MOTM

Interesting - Paul has unintentionally created a monster with "the 
grid". Both he and I attempted to break out of the rigid MOTM grid 
with the design choices for the new 450. Guess which one the majority 
is voting for.

Moe

I can see your point.  But just because a design is on or off the grid
doesn't make it better.  I found #2 to be the most balanced layout,
without too much wasted space.  #1 and 5 were lopsided, knobs on one
side and switch and jacks on the other. #3 and 4 had big expanses of
wasted blank space.

The jacks on #2 are off the normal jack vertical grid, incidentally. 

The MOTM grid spacing is tied into the module sizes.  1U is too narrow
for two rows of knobs.  2U could just barely fit 3 rows of Encore size
knobs, but personally I find these just a little small.  2U could fit 5
columns of jacks, but usually we're short on knob space, not jack space.
Given the form factor I don't see many options until we get to 3U wide
panels.

For my forthcoming DIY diode waveshaper panel I am considering smaller
knobs, inbetween the Encore and standard MOTM sizes.  This won't fit it
into a smaller panel, however.  It's still 3U wide.  It will just let me
put more of the diode breakpoints onto the module, allowing a 4 column
by 5 row layout.

John Loffink
jloffink@... 

-----Original Message-----
From: mate_stubb [mailto:mate_stubb@...] 
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 5:55 PM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [motm] Ergonomics

Interesting - Paul has unintentionally created a monster with "the 
grid". Both he and I attempted to break out of the rigid MOTM grid 
with the design choices for the new 450. Guess which one the majority 
is voting for.

Moe
.

But, the jacks on #2 ARE half way in between the normal grid, 
right? For me the 1.5" knob spacing is too close to standard to 
not look "funny" (funny strange, not funny haha). I voted for #2 for 
this reason. My real preference is the 4U, but it seemed like that 
would be a wasted vote (like Nader or Perot).

The best design for this module, IMO, would be 1U rack - knobs 
left to right - low to high, like the EMS. This would be functionally 
the best, but it's not an option - any other design is a set of 
compromises. Even the 907 basis has a band discontinuity and 
seems upside down to me.

I say generally stick with the grid, it's gone too far to turn back 
now. But, if a module "wants" to be different - make it "really" 
different or evenly different  - different size knobs, etc. (the small 
knob 450s were nice, too - but, you gotta have big knobs for a 
907 clone :-).

Back to the 1.5" spacing, if the "moes" are to have this - maybe it 
wouldn't be so bad on the FFB. But, I think a medium sized knob 
(between MOTM and Encore) and an even further reduced 
spacing (1.21875"?) might look less "funny" next to the standard 
grid, when higher control density is required.

But what do I know? I will buy at least one 450 even if it's blue 
and has Celtic tatoos. ;-)

Barry

--- In motm@y..., "John Loffink" <jloffink@a...> wrote:
> I can see your point.  But just because a design is on or off the 
grid
> doesn't make it better.  I found #2 to be the most balanced 
layout,
> without too much wasted space.  #1 and 5 were lopsided, 
knobs on one
> side and switch and jacks on the other. #3 and 4 had big 
expanses of
> wasted blank space.
> 
> The jacks on #2 are off the normal jack vertical grid, 
incidentally. 
> 
> The MOTM grid spacing is tied into the module sizes.  1U is too 
narrow
> for two rows of knobs.  2U could just barely fit 3 rows of Encore 
size
> knobs, but personally I find these just a little small.  2U could fit 
5
> columns of jacks, but usually we're short on knob space, not 
jack space.
> Given the form factor I don't see many options until we get to 
3U wide
> panels.
> 
> For my forthcoming DIY diode waveshaper panel I am 
considering smaller
> knobs, inbetween the Encore and standard MOTM sizes.  This 
won't fit it
> into a smaller panel, however.  It's still 3U wide.  It will just let 
me
> put more of the diode breakpoints onto the module, allowing a 
4 column
> by 5 row layout.
> 
> John Loffink
> jloffink@a... 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mate_stubb [mailto:mate_stubb@y...] 
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: motm@y...
> Subject: [motm] Ergonomics
> 
> Interesting - Paul has unintentionally created a monster with 
"the 
> grid". Both he and I attempted to break out of the rigid MOTM 
grid 
> with the design choices for the new 450. Guess which one the 
majority 

> is voting for.
> 
> Moe
> .

Yikes.  Endless posts about that damn filterbank.  Sometimes I think Paul 
shouldn't even let people know what a module will look like ahead of time.  
Nobody ever agrees on anything anyway.  Perhaps telling us it will have 10 
knobs/freq bands, in/out jacks and a bypass switch is all we need to know.

-Elhardt