MOTM

>  
> 
> I don't think I agree with the dichotomy below.
>  
> IIRC, one of Paul's "visions" for MOTM was a complete (self contained, 
> all inclusive) system, and not just a partial supplement to various 
> other module brands.
>  
> IIRC, the "alternative" modules to supplement MOTM were more the terrain 
> of Oakley, Blacet, Encore, Stooge, etc.; MOTM was designed to be the 
> "meat and potatoes" of its own 5U system.
>  
> IIRC,
> John B.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> In a message dated 4/27/2010 2:51:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
> rogerpellegrini@... writes:
> 
>     I feel compelled to mention an important flaw with this poll.  The
>     potential market for MOTM product can be thought of in a lot of
>     different ways.  One way to look at it is to divide it into two groups:
> 
>     (A) MOTM die-hards:  Comprised mostly of those who built modules
>     from kits, this group would like to see a broad variety of modules
>     to complete their MOTM system.  Modules that would allow them to
>     perform functions that other modulars also perform (eg sequencers,
>     envelope followers, preamps, etc).  This group is also likely to
>     vote for putting choruses, delays, etc., into MOTM format for
>     completeness, although these are also available elsewhere.  This is
>     a shrinking group, not a growing group, because in the last few
>     years it has been increasingly difficult to purchase enough modules
>     to create a complete system that might attract the new customer.
> 
>     (B) Everyone else who is interested in modulars:  They'd like to see
>     something that's not available elsewhere, because if it is available
>     elsewhere, they've already got one.  They may or may not need the
>     module in MOTM 5U format.  They probably don't want to touch a
>     soldering iron.  They likely expect timely delivery.
> 
>     This poll, like others before it, will draw largely from group (A). 
>     Group (B), though a much larger potential market, is not well
>     represented.
> 
>     Reliance on polls like this results in business decisions to keep
>     making hopelessly labor intensive kits or variations on utility or
>     redundant modules that will sell in smaller and smaller numbers.
> 
>  
> 
>

On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:40 AM, David Moylan <dave@...> wrote:

> Jumping in late, but I think MOTM has covered the meat and potatoes 
> aspects fairly completely.  To me that means VCO,VCF,VCA and envelopes, 
> and I guess noise, ring mod.
> 
> Since that is taken care of it seems to me Paul should let his 
> imagination run wild.  I think the Cloud and Terrarium are expressions 
> of this.  From a business perspective the focus of new modules should be 
> unique things that aren't offered by other manufacturers in order to 
> draw current MOTM customers AND non-MOTM customers.  That could mean a 
> completely unique module, or something done 'better' than other 
> manufacturers, or simply an addition of a feature other offerings don't 
> err..offer.  And making them available in the most popular formats just 
> makes sense.
> 
> I do get bummed to see modules being released in Euro or Frac format 
> before 5U as I prefer the larger format and am heavily invested in it. 
> Hopefully, future designs can be made to share a common board with sub 
> boards or just headers for jacks and pots, so all the panel formats can 
> be built on the same platform and released simultaneously
> 
> Things I'd like to see:
> 
> Digital Delay / Sampler
> Mixer/Panner
> What about the 200 series?
> Clocking / Sequencer stuff
> 
> Dave
> 
> jwbarlow@... wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think I agree with the dichotomy below.
>> 
>> IIRC, one of Paul's "visions" for MOTM was a complete (self contained, 
>> all inclusive) system, and not just a partial supplement to various 
>> other module brands.
>> 
>> IIRC, the "alternative" modules to supplement MOTM were more the terrain 
>> of Oakley, Blacet, Encore, Stooge, etc.; MOTM was designed to be the 
>> "meat and potatoes" of its own 5U system.
>> 
>> IIRC,
>> John B.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In a message dated 4/27/2010 2:51:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
>> rogerpellegrini@... writes:
>> 
>>    I feel compelled to mention an important flaw with this poll.  The
>>    potential market for MOTM product can be thought of in a lot of
>>    different ways.  One way to look at it is to divide it into two groups:
>> 
>>    (A) MOTM die-hards:  Comprised mostly of those who built modules
>>    from kits, this group would like to see a broad variety of modules
>>    to complete their MOTM system.  Modules that would allow them to
>>    perform functions that other modulars also perform (eg sequencers,
>>    envelope followers, preamps, etc).  This group is also likely to
>>    vote for putting choruses, delays, etc., into MOTM format for
>>    completeness, although these are also available elsewhere.  This is
>>    a shrinking group, not a growing group, because in the last few
>>    years it has been increasingly difficult to purchase enough modules
>>    to create a complete system that might attract the new customer.
>> 
>>    (B) Everyone else who is interested in modulars:  They'd like to see
>>    something that's not available elsewhere, because if it is available
>>    elsewhere, they've already got one.  They may or may not need the
>>    module in MOTM 5U format.  They probably don't want to touch a
>>    soldering iron.  They likely expect timely delivery.
>> 
>>    This poll, like others before it, will draw largely from group (A). 
>>    Group (B), though a much larger potential market, is not well
>>    represented.
>> 
>>    Reliance on polls like this results in business decisions to keep
>>    making hopelessly labor intensive kits or variations on utility or
>>    redundant modules that will sell in smaller and smaller numbers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

From: jwbarlow@...
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Wish list and normalling - was OK...so what WILL you buy asse...
To: motm@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 10:07 AM

I don't think I agree with the dichotomy below.

IIRC, one of Paul's "visions" for MOTM was a complete (self contained, all inclusive) system, and not just a partial supplement to various other module brands.

IIRC, the "alternative" modules to supplement MOTM were more the terrain of Oakley, Blacet, Encore, Stooge, etc.; MOTM was designed to be the "meat and potatoes" of its own 5U system.

IIRC,

John B.

In a message dated 4/27/2010 2:51:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rogerpellegrini@... writes:

I feel compelled to mention an important flaw with this poll. The potential market for MOTM product can be thought of in a lot of different ways. One way to look at it is to divide it into two groups:

(A) MOTM die-hards: Comprised mostly of those who built modules from kits, this group would like to see a broad variety of modules to complete their MOTM system. Modules that would allow them to perform functions that other modulars also perform (eg sequencers, envelope followers, preamps, etc). This group is also likely to vote for putting choruses, delays, etc., into MOTM format for completeness, although these are also available elsewhere. This is a shrinking group, not a growing group, because in the last few years it has been increasingly difficult to purchase enough modules to create a complete system that might attract the new customer.

(B) Everyone else who is interested in modulars: They'd like to see something that's not available elsewhere, because if it is available elsewhere, they've already got one. They may or may not need the module in MOTM 5U format. They probably don't want to touch a soldering iron. They likely expect timely delivery.

This poll, like others before it, will draw largely from group (A). Group (B), though a much larger potential market, is not well represented.

Reliance on polls like this results in business decisions to keep making hopelessly labor intensive kits or variations on utility or redundant modules that will sell in smaller and smaller numbers.