Re: [AH] speaking of Phil Cirocco/CMS...

From Mike Peake
Sent Sun, Feb 8th 2004, 23:10

At 10:08 PM -0800 2/6/04, Dr. Tlwo Twlo, Pataphysician wrote:
>On 2/6/04 9:55 PM, "" <> wrote:
>>  I'd agree that it is rather handsomeg gear, but for the fact that module
>>  edges aren't delineated, so you end up with the "sea of black" 
>>thing going on
>  > a la Modcan et al.  It's enough to make one go cross-eyed.
>are you joking? even in the pics you can see the edge, just like the
>Blacet/Wiard... or even the reverse with doepfer/AS... unless you are
>partially blind, or know absolutely nothing about synths(which I know is not
>your case) I don't see a problem.

Do you mean on the CMS? Look at the Moog on
a macro basis and then gear without any
delineation. This is the reason that hyphens
are put into phone numbers, as it's easier to
deal with groups of things instead of a smear
of generality. The CMS isn't so bad as stated
before due to the individuality of each module
regarding differing placement of pots and the
flow graphics. The Selector and Wiard also
offer some graphics to aid in differentiation.

Object-oriented I/O is simply easier to use
in that it doesn't require memorization. The
heirarchy of knob sizes per function on the
CMS also assists. Remember that we are up to
and over 90% visually acute in regard to
response to our environment and even a child
can use gear with an obvious heirarchy of
knob sizes.

Much less regarding using gear in a darkened
studio or stage environment. Why learn something
that is counter-intuitive and non-organic when
you don't have to? Work _with_ the human organism,
not against it.

(Silver front panels diminish this effect.)

Mike Peake, Your Postwar Administrator



Bad vibrations equal bad sound