Dotcomformat

Now that there is some activity here I would like to pose a question. I am getting ready to release some modules (VCF, VCO, Delay, VC EG, etc.), but I am not yet done with the panel design.

The question is: If I go with a look that is very different than the Moog/DotCom style will anyone still be interested ?

There is a rough example of what I am talking about in the photo section under 'MegaOhm Audio'(see Delta VCF MOA). This panel was done by FPE but the actual design will be done Metalphoto style with the turned sides and much nicer fonts and graphics. The FPE is actually a dumbed down version of what I want to do, but I would like to use the same knobs and I am leaning toward silver instead of the traditional black background.

What do you all think? It doesn't matter if your in the market to buy or you DIY everything. I'm looking for opinions. I just don't want to sink a bunch of money and time in something that nobody wants! I think the circuits themselves are excellent (especially the VCO) and it would be a real shame to have them sitting here and not in the field simply because nobody likes how they look!

All opinions/advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
phil

MegaOhm Audio

I'd recommend matching DotCom as closely as possible. Mine are pretty 
close to my eye, just a different font and tick marks, and I've hardly 
sold any panels at all!

Cheers,
Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@bridechamber.com
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com

On May 26, 2009, at 5:47 PM, peng3002 wrote:

>
>
> Now that there is some activity here I would like to pose a question. 
> I am getting ready to release some modules (VCF, VCO, Delay, VC EG, 
> etc.), but I am not yet done with the panel design.
>
>  The question is: If I go with a look that is very different than the 
> Moog/DotCom style will anyone still be interested ?
>
>  There is a rough example of what I am talking about in the photo 
> section under 'MegaOhm Audio'(see Delta VCF MOA). This panel was done 
> by FPE but the actual design will be done Metalphoto style with the 
> turned sides and much nicer fonts and graphics. The FPE is actually a 
> dumbed down version of what I want to do, but I would like to use the 
> same knobs and I am leaning toward silver instead of the traditional 
> black background.
>
>  What do you all think? It doesn't matter if your in the market to buy 
> or you DIY everything. I'm looking for opinions. I just don't want to 
> sink a bunch of money and time in something that nobody wants! I think 
> the circuits themselves are excellent (especially the VCO) and it 
> would be a real shame to have them sitting here and not in the field 
> simply because nobody likes how they look!
>
>  All opinions/advice will be greatly appreciated.
>
>  Thanks,
>  phil
>
>  MegaOhm Audio
>
>

Taste is a rather subjective thing, but here's my view anyway. :-) Turned 
sides are a must, but it sounds like you're already up for that. As for 
other visual departures, I think it depends on the function of the module. 
If a module is exotic, it may be more acceptable (and indeed cool) for the 
module to have a different appearance from the rest of the MU-format modules 
out there. But if the module is an alternate VCO design, or a dedicated (or 
multi-) LFO, etc. I would want it to blend in with the surrounding modules. 
Filters are a bit trickier...kind of in the grey zone for me. If a filter is 
a variation or interpretation of a mainstream filter I'd want it to visually 
blend. If it's more radical, the panel could be more radical. But again, 
that's just me. I'm sure there are other opinions out there. Certainly the 
safest thing would be to go with a traditional black Moog look. But I could 
see a line of wild Wiard-esque looking modules that are physically and 
electrically MU-compatible as being pretty fun. To me, silver with different 
knobs isn't enough of a departure--it would simply look like a partial 
conversion from another format unless the modules had a VERY refined 
appearance. But anodized blue or red or with some screened back imagery? Now 
we're talking exotic!

There's also the question, of course, of what additional modules would be 
desirable to the market. Clearly, filling gaps that have yet to be filled 
represents the most opportunity...either modules that aren't available at 
all in the format, or are provided in a more space-efficient manner (such as 
a multi-LFO, or an EG with built-in VCA). There's a good number of 
interesting MU modules out there these days from STG, Moon Modular, COTK and 
the occasional Cynthia MU-format goodie, so the gaps aren't what they used 
to be. But they do exist. An area that's severely underserved is exotic 
oscillators and the like (Miniwaves, VCDO's, etc.). I'd love to see somebody 
do something about that.

Anyway, the more the merrier! It's great to see the MU format getting 
attention.

Gordon

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "peng3002" <peng3002@yahoo.com>
To: <dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 6:47 PM
Subject: [dotcomformat] MU format panel design. What is acceptable?


