MOTM

Hmmm...it seems that my use of the word 'best' gets me into more hot water than anything (except
the time I said the Moog modular VCA had the same sonics as AM radio).

I have even heard comments to the effect that there is like an unwritten 'rule' that musicians
avoid using 'best' at all, because it implies a sort of arrogant snooty air (like "...so-and-so
is the best bass player...") so the prevailing attitude is a neutral-at-best "hey, everything's
cool!"

This is 180 degrees out-of-phase with engineering. The whole *point* of engineering is to
show/prove that A is a better solution than B, because blah blah blah. There are always multiple
criteria about what constitutes "good, better, best".

And certainly I have learned that the clashes between 'unemotional' engineering and 'emotional'
music can go all over the place, and in many cases I think musicians don't WANT to know specifics
as it somehow removes a 'layer of magic' between the musician and the audience.

There are cases that seem to be a 'no brainer' to the engineering side and no amount of
explaining will change the attitude of the user side. My favorite example:

"Does MOTM come with banana jacks?"
"No, because they are unshielded."
"I like the colors, and the fact you can stack them."
"Err...they are unshielded. Do you see any other pro audio gear using them?"
"Well, synths that use them sound pretty good to me!"
"That may be true, but what about a case when you DO get hum or noise induced?"
"Why do you slag other synth manufacturers?"

For me, any audio gear (not just synths) has no business using bananas because of this one fact.
It doesn't matter if, to your ears, Synth A with bananas sounds as pure and clean as the driven
snow. It's a bad *engineering* decision. The reality is, the use of banana jacks is a leftover
from the early '70s based on cost. In 1974 I bough 50 Switchcraft jacks for like $110! 50 banana
jacks would have been about $35. That is a significant difference. That gap is still there today:
$1 versus about 30 cents.

There are a 100 ways to shave pennies, that add up to dollars. Back in the '70s you could lower
your pcb price by not having a solder mask and silkscreen. This made board stuffing a royal pain,
and you can get copper foil delamination if you aren't careful. PC boards were relatively
expensive as there were no CAD tools, no DRC (design rule checking: the schematic net list is
checked by the computer against the routing). However, there is absolutely NO REASON that today's
electronic products not have a solder mask/silkscreen. In fact, the pcb house I use charges
*more* to leave it off because of yield issues. Yet, I still see these types of boards being
made. If there is a difference, it can't be over $1 or so.

Besides the obvious electro-mechanical scrimping, there is the design and the corresponding parts
selection. In electro-mechanical intensive designs like a modular synth, the actual parts content
can be as low as 5% of the overall cost (things like EGs and simple LFOs). If you serve a low
cost market, in many cases you are self-limited in the parts selection. However, in many cases
the difference between a nominal part and a REALLY GOOD part can be 50 cents. The mind-game you
start playing is you start wanting that 50 cents for yourself, and so you say "Heck, no ones
gonna know the difference".

I played that game for many years at Tandy and elsewhere. The 'moment of truth' for me came when
I was designing a compact AM/FM receiver. Sanyo makes all the radio chips in the world, and they
have 3 different FM demod chips, priced like 28 cents, 40 cents and $1. I had over 50 schematics
from every stereo receiver on the planet, all brands. About 60% used the 28 cent one, 40% used
the 40 cent one and ZERO used the $1 one. Even the most expensive, stand-alone FM tuner (Marantz)
used the 40 cent one. So, I get demo boards for it and the $1 one to measure and listen. Also, it
turned out the $1 one used a 33 cent Toko tuned trap coil for the 19.2 demode filter (any hams
out there?).

The difference between the 2 was STUNNING. The $1 + 33 cent coil blew the doors off the 40 cent
one. Local classical FM radio sounded almost CD quality. I was dragging everyone into the lab for
A/B tests and they all agreed the more expensive one was the way to go. Except my boss. "Can't
afford it!" I said I could scrimp elsewhere (power supply was a favorite scrimp, ie the OB-8),
but I realized that the *idea* of using "the most expensive" brought horror and shame to the
manager. Picture the staff meeting:

"Johnson, that new FM radio sounds great! Who did the design?"
"Schreiber. Did I mention he used the most expensive Sanyo FM chip?"
Stunned silence, followed by nervous paper shuffling and coughs.
"He....did.....what??! Oh....my....GOD!!"

