MOTM

[motm] Also....If it the 510 so good, and so many MOTM users do not have one 
yet, why is it being discontinued?

Re-read your statement slowly, and you *just answered* your own question :)

Designing modules is a double-edge sword. The 'plain vanilla' modules (LFOs, 
EGs, VCAs) out-sell the esoteric (WaveWarper, Sub-Octave Mux) by as much as 50:1

The prime examples of this are Wiard (~400 modules sold over 5 years) and Buchla 
(<~450 of the Series 200 modules sold, guessing <30 200e's sold).

The *reality* is that the more esoteric a module, the fewer the sales. Now, 
knowing that up front means you charge more and hope for the best (prime 
example: Cynthia ZeroVCO).

Like I've said many times before: modular synth is the toughest *business* in MI 
to be in. People will expound for hours on the 50 reasons *not* to buy your 
stuff (remember Peake & Konkoro?). Buyers are 'fickle': of the 600+ MOTM 
customers going back 8 1/2 years, only 70 or so are 'active' at any given time. 
In fact, looking over the first 100 MOTM customers, only *7* have bought a 
module in the last 18 months. Go figure :(

Paul S.

Vanilla versus double pecan ripple fudgeI think that you have previously stated 
that 95% of sales have been kits, so obviously this is what MOTM customers 
prefer, due to the cost saving of being able to build the modules themselves, as 
well as the enjoyment of being 'closer' to, and more involved with, their 
equipment.
__________________________________

The irony is that over the 8 1/2 years the kits have been available, the rise in 
parts cost, copper wire (copper is 485% more than 10 years ago), solder 
(doubled), evil empire Tyco (knobs that were 68 cents are now $1.35) and the 
sheer labor/logistics of keeping track/buying/stuffing into little plastic bags 
for 1.1 million (not a typo) parts means that the kits are MORE EXPENSIVE than 
assembled.

Yet, the *expectation* is that "kits are cheaper". Well, *not any more*. Look 
again at the SMT machince making MOTM-650 boards here:

www.synthtech.com/m650

and then try to convince me that paying 3 people $18/hr for weeks and weeks to 
stuff resistors into bags is *cheaper*. BWAHAHAHA!


You are justifying dropping the 510 and other 'esoteric' modules for financial 
reasons. Therefore, is it wise to restrict your MOTM sales to 5% of your 
previous market? Might you lose a lot of existing customers by trying to force 
them into buying more expensive assembled modules?

_______________________________________

If Cynthia can sell 200 MOTM ZeroOscillators at $700ea, errr.....no. She made 
more money from *my customer base* than I did selling all the 
WaveWapers/Sub-Octave Muxes/MIDI-CVs/etc *combined*. And, no kits, either. I 
hate to use this .com-era phrase, but a paradigm shift is happening. The data 
speaks for itself.


I would have thought that having some esoteric modules might make the MOTM 
system/format seem more attractive to prospective customers than just a whole 
load of vanilla modules.

________________________________________

Errrr....no. Because there is no point of reference for a Super-Whatzit. There 
is for a Moog ladder filter. Case in point: I spent 14 months designing the 
"Micro Modules" (190/390/490/890/310) *specifically to address* a lower entry 
cost for MOTM to attract *new customers*. I spent over $14,000 just going to 
NAMM in 2001 to promote it (including 2 $1200 ads in Keyboard and EM). Guess 
what? ZIP, Nada, zero new customers. Sure, all the *existing* customers bought 
them. But as intended to draw new folks in....a dismal failure. Why is that? The 
#1 "concern" was addressed: cost. So, where were the customers? See, the lesson 
learned is: talk is cheap on the Internet. I was a *total idiot* to think that 
market research is reading user groups, trying to get a feel for 'what people 
are asking for'. Pfffttt.....

Market research is about listening to *customers first*, exploring technology, 
and innovation. But not going overboard :)


Of course it is your decision, you can and will do whatever you want, but I 
can't imagine this sits well with your customer base that has invested in your 
systems and supported your business up to where it is today. I would imagine 
that they feel abandoned by you.

________________________________________

I'm sure some do. But I know for a fact (because they told me to my face) that I 
also lost over $50,000 in assembled module orders due to delivery issues.

I think that with the sale, the *8 months* of lead time, and the fact that new 
customers are buying more each day (4 new customers in the last 5 days). Look at 
synthesizers.com: except for the 960 clone, what new stuff has Roger had in 3 
years? What new stuff has Sege had in ...errr...22 years?

Since I outsold Moog 18 months ago, and MOTM is #2 all-time installed base 
(behind Doepfer), I must be doing *something* right :)

Paul S.

your logic is puzzling to me.

>Yep, synthesizers.com is boring, looks like MOTM is headed in that 
>same direction.

Paul has always supplied high quality bread and butter modules. that 
will continue in Frac and 5U format. even the not bread and not 
butter wavewarper will reportedly continue as an assembled module. 
Paul has discontinued modules that do not sell in enough numbers to 
be viable. would you rather Paul supply unprofitable modules and then 
stop supplying anything?

if you regard the audio engine as boring, then i suggest you look up 
the word "boring" in a dictionary, because maybe you do not 
understand what it means.

>You give many reasons why what you are doing is all wrong and needs 
>to be changed, then you say you are #2 and must be doing something 
>right.

which part of Paul's logic do you not understand? Paul bent over 
backwards to keep kits shipping despite various events beyond his 
control, but they are now no longer financially or logistically 
viable. these are basic principles by which businesses live. the fact 
that Paul has supplied kits in the past does not free him from the 
economic and logistic reality of the future.

