MOTM

> P.S.  If you want to hear Paul sigh deeply, ask him how much it cost to Fed
> EX 2-day air two 75 lb cabinets from Indiana to California.

It was 46% of shipping a SKB case full of modules, doubled boxed to Poland Fed-Ex. And that
person skipped out on paying me! (the only MOTM deadbeat. I suppose I should consider myself
'lucky' I've had just 1).

Shipping Joe Walsh's dual Moog 960 sequencer cabinet overnight Fed-Ex was $397, and shipping my
Moog 12 to Italy was about $880. And finally, last year I spent $157, 303 on parts, $11,490 on
postage (US mail) and $8677 on the phone bill. (Hint: I ain't gettin' rich, buy more modules).

Paul S.

I'd keep the 12u option. Since this is a 'modular' format,it you give the option of expanding as budget allows. The rack size would also be nice not only for modules,but other gear in a nice matching cabinet.  
One key is the joints,alignment needs to be almost fool proof
for the consumer to ensure a quality end product. Something like a dowel or biscut,not necessarily for the strength,but the alignment. 
Screws ? Ewwww..would hate to see that in a nice cabinet. 
Clamps and glue are relatively inexpensive at most local home improvement stores.    
And,my condolences to you and Paul,air shipments ain't cheap since not only are you paying by weight,but also by volume on
larger things. I've worked in the industry for ahh..too long.

Gary

A couple of other ideas from a long time woodworker.

Wood, especially solid wood, contracts and expands quite noticeably across
its
length with changes in humidity. Plywood does not, since it is made by
laying
cross-grained wood sheets down in layers. So while solid walnut would work
well on the ends of a cabinet, I'd be real careful about using it across the
length of the front or back. Across a four length you could see movement of
a quarter inch over a year. They do make hardwood veneered plywood, and you
might consider using that for backs, and possibly fronts, if you put solid
wood trim strips to hide the laminated edges.

I agree with Gary, exposed screws are not the best. Yes, you can use screws
and then hide them with plugs. But you can also use "knock-down" hardware,
like they use in "Euro" cabinets. There are lots of variations, any woodwork
catalog will have them. With care, you can make it look as though the
cabinet
is glued up when actually you can take it apart pretty easily.

I guess compared to the money you're investing in a top-drawer analog synth,
the prices of clamps isn't much, but a pair will set you back about $40
easily. If you're clamping along dimensions longer than about 2.5 feet,
you may want to go with pipe clamps, in which case the price goes up more
due to the threaded black pipe needed. And in the end, you're stuck with
these big, heavy, clunky clamps you will never need again. (There is a
simple solution there, though: send them to me. :-))

-BobC

-----Original Message-----
From: gareII@... [mailto:gareII@...]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 7:04 AM
To: "J. Larry Hendry"; "MOTM List"
Subject: Re: [motm] More about Stooge walnut cabinets


...
One key is the joints,alignment needs to be almost fool proof
for the consumer to ensure a quality end product. Something like a dowel or
biscut,not necessarily for the strength,but the alignment.
Screws ? Ewwww..would hate to see that in a nice cabinet.
Clamps and glue are relatively inexpensive at most local home improvement
stores.
And,my condolences to you and Paul,air shipments ain't cheap since not only
are you paying by weight,but also by volume on
larger things. I've worked in the industry for ahh..too long.

Gary

Could these be made deep enough to hold a small oscilloscope? ;-)

Also, I just wanted to say that I really like standard widths and I love to
have that extra 2U space to toss in an Expressionist.

> A - The back will be set up to accept a standard MOTM power supply.  In
> fact, you will be able to mount both the existing 900 and new 950 if needed
> in a larger cabinet.  Maybe down the road we can do a Stooge power switch
> panel for the front that turns on both supplies (if people want that).

This is beautiful...

> Sauder style screw together stuff.  Do you guys think buying / borrowing
> pipe clamps for glueing joint sounds reasonable, or do you prefer something
> that goes together with a screwdriver?

Clamps beat screwdriver.

> a quarter inch over a year. They do make hardwood veneered plywood, and you
> might consider using that for backs, and possibly fronts, if you put solid
> wood trim strips to hide the laminated edges.

