I thrash against these definitions in angst and confusion

Also works just fine-- I'm just curious as to why the "official" unit was chosen such that it clashes with every other salient definition.

 Someone more well-versed than me, please-- is Buchla the system with two different patch cables, like 2.0mm mono for control signals, or something along those lines?  And what are Buchla's horizontal and vertical units?

Then there's Serge's approach-- you get a boat, maybe half a boat.  Get two boats and you can call your instrument "complete."  Love it.  

My take on this is this: The AE format is Robert's invention and it's not at all compatible or derived from Eurorack format or Test Equipment or Computer Rack units. Since it's his own creation he can name it whatever he likes. Personally I don't mind to put context in front of the "U". When I'm talking about Eurorack, I know U is height and when I'm talking AE U is width. It's no issue for me.

Yeah, not sure why this is a thing. Robert invented a cool machine. As long as you know what "U" represents given the context, who cares about other systems? I was originally wanting a 5U Moog system. The width spacing has no set length unit as I remember, but I knew exactly how wide things were and how much space you had to add new modules.

AE's system is much easier than Eurorack, imo. In fact it's much closer to the Serge/Moog way of doing things. There are different ways of thinking about things. As long as you understand the perspective, who cares what you call it?

Well, the Eurorack adapters for AEM need to be described both for Eurorack height in U, then AEM width in U. Not a good system. Robert hand-waves this away by describing them as "standard Eurorack size," but there exists a variety of Eurorack-compatible module heights and, for the sake of accurately describing things, the current unit of U doesn't work.

And of course he can name it however he likes. And certainly, for those familiar with AEM (a few thousand people in the world), it's an easy adjustment. But for the vastly-outnumbering non-AEM modular musicians, "U" means something entirely different; and not only different-- it's a unit generally respected and held true across so many systems.  Thus, extra clarification is needed when talking with just about any other electronics musician I meet. I know it's not the end of all things, but each esoteric nonsensicality makes for a less approachable product, and a less approachable hobby in general, for those modular musicians unfamiliar with AEM as well as the uninitiated public. He could have named the unit anything-- even "Dinosaur". And when I say to someone "I just made a new module, it's 3 Dinosaur," I have communicated exactly, and without ambiguity, what I'm talking about.

Thus, Dinosaur would be a better choice of unit than U, just to employ a silly example. Some unit names might be worse, such as "Blonde-Haired Scantily-Clad Hookers Pushing Hand-Trucks Stacked With Beer and Felony Quantities of Explosives," which, once defined as the discrete width of AEM module, is unambiguous in the modular universe, but it's long-winded, crude, and alienating. It's good that Robert didn't use such a name... But he could have just as easily chosen one both unambiguous AND palatble, like Dinosaur, or Z, or H.

Really, my question is this: Why name it something that is inherently confusing and ambiguous, when the below solution gives all the pros of "U" with none of the cons of "U?"



See, I like the solution of H and HH (maybe even just H is needed, but I digress). Why? Because it can't possibly be confused with some other format's H unit; it's unique to AEM and so when it's said, it can only mean one thing to everyone in the conversation.

As an example, talking with a Eurorack friend got rather confusing when I told him I just built out a 12U case, and the two systems we pictured in our minds differed in value by a factor of 10.

Now, it's not a BIG deal, but it IS an easily preventable source of uncertainty, and as I have witnessed first-hand, playing within the "established" definitions of the modular community makes AEM feel more valid as a format to non-AEM folk.

I'm not sure a lot of people would buy my maps if I renamed the directions East to North, and North to East.  It's as valid a coordinate system as the one already established, but it's silly and unnecessary and can only breed confusion without adding anything of value to the product.  

You're right, we're not talking about maps.  We're talking about arbitrary systems of labeling, of which cardinal directions are an easily understood example.  

This might shock some, but I'm perfectly capable of playing synthesizers as well as complaining about dumb aspects of them on this forum.  In the time you spent making your replies to and reading this thread, you could have made a patch yourself.  Don't judge how I spend my time.  

Not the right creative endeavor for me?  Friend, I'm building my own AEM-compatible modular synthesizer format and every module contained within it from scratch.  Literally every single aspect of my music and instrument comes from me, from the circuit designs to the PCBs I make at home to the bleeps and bloops in the audio file.  Modular synthesis design and playing is the perfect marriage of every one of my hobbies and strengths, but please continue making unsubstantiated statements about people you know nothing about.  

When someone says "hey, I think this aspect of this thing we all enjoy could be improved," a good response is not "shut up."  That doesn't foster anything but rudeness.

Guys,

cool down a little, please

We want this forum to be a fun place where people can express all aspects of their modular synthesizer journey. Sure some views might jar with our own, but in the end, there's already so much trouble and arguments in our workplaces and in the world around us, lets keep this forum a safe place where you are happy to hang out and if someone writes something that you think is stupid, just laugh about it and enjoy the different world views.

Love, peace and unicorns,
Carsten

funbun, young Protoboard,

please see my post above and don't let this go out of hand. We had a really good run for over 2 years without major confrontations and I would love to keep it that way

No worries, I love both your contributions to this forum and I would hate to lose either of you, just because of inches vs. centimetres (I know it's more complex than that and I apologise for being facetious)

In a job in my younger days in the late 80's, I was working with a group of Americans on a collaborative project up in Scotland. We "Brits" were measuring something in inches and quite happily shouting out the measurements for writing down purposes - this was the era of the notebook having pages, not keys. After a while, one American came up to me with a very perplexed look on his face and asked me where we had got our measurement unts from, as he'd never heard of them.

We decided to get together over lunch and talk it through, after all how could we possibly be using units that they'd never heard of. The mystery unit turned out to be the "narf". It then became obvious how our American friends were completely misinterpreting my London accent.

I was quite happily shouting out, for example, "Five 'n' arf", the inches were implicit and there were five and a half of them (five 'n 'arf). To people not trained in the London accent (wonderful as it is), they were hearing "Five Narf", with the units being the aforementioned "narf". That kept us laughing for quite a while.

So, yes, inches can be quite fun sometimes.

Two countires separated by a common language... rather like modular synthesists separated by a common standard. In both cases, it is, of course, not standard