This is why I am producing MOTM. I want it to represent what it means to be the best. I don't go
out and hunt expensive parts for the sake of a "gold plated toothpick" as MOTM has been called. I
just refuse to use inferior parts when there are better ones out there. The R&D in the 500 and
600 reflect this even more (there are rotary encoders that I could get for $7, but I'm using a
Greyhill avionics-grade optical encoder with 1 MILLION full cycle rotations guaranteed with
stainless steel housing. This way, 20 years from now, it's still working perfectly. My cost is
about $26).

Even if my use of 'best' make you squirm, I'm not gloating, bragging or slagging. This is just
the engineer in me talking facts. I wanted MOTM to raise the bar, to show the 'unclean' that
there is an alternative way to design audio gear (like looking inside a Mark Levinson or Krell
audio amplifier). I think I have succeeded, and it's not just me. I have other people designing
HW and SW that have more ability than me in many areas. I am grateful that they feel that MOTM is
where they themselves have decided to contribute.

I admit that when I hear the end result, the music, I want to shout from the rooftops. I just
make paint and brushes, others use the modules to *create*. I listen to every audio synth demo
and CD I can find. If I was in the market for a modular, it is a 'no-brainer'. I have yet to hear
ANY other synth demo that made me want to chunk MOTM in a rat hole and say "That kicks my butt!
It's time to close shop." Rather, the opposite.

OK, the therapy session is over :) Please don't start in over bananas (Les!). I know several of
you have replaced the 1/4 with them: don't tell me (my poor babies! Sob....)

Paul S.

Very well said Paul. I don't see why you should even have to defend 
yourself on this issue since most of us would say you're preaching to 
the converted.

I take great pride in KNOWING that my MOTM system will be around a 
LONG time. The blasted thing doesn't go out of tune...ever. The 
output is so quiet I've already blown a pair tweeters in my NFMs 
because I thought the level was much lower than it really was. And, 
it sounds like heaven. Like my Leatherman, my Snap-on tools, and my 
Rocky Mountain bike, it's something I don't have to baby. I often 
wish I was put together as well!

The technically-minded amongst us know why you do it, and the 
musically-minded amongst us know why you do it. Stop explaining 
yourself and get back to work! :)

Z.



     