> Now that there is some activity here I would like to pose a question. I am 
> getting ready to release some modules (VCF, VCO, Delay, VC EG, etc.), but 
> I am not yet done with the panel design.
>
> The question is: If I go with a look that is very different than the 
> Moog/DotCom style will anyone still be interested ?
>
> There is a rough example of what I am talking about in the photo section 
> under 'MegaOhm Audio'(see Delta VCF MOA). This panel was done by FPE but 
> the actual design will be done Metalphoto style with the turned sides and 
> much nicer fonts and graphics. The FPE is actually a dumbed down version 
> of what I want to do, but I would like to use the same knobs and I am 
> leaning toward silver instead of the traditional black background.
>
> What do you all think? It doesn't matter if your in the market to buy or 
> you DIY everything. I'm looking for opinions. I just don't want to sink a 
> bunch of money and time in something that nobody wants! I think the 
> circuits themselves are excellent (especially the VCO) and it would be a 
> real shame to have them sitting here and not in the field simply because 
> nobody likes how they look!
>
> All opinions/advice will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> phil
>
> MegaOhm Audio
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--- In dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com, "John L Rice" <Drummer@...> wrote:
>
> I thought that MOTM is the same height as DotCom/Moog etc It's just the
> MOTM mounting holes are farther away from the panel edges which causes the
> problem.  
> 

MOTM and DotCom (here on referred to as MU) are the same height: 8.75" (5U). The difference is in the width, panel thickness, and mounting holes. 

Width:
MOTM - 1.75" (1U), 3.5" (2U)
Moog - 2.125" (1MU),  4.25" (2MU)

actual panels are 1/32" smaller - fudge room



The difference in thickness:
MOTM - 1/8"
Moog - 1/16"




> ... all we need is someone like STG or BrideChamber to become obsessed
> for a while and make front panels for most if not all of the Synth Tech and
> third party MOTM modules and then DotComers everywhere can reap the treasure
> chest of great circuit boards that are already available.
> 


  You can get MU panels made by FPE. Increase the thickness to 1/8" instead of 1/16". I was skeptical about the different thicknesses working together but when I got one put in the cabinet I was surprised to find it made very little difference. 

FPD tip: avoid using the line tool. Instead use the " - " and change its X-scale and angle to suit your needs. Save a bunch of money!

You can get a 2MU panel for $40-50 from FPE. Though, if you start adding tick marks around each knob the price goes WAY up! I normally opt to leave them out. I can read a clock just fine:)

p.

Thanks to those who have responded so far. Your comments have been very helpful. See below for quote and replies:


"Turned
sides are a must, but it sounds like you're already up for that."

"I don't think I would not buy a module because of the external styling (so long as it was size- and power-compatible; I do find myself avoiding MOTM modules because I'm too lazy to re-drill my cabinets and change the power connectors)."



  I am making these to be compatible with DotCom: turned sides, 1/16" thick panel, 6pin power connector (plus on board alternatives), same mounting hole spacings, and the typical levels and voltages (+/-5V signals, 5V CVs, +/-15V power, etc.). The end user will be able to plug it in, screw it in, and go.




"If a module is exotic, it may be more acceptable (and indeed cool) for the
module to have a different appearance from the rest of the MU-format modules
out there. But if the module is an alternate VCO design, or a dedicated (or
multi-) LFO, etc. I would want it to blend in with the surrounding modules."

"Aesthetically, though, I'd prefer that it resembled (at least in terms of background color) the dotcom standard.  "


  This is where I am having trouble deciding. By next fall I should have enough modules designed for a full synth voice independent of any other maker's modules (except for power supply and cabinet. I'll deal with that if or when I need to.). That said, I want to make the modules look close enough so they can be sprinkled into a stocked DotCom cab without looking too strange. I think this will be the more likely scenario. For that reason I'm leaning more toward the black background now. The only problem is that I like the knobs I'm using now which are solid black and I'm afraid these will blend in too much. I suppose properly designed scales around them could solve that issue.

  As far as esoteric modules go, I think most of my designs are weird! On the other hand the Delta VCF is pretty straight forward (although the jack normaling and Lin FM input can push it into freaky territory). Most modules will be multifunctional having submodules that can function independently from the main module. For example, the Delta VCF has an integrated VCA which can be used separately. Also, jack normalizations will be a feature of every module I build.

I don't like to make clones (got nothing against them, by the way) but since these designs are still on-the-plate/not yet completed I will give a rough idea of some functional equivalents that already exist (note: these are NOT going to be/sound/function exactly the same):

VCO - Tri core. Outputs derived from VC waveshapers. There may be three different versions of this made available simultaneously (1MU, 2MU, alternative 2MU). reminiscent of Buchla 259

Delta VCF - umm...this one actually IS a clone! Well, of the core at least. The supporting circuitry is very different and allows it to go FAR beyond what the original could do. Cascaded OTA stage VCF. 4pole. Reminiscent of too many VCFs both past and present to list here.

VC EG - Misnamed for the moment. Can do more than a simple VC EG. Reminiscent of Serge slope generators.

FP2V - Crossfader, panner, dual VCA. Very utilitarian

VC Delay - Uses PT2395 delay IC. From short and clean to long and dirty.

That's what is on the table for me at the moment. The Delta VCF and FP2V are done and the VCO is very close to done. The VC EG and VC Delay are still in the experimenting stages.

