MOTM

I suppose I'm an old guy in that I started my MOTM system around 10 years
ago, and have been on the list most of the time since then. My system is
constructed almost entirely from MOTM kits, with a few Oakley modules and a
couple of modules from other companies adapted to MOTM format. Some years
back my system reached a size at which it was big enough to do pretty much
anything that I want a modular synth to do, and I shifted from mostly
building the system to mostly using it. Occasionally I make modules from
scratch. The most recent of which was a quad clock divider; each of the four
dividers has independent divisors from 2 to 16, reset inputs, and three
different output modes.

I agree with the Suit & Tie Guy that the somewhat fanatical devotion to
exactly reproducing the Synthesis Technology look and feel exhibited by some
members of the MOTM-using community has stifled the growth of the market.
This slavish adoration of silkscreen-on-speckle-paint panels has always
puzzled me, for several reasons: 1) it's the sound that counts in the end!
Visual esthetics are very important, but they have zero effect on the
signals behind the panels. Your audience doesn't hear your panel font. 2)
The MOTM products themselves are full of inconsistencies. In my system I can
count at least three different distinct versions of dial markings. Some
modules have labels above the jacks, some have them below. 3) There isn't
necessarily a consensus that the MOTM quasi-standard is a good one. This
mailing list itself has seen more than one debate about panel appearance.
For instance, old-timers will recall people complaining that one module
isn't visually differentiated from the next, and putting strips of tape on
their modules to divide them.

Given all that, what's an aspiring MOTM module maker to do? Doing a small
run of panels that exactly match the MOTM convention is expensive and
approaching impossible because of the lack of metal shops in this country
that will still do speckle painting. On the other hand, doing a small run of
panels by some other process (e.g. anodizing and in-filled engraving) runs
the risk of being rejected by the market because it doesn't match the
convention (overlooking the fact that the convention is not self-consistent
to begin with). On the other side of the fence, the Eurorack community
seemingly has accepted a diversity of panel appearances, knob styles, etc.
Whether or not this diversity jibes with your personal taste is obviously a
personal choice, but it does contribute to a growing marketplace and hence
growing community. It's far easier for a manufacturer to enter a market
where diversity and originality are embraced rather than shunned.

So while it saddens me to hear from the Suit & Tie Guy that one of the very
few attempts for a new vendor of MOTM modules to enter the field was
discouraged by some members of the MOTM customer base itself, it doesn't
surprise me in the slightest. 

And yes, the previous discourse is the result of both personal and
professional cogitation on the topic.

--Adam