MOTM

Nicely considered and articulated.  I particularly like (and agree 
with) the comment regarding "uniformity" and "possibility".  I see 
the ocean of knobs and jacks and I just drool!

OK, so the drooling part is old age, but you get my drift.

Mike

--- In motm@y..., "pugix" <pugix@n...> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> This is my first post since lurking for about a week.  I am 
awaiting 
> my first MOTM order.  But I'm not a newbie.  I was building custom 
> modular synthesizers over 20 years ago.  From scratch.  Mostly 
> Electronotes based, but with some reverse-engineered Serge 
influence.
> 
> I faced the panel design issue, too, but I had the luxury of 
having 
> my own requirments and not those of a general customer base. I 
won't 
> go into detail on my panel designs.  However, I would like to say 
> that the MOTM panel design constraints (grid format, patch bay 
below 
> knobs, uniform knob size, etc.) result in a uniformity that I find 
> aesthetically quite pleasing.  I experience the modular 
synthesizer 
> as a field of possibility, open to realization in often unexpected 
> ways.  I like the indeterminate starting point, before any patch 
> cords are plugged.  (Have you noticed that most photos of 
> synthesizers are sans patch cords, which make it look cluttered 
and 
> chaotic?)  It must have been this predilection of mine that led me 
to 
> make my own modules quite minimal.  For example my noise generator 
> had three output jacks (white, pink, random).  Then I would use 
> separate S&H modules and patch the noise inputs there if desired.  
> This results in great flexibility, but also requires more patch 
cords.
> 
> I came to appreciate the combination of frequently used 
> functionality, such as patching the noise by default as input to a 
> S&H.  (The 101 module is a great example of this design principle, 
by 
> the way.  Can't wait to get my hands on it.)  Also, the 410 Triple 
> Resonant Filter contains two embedded LFOs.  I think the MOTM 
> designers have done an excellent job of packing functionality into 
> these modules, while not sacrificing flexibility.  Some may 
> disagree.  I was wondering what you all might have to say 
regarding 
> this aspect of module design, which is certainly as important -- 
if 
> not more so -- than the issue of knob sizes and panel placement.
> 
> Panel real estate has always seemed precious to me.  I want to 
pack 
> as much function to the square inch as I can.  I think MOTM is 
quite 
> good in this respect.  But the 802 Lag Processor, (and the 320 LFO 
is 
> similar in this regard) seems to use a lot of panel space (2U) for 
> the function.  I do understand that this has to do with the 
> circuitry, and with wanting all those IO jacks.  But, as the 390 
> micro-LFO offers compromised features to gain more functional 
> density, might we not want a similar micro-Lag Processor that is 
1U 
> in width?  You catch my drift.
> 
> I look forward to your comments.
> 
> Richard Brewster