Re: [Doepfer_a100] Re: Question about the future A-143-4
2009-01-29 by Henrik Medquist
Yes, now that I have thought a little more about it, I am also convinced that 2 cv ins really is necessary (provided the unattenuated one is 1V/oct.) But I also agree with Denis that the coolest thing would be 2 cv ins _and_ 1 reset in per submodule, and well worth the extra 4(?)HP in panel width added by the extra jack. But of course, all my suggestions are strictly academic - let's wait and see what Dieter says. --- On Wed, 1/28/09, a_wetterberg <a@thecovertoperators.org> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: a_wetterberg <a@thecovertoperators.org> > Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: Question about the future A-143-4 > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 5:00 PM > I would prefer that that layout did not change one bit - > having an > attenuator for a secondary input is critical, imo - 1v/oct > + a > modulation input, for instance. > > andreas. > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Medquist > <longforparade@...> wrote: > > > > I looked at the page for the future A-143-4 Quad > VCLFO/VCO module > (http://www.doepfer.de/a1434.htm), and it really seems to > become a > very useful and versatile module. Just one question: would > it be > difficult/expensive to add Reset inputs to the LFOs, > perhaps instead > of the second (or rather, first) CV in? IMO that would be a > very > useful addition, and much more useful than having two CV > ins per LFO. > Also a common Reset input for all LFOs would be very nice. > > > > Best regards, > > Henrik > >