MOTM

Very well said Paul. I don't see why you should even have to defend 
yourself on this issue since most of us would say you're preaching to 
the converted.

I take great pride in KNOWING that my MOTM system will be around a 
LONG time. The blasted thing doesn't go out of tune...ever. The 
output is so quiet I've already blown a pair tweeters in my NFMs 
because I thought the level was much lower than it really was. And, 
it sounds like heaven. Like my Leatherman, my Snap-on tools, and my 
Rocky Mountain bike, it's something I don't have to baby. I often 
wish I was put together as well!

The technically-minded amongst us know why you do it, and the 
musically-minded amongst us know why you do it. Stop explaining 
yourself and get back to work! :)

Z.



     

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> Hmmm...it seems that my use of the word 'best' gets me into more 
hot water than anything (except
> the time I said the Moog modular VCA had the same sonics as AM 
radio).
> 
> I have even heard comments to the effect that there is like an 
unwritten 'rule' that musicians
> avoid using 'best' at all, because it implies a sort of arrogant 
snooty air (like "...so-and-so
> is the best bass player...") so the prevailing attitude is a 
neutral-at-best "hey, everything's
> cool!"
> 
> This is 180 degrees out-of-phase with engineering. The whole 
*point* of engineering is to
> show/prove that A is a better solution than B, because blah blah 
blah. There are always multiple
> criteria about what constitutes "good, better, best".
> 
> And certainly I have learned that the clashes between 'unemotional' 
engineering and 'emotional'
> music can go all over the place, and in many cases I think 
musicians don't WANT to know specifics
> as it somehow removes a 'layer of magic' between the musician and 
the audience.
> 
> There are cases that seem to be a 'no brainer' to the engineering 
side and no amount of
> explaining will change the attitude of the user side. My favorite 
example:
> 
> "Does MOTM come with banana jacks?"
> "No, because they are unshielded."
> "I like the colors, and the fact you can stack them."
> "Err...they are unshielded. Do you see any other pro audio gear 
using them?"
> "Well, synths that use them sound pretty good to me!"
> "That may be true, but what about a case when you DO get hum or 
noise induced?"
> "Why do you slag other synth manufacturers?"
> 
> For me, any audio gear (not just synths) has no business using 
bananas because of this one fact.
> It doesn't matter if, to your ears, Synth A with bananas sounds as 
pure and clean as the driven
> snow. It's a bad *engineering* decision. The reality is, the use of 
banana jacks is a leftover
> from the early '70s based on cost. In 1974 I bough 50 Switchcraft 
jacks for like $110! 50 banana
> jacks would have been about $35. That is a significant difference. 
That gap is still there today:
> $1 versus about 30 cents.
> 
> There are a 100 ways to shave pennies, that add up to dollars. Back 
in the '70s you could lower
> your pcb price by not having a solder mask and silkscreen. This 
made board stuffing a royal pain,
> and you can get copper foil delamination if you aren't careful. PC 
boards were relatively
> expensive as there were no CAD tools, no DRC (design rule checking: 
the schematic net list is
> checked by the computer against the routing). However, there is 
absolutely NO REASON that today's
> electronic products not have a solder mask/silkscreen. In fact, the 
pcb house I use charges
> *more* to leave it off because of yield issues. Yet, I still see 
these types of boards being
> made. If there is a difference, it can't be over $1 or so.
> 
> Besides the obvious electro-mechanical scrimping, there is the 
design and the corresponding parts
> selection. In electro-mechanical intensive designs like a modular 
synth, the actual parts content
> can be as low as 5% of the overall cost (things like EGs and simple 
LFOs). If you serve a low
> cost market, in many cases you are self-limited in the parts 
selection. However, in many cases
> the difference between a nominal part and a REALLY GOOD part can be 
50 cents. The mind-game you
> start playing is you start wanting that 50 cents for yourself, and 
so you say "Heck, no ones
> gonna know the difference".
> 
> I played that game for many years at Tandy and elsewhere. 
The 'moment of truth' for me came when
> I was designing a compact AM/FM receiver. Sanyo makes all the radio 
chips in the world, and they
> have 3 different FM demod chips, priced like 28 cents, 40 cents and 
$1. I had over 50 schematics
> from every stereo receiver on the planet, all brands. About 60% 
used the 28 cent one, 40% used
> the 40 cent one and ZERO used the $1 one. Even the most expensive, 
stand-alone FM tuner (Marantz)
> used the 40 cent one. So, I get demo boards for it and the $1 one 
to measure and listen. Also, it
> turned out the $1 one used a 33 cent Toko tuned trap coil for the 
19.2 demode filter (any hams
> out there?).
> 
> The difference between the 2 was STUNNING. The $1 + 33 cent coil 
blew the doors off the 40 cent
> one. Local classical FM radio sounded almost CD quality. I was 
dragging everyone into the lab for
> A/B tests and they all agreed the more expensive one was the way to 
go. Except my boss. "Can't
> afford it!" I said I could scrimp elsewhere (power supply was a 
favorite scrimp, ie the OB-8),
> but I realized that the *idea* of using "the most expensive" 
brought horror and shame to the
> manager. Picture the staff meeting:
> 
> "Johnson, that new FM radio sounds great! Who did the design?"
> "Schreiber. Did I mention he used the most expensive Sanyo FM chip?"
> Stunned silence, followed by nervous paper shuffling and coughs.
> "He....did.....what??! Oh....my....GOD!!"
> 
> This is why I am producing MOTM. I want it to represent what it 
means to be the best. I don't go
> out and hunt expensive parts for the sake of a "gold plated 
toothpick" as MOTM has been called. I
> just refuse to use inferior parts when there are better ones out 
there. The R&D in the 500 and
> 600 reflect this even more (there are rotary encoders that I could 
get for $7, but I'm using a
> Greyhill avionics-grade optical encoder with 1 MILLION full cycle 
rotations guaranteed with
> stainless steel housing. This way, 20 years from now, it's still 
working perfectly. My cost is
> about $26).
> 
> Even if my use of 'best' make you squirm, I'm not gloating, 
bragging or slagging. This is just
> the engineer in me talking facts. I wanted MOTM to raise the bar, 
to show the 'unclean' that
> there is an alternative way to design audio gear (like looking 
inside a Mark Levinson or Krell
> audio amplifier). I think I have succeeded, and it's not just me. I 
have other people designing
> HW and SW that have more ability than me in many areas. I am 
grateful that they feel that MOTM is
> where they themselves have decided to contribute.
> 
> I admit that when I hear the end result, the music, I want to shout 
from the rooftops. I just
> make paint and brushes, others use the modules to *create*. I 
listen to every audio synth demo
> and CD I can find. If I was in the market for a modular, it is 
a 'no-brainer'. I have yet to hear
> ANY other synth demo that made me want to chunk MOTM in a rat hole 
and say "That kicks my butt!
> It's time to close shop." Rather, the opposite.
> 
> OK, the therapy session is over :) Please don't start in over 
bananas (Les!). I know several of
> you have replaced the 1/4 with them: don't tell me (my poor babies! 
Sob....)
> 
> Paul S.