Doepfer

In a message dated 2/13/2008 2:03:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
hardware@doepfer.de writes:

concerning the modules mentioned by you (delay, bit crusher/cruncher)  it's
wrong to say that we duplicate parallel module developments by  other
companies!

The bit cruncher and delay are a sub-functions of  the universal AD/DA module
and has been discussed for a long time. I'd  recommend to look for example at
these messages from  me:




dear dieter,
again, i must apologise - i didn`t mean to create the impression that you  
were "borrowing" others ideas but rather serendipity comes into play - people  
find themselves on similar development tracks and because they`ve "started",  
they feel the need to "finish". my thought was if you were to see someone else  
doing something close to what you were thinking about, you might put your 
idea  on hold to see what a final product looks like and if its worth bringing 
out  something "better"  *or* leaving that idea and looking for something  else 
unusual to develop hence spreading everyones efforts and encouraging even  
more unusual module development.
i know you had put forth the generalized ad / da module idea long before  the 
malgorithm came out.
sorry for the mis-understanding.
best,
dave
 



**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy 
Awards. Go to AOL Music.      
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> dear dieter,
> again, i must apologise - i didn`t mean to create the impression that you
> were "borrowing" others ideas but rather serendipity comes into play -
people
> find themselves on similar development tracks and because they`ve
"started",
> they feel the need to "finish". my thought was if you were to see someone
else
> doing something close to what you were thinking about, you might put your
> idea on hold to see what a final product looks like and if its worth
bringing
> out something "better" *or* leaving that idea and looking for something
else
> unusual to develop hence spreading everyones efforts and encouraging even
> more unusual module development.
> i know you had put forth the generalized ad / da module idea long before
the
> malgorithm came out.
> sorry for the mis-understanding.
> best,
> dave

Dave,

thank you for clarification.

There are two aspects I have to mention:

1. From my point of view it's the wrong idea that we have to give up a
module after the announcement because another company finishes a similar
module (with or without taking the ideas from us or this group). On the
other hand we normally do not start to develop a module if there is a
similar module available on the market (whereas one could discuss the term
"similar"). But if the idea came from us or was born in this group I think
we should have the right to release this module even if another manufacturer
offers a similar module in the meantime. It's not only because of the money
that has been already invested (the development of a new module is very
expensive and these charges pay off not before the serial production begins)
but also as a matter of principle.

In the past we stopped several times the development of a module as soon as
we heard that a similar module has been announced already (e.g. the polivoks
filter). If there is a similar product available we try to find agreement
with the manufacturer (e.g. with Erwik for the A-107). Currently we are in
negotiations with Schneiders Buero because of the planned matrix module
(A-183-1) and their announced Steckbox. But it's quite plain to me that one
could discuss the term "similar".

2. One of my drawbacks (or not - it depends upon the point of view) is that
I don't spend too much time for looking what others do. Very often customers
refer to the module of another manufacturer I did not know before. E.g. I've
heard about the Malgorithm long time after our bit modifier has been
completed.

And all Eurorack manufacturers I know in person (Analogue Systems, Plan B,
Livewire, Harvestman just to name a few) have a very good relationship among
each other though they are competitors to some degree.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

So Dieter, is a cv granular processor possible with these digital
chips? they have enough memory? out of all those modules in these
polls that seems to me the most exciting possibility..

> So Dieter, is a cv granular processor possible with these digital
> chips? they have enough memory? out of all those modules in these
> polls that seems to me the most exciting possibility..

I have to clarify with Christian if one of the microcontrollers we use so
far is suitable for this function. We are also about to become acquainted
with DSPs. But it will take some time until the first results or products
will arise.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, <hardware@...> wrote:
> Currently we are in
> negotiations with Schneiders Buero because of the planned matrix module
> (A-183-1) and their announced Steckbox. 


This is very interesting! -- I have been waiting for the development
of the Steckbox for a long time.  The crucial and ingenious part is
the selection of different pins to make/break/change connections. 
I'll be interested to see if this leads to some collaboration
(although Dieter has said in the past that collaboration would be over
the top, given the simplicity of the module).  I have to say that I
would probably have to go for the matrix as a separate table-top unit,
rather than a mountable module, simply because I can't spare the
space, and it seems easier to 'play' in a horizontal position.

Anyway, I hope that Doepfer's negotiations with SchneidersBuero will
mean that the unit will appear sooner rather than later!

peace,
Ernst