MOTM

OK, botched my last post, here's my plan.

CV and Gate should be next to each other, so
they don't "box in" the other jacks, so CV,
GATE, VEL, AUX is how i'd do it.

also, for kicks, a vertical layout like this
one is nice in my mind:

AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4

I'd keep the CV and gate on the bottom so the
'filled up bottom rows' look and feel is kept
the same.  it could just as easily be flipped
vertially, but I think Pitch and Gate should
be next to each other no matter what.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <sucrosemusic@...>
> CV and Gate should be next to each other, so
they don't "box in" the other jacks, so CV,
GATE, VEL, AUX is how i'd do it.<<

--LH--
I like the idea of CV and GATE next to each other.

>> also, for kicks, a vertical layout like this
one is nice in my mind:

AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4

I'd keep the CV and gate on the bottom so the
'filled up bottom rows' look and feel is kept
the same. <<

--LH--
Well, there are as many options here as there are buyers I expect.  But, if
you stay with horizontal rows, would it make sense to have row 1 at the
bottom and work up to 4 instead (using the same argument of filling up the
bottom rows with jacks first)?  In any case, it looks like fun.  It's a
gotta have for me. :)

Larry H

I agree with all of these comments, particularly Larry's

Scott
--------------------------------------------------
"sucrosemusic " wrote:
> 
> CV and Gate should be next to each other, so
> they don't "box in" the other jacks, so CV,
> GATE, VEL, AUX is how i'd do it.
> 
> also, for kicks, a vertical layout like this
> one is nice in my mind:
> 
> AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
> 
> I'd keep the CV and gate on the bottom so the
> 'filled up bottom rows' look and feel is kept
> the same.  it could just as easily be flipped
> vertially, but I think Pitch and Gate should
> be next to each other no matter what.
> 

"Larry Hendry" wrote:

>
> In any case, it looks like fun. It's a gotta have for me. :)
>

Methinks this is better too.

> AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4

Also, are the buttons going to be the same style at
the '600?  They don't look the same at all. 
Consistancy is very important IMO.

Is the jack vertical spacing the same as on other
modules?

--Shemp

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

>
> > AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> > VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> > GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> > C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4

OK folks, it's a *dead heat*. I need to decide by midnight tonite. Start stuffing the ballot box.

>
> Also, are the buttons going to be the same style at
> the '600?  They don't look the same at all.
> Consistancy is very important IMO.

They are not the same style, as fitting on the panel is even *more* important :)

And, these buttons are only used 0.01% of the frequency as the uSeq buttons. I haven't used the
front panel buttons on my Pro 2000 in about 2 years :) MIDI-CV converters tend to be "set and
forget".

>
> Is the jack vertical spacing the same as on other
> modules?

Yes and no.

In order to clear the bottom rail, the jacks are all offset upwards (relative to existing
modules) about 0.200 inches. The row-to-row spacing is the same, 1.00 inch. What this means is
that these modules (uSeq and MIDI-CV) jacks are not aligned with the other module's rows.

Also, be aware that the jacks are on pc boards about 1.5" deep. If you have a *slanted cabinet*
in mind, chances are that these modules *will not fit* into the bottom cabinet row, because the
jack pcb will collide with the cabinet bottom. You will have to add about a 7/8" strip across the
bottom to allow the tilted boards clearance.

Paul S.

> Paul, will there be a 650 proto at NAMM to see if it will fit the bottom
> row?

Yep.

Paul S.

I vote for Moe's rows...

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> > > VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> > > GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> > > C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
> 
> OK folks, it's a *dead heat*. I need to decide by midnight tonite.
Start stuffing the ballot box.
> 
> >
> > Also, are the buttons going to be the same style at
> > the '600?  They don't look the same at all.
> > Consistancy is very important IMO.
> 
> They are not the same style, as fitting on the panel is even *more*
important :)
> 
> And, these buttons are only used 0.01% of the frequency as the uSeq
buttons. I haven't used the
> front panel buttons on my Pro 2000 in about 2 years :) MIDI-CV
converters tend to be "set and
> forget".
> 
> >
> > Is the jack vertical spacing the same as on other
> > modules?
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> In order to clear the bottom rail, the jacks are all offset upwards
(relative to existing
> modules) about 0.200 inches. The row-to-row spacing is the same,
1.00 inch. What this means is
> that these modules (uSeq and MIDI-CV) jacks are not aligned with the
other module's rows.
> 
> Also, be aware that the jacks are on pc boards about 1.5" deep. If
you have a *slanted cabinet*
> in mind, chances are that these modules *will not fit* into the
bottom cabinet row, because the
> jack pcb will collide with the cabinet bottom. You will have to add
about a 7/8" strip across the

> bottom to allow the tilted boards clearance.
> 
> Paul S.

