MOTM

My main reason for the larger knobs is that when I'm twiddling, half the
time I'm not looking at that which I'm twiddling.  So, I want something
that's easy to grab and adjust in small quanties without looking, and
without much danger of accidently running my fingers over the adjacent
knobs.

That said, I would agree that an EG is not likely something that people will
tweak in real-time.  But, this thing can be used as an LFO...

And finally, I have to say that I'm also guilty of wanting aesthetic
consistancy with MOTM parts.  :)  This is significantly less of an issue (to
me) if there are more modules with the same layout-- I.E., Tony establishes
a theme which he sticks to with any hypothetical further modules.

--PBr, of the big-fingered people...  :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Doug Pearson [SMTP:ceres@...]
> Sent:	Tuesday, August 22, 2000 10:49 AM
> To:	motm@egroups.com
> Subject:	RE: [motm] MOTM compatible module
> 
> Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority by saying, PLEASE keep the
> smaller knobs!!!  Going to a 4U width seems a bit extreme, the reasons for
> not going to a 10U height are extremely good, and I wouldn't want to lose
> any of the 8 stages.  Also, I would expect the knobs on an EG to see far
> less real-time use than, say, knobs controlling filter cutoff, VCO
> modulation attenuators, sub-octave level, LFO shape, etc. (although I
> *know* there's gotta be someone out there who tweaks EG settings all the
> time and rarely touches the other knobs I mentioned), so the size wouldn't
> be as much of a concern to big-fingered folk (to be fair, I'll point out
> that I have tiny little violinist's fingers, although that doesn't prevent
> me from playing bass guitar).  And, actually, compared to the logically
> finger-sized knobs on the other two modulars I'm using (or, for that
> matter, on my old Korgs / Yamahas / EML101 / P600), I'm finding the larger
> MOTM knobs to be overkill.  Which is not a bad thing, just an unnecessary
> thing (for me!).
>