--- In motm@y..., "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> Hmmm...it seems that my use of the word 'best' gets me into more 
hot water than anything (except
> the time I said the Moog modular VCA had the same sonics as AM 
radio).
> 
> I have even heard comments to the effect that there is like an 
unwritten 'rule' that musicians
> avoid using 'best' at all, because it implies a sort of arrogant 
snooty air (like "...so-and-so
> is the best bass player...") so the prevailing attitude is a 
neutral-at-best "hey, everything's
> cool!"
> 
> This is 180 degrees out-of-phase with engineering. The whole 
*point* of engineering is to
> show/prove that A is a better solution than B, because blah blah 
blah. There are always multiple
> criteria about what constitutes "good, better, best".
> 
> And certainly I have learned that the clashes between 'unemotional' 
engineering and 'emotional'
> music can go all over the place, and in many cases I think 
musicians don't WANT to know specifics
> as it somehow removes a 'layer of magic' between the musician and 
the audience.
> 
> There are cases that seem to be a 'no brainer' to the engineering 
side and no amount of
> explaining will change the attitude of the user side. My favorite 
example:
> 
> "Does MOTM come with banana jacks?"
> "No, because they are unshielded."
> "I like the colors, and the fact you can stack them."
> "Err...they are unshielded. Do you see any other pro audio gear 
using them?"
> "Well, synths that use them sound pretty good to me!"
> "That may be true, but what about a case when you DO get hum or 
noise induced?"
> "Why do you slag other synth manufacturers?"
> 
> For me, any audio gear (not just synths) has no business using 
bananas because of this one fact.
> It doesn't matter if, to your ears, Synth A with bananas sounds as 
pure and clean as the driven
> snow. It's a bad *engineering* decision. The reality is, the use of 
banana jacks is a leftover
> from the early '70s based on cost. In 1974 I bough 50 Switchcraft 
jacks for like $110! 50 banana
> jacks would have been about $35. That is a significant difference. 
That gap is still there today:
> $1 versus about 30 cents.
> 
> There are a 100 ways to shave pennies, that add up to dollars. Back 
in the '70s you could lower
> your pcb price by not having a solder mask and silkscreen. This 
made board stuffing a royal pain,
> and you can get copper foil delamination if you aren't careful. PC 
boards were relatively
> expensive as there were no CAD tools, no DRC (design rule checking: 
the schematic net list is
> checked by the computer against the routing). However, there is 
absolutely NO REASON that today's
> electronic products not have a solder mask/silkscreen. In fact, the 
pcb house I use charges
> *more* to leave it off because of yield issues. Yet, I still see 
these types of boards being
> made. If there is a difference, it can't be over $1 or so.
> 
> Besides the obvious electro-mechanical scrimping, there is the 
design and the corresponding parts
> selection. In electro-mechanical intensive designs like a modular 
synth, the actual parts content
> can be as low as 5% of the overall cost (things like EGs and simple 
LFOs). If you serve a low
> cost market, in many cases you are self-limited in the parts 
selection. However, in many cases
> the difference between a nominal part and a REALLY GOOD part can be 
50 cents. The mind-game you
> start playing is you start wanting that 50 cents for yourself, and 
so you say "Heck, no ones
> gonna know the difference".
> 
> I played that game for many years at Tandy and elsewhere. 
The 'moment of truth' for me came when
> I was designing a compact AM/FM receiver. Sanyo makes all the radio 
chips in the world, and they
> have 3 different FM demod chips, priced like 28 cents, 40 cents and 
$1. I had over 50 schematics
> from every stereo receiver on the planet, all brands. About 60% 
used the 28 cent one, 40% used
> the 40 cent one and ZERO used the $1 one. Even the most expensive, 
stand-alone FM tuner (Marantz)
> used the 40 cent one. So, I get demo boards for it and the $1 one 
to measure and listen. Also, it
> turned out the $1 one used a 33 cent Toko tuned trap coil for the 
19.2 demode filter (any hams
> out there?).
> 
> The difference between the 2 was STUNNING. The $1 + 33 cent coil 
blew the doors off the 40 cent
> one. Local classical FM radio sounded almost CD quality. I was 
dragging everyone into the lab for
> A/B tests and they all agreed the more expensive one was the way to 
go. Except my boss. "Can't
> afford it!" I said I could scrimp elsewhere (power supply was a 
favorite scrimp, ie the OB-8),
> but I realized that the *idea* of using "the most expensive" 
brought horror and shame to the
> manager. Picture the staff meeting:
> 
> "Johnson, that new FM radio sounds great! Who did the design?"
> "Schreiber. Did I mention he used the most expensive Sanyo FM chip?"
> Stunned silence, followed by nervous paper shuffling and coughs.
> "He....did.....what??! Oh....my....GOD!!"
> 
> This is why I am producing MOTM. I want it to represent what it 
means to be the best. I don't go
> out and hunt expensive parts for the sake of a "gold plated 
toothpick" as MOTM has been called. I
> just refuse to use inferior parts when there are better ones out 
there. The R&D in the 500 and
> 600 reflect this even more (there are rotary encoders that I could 
get for $7, but I'm using a
> Greyhill avionics-grade optical encoder with 1 MILLION full cycle 
rotations guaranteed with
> stainless steel housing. This way, 20 years from now, it's still 
working perfectly. My cost is
> about $26).
> 