Ok, I've reconsidered -> I like this column layout better.
G.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>; Tentochi <tentochi2003@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: 650


> >
> > > AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> > > VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> > > GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> > > C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
>
> OK folks, it's a *dead heat*. I need to decide by midnight tonite. Start
stuffing the ballot box.

Err, is that Moe's "columns"? I'm confused!

Paul S.

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

From: <mmarsh@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: [motm] Re: 650


> 
> I vote for Moe's rows...
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> > > > VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> > > > GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> > > > C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
> > 
> > OK folks, it's a *dead heat*. I need to decide by midnight tonite.
> Start stuffing the ballot box.
> > 
> > >
> > > Also, are the buttons going to be the same style at
> > > the '600?  They don't look the same at all.
> > > Consistancy is very important IMO.
> > 
> > They are not the same style, as fitting on the panel is even *more*
> important :)
> > 
> > And, these buttons are only used 0.01% of the frequency as the uSeq
> buttons. I haven't used the
> > front panel buttons on my Pro 2000 in about 2 years :) MIDI-CV
> converters tend to be "set and
> > forget".
> > 
> > >
> > > Is the jack vertical spacing the same as on other
> > > modules?
> > 
> > Yes and no.
> > 
> > In order to clear the bottom rail, the jacks are all offset upwards
> (relative to existing
> > modules) about 0.200 inches. The row-to-row spacing is the same,
> 1.00 inch. What this means is
> > that these modules (uSeq and MIDI-CV) jacks are not aligned with the
> other module's rows.
> > 
> > Also, be aware that the jacks are on pc boards about 1.5" deep. If
> you have a *slanted cabinet*
> > in mind, chances are that these modules *will not fit* into the
> bottom cabinet row, because the
> > jack pcb will collide with the cabinet bottom. You will have to add
> about a 7/8" strip across the
> > bottom to allow the tilted boards clearance.
> > 
> > Paul S.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>

Yes it is, but rows rhymes :)

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> Err, is that Moe's "columns"? I'm confused!
> 
> Paul S.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <mmarsh@s...>
> To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:17 AM
> Subject: [motm] Re: 650
> 
> 
> > 
> > I vote for Moe's rows...
> > 
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@a...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> > > > > VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> > > > > GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> > > > > C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
> > > 
> > > OK folks, it's a *dead heat*. I need to decide by midnight tonite.
> > Start stuffing the ballot box.
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Also, are the buttons going to be the same style at
> > > > the '600?  They don't look the same at all.
> > > > Consistancy is very important IMO.
> > > 
> > > They are not the same style, as fitting on the panel is even *more*
> > important :)
> > > 
> > > And, these buttons are only used 0.01% of the frequency as the uSeq
> > buttons. I haven't used the
> > > front panel buttons on my Pro 2000 in about 2 years :) MIDI-CV
> > converters tend to be "set and
> > > forget".
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Is the jack vertical spacing the same as on other
> > > > modules?
> > > 
> > > Yes and no.
> > > 
> > > In order to clear the bottom rail, the jacks are all offset upwards
> > (relative to existing
> > > modules) about 0.200 inches. The row-to-row spacing is the same,
> > 1.00 inch. What this means is
> > > that these modules (uSeq and MIDI-CV) jacks are not aligned with the
> > other module's rows.
> > > 
> > > Also, be aware that the jacks are on pc boards about 1.5" deep. If
> > you have a *slanted cabinet*
> > > in mind, chances are that these modules *will not fit* into the
> > bottom cabinet row, because the
> > > jack pcb will collide with the cabinet bottom. You will have to add
> > about a 7/8" strip across the
> > > bottom to allow the tilted boards clearance.
> > > 
> > > Paul S.
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > 
> >

NAMM cabinet has a full 1.5" in depth for jack clearance even on the bottom
slant row.  It will be Stooge goal for this to clear OK.  But, I cannot
promise.  I can tell you I seriously doubt the same is true for dot com
cabinets because the angle is greater on the slant cabinet.  Physically,
those cabinets cannot have 1.5" or the wood would be paper thin where cut
out for the jack clearance.  I've played that angle and depth out to an
infinite detail to get the most possible depth clearance for jacks on the
NAMM cabinet.