Plywood! Plywood!

As to the slant... Slanted faces collect dust more easily. I could be happy
with 90 degree angles. But, a slant looks more interesting and is easy to
work with, so really - either way.

Wow, I hope this becomes a reality :-))

best,
- Scott
____________
http://www.red-noise.com
http://www.strawberryplanet.org

At 10:48 AM 12/9/02 -0600, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>--LH--
>Depth is a significant issue.  These cabinets are 10" deep.  That is 1.5"
>deeper than the dot com 8.5" cabinets, and 1.5" less deep than my personal
>cabinets at 11.5".  Here are some of the issues.

Is the 10" depth at the base of the slant cabinet, or the base of the 
straight cabinet?

-dave-

----- Original Message -----

From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Could these be made deep enough to hold a small oscilloscope? ;-)

--LH--
Depth is a significant issue.  These cabinets are 10" deep.  That is 1.5"
deeper than the dot com 8.5" cabinets, and 1.5" less deep than my personal
cabinets at 11.5".  Here are some of the issues.

Going from 8.5" to 10.0":
1. It lets you mount as many power supplies in the back as you wish as they
will fit behind the front row of modules. If I went with the 8.5" then the
modules in front of the power supply would be limited to small PCB stuff.
Still, long non-motm modules like the Blacet Time Machine and Miniwave will
not fit in front of the power supply (standard 900 supplies or other
supplies inside mounted).
2. Added stability for I used only a 15 degree slant on the cabinet front.
This is less than the dot com cabinets.  Therefore, to get the bottom large
enough for the stability I was happy with, I needed to be deeper.
3. The guy paying asked for it to be deeper. :)

Going from 10.0" to 11.5":
1. Any module fits anywhere.  My cabinets are taller than the NAMM cabinets
because of the magic bus.  I like the proportion look.

The problem is that each extra inch of depth adds about 5 lbs to the cabinet
weight. And one of the reasons I think people want to go with cabinets over
racks is that all that depth is wasted in many racks. Maybe we need a rack
that hinges in the middle so the front and back swing around to the front
side <snicker>.  But, the bottom line is that after considering all benefits
and disadvantages, I am leaning toward 10" as the standard depth.  However,
I will consider all input that is accompanied with logical reasons for
change.

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Also, I just wanted to say that I really like standard widths and I love to
have that extra 2U space to toss in an Expressionist.

--LH--
My brain is going soft.  What extra 2U space are you referring to?

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Clamps beat screwdriver.

I agree.  But, maybe not for everyone.  Several people have commented that
they liked the ability to assemble and disassemble.  So, when I meet the
cabinet maker (#3), we will be looking at the joint with the idea that it
can be screwed only with nice inside hardware OR glued with screws and
internal hardware optional.

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Clamps beat screwdriver.
Plywood! Plywood!

The jury is out on that one. As I suspected, I have both camps in town.
There is another listmember here who is considering the same approach as I
am that was planning to use plywood.  Maybe one of us can supply the solid
walnut camp (me) and one the plywood lovers (him).

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
As to the slant... Slanted faces collect dust more easily. I could be happy
with 90 degree angles. But, a slant looks more interesting and is easy to
work with, so really - either way.

I think you need both. :)
Larry

Hey, lets here the overseas crowd chime in with some centimeter dimensions
:)
<snicker>
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Tkacs, Ken <ken.tkacs@...>
That's right between the two depths you quoted. Why 10.5"? It's *6u*... I'm
designing my cabinets so that every measurement [that makes sense] is
related to the "u" grid, for visual harmony. Does it really make any
difference? Probably not; but there you have it.
:)  Mr. T

----- Original Message -----

From: Dave Hylander <david@...>
Is the 10" depth at the base of the slant cabinet, or the base of the
straight cabinet?

--LH--
Base of the straight, top of both.  Bottom of slant was something like 15
1/2".  Whatever 15 degrees works out to. Where is that trig book?
:)
Larry

Unless, of course, you turn the slanted one upside down, in which case, you have 10" top and 10" bottom of the straight, and 10" top and 10.5" bottom of right-side-up slant, and 10.5" and 10" bottom of upside-down slant, unless you're in Austrailia, in which case...