>I have not been able to support MOTM as much as I'd like, but I'm 
>concerned that when I can afford to, there will not be the 
>interesting MOTM modules available that I'd like to use.

i too could not afford to buy as many MOTM modules as i would like 
during the legendary halcyon "kit" period. is that Paul's fault?

i mourn the loss of the 700 - i didn't realise that i'd need 8 of 
them during the time that module was available. is that Paul's fault?

>I guess I'm the only one that has these thoughts, as noboday else 
>wants to voice their opinion if they are thinking the same, so I'll 
>drop it.

i can't think of many logical reasons to bitch at Paul. but i can 
think of various logical reasons to bitch at other manufacturers. why 
don't you go and do that?

Re: [motm] RE: Vanilla versus double pecan ripple fudgeYep, synthesizers.com is 
boring, looks like MOTM is headed in that same direction.
_______________________________________

Errr....no. If anything, the AudioEngine is going to cause an entirely different 
sort of "problem": that is, now that there is so much power behind a 2U or 3U 
panel, what do you DO with it? In other words, the difficulty will be in 
*thinking up* the modules, not in the execution of them. 64 individual wavetable 
VCOs with VC loop points/morphing/cross-fades? Piece of cake. 1024 VC ADSR EGs? 
2 hours of work, max. Entire DX-1 voice? OK! Any 200e module in the Buchla 
catalog? Done!

I have not been able to support MOTM as much as I'd like, but I'm concerned that 
when I can afford to, there will not be the interesting MOTM modules available 
that I'd like to use.
______________________________________

OK, they here is YOUR assignment: what module that I don't have would you like 
to use? See, circular arguments just like this doomed the 300 Series from Wiard. 
You want strange/esoteric/bizarre? Grant handed it to you on a silver platter. 
Bitch that it was 'too expensive'? Well, what you you *expect*? Doepfer has 318 
different modules, most of which are under $200. Are they not 'interesting' 
enough? One would think the '510, the first truely unique analog module in 
what....20 years, would sell 400-500 units. Errr.....nope. More like 80. And I 
absolutely *promise* you that if the price was $99, I'd have sold only 100. This 
is the point very few people understand.

If MOTM is the most expensive, most pain-in-the-ass to deal with, you have to 
*build* it and it is "boring", why am I #2 overall?

I guess I'm the only one that has these thoughts, as noboday else wants to voice 
their opinion if they are thinking the same, so I'll drop it.
______________________________________

Not at all, and please don't feel like you are the 'lone voice in the outback', 
so to speak. The future is not what it used to be :)

Paul S.

Wheaton, Simon wrote:

> I wonder what percentage of those currently purchasing kits, which
> make up 95% of MOTM sales, will switch to buying more expensive
> assembled modules

If we could agree to drop the ever increasing in price Spectrol pots, 
I'm sure that the price would come down quite a bit. Hey, the cheapies 
are good enough for Frac Rac...

Wheaton, Simon wrote:

> Yep, synthesizers.com is boring, looks like MOTM is headed in that same direction.

DotCom is boring just because so few third-party suppliers have taken up 
the task of producing visually compatible modules for it. MOTM would be 
quite boring as a synthesizer by itself without Oakley, ModCan, etc. I'm 
switching to MOTM format because it's so easy to order a panel from FPE 
and make whatever I want.

At 08:51 AM 10/3/2006, Paul Schreiber wrote:

>Errr....no. If anything, the AudioEngine is going to cause an 
>entirely different
>sort of "problem": that is, now that there is so much power behind a 2U or 3U
>panel, what do you DO with it? ...

Wavewarper clone? Or even a Super Wavewarper (whatever that might be)?

That could explain why there's no perceived need to build a Frac Rack 
MOTM-1510 Wavewarper.
--
john

At 09:10 AM 10/3/2006, Jay wrote:

>DotCom is boring just because so few third-party suppliers have taken up
>the task of producing visually compatible modules for it. MOTM would be
>quite boring as a synthesizer by itself without Oakley, ModCan, etc. I'm
>switching to MOTM format because it's so easy to order a panel from FPE
>and make whatever I want.

The dotcom line is the most vanilla of all, with the possible 
exception of the Q96X series. I find your implication that the MOTM 
and dotcom lines are similar in scope to be off base. For starters, 
Synthesizers.com offers only 1 oscillator and 2 filters; compare that 
to MOTM, with a multitude of interesting filters and oscillators. 
Compare what seem to be similar modules and you'll usually (if not 
always) find more features on the MOTM stuff. Like, the dotcom ADSR 
doesn't have a trigger input, so you have to kludge a way to 
retrigger it. Compare the VC switches and note that only MOTM has the 
clickless audio switching mode. If you compare the Lag modules you 
find, well, no comparison. And so on.

