MOTM

Wow.

Your comments weren't in direct response to me, at least not for anything
I've said *today*, but I feel I have to jump in here. I think you must be
taking these kinds of thoughts in a way very much other than intended.

No one is saying that they "can't tell their modules apart." They're
labeled. In English. Of course we can.

The point being made is that you interface with your instrument through
visual and tactile clues. MOTM has tactility covered in spades --- jacks,
patchcords, and nice, big knobs. But as for the visual aspect, the extra
microseconds that the brain has to scan for a clue in the "sea of knobs" (as
I dubbed it here three years ago) add up. This is a real simple ergonomic
concept... Industrial Design 101. (Okay, not all of us have degrees in ID.
But I do, so please take my word for it.)

Why do we have lower case letters in our alphabet? Why not just use all
caps? Because capital letters are very 'hard on the eyes'! It takes the
brain extra, measurable "processing cycles" to parse capital letters that
are NOT wasted on lower case, because lower case letters, having much more
varying shapes, are far easier for the brain to recognize. You can argue
with me here if you like, but these are not my opinions; this is another
really simple concept that has been around since the Renaissance. In graphic
design, using all caps for body text is considered a huge 'no-no.' Hell,
even san-serif typefaces are very much discourage for all but short lines of
text, usually headlines or large advertising slogans, because serifs, like
lower case letterforms, are much easier for the eye to parse out!! When you
see body text in san-serif typefaces, experienced designers often shake
their heads and think, "amateur."

So yes, I am one of those people who wished there were more variations in
the looks of the modules, or at least white lines between them for visual
'anchors.' 

However, I'm also the first to admit that this would have driven costs to a
point that I would have found prohibitive. I don't think Paul made the
'rigid grid' just for design's sake --- it was a way of "modularizing" the
construction of the modules and keep costs in line. And I support that 100%.
I really do. At the end of the day, I am happy with MOTM, all over. 

That doesn't mean that people are "wrong" to point out that, in a 100 or so
module setup, it takes the brain valuable, eventually frustrating,
milliseconds to hunt out a particular module, especially when webs of
patchcords start to obscure everything. (And especially if you move your
modules around from time to time. Anyone have a wife that keeps rearranging
kitchen drawers on you? I do. Can't find anything in under 5 minutes of
searching.)

You cannot always fall back on the "it's the sound" argument. This is a
musical instrument. More than sound is involved in its design. It has a
physical interface that you must relate to and work with, even love. You
have to be GOOD with it, FAST with it. Your conscious mind should never have
to be invoked to stop to think about where something is when you're playing.
ANYTHING that makes that more difficult is cause for concern. Versace
clothes? Sure, if it makes your socks go up-and-down, but that's not what
people are talking about when they discuss the fine points of the visual
grid!

I suppose you think that the black keys on a piano keyboard are foolish, and
only idiots would want two different colors? Or that all of the strings of a
concert harp should all be the same color? That the keys on a sax shouldn't
have all those different, silly shapes, and should all be uniform circles?
Maybe pipe organ stops shouldn't be arranged in rows according to rank, but
just splashed randomly all over the place. "Hey, they're *labeled*... what
do you *mean* you can't tell them apart?" Sure, in that tenth-of-a-second
during a performance where you need to change the tone color, you want to
hunt through stops, I suppose.

Again, I don't think the MOTM look should be particularly altered at this
point, but it blows my mind how upset some folks get when others comment
that the uniformity of the modules is an ergonomics issue, and discuss
things (like separator lines) in order to mitigate that problem! It's okay
to discuss whether or not a module should have an inverted output around and
around... why should the mechanical discussions be curtailed?

I'm sorry it makes you angry, but at least be assured that you are missing
the real point of these discussions. No one wants the panels painted
different colors to match their Versace clothing. That's not what this is
about.






-----Original Message-----
From: thomas white [mailto:djthomaswhite@...] 


To offer a different point of view to all who think MOTM is "too" 
stringently designed.

I built my 40 module home system from the ground up and placed each module 
into my own custom design arrangement here in my dual wood cabinets. Because

of this I never "Don't Know" or "Have Trouble" finding a knob or where one 
of my own modules is. My whole synth is arranged in the most personally 
ergonomic way for my patching preferences. Each of us have had to build or 
arrange the MOTM this way do to the lack of cabinetry available right? So 
who loses track of their modules in the system they built themselves? I have

a hard time not knowing exactly what part of my cabinet my modules are in 
because they are in sections like VCO bank, filter bank EG bank VCA bank. 
I'm sorry but if you can't tell the differences maybe you should paint your 
modules different colors or something.  No offense meant only I'm tired o 
hearing people bitching about the colors, spacing and layout of these 
modules. Its the sound that gets recorded right? I have DIY built my own 
modules including the Stooge panels and I know for sure I F'ed up the grid 
when drilling those. I even have one similar to the UEG in spacing with a 
silver panel that "works" great for me and the listeners of my music never 
see a thing HA! Maybe we should all go buy some Prada or Versace' clothes, 
get a haircut and take fashion pictures next to our modulars JK! Well a 
naked model sounds good anyways, I wonder if she'll fit laying all spread 
out on the top of my cabinet like the front of a custom car?

Also, on the new Filter bank, I think it would be fine to comprimise the 
design if we had to, but bottom line is since it is in a 3u panel we "Don't 
have to" and we can add more features like the gain pot mentioned, inverted 
output and the like. I obviously voted on Yahoo for the traditional MOTM 
layout but will buy the module regardless. I just hope all care is taken to 
make the module the best it can be in the bigger 3u. Can we have individula 
outs for the lowpass and highpass responses?

All just my opinions and maybe some agree while some don't. Aren't opinions 
grand? Comments?

Thomas White