring mod (which can presumably be used as a
VCA). The
> MOTM-190 is more like a Q116 plus a Q108, but it's very hard to
compare
> modules because there always seems to be an extra feature on one or
the
> other. The BLEND control on the MOTM can avoid the need for a mixer,
for
> example. The dotcom Q108 has an inverted output, which can be handy.
> 
> MOTM is more expensive than dotcom, period. But MOTM modules tend to
pack
> more functions into each module, which helps to reduce the size and
cost of
> the total synth  (fewer modules = less cabinetry and  fewer power
> connections).
> 
> If you are not too hung up on the appearance, you can mix & match
dotcom,
> MOTM, and other modules. There are power connectors to make this
fairly
> easy. Choose your cabinet carefully, though; for example, dotcom and
MOTM
> use different rack mounting brackets. The dotcom wood cabinets --
which use
> wood screws for module mounting -- will accept both formats (except
for one
> row of one of the slanted cabinets, I forget the details).
> 
> > also any thoughts on the paia 9700 ???
> 
> A completely different animal, IMHO.
> 
> I'm on the verge of getting one of these:
>     http://www.synthesizers.com/system-entry1.html
> But you can rest assured that I'll eventually have MOTM modules,
too. Along
> with my MOTMized PSIM-1.
> --
> john






Be sure to check out the primary Web site at:
http://www.SynthModules.com
  
Yahoo! Groups Links

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:06:01 -0500, Andrew Scheidler
<xpandrew@ph.k12.in.us> wrote:
> Not to dissuade you from either MOTM or .com, but whatever your criteria
> I think Blacet is also worthy of consideration.

Definitely!  I have a combination of Blacet and MOTM, and they go very
well together...  You can get "Stooge Panels" for some of the Blacet
modules (you have to plan ahead - there are only a certain number of
opportunities to order each year - see http://www.wiseguysynth.com). 
Blacet has even started to release modules in MOTM format...  (I have
a Miniwave in MOTM format with a Stooge Panel and I got a Stonz module
in MOTM format directly from John - very nice!)

-Doug

http://www.analognotes.com

This is a very good point: also consider Wiard, Cyndustries, and CGS.
 I hear tell ModCan ain't bad either!  :)

Mike

Happy MOTM, Oakley, Blacet, Cyndustries, CGS, Encore, Stooge Synths
owner (mostly all MOTM format).

--- In SynthModules@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Scheidler"
<xpandrew@p...> wrote:

> Not to dissuade you from either MOTM or .com, but whatever your criteria
> I think Blacet is also worthy of consideration. The prices are mid-range
> (the VCO is $250, between the MOTM and .com), and the
> features/capabilities of the modules are impressive (ie, the EG-1 is a
> ADSR with VC on every stage, an LFO, a lag generator, etc).
> 
> Of course you can always build a Frankensynth with several different
> brands.  I currently have 5 companies represented in mine :)
> 
> Andrew
> 
> >>> michaelmarsh@s... 01/18/05 1:39 PM >>>
> 
> 
> John's analysis is very good.  The differences for me were the
> signal-to-noise ratio and the MOTM community.  Many folks have made
> some fine music with the .com synth, but it was not for me.  I had a
> mix of .com and MOTM and was frustrated by the noisiness of the .com,
> which I sold to a very happy buyer.
> 
> If price is truly not a concern, I would go with the MOTM.
> 
> Mike
> 
> --- In SynthModules@yahoogroups.com, "john mahoney" <jmahoney@g...>
> wrote:
> > > im getting ready to start on my modular...and in doing so i have
> > > taken notice of the difference in price between the MOTM kits and
> the
> > > synth.com units.
> > 
> > This isn't really the best forum for this question; perhaps the
> group name
> > (SynthModules) is a little confusing. But I'll answer, anyway!
> > 
> > 
> > > are the MOTM units really that much better? ... i took a look at a
> > > few modules ..like the ring modulators for both... the MOTM is more
> > > than 2x the price ...but it also has a ton of controls where as the
> > > synth.com unit has none.
> > 
> > Quality? Let's look at signal-to-noise. According to the
> Synthsizers.com
> > FAQ, the dotcom VCA has "a signal to noise ratio of 82db (CD quality
> is
> > around 96db)." The MOTM-190 has a dynamic range of "better than
> 100dB."
> > That's a very big difference.
> > 
> > Features and price difference? The MOTM-190 is 2 VCAs or a ring
> mod+VCA. The
> > dotcom Q116 is only a ring mod (which can presumably be used as a
> VCA). The
> > MOTM-190 is more like a Q116 plus a Q108, but it's very hard to
> compare
> > modules because there always seems to be an extra feature on one or
> the
> > other. The BLEND control on the MOTM can avoid the need for a mixer,
> for
> > example. The dotcom Q108 has an inverted output, which can be handy.
> > 
> > MOTM is more expensive than dotcom, period. But MOTM modules tend to
> pack
> > more functions into each module, which helps to reduce the size and
> cost of
> > the total synth  (fewer modules = less cabinetry and  fewer power
> > connections).
> > 
> > If you are not too hung up on the appearance, you can mix & match
> dotcom,
> > MOTM, and other modules. There are power connectors to make this
> fairly
> > easy. Choose your cabinet carefully, though; for example, dotcom and
> MOTM
> > use different rack mounting brackets. The dotcom wood cabinets --
> which use
> > wood screws for module mounting -- will accept both formats (except
> for one
> > row of one of the slanted cabinets, I forget the details).
> > 
> > > also any thoughts on the paia 9700 ???
> > 
> > A completely different animal, IMHO.
> > 
> > I'm on the verge of getting one of these:
> >     http://www.synthesizers.com/system-entry1.html
> > But you can rest assured that I'll eventually have MOTM modules,
> too. Along
> > with my MOTMized PSIM-1.
> > --
> > john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to check out the primary Web site at:
> http://www.SynthModules.com
>   
> Yahoo! Groups Links