Now, the dotcom line is also the best value in large scale modulars, 
IMHO. That's why my small-but-slowly-growing modular is made up 
mostly of dotcom modules, which form the "core" of the synth. As 
modules are added, however, they tend to be MOTM, Blacet, Encore, 
DIY, etc. As you say, it's nice (for us, if not for Paul!) to have a 
variety of companies offering MOTM-compatible products. I'll likely 
add more dotcom stuff, too, but I've got almost all of the vanilla that I need.
--
john

> In fact, looking over the first 100 MOTM customers, only *7* have
bought a 
> module in the last 18 months. Go figure :(
> 
> Paul S.
>

Sadly, there comes a point when even the enthusiast has to stop
building and be satisfied with what he has (or face divorce,
bankruptcy, etc.).  Before moving to California, my dad and I built a
third cabinet for the Engine of Chaos.  If I fill that one, I'll
probably be finished.

Did I just say that?  Oh, hahahahahahhaaaah!!!  I meant I'd build
another cabinet...

Chub - so far from the tipping point that it would take seven light
years to reach it.  Much to the dismay of his long-suffering wife.

> [motm] Also....If it the 510 so good, and so many MOTM users 
> do not have one yet, why is it being discontinued?
> 
> Re-read your statement slowly, and you *just answered* your 
> own question :)

Well, there's an implied and unanswered question there, which is why so few
of them have been purchased if they're so good.

My $0.02 on that question: bad marketing. 

Seriously, I have _never_ heard one sound sample from the 510 that makes me
want to buy one. All I've heard is a lot of noisily trashed signals that
make me _not_ want to buy one, which is why I didn't buy one until the last
round of kits was put up for sale. I finally decided to buy one based on
descriptions by a (very) few other MOTM users whose opinions I trust, and
because the module is being discontinued. I realized the only way that I was
likely to be able to hear one of the things is to buy it and build it. If I
don't like it I imagine that I can sell it again for at least what I paid
for it, and only lose at most the pleasant time spent assembling it. Heck,
I'll force Chub to buy it from me if I don't like it. :-)

In other words, while it is certainly true that "esoteric" modules are
harder to sell than "basic" modules, maybe this module didn't sell well
because we (buyers) were told that "it makes an absolute mess of even the
simplest waveform. Effects range from frying bacon to a frog in a blender to
sticking your head into a jet engine." Quite frankly, that suggests to me
that this module is basically useless to me, given the musical directions I
tend to work in. The next statement, "You can warp LFOs into bizarre new
waveforms, as well as the output of MOTM-800 EGs" is more compelling, but
didn't compel me to whip out the credit card. If my only source of
information about the 510 was its web page, I certainly wouldn't have
ordered one.

> Buyers are 'fickle': of the 600+ MOTM 
> customers going back 8 1/2 years, only 70 or so are 'active' 
> at any given time. 
> In fact, looking over the first 100 MOTM customers, only *7* 
> have bought a module in the last 18 months. Go figure :(

Speaking as a fickle buyer: some of us MOTM customers are actually _using_
our systems rather than expanding them indefinitely. Some of us don't have
the resources (of time, space, and/or money) to expand them indefinitely.
Some of us have created systems that are useful in their current state and
feel no need to expand them. It's a tough problem for a vendor: how do you
create ongoing demand for a product that's designed to never wear out, never
needs service, isn't rendered "obsolete" by operating system revisions or
other external changes, etc.? That's a business-model issue, not a
buyer-behavior issue. You can hardly call us fickle simply because we don't
need to keep buying stuff from you. 

--Adam

Hey Paul,
     If you're planning to sell the 510 at $99.00, I'll buy one :) SCR 

-----Original Message-----
From: synth1@...
To: motm@yahoogroups.com; simon.wheaton@...
Sent: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] RE: Vanilla versus double pecan ripple fudge


Re: [motm] RE: Vanilla versus double pecan ripple fudgeYep, synthesizers.com is 
boring, looks like MOTM is headed in that same direction.
_______________________________________

Errr....no. If anything, the AudioEngine is going to cause an entirely different 
sort of "problem": that is, now that there is so much power behind a 2U or 3U 
panel, what do you DO with it? In other words, the difficulty will be in 
*thinking up* the modules, not in the execution of them. 64 individual wavetable 
VCOs with VC loop points/morphing/cross-fades? Piece of cake. 1024 VC ADSR EGs? 
2 hours of work, max. Entire DX-1 voice? OK! Any 200e module in the Buchla 
catalog? Done!

I have not been able to support MOTM as much as I'd like, but I'm concerned that 
when I can afford to, there will not be the interesting MOTM modules available 
that I'd like to use.
______________________________________

OK, they here is YOUR assignment: what module that I don't have would you like 
to use? See, circular arguments just like this doomed the 300 Series from Wiard. 
You want strange/esoteric/bizarre? Grant handed it to you on a silver platter. 
Bitch that it was 'too expensive'? Well, what you you *expect*? Doepfer has 318 
different modules, most of which are under $200. Are they not 'interesting' 
enough? One would think the '510, the first truely unique analog module in 
what....20 years, would sell 400-500 units. Errr.....nope. More like 80. And I 
absolutely *promise* you that if the price was $99, I'd have sold only 100. This 
is the point very few people understand.

If MOTM is the most expensive, most pain-in-the-ass to deal with, you have to 
*build* it and it is "boring", why am I #2 overall?

I guess I'm the only one that has these thoughts, as noboday else wants to voice 
their opinion if they are thinking the same, so I'll drop it.
______________________________________

Not at all, and please don't feel like you are the 'lone voice in the outback', 
so to speak. The future is not what it used to be :)

Paul S.


