>>>>
I remember an interesting point about MOTM being the consistency, the
jacks always in a row on the bottom, etc. From looking at pictures
on the MOTM-110, it appears to be a bit of an anomaly. Lining that
image up next to an MOTM-410, the pots are scaled vertically
differently. Is there a convention now that didn't exist then? Is
there any convention at all?
<<<<
The actual pot placement between the 410 and the 110 is consistent.
The only difference is the labelling. On that module, there was room
to label the jack immediately under the bottom pot to the side,
allowing the '0' and '10' pot graphics to be used. This was the first
module designed I believe (although I wasn't around at the time). On
later modules with more jacks, the only place to label the jacks is
on top, so the pot '0' and '10' marks must be sacrificed.
Now.
What you may see in images on the web site may be different. In fact,
that's almost certain to be true. That's because many of those are
Photoshop images instead of photos, and the pots are slightly
misplaced. I know, because I have created many of these images
myself. Awhile back I noticed that the bottom row of pots were too
high, so I repositioned them lower in later images.
>>>>
The consistiency thing might prove tough to maintain with weirder
modules like a giant sequencer. Just curious, that's all. (Also, the
proposed MiniMoe 3U doesn't follow the convention at all. Grin)
<<<<
Yes. When you cram tons of functionality and I/O into a module,
something has to give. When you add new types of controls that have
never been used before, you have to add to old conventions or create
new ones. When I design a Stooge panel, I make every effort to lay it
out to be consistent with the convention. Sequencers by their very
nature are going to have to be treated differently.
Moe (not speaking for Paul)