Paul, will there be a 650 proto at NAMM to see if it will fit the bottom
row?
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>
Also, be aware that the jacks are on pc boards about 1.5" deep. If you have
a *slanted cabinet* in mind, chances are that these modules *will not fit*
into the bottom cabinet row, because the jack pcb will collide with the
cabinet bottom. You will have to add about a 7/8" strip across the bottom to
allow the tilted boards clearance.

Oh goodie.  That question will then be answered with certainty. :)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Paul Schreiber <synth1@...>


> Paul, will there be a 650 proto at NAMM to see if it will fit the bottom
> row?

Yep.
Paul S.

I just found (to my surprise) that Active carries those ferrite beads 
that we see on all the MOTM modules. I've been using beads that I got 
from Mouser for my Oakley boards and although they work fine, they 
are a bit long. These ones at Active are identical to the ones we get 
in the official MOTM kits, right down to the white splotch at the 
core (viewable from one side only).

Part # BL01RN1-A62, $1.99 CDN for a bag of 10

Active are in Canada, but they are in cahoots with Future Electronics 
in the US. I tried searching for this part on the Future Electronics 
website but it was down.

One can also get the muRata BL01RN1 from alliedelec.com:

muRata BL01RN1-A1D2B 70ohm@100MHz body length 5mm
Allied 711-4101 $0.45 ea

Also at mypioneer.com part# BL01RN1A1D2B  These are listed at 6 cents each
(!) but you have to call first.  BTW, I believe the -A1D2B part is the same
as the -A62 part, just different packaging.

A few other ferrite bead options I've dug up:

Fair-Rite 2743002112 133ohm@100MHz body length 8.9mm
Mouser 623-2743002112

Fair-Rite 2743004112 110ohm@100MHz body length is 7.6mm
Mouser 623-2743004112

Panasonic EXCELSA39 110ohm@100MHz body length is 9.3mm
Digikey P9818BK-ND

These Fair-Rite and Panasonic parts provide superior suppression to the
muRata bead, albeit with a tighter fit due to a longer body length.  Since
most PCBs tend to have a lead spacing of 10mm for beads, the EXCELSA39 and
2743002112 leads will have to be bent inward slightly, and therefore these
beads will not sit flush on the PCB.  Panasonic makes a smaller EXCELSA35,
but it's not as good as the muRata.  The Fair-Rite 2743004112 is what I plan
to use for my projects.  Unfortunately Mouser does not have them in stock at
the moment.

George

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

From: Scott Juskiw <scott@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: [motm] Another source for ferrite beads


> I just found (to my surprise) that Active carries those ferrite beads
> that we see on all the MOTM modules. I've been using beads that I got
> from Mouser for my Oakley boards and although they work fine, they
> are a bit long. These ones at Active are identical to the ones we get
> in the official MOTM kits, right down to the white splotch at the
> core (viewable from one side only).
>
> Part # BL01RN1-A62, $1.99 CDN for a bag of 10
>
> Active are in Canada, but they are in cahoots with Future Electronics
> in the US. I tried searching for this part on the Future Electronics
> website but it was down.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Actually, on second thought, how about we...

JUST KIDDING!  I'm glad Paul spent his valuable time listening to us 
bicker about this design, and I'm sure that, frankly, any design he'd 
OK (original, this, or the others he put up for vote) would be 
totally fine.  Now we just have to whine about how the LEDs don't 
look like the MOTM-320 style.   ::whine whine::

J/K (;

It's great to be a part of the 'design team' with MOTM, even if it's 
only for silly stuff like jack placement.

-Geoff (the 'computer nerd' who may not end up buying that new 
computer after all...)

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "sucrosemusic <sucrosemusic@y...>" 
<sucrosemusic@y...> wrote:

> OK, botched my last post, here's my plan.
> 
> CV and Gate should be next to each other, so
> they don't "box in" the other jacks, so CV,
> GATE, VEL, AUX is how i'd do it.
> 
> also, for kicks, a vertical layout like this
> one is nice in my mind:
> 
> AUX1 AUX2 AUX3 AUX4
> VEL1 VEL2 VEL3 VEL4
> GAT1 GAT2 GAT3 GAT4
> C-V1 C-V2 C-V3 C-V4
> 
> I'd keep the CV and gate on the bottom so the
> 'filled up bottom rows' look and feel is kept
> the same.  it could just as easily be flipped
> vertially, but I think Pitch and Gate should
> be next to each other no matter what.