Doepfer

the usability of a module in a live situation has been mentioned by dieter. this is a priority 
issue for me too, so:
- putting the connections at the bottom is indeed a great help. gets my vote, anyway.
- the space taken up by a module is of not little importance, and i ask myself how many 
other users would rather see a reduction in width than a cv input for panning and a level 
control. 
- the use of external extensions to the module is a good idea (see above). this is, after all, 
a modular system.

i assume that all this quad business is driven partly by a trend towards polyphonic 
patches. what solutions have others used to split the input from a polyphonic kbd ? or do 
you have something tucked up your sleeve dieter ?

so that's my tuppence worth. cheers,

stu

> i assume that all this quad business is driven partly by a trend towards
polyphonic
> patches.

Not for me. Though the quad modules may be used for polyphonic applications
this was not our plan. For me a modular system is still monophonic or better
said multi-monophinc (i.a. several monophonic "voices"). The A-143 series
are multiple modulation sources without polyphonic "ulterior motive" - at
least for me. And the A-135-2 is planned as a mixer for different audio
sources, mainly for several percussive tracks that can be filtered,
Q-enhanced, amplified/attenuated and panned independently by hand or
automatically by a sequencer, LFOs or other CV sources. During the
Musikmesse I discovered that many visitors had a lot of fun with this
application.

But after all it does not matter if you use the quad modules for polyphonic
patches or other applications.

Best wishes
Dieter