> Even if my use of 'best' make you squirm, I'm not gloating, 
bragging or slagging. This is just
> the engineer in me talking facts. I wanted MOTM to raise the bar, 
to show the 'unclean' that
> there is an alternative way to design audio gear (like looking 
inside a Mark Levinson or Krell
> audio amplifier). I think I have succeeded, and it's not just me. I 
have other people designing
> HW and SW that have more ability than me in many areas. I am 
grateful that they feel that MOTM is
> where they themselves have decided to contribute.
> 
> I admit that when I hear the end result, the music, I want to shout 
from the rooftops. I just
> make paint and brushes, others use the modules to *create*. I 
listen to every audio synth demo
> and CD I can find. If I was in the market for a modular, it is 
a 'no-brainer'. I have yet to hear
> ANY other synth demo that made me want to chunk MOTM in a rat hole 
and say "That kicks my butt!
> It's time to close shop." Rather, the opposite.
> 
> OK, the therapy session is over :) Please don't start in over 
bananas (Les!). I know several of
> you have replaced the 1/4 with them: don't tell me (my poor babies! 
Sob....)
> 
> Paul S.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Schreiber [mailto:synth1@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:49 PM
> To: MOTM listserv
> Subject: [motm] Can there be a 'best'? [long rant]
> 
> 
> Hmmm...it seems that my use of the word 'best' gets me into 
> more hot water than anything (except the time I said the Moog 
> modular VCA had the same sonics as AM radio).
> 
> I have even heard comments to the effect that there is like 
> an unwritten 'rule' that musicians avoid using 'best' at all, 
> because it implies a sort of arrogant snooty air (like 
> "...so-and-so is the best bass player...") so the prevailing 
> attitude is a neutral-at-best "hey, everything's cool!"
> 
> This is 180 degrees out-of-phase with engineering. The whole 
> *point* of engineering is to show/prove that A is a better 
> solution than B, because blah blah blah. There are always 
> multiple criteria about what constitutes "good, better, best".
> 
> And certainly I have learned that the clashes between 
> 'unemotional' engineering and 'emotional' music can go all 
> over the place, and in many cases I think musicians don't 
> WANT to know specifics as it somehow removes a 'layer of 
> magic' between the musician and the audience.
> 
> There are cases that seem to be a 'no brainer' to the 
> engineering side and no amount of explaining will change the 
> attitude of the user side. My favorite example:
> 
> "Does MOTM come with banana jacks?"
> "No, because they are unshielded."
> "I like the colors, and the fact you can stack them." 
> "Err...they are unshielded. Do you see any other pro audio 
> gear using them?" "Well, synths that use them sound pretty 
> good to me!" "That may be true, but what about a case when 
> you DO get hum or noise induced?" "Why do you slag other 
> synth manufacturers?"
> 
> For me, any audio gear (not just synths) has no business 
> using bananas because of this one fact. It doesn't matter if, 
> to your ears, Synth A with bananas sounds as pure and clean 
> as the driven snow. It's a bad *engineering* decision. The 
> reality is, the use of banana jacks is a leftover from the 
> early '70s based on cost. In 1974 I bough 50 Switchcraft 
> jacks for like $110! 50 banana jacks would have been about 
> $35. That is a significant difference. That gap is still 
> there today: $1 versus about 30 cents.
> 
> There are a 100 ways to shave pennies, that add up to 
> dollars. Back in the '70s you could lower your pcb price by 
> not having a solder mask and silkscreen. This made board 
> stuffing a royal pain, and you can get copper foil 
> delamination if you aren't careful. PC boards were relatively 
> expensive as there were no CAD tools, no DRC (design rule 
> checking: the schematic net list is checked by the computer 
> against the routing). However, there is absolutely NO REASON 
> that today's electronic products not have a solder 
> mask/silkscreen. In fact, the pcb house I use charges
> *more* to leave it off because of yield issues. Yet, I still 
> see these types of boards being made. If there is a 
> difference, it can't be over $1 or so.
> 
> Besides the obvious electro-mechanical scrimping, there is 
> the design and the corresponding parts selection. In 
> electro-mechanical intensive designs like a modular synth, 
> the actual parts content can be as low as 5% of the overall 
> cost (things like EGs and simple LFOs). If you serve a low 
> cost market, in many cases you are self-limited in the parts 
> selection. However, in many cases the difference between a 
> nominal part and a REALLY GOOD part can be 50 cents. The 
> mind-game you start playing is you start wanting that 50 
> cents for yourself, and so you say "Heck, no ones gonna know 
> the difference".
> 
> I played that game for many years at Tandy and elsewhere. The 
> 'moment of truth' for me came when I was designing a compact 
> AM/FM receiver. Sanyo makes all the radio chips in the world, 
> and they have 3 different FM demod chips, priced like 28 
> cents, 40 cents and $1. I had over 50 schematics from every 
> stereo receiver on the planet, all brands. About 60% used the 
> 28 cent one, 40% used the 40 cent one and ZERO used the $1 
> one. Even the most expensive, stand-alone FM tuner (Marantz) 
> used the 40 cent one. So, I get demo boards for it and the $1 
> one to measure and listen. Also, it turned out the $1 one 
> used a 33 cent Toko tuned trap coil for the 19.2 demode 
> filter (any hams out there?).