If everything goes right (does it EVER!!!) these should all be out this summer. I haven't even started with the panel design process so I have a lot of work ahead of me.


I will also be making pcbs available for some of the above designs and others. In fact, the Delta VCF/VCA pcbs are ready to ship now. They just need proper documentation which I hope to finish this weekend.


Thanks again to those who have responded so far. Please keep them coming. It helps a lot.

Thanks,
phil

--- In dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com, "peng3002" <peng3002@...> wrote:

> "VCO - Tri core. Outputs derived from VC waveshapers. There may be three different versions of this made available simultaneously (1MU, 2MU, alternative 2MU). reminiscent of Buchla 259

> VC EG - Misnamed for the moment. Can do more than a simple VC EG. Reminiscent of Serge slope generators.

> I will also be making pcbs available for some of the above designs and others." 
 
These are my favorite bits of information. While I have the Serge slopes covered, this type of module is in great demand. This VCO should be quite popular if done well. The DIY community wants these PCBs very much, along with the PT delay. Having footprints for Dotcom and Motm power connectors is definitely recommended.

David

The VCO and VC EG sound great. I like the silver color and so I wouldn't mind having a few in my setup.

----- Original Message -----

From: Scott Deyo

To: dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:02 PM

Subject: Re: [dotcomformat] MU format panel design. What is acceptable?

I'd recommend matching DotCom as closely as possible. Mine are pretty close to my eye, just a different font and tick marks, and I've hardly sold any panels at all!

Cheers,
Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@bridechamber.com
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com

--- In dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>
> I'd recommend matching DotCom as closely as possible. Mine are pretty 
> close to my eye, just a different font and tick marks, and I've hardly 
> sold any panels at all!
> 
> Cheers,
> Scott Deyo
> The Bridechamber
> contact@...
> http://www.bridechamber.com
> Jealous Edison Record Kompany
> http://www.jealousedison.com
> 
> 


I was thinking of buying the Jurgen Haible Tau "The Pipe" Phaser dotcom panel
How does it look like?
can you add photos of the dotcom panels on your site?

/Dan Lind, Sweden

Hi Dan, 

I believe he already has the DotCom panel shown, it's the bottom image.
(Notice the mounting hole spacing difference between the two)  Took me a
while to figure it out myself. Probably would be helpful if they were
labeled and also if the pictures were proportional (the DotCom picture looks
a little smaller than the MOTM instead of appearing wider)

John L Rice 

<edited by moderator to prevent spam-filtering>

--- In dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dan!
> 
> http://www.bridechamber.com/bridechamber.com/JH%20Tau%20Pipe.html
> 
> Or, if you go to the Synth Modules page, the modules with the white dot 
> next to them are available in DotCom format, and should have a pic on 
> the linked page.

aha dident get it the first time..i did think it was yet another motm-style frontpanel
/Dan

added some of my modularpanels in files "Shaeffer frontpanels"
all in dotcom format, all built but the yusynt ffb.
Be free to comment
/Dan

Hi Dan!

http://www.bridechamber.com/bridechamber.com/JH%20Tau%20Pipe.html

Or, if you go to the Synth Modules page, the modules with the white dot 
next to them are available in DotCom format, and should have a pic on 
the linked page.

Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@bridechamber.com
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com

On May 30, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Dan Lind wrote:

>
>
> --- In dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com, Scott Deyo <contact@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > I'd recommend matching DotCom as closely as possible. Mine are 
> pretty
>  > close to my eye, just a different font and tick marks, and I've 
> hardly
>  > sold any panels at all!
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  > Scott Deyo
>  > The Bridechamber
>  > contact@...
>  > http://www.bridechamber.com
>  > Jealous Edison Record Kompany
>  > http://www.jealousedison.com
>  >
>  >
>
>  I was thinking of buying the Jurgen Haible Tau "The Pipe" Phaser 
> dotcom panel
>  How does it look like?
>  can you add photos of the dotcom panels on your site?
>
>  /Dan Lind, Sweden
>
>

I would have to agree with Ross, you do not offer synth.com panels for any of the projects that I want to build either.  Is it possible to make synth.com panels for the MFOS projects?  Especially the VCO, State Variable Filter, Dual VCA, and ADSR Envelope Generator.

Otherwise, I will still place orders with Bride Chamber for the parts kits that you offer.

Thanks,

Henfield . . . .

--- In dotcomformat@yahoogroups.com, Ross Totino <Rtotino@...> wrote:

>
> Hey Scott, I don't think you've been light on dotcom panel orders because of
> the way they look. Unless potential customers stated so. My experience with
> Bridechamber has been simply that you didn't have dotcom panels available
> yet for the projects I wanted to build, so I went with your MOTM panels.
> Maybe that's been the experience of others as well? In any case, I'm very
> happy with the service you provide.
> -Ross
> 
> <edited by moderator to prevent spam-filtering>
>