MOTM

> Just my $0.02....
> 
My counter $0.02:
Audio and cv quality and options are *the* primary objectives over any
other consideration; with panel ergonomics second (enhances our
interfacing with the synthesizer - essential for concentration on 'noise' 
making), and 'looks' trailing a distant third.  Of course, cost constrains
all of these (from our viewpoints and from Paul's viewpoint - it is just
reality).

IMHO a synthesizer is to make noise, not be a 'sculpture' piece
(and one doesn't 'hear' the looks).  I would gladly trade a 'nice' look
for more audio/cv function.  This is one reason why I do have a UEG - it's
useful, functional aspects clearly outweigh it's semi-motm look.

Ergonomics not only involve spacings of knobs, jacks, readablity of pot
scales, ..., but also include spacings between modules on a 2-dimensional
surface (with some small angling in some systems). I would guess (but
maybe this is my own inability) that modules that are close are
connected more often than modules that are distant.  So given the behind
the panel layout constraints, I would think that a reasonably ergonomic
panel that is 3U would be preferable to a 4U panel that 'looks nicer.'  So
for the 450, a slightly narrower motm spacing of knobs to obtain a 3U vs.
a 4U is a good decision.  [Personal bias: There are some (maybe few) of us
that do have physical space constraints, which is why I think the
micro-modules are a motm plus].

Anyway, this is not targeted at Chris P. or anyone else; we all have our
preferences.  Mine just happens to be the noise making and I hope we keep
that up front.

Going for lunch, Jeff