i'd agree that rack mount equipment with stuff on the back is very inconvenient to use in a modular system. but i think the moogerfoogers kind of have the same problem. in my setup, i have my synthesizers.com system elevated off the floor, and then underneath it i have all the moogerfoogers lined up with the jacks facing me. this makes it easy to patch them, but then it's kind of awkward to get at the knobs and switches because they're upside-down. i don't really like the rack-mount option for moogerfoogers either because they take up so much vertical space.eric coleridge wrote:
But what I found after owning them is that they're actually alot easier, more convenient, and versatile to use than a rack enclosure would be. In fact, I now hate rack equipment... they're unneccesarily large, heavy, and cumbersome... and inconvenient to patch with jacks in back-- especially when racked.
Im also putting together a modular synth, but it won't replace the quick, versatile, and portable functionality of the MFs.
True, a CP-251 style box would be better (or even just chop off the empty stomp switch portion)... but this is probably their marketing slant-- guitar pedals. Not much market for synth modules...
anyway, the main problem with them is that you can't easily access the jacks and the knobs at the same time. but like you said, it's not as bad as rack-mount equipment where seeing the front and back at the same time is basically impossible. and it is nice how portable they are. and i have gotten used to looking at them upside down, so i can't say that they're really that inconvenient to patch. but the cp251s are just so much easier to patch.
but if more guitar players are buying them than modular synthesizer users, then i guess the stomp box format makes more sense. does anyone know who buys more moogerfoogers? guitarists or keyboardists?