Doepfer

hello florian,

i fully agree.

best wishes

ingo



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Florian Anwander 
<Florian.Anwander@c...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I received a lot of new modules the last weeks. So I rearranged the 
> modules in my system ... and found it quite annoying, that there 
are 
> again modules with a width of uneven or impairy numbers of HPs. I 
really 
> would appreciate it, if the modules would have at least a width of 
4HPs 
> (like A180) and multiples of 4HPs.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if some modules would have more surface space; this 
> would make a more user friendly "interface". It would be easier 
also to 
> add input jacks or switches for optional features, which are given 
on 
> the pcb already.
> 
> Any oppinions about that? (I know that we would have to buy more 
19" 

> frames...)
> 
> Florian

I would strongly dislike module size being standardised.

For me, the beauty of the doepfer system is its size.  If i was wanted the interface bigger i would have gone for one of the 5u
systems.

Anything that makes the synth take up more space is, in my eyes, a very bad idea.

I know blanking pannels may not be the height of fashion, but they do the job for those gaps...

So far as adding stuff goes, its easy enough to fit a blanking pannel next to the modified pannel too, with your additional switches
and jacks on it, isnt it?

My 2 pence worth,

Julian

hello julian,

your point is also valid.

my opinion is that if a module has 14 hp, it
wouldn't be so bad if it had 16 hp.
the 2 hp more size wouldn't hurt too much and the
module would still be a lot smaller than the
5u units.

anyway, i have a bunch of 2 hp blank panels,
so i don't have a problem with gaps.
i was just thinking about other users which
move their modules around a lot.

best wishes

ingo



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Julian" <julian@2...> wrote:
> I would strongly dislike module size being standardised.
> 
> For me, the beauty of the doepfer system is its size.  If i was 
wanted the interface bigger i would have gone for one of the 5u
> systems.
> 
> Anything that makes the synth take up more space is, in my eyes, a 
very bad idea.
> 
> I know blanking pannels may not be the height of fashion, but they 
do the job for those gaps...
> 
> So far as adding stuff goes, its easy enough to fit a blanking 
pannel next to the modified pannel too, with your additional switches

> and jacks on it, isnt it?
> 
> My 2 pence worth,
> 
> Julian

Hi,

I received a lot of new modules the last weeks. So I rearranged the 
modules in my system ... and found it quite annoying, that there are 
again modules with a width of uneven or impairy numbers of HPs. I really 
would appreciate it, if the modules would have at least a width of 4HPs 
(like A180) and multiples of 4HPs.

I wouldn't mind if some modules would have more surface space; this 
would make a more user friendly "interface". It would be easier also to 
add input jacks or switches for optional features, which are given on 
the pcb already.

Any oppinions about that? (I know that we would have to buy more 19" 
frames...)

Florian

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Florian Anwander [mailto:Florian.Anwander@consol.de]
> Gesendet: Montag, 7. März 2005 14:01
> An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [Doepfer_a100] Instead of new module suggestions -> module size
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I received a lot of new modules the last weeks. So I rearranged the
> modules in my system ... and found it quite annoying, that there are
> again modules with a width of uneven or impairy numbers of HPs.

There are no A-100 modules with an uneven number of HPs. All A-100 front
panels are a multiple of 2 HP.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

I just as fully disagree.  An extra 2P on any two modules in a row and you
just lost space for a clock divider, sample-and-hold, ring mod, inverter, or
multiple.  Couple that with the price of a G6 and you'll find yourself
spending hundreds of extra dollars/euros for the privilege of a nominally
neater rack.

--Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: selfoscillate [mailto:synaptic_music@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:56 AM
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: Instead of new module suggestions -> module size




hello florian,

i fully agree.

best wishes

ingo



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Florian Anwander 
<Florian.Anwander@c...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I received a lot of new modules the last weeks. So I rearranged the 
> modules in my system ... and found it quite annoying, that there 
are 
> again modules with a width of uneven or impairy numbers of HPs. I 
really 
> would appreciate it, if the modules would have at least a width of 
4HPs 
> (like A180) and multiples of 4HPs.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if some modules would have more surface space; this 
> would make a more user friendly "interface". It would be easier 
also to 
> add input jacks or switches for optional features, which are given 
on 
> the pcb already.
> 
> Any oppinions about that? (I know that we would have to buy more 
19" 

> frames...)
> 
> Florian

I just as fully disagree.  An extra 2P on any two modules in a row and you
just lost space for a clock divider, sample-and-hold, ring mod, inverter, or
multiple.  Couple that with the price of a G6 and you'll find yourself
spending hundreds of extra dollars/euros for the privilege of a nominally
neater rack.

--Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: selfoscillate [mailto:synaptic_music@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:56 AM
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: Instead of new module suggestions -> module size




hello florian,

i fully agree.

best wishes

ingo



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Florian Anwander 
<Florian.Anwander@c...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I received a lot of new modules the last weeks. So I rearranged the 
> modules in my system ... and found it quite annoying, that there 
are 
> again modules with a width of uneven or impairy numbers of HPs. I 
really 
> would appreciate it, if the modules would have at least a width of 
4HPs 
> (like A180) and multiples of 4HPs.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if some modules would have more surface space; this 
> would make a more user friendly "interface". It would be easier 
also to 
> add input jacks or switches for optional features, which are given 
on 
> the pcb already.
> 
> Any oppinions about that? (I know that we would have to buy more 
19" 

> frames...)
> 
> Florian

Hi Dieter

>>I received a lot of new modules the last weeks. So I rearranged the
>>modules in my system ... and found it quite annoying, that there are
>>again modules with a width of uneven or impairy numbers of HPs.
> There are no A-100 modules with an uneven number of HPs. All A-100 front
> panels are a multiple of 2 HP.
Sorry, you're right. I should have corrected this sentence. As I wrote 
two sentences later: I meant, the minimum step of panel width should be 4HP.

Florian


btw: There are really a lot of great new modules. I appreciate the A-136 
and the A-137; what richness comes to simple single VCO voices!
The Steiner Parker Filter and the SSM2044 Filter are beautiful (the 
kicked the CEM3320 Filters out of wonderland...). The Trautonium Filter 
is the perfect counterpart to the A-128!  Great job!

> btw: There are really a lot of great new modules. I appreciate the 
A-136 
> and the A-137; what richness comes to simple single VCO voices!
> The Steiner Parker Filter and the SSM2044 Filter are beautiful (the 
> kicked the CEM3320 Filters out of wonderland...). The Trautonium 
Filter 
> is the perfect counterpart to the A-128!  Great job!


thats why i can't resist, when new modules come out.
they are so adorable, useful and well-sounding.
and there is no end in sight :-)

best wishes

ingo