You had to ask: KC6UDI. :) Of course with the internet and really cheap
phone service, my ham days are nearly over.


 
> The difference between the 2 was STUNNING. The $1 + 33 cent 
> coil blew the doors off the 40 cent one. Local classical FM 
> radio sounded almost CD quality. I was dragging everyone into 
> the lab for A/B tests and they all agreed the more expensive 
> one was the way to go. Except my boss. "Can't afford it!" I 
> said I could scrimp elsewhere (power supply was a favorite 
> scrimp, ie the OB-8), but I realized that the *idea* of using 
> "the most expensive" brought horror and shame to the manager. 
> Picture the staff meeting:
> 
> "Johnson, that new FM radio sounds great! Who did the 
> design?" "Schreiber. Did I mention he used the most expensive 
> Sanyo FM chip?" Stunned silence, followed by nervous paper 
> shuffling and coughs. "He....did.....what??! Oh....my....GOD!!"
> 
> This is why I am producing MOTM. I want it to represent what 
> it means to be the best. I don't go out and hunt expensive 
> parts for the sake of a "gold plated toothpick" as MOTM has 
> been called. I just refuse to use inferior parts when there 
> are better ones out there. The R&D in the 500 and 600 reflect 
> this even more (there are rotary encoders that I could get 
> for $7, but I'm using a Greyhill avionics-grade optical 
> encoder with 1 MILLION full cycle rotations guaranteed with 
> stainless steel housing. This way, 20 years from now, it's 
> still working perfectly. My cost is about $26).

There are no toothpicks in MOTM, gold plated or otherwise!  ;)

I agree with you in just about all aspects of this email, but OTOH there
is no reason to put a part in that is twice as much if one 1/2 the price
meets the intended design goals. What I mean is if you put in a dip
switch (only for an example) to set some parameters, there is no reason
to put in a super high usage part good for 250,000 cycles, when the
switch at worse case will get moved 1000 times. At that point it's just
wasting everyone's money except the people that manufactured that great
part.


 
> Even if my use of 'best' make you squirm, I'm not gloating, 
> bragging or slagging. This is just the engineer in me talking 
> facts. I wanted MOTM to raise the bar, to show the 'unclean' 
> that there is an alternative way to design audio gear (like 
> looking inside a Mark Levinson or Krell audio amplifier). I 
> think I have succeeded, and it's not just me. I have other 
> people designing HW and SW that have more ability than me in 
> many areas. I am grateful that they feel that MOTM is where 
> they themselves have decided to contribute.

Most of that high end stereo stuff is quite excellent, but you gotta pay
$$$ for it. I listen to stereos now that just kill my ears, but I can't
tell the owners of those products that. They are happy with their
purchases, and that's great. Just as some people are happy with Doepfer.
I had a Paia 8700 years ago and I thought it was great until I learn
what else what out there. (plus those 1/8" jacks crackled after a while)

I'm certainly not worried that my motm will fall apart when I'm 60. :)




 
> I admit that when I hear the end result, the music, I want to 
> shout from the rooftops. I just make paint and brushes, 
> others use the modules to *create*. I listen to every audio 
> synth demo and CD I can find. If I was in the market for a 
> modular, it is a 'no-brainer'. I have yet to hear ANY other 
> synth demo that made me want to chunk MOTM in a rat hole and 
> say "That kicks my butt! It's time to close shop." Rather, 
> the opposite.
> 
> OK, the therapy session is over :) Please don't start in over 
> bananas (Les!). I know several of you have replaced the 1/4 
> with them: don't tell me (my poor babies! Sob....)
> 
> Paul S.


Keep up the great work Paul!!

Tony

Paul, you make some excellent points here.

Like many on this list and elsewhere, I applaud your execution of a  
no-compromise modular, and there's no doubt in my mind that MOTM  
modules will be in service for many, many years to come. And like many  
MOTM owners/users, I appreciate the quality that goes in to MOTM - it's  
one of the reasons I purchased it in the first place.