(whyioutta... nyuk nyuk nyuk!)

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 10:21 AM
To: Dave Hylander; MOTM List
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: More about Stooge walnut cabinets


----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Hylander <david@...>
Is the 10" depth at the base of the slant cabinet, or the base of the
straight cabinet?

--LH--
Base of the straight, top of both.

>Wood, especially solid wood, contracts and expands quite noticeably across its
>length with changes in humidity. Plywood does not, since it is made by laying
>cross-grained wood sheets down in layers. So while solid walnut would work
>well on the ends of a cabinet, I'd be real careful about using it across the
>length of the front or back. Across a four length you could see movement of
>a quarter inch over a year. They do make hardwood veneered plywood, and you
>might consider using that for backs, and possibly fronts, if you put solid
>wood trim strips to hide the laminated edges.

Actually, solid wood is fairly stable over its length (with the grain) 
but moves quite a bit over its width (across the grain). Since the depth 
of the cabinets will be only 10 or 12 inches, it shouldn't be a big deal, 
and anyway only affects the module clearance in the back of the cabinet.

>I have a good friend who is a professional woodworker who grew up in 
>Hungary and learned woodworking the old fashioned way.  He likes to 
>make cabinets with walnut plywood.  He cuts edging material about 
>1/8" thick on a table saw out of solid walnut and glues it on after 
>making sure the edges are perfectly smooth by using a joiner.  He 
>also always uses solid wood for trim, but uses plywood for any large 
>or long pieces such as sides or tops.  
>It can be done using solid pieces, but I'm not sure of the 
>technique.  Something to do with gluing together several strips with 
>grain running in opposite directions using biscuits.

This is done to counteract the wood's tendency to warp or cup, not for 
shrinkage issues. Again, with a 12 inch depth, warpage should be fairly 
minimal in a properly designed box.

There are plenty of good reasons to use plywood; it's easier to work with 
and cheaper, for starters. But solid wood should work very well for this 
kind of cabinet if it is well designed.

nathan

>Wood, especially solid wood, contracts and expands quite noticeably across its
>length with changes in humidity. Plywood does not, since it is made by laying
>cross-grained wood sheets down in layers. So while solid walnut would work
>well on the ends of a cabinet, I'd be real careful about using it across the
>length of the front or back. Across a four length you could see movement of
>a quarter inch over a year. They do make hardwood veneered plywood, and you
>might consider using that for backs, and possibly fronts, if you put solid
>wood trim strips to hide the laminated edges.

Actually, solid wood is fairly stable over its length (with the grain) 
but moves quite a bit over its width (across the grain). Since the depth 
of the cabinets will be only 10 or 12 inches, it shouldn't be a big deal, 
and anyway only affects the module clearance in the back of the cabinet.

>I have a good friend who is a professional woodworker who grew up in 
>Hungary and learned woodworking the old fashioned way.  He likes to 
>make cabinets with walnut plywood.  He cuts edging material about 
>1/8" thick on a table saw out of solid walnut and glues it on after 
>making sure the edges are perfectly smooth by using a joiner.  He 
>also always uses solid wood for trim, but uses plywood for any large 
>or long pieces such as sides or tops.  
>It can be done using solid pieces, but I'm not sure of the 
>technique.  Something to do with gluing together several strips with 
>grain running in opposite directions using biscuits.

This is done to counteract the wood's tendency to warp or cup, not for 
shrinkage issues. Again, with a 12 inch depth, warpage should be fairly 
minimal in a properly designed box.