 
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

> Errr....no. If anything, the AudioEngine is going to cause an 
> entirely different sort of "problem": that is, now that there 
> is so much power behind a 2U or 3U panel, what do you DO with 
> it? In other words, the difficulty will be in *thinking up* 
> the modules, not in the execution of them. 64 individual 
> wavetable VCOs with VC loop points/morphing/cross-fades? 
> Piece of cake. 1024 VC ADSR EGs? 
> 2 hours of work, max. Entire DX-1 voice? OK! Any 200e module 
> in the Buchla catalog? Done!

Um... 'nother problem: create a usable user interface for any of those
things that fits in a 2-3U MOTM-format panel. A good deal of the reason I
use a modular is for the physical user interface. If I were entirely happy
with LCD + small number of knobs/buttons user interfaces, I wouldn't need a
modular. In terms of signal-processing power spelled out in numbers like
1024 EGs or an entire DX-1 voice, I already have stuff like that in my PC. 

Also, if you're spending only "2 hours of work, max" on your firmware, and
that includes testing, debugging, and external (beta) testing, I am
seriously not interested in the product. :-)

> OK, they here is YOUR assignment: what module that I don't 
> have would you like to use? 

There have been repeated requests for the last several years for an input
module with an envelope follower. There's also that pesky dual-VCA/panner
that people keep asking for.

> See, circular arguments just like 
> this doomed the 300 Series from Wiard. 
> You want strange/esoteric/bizarre? Grant handed it to you on 
> a silver platter. 

Personally, it wasn't strange/esoteric/bizarre qualities that prevent(ed) me
from purchasing modules from Grant. I saw a Wiard system in person and
wasn't at all pleased by the choice of knobs, jacks, and panel layout. It
made some great sounds but I just didn't like working with it. Case in
point: the Blacet Miniwave owes much to Grant, and it has been a popular
module among MOTM users--but in MOTM format, not in Wiard format.

--Adam

> My $0.02 on that question: bad marketing.
>
> Seriously, I have _never_ heard one sound sample from the 510 that makes
> me want to buy one.

Ahh...therein lies the rub :)

See, again it's a Catch-22. As a designer, I start with a
blank..errr...CAD screen. I then try to wring out some sort of 'sound',
which in turn has to be generated by some sort of physical constraints.
Then, like the Moog filter, Post-It notes, the microwave oven and the
Harley-Davidson intake manifold (where all the noise is from), you might
get lucky (which, from a designer standpoint, is somewhat
irritating/depressing).

I have heard Adam's statement about *every single MOTM module*. It sort of
reminds me when I was looking a buying a new car. I went to carpoint.com,
basically a blog of car owners. Now, if you pick ANY car (and this is from
Yugo to Ferrari), then 80% of the posts are how much the car sucks, and
20% are owners saying this is the BEST car they have EVER owned. Well,
which *is it*?

Case in point: MOTM-485. The HP mode is really bizarre, it appears
'broken' on a scope. However, there are many people that *love* the HP
mode (a well known synth user bought 4 just for this sound alone, and
these are the only modules of mine he owns besides patch panels). Other
people have sold theirs quickly, shaking their heads over "what was I
*thinking*!"

I'm 100% positive that when the Cloud Generator is released (with all
sorts of sound clips), many people will just shake their heads and go back
to the 300>>440>>190 patch. This is because many folks are in the Wendy
Carlos/ELP/Tomita/TD synth camp, and these modules don't "fit".

>
> Speaking as a fickle buyer: some of us MOTM customers are actually _using_
> our systems rather than expanding them indefinitely. Some of us don't have
> the resources (of time, space, and/or money) to expand them indefinitely.

This is certainly true in many cases (well, that and the unsympathetic
wife/GF). I think this is true with MOTM, that banking my son's college
tuition on selling more MOTM-101s is, as they say, 'a bad idea'.

Paul S.

> Seriously, I have _never_ heard one sound sample from the 510 that
makes me
> want to buy one. All I've heard is a lot of noisily trashed signals that
> make me _not_ want to buy one, which is why I didn't buy one until
the last
> round of kits was put up for sale. 

It's easy to trash a signal with the '510, but it is also easy to make
subtle, evolving wavefolding patterns and animated, harmonic and
non-harmonic additions to the signal.  Also, when filtered, the sound
becomes more subtle anyway.  That makes the heavier wave trashing more
 useful.  Try high pass for that next insect sound...

 Heck,
> I'll force Chub to buy it from me if I don't like it. :-)

Sure!  No force necessary!  I know you can do a good job building the
kit.  My guess is that once you get the hang of the '510, you'll be
marketing it as hard as I do in this forum.
> 
> In other words, while it is certainly true that "esoteric" modules are
> harder to sell than "basic" modules, maybe this module didn't sell well
> because we (buyers) were told that "it makes an absolute mess of
even the
> simplest waveform. Effects range from frying bacon to a frog in a
blender to
> sticking your head into a jet engine." Quite frankly, that suggests
to me
> that this module is basically useless to me, given the musical
directions I
> tend to work in. 

Granted, those are harsh descriptions.  "Frying bacon" sounds added on
top of your modulated signal implies extra partials.  That means more
swirly fun when patched into you '410!  My take on the '510 would be
more like "animating, ever-changing, multi-modulating waveform
complexifier" (way sic) that far exceeds the capability of "normal"
modulation methods.  Think of all those cool modulation clips by many
of the MOTM owners using a couple of oscillators and LFOs.  The '510
does that sort of thing, but in entirely different ways because of the
 process the IC follows.  The rotary switch then allows you to choose
the exponent of the base equation.  That's quite a leap from the sum
and difference of two inputs (balanced modulation) or simple clipping
or rectifying.

