MOTM

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Could these be made deep enough to hold a small oscilloscope? ;-)

--LH--
Depth is a significant issue.  These cabinets are 10" deep.  That is 1.5"
deeper than the dot com 8.5" cabinets, and 1.5" less deep than my personal
cabinets at 11.5".  Here are some of the issues.

Going from 8.5" to 10.0":
1. It lets you mount as many power supplies in the back as you wish as they
will fit behind the front row of modules. If I went with the 8.5" then the
modules in front of the power supply would be limited to small PCB stuff.
Still, long non-motm modules like the Blacet Time Machine and Miniwave will
not fit in front of the power supply (standard 900 supplies or other
supplies inside mounted).
2. Added stability for I used only a 15 degree slant on the cabinet front.
This is less than the dot com cabinets.  Therefore, to get the bottom large
enough for the stability I was happy with, I needed to be deeper.
3. The guy paying asked for it to be deeper. :)

Going from 10.0" to 11.5":
1. Any module fits anywhere.  My cabinets are taller than the NAMM cabinets
because of the magic bus.  I like the proportion look.

The problem is that each extra inch of depth adds about 5 lbs to the cabinet
weight. And one of the reasons I think people want to go with cabinets over
racks is that all that depth is wasted in many racks. Maybe we need a rack
that hinges in the middle so the front and back swing around to the front
side <snicker>.  But, the bottom line is that after considering all benefits
and disadvantages, I am leaning toward 10" as the standard depth.  However,
I will consider all input that is accompanied with logical reasons for
change.

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Also, I just wanted to say that I really like standard widths and I love to
have that extra 2U space to toss in an Expressionist.

--LH--
My brain is going soft.  What extra 2U space are you referring to?

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Clamps beat screwdriver.

I agree.  But, maybe not for everyone.  Several people have commented that
they liked the ability to assemble and disassemble.  So, when I meet the
cabinet maker (#3), we will be looking at the joint with the idea that it
can be screwed only with nice inside hardware OR glued with screws and
internal hardware optional.

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Clamps beat screwdriver.
Plywood! Plywood!

The jury is out on that one. As I suspected, I have both camps in town.
There is another listmember here who is considering the same approach as I
am that was planning to use plywood.  Maybe one of us can supply the solid
walnut camp (me) and one the plywood lovers (him).

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
As to the slant... Slanted faces collect dust more easily. I could be happy
with 90 degree angles. But, a slant looks more interesting and is easy to
work with, so really - either way.

I think you need both. :)
Larry