My only additional comment on all of this is by way of a clarification.  
I think that where electronic musical instruments are concerned,  
there's an important difference between "best built" or "best  
engineered" and "the best". The former is usually quantifiable, the  
latter is qualitative and therefore brings us back to subjective  
territory again. Which is to say that sometimes the "best built" -is-  
"the best" - but not necessarily. For example, if you are using a  
synthesizer in a context in which extremely stable VCOs are important,  
the best-built (and presumably most stable) oscillator is indeed the  
best for that application. The same holds true for things like noise  
floor, tracking, and countless other technical details that have a  
tangible impact on a synthesizer's sound, musicality, usability, and so  
forth.

But these are not the only considerations that exist for electronic  
musicians when choosing an instrument. Consider for a moment the EMS  
Synthi-A/VCS-3. I think that most people who are familiar with the  
Synthi will agree that it's by no means the best-built synthesizer ever  
made. Not even close;  a popular modification for the Synthi involves  
improving the stability of the oscillators to the point where they're  
considered musically useful!  And of course there are the somewhat  
(in)famous comments made by Wendy Carlos, in which she derides the EMS  
product as having the qualities of "a toy".

And yet... for many people this instrument is much more than the sum of  
its (sometimes questionable) components. In the case of the Synthi,  
it's interesting and musically useful in part -because- of its inherent  
manufacturing limitations. Its unpredictable behavior becomes part of  
its musicality, at least to those who appreciate that sort of thing -  
and it's by no means everyone's cup of tea.

In other words, the specific qualities that define "the best" will  
always be different from one person to the next (even among MOTM  
enthusiasts, I'd wager). For some people, the Synthi is "the best"  
synthesizer despite its obvious flaws. For others it's just a quirky,  
overpriced synth that needs extensive modifications to even approach  
the specs of a current synthesizer.

Your comments make a compelling argument for why quality matters, and  
why MOTM may well be the best-built modular. I'm just saying that for  
the sake of clarity, I think this point should be separated from the  
very different and vastly more elusive issue of what's "the best  
modular" for any given person or situation.