Those are the terms I use as I approach the MOTM-510.

The next statement, "You can warp LFOs into bizarre new
> waveforms, as well as the output of MOTM-800 EGs" is more
compelling, but
> didn't compel me to whip out the credit card. If my only source of
> information about the 510 was its web page, I certainly wouldn't have
> ordered one.

It's a tough sell, Adam.  As Paul has pointed out so often, anyone
(ok, any synth geek) knows what a low pass filter, VCA, or EG is and
does.  And any of us can make PLENTY of wild sounds with just a few of
those modules.  But something as esoteric as the '510 (or the Serge
wave folder of yore and its variants) takes a little more effort to
put into use.  You're a creative person, however.  I'm betting that
you won't just play with this module for an hour and sell it.  It has
far too many possibilities and will easily double the sonic capability
of you synth!  That's not an exaggeration, either.  Try this - use the
'510 in place of the RM side of your '190s in any bell-tone patch. 
Two VCOs - one in the X audio and one in the Y offset,VCF, VCA.  Maybe
patch an LFO into Z offset for gentle animation.  You'll be hooked.

Chub - seriously, I should get a job instead of shilling for Paul.

John Mahoney wrote:
> I find your implication that the MOTM 
> and dotcom lines are similar in scope to be off base. For starters, 
> Synthesizers.com offers only 1 oscillator and 2 filters; compare that 
> to MOTM, with a multitude of interesting filters and oscillators. 

Well, one MOTM oscillator. Just one in a smaller width with less 
features. Both have a multimode and lowpass filters. That's plenty for 
my needs.

Neither companies have a VCADSR in production. Frequency shifter? 
Quantizer? Gate delay? A simple inverter module? Phaser?

The potential goodies list is much longer, of course. But, like I said, 
at least MOTM has competitors willing to fill the gaps.

Well, I suppose it may be valuable for me to weigh in here, from the unique
perspective of someone who is NOT yet a customer of any MOTM product, but a
(quiet) observer of this list, and overall goings-on within the world of
Modular Synths.
 
*WARNING!  Novel-length email to follow!*
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
Around a year ago, I made the decision to start to buy stuff and begin a
journey into the world of Modular Synths.  I came into this from a
interesting angle - a drummer since I was about 10 years old (23 years
ago!), as a young man I was *HEAVILY* impressed upon by sighting these
esoteric synthesis machines in films such as "Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii"
(in particular the scene of Roger Waters at Abbey Road playing with an EMS
machine carried a *lot* of weight).  I was amazed at these wonderful
machines and the incredible sounds they produced.  I fell in love with
synth-based music, I had the embarrasing prog phase, the Devo Phase, the
Kraftwerk phase, etc.  As I matured, Skinny Puppy, EN, FLA and the like
extended this fascination into the realm of "modern music".  
 
Now, I always assumed this world would forever remain closed to me - as a
drummer, I had no keyboard chops or knowledge at all.  As a music lover,
these machines were FAR too expensive for me to consider, as I didn't think
I could ever "use them properly" or even understand them.  The software
revolution changed all that.  Suddenly I could buy a "synthesizer" for under
$100, and this opened the door for me.  I was able to learn what oscillator
tuning meant.  I learned to decipher the cryptic terms LFO, LFP, VCA, EG,
ADSR, and put it all into practise.  I 'learned' synthesis on sub-$100
software synths (Pentagon-1 and z3ta from rgc:Audio).  I was hooked.  
 
So eventually, I came around full circle, back to the monstrous analog
machines that fueled my youthful dreams.  Now that I knew how to use them
(combined with being financially much more flexible than at any other point
in my life), I felt I *could* justify the cost of one of these machines.
The "cost vs. pleasure" factor was now weighed in my favour.
 
My original plan about a year ago was to buy a Moog Voyager RME, to rack up
with my small collection of synth-like stuff (MAM MB33 Mk.II, FR Mobius, EH
Bi-Filter).  I was so excited when Moog started producing Voyagers - wow! a
'modern' MiniMoog without stability problems, but real analog.  My mind was
racing, it was all coming together at the right point in my life.
 
At the last minute, scared at the price of the Moog unit, I started to look
at other options.  I realized I could go modular for a similar price range,
and have a pretty flexible system, maybe even something that could out-patch
a Voyager, for the same price, but also be able to built on top of that, all
the way to infinity (or at least divorce!).  My mind changed - I was not
going to spend the money on the Moog, I was going to start a modular - that
most romantic, esoteric of beasts, the most 'hands-on', and the most
creative machine to use for sound creation.  Now my mind was REALLY racing!

So this was about a year ago.  The first step was to gather information,
look at everything that was out there, and figure out what modular to start
with as a "base" system.  Suffice to say, I did not choose MOTM.  I've been
on this list for a while, as I want to keep an 'ear to the ground', and in
fact always have (and still do!) intend to augment my base system with MOTM
units, as I intend to keep building forever, and have no qualms about parts
from different companies, or in different formats.
 
