Analogue-sequencer

> I was reading about the P3 and was wondering why pots were chosen to
> control the P3 (those are pots, right ?). When loading a pattern,
> wouldn't it be easier that the result of turning a knob just gave a
> INC/DEC (endless rotary encoders), instead of an absolute value ? 
> 
> ...but maybe the OS and the way the P3 is structured doesn't 
> allow this ?

I chose pots over encoders for two reasons.
The first is feel.
Typical rotary encoders only have maybe 24 or 36 pulses per rotation. So if
you are dealing with values with a range of 128, it could take you 5 turns
of the knob to get from one end of the range to the other.
It's possible to use an acceleration algorithm, where if you move the knob
more quickly it takes bigger steps through the values, but that breaks the
relationship between rate of knob movement and rate of value change -
meaning you can't make rapid tweaks of values by touch alone, you have to
look at the display to see what the new value will be.
Second reason was cost. The encoders you'll find in the less expensive midi
fader and knob boxes about are not expensive, but then they are not designed
for regular tweaking. The manufacturers have things like car stereo volume
controls in mind when they build these things, and they are spec'ed
accordingly. You wouldn't want your P3 knobs flickering and ghosting after 6
months of regular use.
Decent quality encoders that will last for years cost upwards of 2 or 3 ukp
each - roughly 10 times the price of the pots used.
So my personal preference is for pots, by a fair margin.

Cheers,
Colin f