Nice studio cat picture! Luckily, I have not had any issues with either a KB or KC and will ask if anyone knows if Access used same 'free-standing pots' as on the Indigo the KB and KC?
I ask because did they not place a keyboard either without after touch or less responsiveness on Indigo? Wondering if so, did they use same 'free standing pots' up to the Ti2 Polar? Were Access engineers depending on the holes in keyboard fascia to maintain center axis stability?
For what it's worth, learned from my military career, where indeed had sensitive nuclear security equipment that had tons of knobs to twiddle and very precise numerical combinations required; we were taught to turn/treat *any* potentiometer with respect to the axis they are all mounted on, no matter the configuration. Meaning, to this day, I only turn knobs on my synths without *any* pushing nor using for example one finger, letting the length of finger be surface the knob rolls on length of, ever so slightly creating an off-center-axis pressure that possibly could cause undue friction and failure or inaccuracies.
I will say that having since acquired a waldorf Q synth rack with all those knobs, those optical pots are the most smooth and solid have twiddled to date.
Interested in viewing pics of the JB Wield fix and how you managed to keep the stuff from oozing into scary places!?!
I thought sharing my training of treating our synth's pots/knobs as if they were same military spec'd equipment could perhaps help others. Have seen people treating pots/knobs rather harshly on YouTube with exception of Elektron gear, whose multi-function push/turn pots are made to have already a slight 'wear-in tolerance'.
Recently purchased an used Elektron MonoMachine SFX60 Mk1 (first generation) for external sequencing experimentation and firstly thought had 8 bad pots but Elektron quickly replied and have since read on their forum that their pots are made to allow for this 'off-axis' human twiddling. (deep machine by the way). Relevant rant over!