On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 09:49 PM, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> Hmmm...it seems that my use of the word 'best' gets me into more hot  
> water than anything (except
> the time I said the Moog modular VCA had the same sonics as AM radio).
>
> I have even heard comments to the effect that there is like an  
> unwritten 'rule' that musicians
> avoid using 'best' at all, because it implies a sort of arrogant  
> snooty air (like "...so-and-so
> is the best bass player...") so the prevailing attitude is a  
> neutral-at-best "hey, everything's
> cool!"
>
> This is 180 degrees out-of-phase with engineering. The whole *point*  
> of engineering is to
> show/prove that A is a better solution than B, because blah blah blah.  
> There are always multiple
> criteria about what constitutes "good, better, best".
>
> And certainly I have learned that the clashes between 'unemotional'  
> engineering and 'emotional'
> music can go all over the place, and in many cases I think musicians  
> don't WANT to know specifics
> as it somehow removes a 'layer of magic' between the musician and the  
> audience.
>
> There are cases that seem to be a 'no brainer' to the engineering side  
> and no amount of
> explaining will change the attitude of the user side. My favorite  
> example:
>
> "Does MOTM come with banana jacks?"
> "No, because they are unshielded."
> "I like the colors, and the fact you can stack them."
> "Err...they are unshielded. Do you see any other pro audio gear using  
> them?"
> "Well, synths that use them sound pretty good to me!"
> "That may be true, but what about a case when you DO get hum or noise  
> induced?"
> "Why do you slag other synth manufacturers?"
>
> For me, any audio gear (not just synths) has no business using bananas  
> because of this one fact.
> It doesn't matter if, to your ears, Synth A with bananas sounds as  
> pure and clean as the driven
> snow. It's a bad *engineering* decision. The reality is, the use of  
> banana jacks is a leftover
> from the early '70s based on cost. In 1974 I bough 50 Switchcraft  
> jacks for like $110! 50 banana
> jacks would have been about $35. That is a significant difference.  
> That gap is still there today:
> $1 versus about 30 cents.
>
> There are a 100 ways to shave pennies, that add up to dollars. Back in  
> the '70s you could lower
> your pcb price by not having a solder mask and silkscreen. This made  
> board stuffing a royal pain,
> and you can get copper foil delamination if you aren't careful. PC  
> boards were relatively
> expensive as there were no CAD tools, no DRC (design rule checking:  
> the schematic net list is
> checked by the computer against the routing). However, there is  
> absolutely NO REASON that today's
> electronic products not have a solder mask/silkscreen. In fact, the  
> pcb house I use charges
> *more* to leave it off because of yield issues. Yet, I still see these  
> types of boards being
> made. If there is a difference, it can't be over $1 or so.
>
> Besides the obvious electro-mechanical scrimping, there is the design  
> and the corresponding parts
> selection. In electro-mechanical intensive designs like a modular  
> synth, the actual parts content
> can be as low as 5% of the overall cost (things like EGs and simple  
> LFOs). If you serve a low
> cost market, in many cases you are self-limited in the parts  
> selection. However, in many cases
> the difference between a nominal part and a REALLY GOOD part can be 50  
> cents. The mind-game you
> start playing is you start wanting that 50 cents for yourself, and so  
> you say "Heck, no ones
> gonna know the difference".
>
> I played that game for many years at Tandy and elsewhere. The 'moment  
> of truth' for me came when
> I was designing a compact AM/FM receiver. Sanyo makes all the radio  
> chips in the world, and they
> have 3 different FM demod chips, priced like 28 cents, 40 cents and  
> $1. I had over 50 schematics
> from every stereo receiver on the planet, all brands. About 60% used  
> the 28 cent one, 40% used
> the 40 cent one and ZERO used the $1 one. Even the most expensive,  
> stand-alone FM tuner (Marantz)
> used the 40 cent one. So, I get demo boards for it and the $1 one to  
> measure and listen. Also, it
> turned out the $1 one used a 33 cent Toko tuned trap coil for the 19.2  
> demode filter (any hams
> out there?).
>
> The difference between the 2 was STUNNING. The $1 + 33 cent coil blew  
> the doors off the 40 cent
> one. Local classical FM radio sounded almost CD quality. I was  
> dragging everyone into the lab for
> A/B tests and they all agreed the more expensive one was the way to  
> go. Except my boss. "Can't
> afford it!" I said I could scrimp elsewhere (power supply was a  
> favorite scrimp, ie the OB-8),
> but I realized that the *idea* of using "the most expensive" brought  
> horror and shame to the
> manager. Picture the staff meeting:
>
> "Johnson, that new FM radio sounds great! Who did the design?"
> "Schreiber. Did I mention he used the most expensive Sanyo FM chip?"
> Stunned silence, followed by nervous paper shuffling and coughs.
> "He....did.....what??! Oh....my....GOD!!"
>
> This is why I am producing MOTM. I want it to represent what it means  
> to be the best. I don't go
> out and hunt expensive parts for the sake of a "gold plated toothpick"  
> as MOTM has been called. I
> just refuse to use inferior parts when there are better ones out  
> there. The R&D in the 500 and
> 600 reflect this even more (there are rotary encoders that I could get  
> for $7, but I'm using a
> Greyhill avionics-grade optical encoder with 1 MILLION full cycle  
> rotations guaranteed with
> stainless steel housing. This way, 20 years from now, it's still  
> working perfectly. My cost is
> about $26).
>
> Even if my use of 'best' make you squirm, I'm not gloating, bragging  
> or slagging. This is just
> the engineer in me talking facts. I wanted MOTM to raise the bar, to  
> show the 'unclean' that
> there is an alternative way to design audio gear (like looking inside  
> a Mark Levinson or Krell
> audio amplifier). I think I have succeeded, and it's not just me. I  
> have other people designing
> HW and SW that have more ability than me in many areas. I am grateful  
> that they feel that MOTM is
> where they themselves have decided to contribute.
>
> I admit that when I hear the end result, the music, I want to shout  
> from the rooftops. I just
> make paint and brushes, others use the modules to *create*. I listen  
> to every audio synth demo
> and CD I can find. If I was in the market for a modular, it is a  
> 'no-brainer'. I have yet to hear
> ANY other synth demo that made me want to chunk MOTM in a rat hole and  
> say "That kicks my butt!
> It's time to close shop." Rather, the opposite.
>
> OK, the therapy session is over :) Please don't start in over bananas  
> (Les!). I know several of
> you have replaced the 1/4 with them: don't tell me (my poor babies!  
> Sob....)
>
> Paul S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Sell a Home for Top $
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/VpLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

I believe Mr. Schreiber has shown himself to be the better man today, if
nothing else.
-- 

Terry Bowman, KA4HJH
"The Mac Doctor"

"If I can't be God I don't want to play"--Aleister Crowley