I am writing this novel length email to hopefully provide some insight into
why I have not bought any MOTM products yet, even though I've spent over 4
or 5 times the cost of that original Moog Voyager, even though it's been
less than a year.  I currently have 6.5 frac racks filled with mostly
Blacet, but also Bananalogue, Metalbox, Wiard and home-made CGS modules, and
additionally 5 Metasonix TM and TX units. All of this purchased in the last
10 months. But no MOTM.  Let's look at the reasons.
 
Please note that I do not intend any of this to be taken as an insult or in
a derogatory fashion.  I have NOTHING against MOTM (as you will see below),
and am CERTAIN I will add many of their Frac modules in the upcoming year,
once I reach the end of building my (admittedly large) 'base' Blacet system.
I simply want to give the perspective of someone who is spending a few
hundred of dollars a month in this space, and why none of that money has
(yet) made it to Paul.  Hopefully this helps Paul understand the customers a
bit better (at least me) and can maybe help with future business directions.
Please see these comments as constructive only.
 
So let's go back to the point one year ago, where I was doing my research.
I looked at everything modular out there, and was amazed at the variety of
options I saw.  What a great time to be in the market for a modular!  I have
to say I quickly fell in love with ModCan, and the Wiard 300 series.  To me,
these represented the very best you could get, and the highest level of
modular lust.  I didn't want Banana cables, but the ModCan "B" system was a
dream come true.   Problem was the price.  I started out (like you all)
assuming a fixed budget, and not assuming a life-long obsession that would
keep my bank balance at $0.  So as sexy as ModCan was, it was priced out of
my initial budget.   So I looked into Wiard 300 - out of production.  Seems
Grant will build them for people, but slowly and for a high price.
 
So pricing was a major factor in these decisions, but 'ship time' was pretty
important as well.  I wanted to build a system with comparable specs to the
Moog I originally considered, as quick as I could. I had limited funds, but
high excitment and need for gratification, so I knew it would be a nightmare
for me to scrape up $500-600 or so, send it to a company, and wait for
months.  I couldn't fulfill my modular dreams this way, and it would slow
down the construction and subsequent growth of my system quite a lot.  So
you can see "time and money" are the two major factors.  Like most things in
life.  My other main factors during this 'evaluation time' was the 'startup
cost' of rackmount and power considerations, something that varies a LOT
from one manufacturer to another.  I wanted a basic system as quick as
possible, racked, powered, minimum "boring" VCO-VCF-VCA/EG.
 
So the search went on.  My next conclusion was a frustrating one - I
determined that "price vs. sexy", MOTM was the #1.  I *loved* the 5U height.
The attention to detail and quality.  The range of products.  The pricing
was excellent for what you get, no complaints there.  My conclusion was that
MOTM is the best all-around modular company, and the one that I should
probably build.  The best one of all.   I say 'frustrating' because of other
concerns.  One, the web-page hadn't been updated in over a year - ancient
news items with no followup.  You could almost see the cobwebs on the
website.  This was scary.  I knew I'd be ordering a module or two a month,
for long into the future, so I wanted to pick a builder who I was confident
would be around for the long haul, and coming out with new modules as time
went on.  I would be gutted to spend a bunch of money over 6-12 months, and
have only a fraction of my 'imagined dream system', and have the builder go
out of business.  It would have been a different story if I had $5000
startup funds to order up a big complete system, but that wasn't me (and
will never be me).  If that was the case I'd be looking at a big MOTM system
right now.  
 
Also frightning, I was corresponding with a friend (who will remain
anonymous), who was/is a MOTM user.  I was informed "don't worry about the
website, Paul doesn't really doesn't care about updating it, all the info is
on the mailing list", so I joined the mailing list.  I was also informed
that your order often takes a few months to ship, and you never really know
when your shipment will arrive.  I was privy to many emails from my friend,
week after week, waiting on packages that took FOREVER to arrive, and I saw
his frustration.  I didn't have the time or money or patience to play this
game.  So, with a heavy heart, I kept looking.  
 
Now let's sidetrack to talk about the mailing list.  I continued to witness
disturbing (to me) trends on this list.   Cancelled products that seemed to
have been 'pre-bought' by people.  Changing shipping dates.  Logistical
problems, communication problems, some raw bad luck.  I saw the queues of
people who had pre-ordered modules changing, people being 'bumped' to the
front ahead of everyone else because they could make an emergency cash
payment or something like this.  What I've seen constantly on this list for
the better part of a year is a company that does NOT appear to be solvent or
well-organized, or (to be honest) treated like anything other than a
part-time hobby.  A company that doesn't seem to be taken seriously or have
much stability anyway - for the position I'm in, I want to order a module,
pay for it, and know exactly when it is going to ship.  If I have to wait a
bit, that's fine, but I should retain my place in the queue. Fire-sales and
emergencies shouldn't let someone jump ahead of me and force my delivery
time to change.  It really didn't look like a company that fit my "buyer
model" very well at all.  
 
A comment was made to me that "a lot of MOTM users are old-school synth guys
in their 50's, they are fine to wait and play with their huge studio".  Fair
enough, but not me.  MOTM feels more like a club for a small handful of
insiders, at the expense of a larger numbers of outsiders who get muscled
around to keep the insiders happy.  Fair enough, but again, that's not my
buyer's model.  The more I watched this list, the more confused and
inconsistent the company appears to be.  I have very low confidence that I
could order a module and know when or if I would receive it.  Not a way to
slowly build a large system a few modules at a time without becoming a total
nervous wreck (and I have enough stress in my life already, believe me!).
 