There are plenty of good reasons to use plywood; it's easier to work with 
and cheaper, for starters. But solid wood should work very well for this 
kind of cabinet if it is well designed.

nathan

> Hey, lets here the overseas crowd chime in with some centimeter dimensions

hello all,
you know the funny thing is that i 'talk' in feet & inches, that's from
being born in the late 60's, but i always 'measure' in millimetres (that's
from the graphics training)
so i designed my cabinet in inches or multiples of 1.75" (one rack unit) but
for the detailed planning converted this into mm and rounded all the
non-essential dimensions to the nearest 10mm

contrary..?

cheers
paul b / sheffield / uk

I realize Paul Br was just having fun with us.  But, has brought up a good
point by accident. You cannot turn slant cabinets upside down (ala dot com
style) and put MOTM modules in them.  You cannot do it with the cabinets I
have planned or with Roger's cabinets.  The bracket won't fit.  Remember the
bracket is a long distance from the bottom of modules.  But, it is not very
far from the top.  It would work OK if you were willing to mount the modules
in that row upside down too.  When you do a reverse slant, you have to
compensate and leave room.  Look at Moe's SOD and you will quickly
understand.

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Brousseau, Paul E (Paul) <noise@...>
Unless, of course, you turn the slanted one upside down, in which case, you
have.........
<<snip>>
(whyioutta... nyuk nyuk nyuk!)

> -----Original Message-----
> --LH--
> Depth is a significant issue.  These cabinets are 10" deep.  That is
1.5"
> deeper than the dot com 8.5" cabinets, and 1.5" less deep than my
personal
> cabinets at 11.5".  Here are some of the issues.
> 

10 inches deep is fine.  8.5 inches is not deep enough.  My 15U high by
18U wide cabinet is exactly 8.5 inches deep.  With the modules inset
enough so that the module knobs and switches are almost flush with the
leading wood edge, MOTM conversion modules using the long stooge bracket
hit the rear wood panel.  Looking at the Stooge cabinet, it appears the
modules might not be recessed as much as mine, but that would still be
too close for comfort.

> The jury is out on that one. As I suspected, I have both camps in
town.
> There is another listmember here who is considering the same approach
as I
> am that was planning to use plywood.  Maybe one of us can supply the
solid
> walnut camp (me) and one the plywood lovers (him).

My own cabinet uses plywood, but I'm fine with either walnut or plywood
for stooge cabinets.

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
> As to the slant... Slanted faces collect dust more easily. I could be
> happy
> with 90 degree angles. But, a slant looks more interesting and is easy
to
> work with, so really - either way.
> 
> I think you need both. :)
> Larry

My own needs are moving towards a 3 MOTM high vertical cabinet on top of
a 2 MOTM high slanted cabinet, all 18U wide.  These are simple enough to
make myself, but for any modest level of pricing I would be an easy
convert to Stooge cabinets.

This is a great idea, and completes the MOTM soup to nuts solution for
many.

John Loffink
jloffink@...

> Also, I just wanted to say that I really like standard widths and I love to
> have that extra 2U space to toss in an Expressionist.
> 
> --LH--
> My brain is going soft.  What extra 2U space are you referring to?

Actually, I meant to type 1U, not 2. Fat fingers. Anyway, I meant that I
would love to have an extra U height (I'm talking standard rack units, not
MOTM panel units) to be able to mount an Expressionist right there IN the
cabinet. Or a Racklight ( http://www.racklight.com/19inch.htm ) on top, or
one of those power conditioners with the lights. If I was building my own
cabinet, this is what I'd do. I may be alone in this one though??? I use my
modular live, and lighting is frequently an issue.

> Clamps beat screwdriver.
> 
> I agree.  But, maybe not for everyone.  Several people have commented that
> they liked the ability to assemble and disassemble.  So, when I meet the
> cabinet maker (#3), we will be looking at the joint with the idea that it
> can be screwed only with nice inside hardware OR glued with screws and
> internal hardware optional.

Why would you assemble and disassemble your cabinet? I don't mean to sound
sassy or anything, I'm honestly just missing something here.

best,
- Scott
____________
http://www.red-noise.com
http://www.strawberryplanet.org

> Now you are making things considerably more complicated for self assembly.

That's what I'm here for ;-)

The 650 will address the need for a MIDI-CV converter anyway. But still...
When I was drafting a cabinet for myself, I'd never doubted that I was going
to give myself an extra space. Mostly, I was thinking for Racklights at the
top so I could actually see what I'm doing in low lighting. And I've seen
many pictures of people's modulars with an Expressionist just sitting there
on top... 

best,
- Scott
____________
http://www.red-noise.com
http://www.strawberryplanet.org

What about doing a separate "cabinet"?  It would be 1U
(possibly 2 U) high and it could fit two regular 1U
units side by side.  This would allow you to have a
3rd party MIDI-CV and an effects processor for
example.  I really like this way the more I think
about it.

