Doepfer

Kevin & list,
 
I tend to agree. Other users on the list have stated that a more modular
approach to future modules would be a better approach.
 
These could then be put together to perform the most obvious functions
that have been discussed recently re: the A154 but it would also allow
us to configure functions that a single feature rich module may not be
able to do. This argument is equally valid for the TKB. Serge have a
fairly simple implementation for their Touch Keyboard yet is one of
their more popular modules because used in conjunction with other
modules it performs an array of duties.
 
It is great that Dieter takes the time to listen to our needs, however
the time must come when a spec is set so that development and production
can start so that ultimately we can have new toys to play with.
 
I prefer the concept of a series of modules that will be more flexible
in the long term.
 
Regards 
 
 

David Salter 
Reuters Consulting 
Tel: +44 20 7542 2402 
Mob: +44 7990562402 
Fax: +44 20 7542 2699 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: code_pig [mailto:code_pig@yahoo.com] 
	Sent: 12 November 2002 05:10
	To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
	Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: forward:two or more a155's
controlled by ana154(from doepfer)
	
	
	Question:  Will the A154 also include a Phlogiston Inducer?
	
	I'd REALLY like to know whether to wait for Doepfer to supply
such a 
	feature on the A154 (which, for the way I work, is essential to
my 
	creativity), or just go out and purchase another "off the shelf"

	CIGARETTE LIGHTER.
	
	C'mon guys.  I know we're all trying to get as many features (as
well 
	as cost-effectiveness) out of the A154 as possible, but I'm left
with 
	a few questions.
	
	Please (and most respectfully), indulge me for just one moment.
	
	With the current selection of available Doepfer modules, we've
so far 
	managed to make some pretty impressive and amazing noises.  Are
we in 
	fact looking for a more useful tool, or just another "instant 
	gratification" device?  In other words, are we getting a bit
anal 
	here?
	
	I mean, we're working with analog modular synthesis.  Not a
digital 
	model of analog synthesis, but instead, the real and raw
building 
	blocks of analog synthesis.  We've chosen the difficult (and
most 
	often the much more creative) path of sound generation.  We've
made 
	the choice.
	
	Are we getting too focused on our own personal "wish list" to be

	objective?  
	
	Are we willing to pay for Doepfer to fund the development of our
own 
	individual features?  
	
	When will we be satisfied?
	
	Just a few thoughts...
	
	Kind regards,
	Kevin Lamb
	
	
	PS - Dieter's direct involvement with this group is VERY cool
indeed, 
	of which much more is welcome.  Not only does it give us (the
user 
	and purchaser) feedback to the company/CEO from which our
hard-earned 
	cash is spent and invested, I feel that our interests are
directly 
	served.  Besides, with Dieter listening, he can actually see
that his 
	efforts are appreciated, and certainly not wasted.
	
	
	
	
	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	doepfer_a100-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
	
	
	
	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 
	



------------------------------------------------------------- ---
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.


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

Hi David,

> I tend to agree. Other users on the list have stated that a more 
modular
> approach to future modules would be a better approach.

Me too, since I'm one of those favouring a more modular approach!

This link appeared in the Synth-DIY list a few days back:

http://www.technotoys.com/mikado/

I haven't read through it in any detail, but it does look like the 
kind of modularity that would give much functionality, and its limits 
would be due to ones imagination, and not stop at what the designer 
builds into it!

Tim

Hi Tim 

> > I tend to agree. Other users on the list have stated that a more
> > modular approach to future modules would be a better approach.
> Me too, since I'm one of those favouring a more modular approach!
Though I was the one who initiated the idea of a modular sequencer, we
should think about, that the mainpart of the price of an module is the
hardware. Also technically realy stupendous simple modules as the A132, the
A160 or A161 cost around 40 EUR each. I am sure, that a combination of
A160/161 in one frontplate would cost 45 EUR! So dammn 35 EUR are only for
the separate pcb, the powerwire, the seperate frontplate, two screws and
the time to build the module mechanically.

If Doepfer would realize a modulare Sequencer as I suggested the three or
four modules, that are equivalent with one A154 would cost around 200EUR.
That are more than 130 percent of the price Doepfer estimates for the whole
A154!

Florian

-- 
Florian Anwander                  |ConSol*  HP-Support
Tel.   +49.89.45841-133           |Consulting&Solutions Software GmbH
Fax    +49.89.45841-139           |Franziskanerstr. 38, D-81669 München
email: florian.anwander@consol.de |http://www.consol.de

--- In Doepfer_a100@y..., David Salter <david.salter@r...> wrote:
> Kevin & list,
>  
> I tend to agree. Other users on the list have stated that a more 
> modular approach to future modules would be a better approach.
>  
> These could then be put together to perform the most obvious 
> functions that have been discussed recently re: the A154 but it 
> would also allow us to configure functions that a single feature 
> rich module may not be able to do.

Given that philosophy, I think the clock generator function should be 
removed from the A154. I don't quite see how its different than adding 
an envelope function to this module. I'd argue that its entirely 
tangential to the purpose of the A154, and I'm not convinced that it 
does anything that we can't already do with other existing modules 
either.

If someone can convince me that it does something that I can't 
already do with the A147 or a VCO, then I'd argue that it should be a 
separate module, and have its own discussion on the list regarding 
features.

Joe

> Given that philosophy, I think the 
> clock generator function should be 
> removed from the A154. I don't quite 
> see how its different than adding 
> an envelope function to this module. 

At the risk of being drawn into a
lengthy argument, I would like
to my point of view on this.

A sequence by definition is 
chronological events.  A chronometer
is another name for a clock.
Without a clock, you cannot have
a sequence.

$.02

Ethan

i agree.
bakis.


--- ethanzer0 <ethanzer0@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Given that philosophy, I think the 
> > clock generator function should be 
> > removed from the A154. I don't quite 
> > see how its different than adding 
> > an envelope function to this module. 
> 
> At the risk of being drawn into a
> lengthy argument, I would like
> to my point of view on this.
> 
> A sequence by definition is 
> chronological events.  A chronometer
> is another name for a clock.
> Without a clock, you cannot have
> a sequence.
> 
> $.02
> 
> Ethan
> 
> 


=====
synthfreak(parallel worlds)
athens-greece
[Doepfer_a100] group owner-moderator

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2