Please let me reiterate - my comments are not meant to cause offense!  Paul
mentioned that he wants all feedback, and people shouldn't feel the need to
'keep quiet'.  I always have, because I'm NOT a customer, and my feedback
isn't positive, but this current round of mails (and Paul's comments) have
caused me to figure that you may appreciate my perspective.  I hope it
helps!  I firmly believe that Paul designs the most professional, highest
quality, awe-inspiring modules.  He's a brilliant designer, and I don't want
to hurt his feelings or sap his motivation!  I just think his designer
skills FAR outshine his business management and PR skills, and it would be
great to see MOTM taken over by someone with the skill and time to focus on
turning it into a stellar business, and free Paul to focus on doing what he
does best - designing killer modules.
 
Anyway, this is a long story, I'll try to shorten it up here and finish off.
I kept looking for a builder I could "jump in" with.  .COM was really,
really, really nicely priced, but I did not find the designs very inspiring
at all.  I wanted a moog modular crossed with a sci-fi sound lab buchla sort
of paradigm.  I wanted crazy, interesting stuff that I could spend years
exploring and patching and getting creative with.  That's not .COM in my
humble opinion.  Doepfer was also really nicely priced, but I'd heard that
the sound quality was poor, AC hum, ground loop problems, crappy jacks.  I
liked the range of products a lot, but they even looked kind of cheap (plus
I'm a sucker for black panels, ModCan "B" being an exceptional
exception....), and the rack and power systems were very expensive.
 
Anyway, as you know from above, Blacet became my "getting started" and
"core" system.  I loved the range of modules and their flexibility and
creativity.  The prices were incredible.  The quality was excellent from
everything I could gather.  Two major factors for me was that the frac-rack
chassis modules, and power supply units were very attractively priced,
letting me "get started" for a smaller cost than a lot of the other guys.
There were other builders offering Frac-compatible modules, which was a huge
plus (and this situation has gotten even better in the following months!  I
made a great choice!), and the final positive for me was a statement on
Blacet's website that said "unlike many, we have a commitment to have
modules on the shelf, ready to ship.  We have a 95% 'next day' shipping
record".  I sent an email to John describing my situation and what I was
after, and received a wonderful (and quick!) response, dispelling my fears,
convincing me he would be around for the long run and was committed to his
business, and ultimately convincing me to become a customer.  I couldn't be
happier with this decision - his modules are better than I could have ever
hoped, ship immediately and quickly, are priced well, and he continues to
update the line, retiring old modules and offering new ones.  Plus Frac has
become such a widespread format, there are so many options available....  I
couldn't imagine being happier with the decision I made, all my ground work
totally paid off.
 
Anyway, in the following 10 months, I've spent about 10X as much as I had
ever anticipated spending on modules.  Blacet, Bananalogue, Wiard, Metalbox.
I've stared building CGS modules.  I bought 5 Metasonix units.  I'm going
crazy.  I was really, really excited to see MOTM move into the Frac space,
and doubly excited that I can buy them from Analog Haven (who will also ship
immediately!).  I will be adding ALL the MOTM frac modules to my system in
2007, assuming Paul still provides them to Analog Heaven.  I can't wait to
get that Moog ladder filter into my system!  And the looping ADSR!  I'll
need a couple of those!
 
I've been holding my breath for that MIDI/CV converter to hit the Frac
format - a guaranteed sale!
 
I know most people on this list don't want to hear that - it justifys Paul's
move away from kits, and his Frac business, and so many of you are romantic
about Pauls 5U kit business, which is sadly drying up.  From my perspective,
I would feel the same way if I had been a 5U MOTM builder like the rest of
you - but for all the above reasons, I could have never joined that 'club',
and I think there are a lot of people like me in the market.  Paul must know
this as well.  So let this email detail from my perspective some of the
things MOTM has done poorly at in the past, how it has kept customers away,
and some of the ways new customers will approach the brand in the future.
Please don't take any offense at my comments - they are meant to help the
business.  Like you all, I'd rather see MOTM selling *something*, than
nothing at all.
 
My 2-cents (ok, probably more like $14.50 at this point - cash only!  no
PayPal!)
 
Cheers,
 
Mike McGrath
Ottawa Canada

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Wheaton, Simon" <simon.wheaton@...> wrote:
>
> I would imagine that they feel abandoned by you.
>  
> Simon

 I don't.  And I can't wait for the next cool thing from Paul.

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Schabtach" <adam@...> wrote:
>
> Seriously, I have _never_ heard one sound sample from the 510 that
makes me
> want to buy one. 

What?!?  You never heard the "Concerto for Farty Armpit Noises"?!?

I'm shocked.  Paul, didn't the CD ship with every 510?

If there is interest, I'll post that peice to the group...

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Osthelder"
<charlesosthelder@...> wrote:
> 
> It's a tough sell, Adam.  As Paul has pointed out so often, anyone
> (ok, any synth geek) knows what a low pass filter, VCA, or EG is and
> does.  And any of us can make PLENTY of wild sounds with just a few of
> those modules.  
>

Epiphany!  I think I am not after sounds that I have heard; I'm after
sounds that I've *never* heard before.  Maybe I'm the anti-Elhart.

That's why I like the 510 and it's brethren so much...

Mike

maybe the 510 cult can post some patches?

i couldn't get anything i liked out of the one i played with before 
its owner sold it.