> Other opinions about having 1U of rack space across
> the top of cabinets?

I also like the idea of having a separate (matching)
case for an external power supply.  This really
lightens up the case and it allows things to be moved
around and upgraded more easily for me.  I believe
S3RG3 is like this among others possibly.

--Shemp


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Actually, I meant to type 1U, not 2. Fat fingers. Anyway, I meant that I
would love to have an extra U height (I'm talking
standard rack units, not MOTM panel units) to be able to mount an
Expressionist right there IN the cabinet.

--LH--
Now you are making things considerably more complicated for self assembly.
Other opinions about having 1U of rack space across the top of cabinets?

--SG--
Why would you assemble and disassemble your cabinet? I don't mean to sound
sassy or anything, I'm honestly just missing something here.

--LH--
Heck, I dunno.  You guys that suggested that speak up.

Larry

I say nay, just because we wouldn't all have something to do with the space, and a standard rack unit doesn't properly fit the cabinet widths suggested, so making it look consistantly attractive would involve a good bit of work.

--PBr

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Scott Gibbons; MOTM List
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: More about Stooge walnut cabinets


----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Gibbons <scott.gibbons@...>
Anyway, I meant that I
would love to have an extra U height (I'm talking
standard rack units, not MOTM panel units) to be able to mount an
Expressionist right there IN the cabinet.

--LH--
Now you are making things considerably more complicated for self assembly.
Other opinions about having 1U of rack space across the top of cabinets?

This would be an interesting option to me; I like the idea of having the PS sitting on the floor, tucked away someplace unobtrusive.  What's a "S3RG3", though?  Of course, if it's sucked away, it doesn't necessarily have to be a lurvley piece of walnut.

--PBr

-----Original Message-----
From: Tentochi [mailto:tentochi2003@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:30 AM
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: More about Stooge walnut cabinets


I also like the idea of having a separate (matching)
case for an external power supply.  This really
lightens up the case and it allows things to be moved
around and upgraded more easily for me.  I believe
S3RG3 is like this among others possibly.

----- Original Message -----

From: Tentochi <tentochi2003@...>
What about doing a separate "cabinet"?  It would be 1U (possibly 2 U) high
and it could fit two regular 1U
units side by side.  This would allow you to have a 3rd party MIDI-CV and an
effects processor for example.  I really like this way the more I think
about it.

--LH--
At some point, options become too many to handle.  But, I will be presenting
racking options by  having one of the standard widths sized for racks or
Paul's rakc rails.  Now, 1 or 2U height I just cannot see.  You cannot cut
the fronts thin.  So, 1.75 inch rack unit ends up being 3.25 inches tall and
the weight-to-gear ratio is terrible.

Also consider the 1U across the top option.  This also takes away the
ability to have the modules recessed into the top  So that the front edge of
the top is now a full 3/4" showing.

I plan to handle this in my set up by putting all my rack gear in a separate
walnut box, similar to the ones I will be offering.

--TF--
I also like the idea of having a separate (matching) case for an external
power supply.  This really lightens up the case and it allows things to be
moved around and upgraded more easily for me.

--LH--
Yes, I can go along with all that but the matching part.  I'd stick power
supplies in a shallow SKB rack and put connecotrs on the back.  Don't they
make one of the shallow effects box racks in 5U?

Larry

> What about doing a separate "cabinet"?  It would be 1U (possibly 2 U) high
> and it could fit two regular 1U
> units side by side.  This would allow you to have a 3rd party MIDI-CV and an
> effects processor for example.  I really like this way the more I think
> about it.

This sounds more like a DIY project than a Stooge kit. If my "adding another
U to a cabinet kit" idea is nixed, I'll definitely have to do something like
this :-)

best,
- Scott
____________
http://www.red-noise.com
http://www.strawberryplanet.org

I think what Bob & Paul had in mind when they mentioned that hardware, was it s availability, to make it easier to assemble. And you d have the option to