> I'm 100% positive that when the Cloud Generator is released 
> (with all sorts of sound clips), many people will just shake 
> their heads and go back to the 300>>440>>190 patch. This is 
> because many folks are in the Wendy Carlos/ELP/Tomita/TD 
> synth camp, and these modules don't "fit".

Yup. The synthesizer market is an odd one. On one hand people will ask for
something new and different, over and over again. On the other hand they'll
keep buying stuff that's modeled on 35-year-old Moog hardware, over and over
again. Examine the last 25 years of Keyboard magazine and you'll see that
the really innovative synthesizers were usually market failures, while the
successes were keyboards that accurately emulated earlier keyboards.
 
> This is certainly true in many cases (well, that and the 
> unsympathetic wife/GF). I think this is true with MOTM, that 
> banking my son's college tuition on selling more MOTM-101s 
> is, as they say, 'a bad idea'.

Hey, you're the one that keeps insisting on referring to SynthTech as a
"hobby". ;-)

--Adam

>  But something 
> as esoteric as the '510 (or the Serge wave folder of yore and 
> its variants) takes a little more effort to put into use.  

Interesting that you mention the Serge module. One of the reasons that I
decided to take the leap of faith and order a 510 is because I built a CGS
Wave Multiplier, which is a reverse-engineered version of the Serge module
(if I remember correctly). It has become one of the more oft-used modules in
my system, because it can do things that no other module can and provides a
lot of timbral complexity from just one VCO. I figure that since the 510 is
sort of a cousin of wave-folder modules it will be similarly useful to me.

--Adam

At 01:55 PM 10/3/2006, Jay wrote:
>John Mahoney wrote:
> > I find your implication that the MOTM
> > and dotcom lines are similar in scope to be off base. For starters,
> > Synthesizers.com offers only 1 oscillator and 2 filters; compare that
> > to MOTM, with a multitude of interesting filters and oscillators.
>
>Well, one MOTM oscillator. Just one in a smaller width with less
>features.

I guess you haven't noticed that LFOs are oscillators, too. ;-)  The 
MOTM-380 quad LFO deserves special mention because it produces 
unusual combination waveforms -- thus, to my point, it's not plain vanilla.

I appreciate the different oscillator configurations that Paul 
offers, and there's no need for him to develop unique cores for them all.


>Both have a multimode and lowpass filters. That's plenty for
>my needs.

Oh, so you like both vanilla AND chocolate! Well, there are other 
flavors worth tasting. (I can hardly wait to hear my GX-1 filter, in 
particular.)


>Neither companies have a VCADSR in production.

True, though one is reportedly working on it.


>Frequency shifter?
>Quantizer? Gate delay? A simple inverter module? Phaser?

Points taken. However, I never claimed MOTM offered everything. :-) 
And none of the above are found in the dotcom line, either, unless 
you count the Signal Processor as a simple inverter.


>The potential goodies list is much longer, of course. But, like I said,
>at least MOTM has competitors willing to fill the gaps.

Indeed!
--
john

I'm a bit late to this thread but,

Wheaton writes:
>>Yep, synthesizers.com is boring, looks like MOTM is headed in that same
direction...... guess I'm the only one that has these thoughts, as noboday
else wants to voice their opinion if they are thinking the same, so I'll
drop it.<<

It's just that this stuff has already been discussed when Paul announced
kits would be dropped.


Adam Schabtach writes:
>>Seriously, I have _never_ heard one sound sample from the 510 that makes
me want to buy one. All I've heard is a lot of noisily trashed signals that
make me _not_ want to buy one.<<

I hear you.  That can be a problem.  But sometimes if you can ignore the
online demos and just figure out how it might sound if used differently,
that might help.  Because I have a lot of other gear and VA synths that can
do somethings better than certain specialty modules, that doesn't encourage
me to buy some modules such as the 510.  Reaktor had modules to do all the
math functions the 510 does and more, so I can patch up a 510, or 20 of
them, or with a bunch of extra functions.  If so many alternatives didn't
exist in the market place, more people might need to buy those luxury
modules.

>>Speaking as a fickle buyer: some of us MOTM customers are actually
_using_our systems rather than expanding them indefinitely.<<

Exactly.  It doesn't do me any good to spread out my purchases over many
years, buying a module a month.  I'd never get anything accomplished until
years down the road.


Paul S. writes:
>>I'm 100% positive that when the Cloud Generator is released (with all
sorts of sound clips), many people will just shake their heads and go back
to the 300>>440>>190 patch. This is because many folks are in the Wendy
Carlos/ELP/Tomita/TD synth camp, and these modules don't "fit".<<

The thing is basic modules can be used for any type of sound.  A module like
the Cloud Gen sounds too specific to a certain set of sounds.  If a module
gets too focussed at doing one type of thing, then it becomes less useful
overall.  Also, it takes away from people programming their own sounds from
scratch as the module itself is doing most of the work for you.  That will
also lead to everybody making the same kinds of sounds.


Mike Marsh writes:
>>Epiphany!  I think I am not after sounds that I have heard; I'm after
sounds that I've *never* heard before.  Maybe I'm the anti-Elhart.  That's
why I like the 510 and it's brethren so much...<<

I too go after sounds I haven't heard.  But I want those sounds to be
musical and nice to listen to like Carlos, or spaced-out like Tomita.  Too
often I'm hearing things that sound like some early 1950's lab experiment
made by attaching some crude electronic signal processors together.

-Elhardt