Analogue systems

I was referring to the new one, actually!

selfoscillate wrote:

> 
> hello peter,
> 
> i don't think so. the rs15 is a double row frame and it will
> probably hold more than 10 modules in most cases.
> the high power modules are quite new and the rs15 is available
> for many years now.
> 
> but anyway, i really don't want to discuss this issue
> any further. i'm sure that bob had his reasons for
> designing the rs15 the way he did, and he also had his
> reasons for changing the design on the new rs15.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In analogue_systems@yahoogroups.com, Peter Grenader <peter@b...>
> wrote:
>> I think Bob limited it to this number of sockets to assure there
> wouldn't be
>> any current issues with multiple modules equipped with displays,
> which eat
>> up a ton of juice through no fault of A. Systems!
>> 
>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> hello peter,
>>> 
>>> yes, i agree with you in the most points.
>>> what i was trying to say is that it is not ok
>>> to have only 10 connectors in a frame as big as the rs15.
>>> it would be ok if the dual or triple cables were free,
>>> just like the standard power cables, but it doesn't look
>>> like that. i can't think of a system with only 10 modules
>>> in a rs15 frame, so you don't have a clue, you have to use
>>> those special cables. i don't care about the money, it is
>>> more a question of principle. maybe i'm just too german?
>>> 
>>> another thing, the dip sockets are cheap, yes. but there
>>> are other sockets and connectors available which are
>>> much more rigid and they are not much more expensive.
>>> from my point of view it doesn't make sense to save money on
>>> the connectors. would anybody care if the modules would cost
>>> 1 pound more than they do? probably not, but it bothers
>>> me when i have to pay 20 euro for a cable with cheap dip sockets,
>>> just to be able to connect another module.
>>> 
>>> anyway, yesterday i felt really pissed about that, today
>>> i feel much more relaxed. if i have to pay for the cables,
>>> then this will be ok, but i don't think that this will make
>>> me a happy customer.
>>> 
>>> best wishes
>>> 
>>> ingo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- In analogue_systems@yahoogroups.com, Peter Grenader
> <peter@b...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Bob really raised the pole for everyone with the new PSU.  Its
> much
>>> better
>>>> mechanically and electrically, but let me just comment briefly on
>>> the socket
>>>> selection.
>>>> 
>>>> While some of this is my own conclusion, I think it's fair to say
>>> that
>>>> Analogue Systems, by virtue of coming after Doepfer, was
> conforming
>>> to the
>>>> Doepfer standards for power requirements, size, jack type, etc.
>>> This was a
>>>> supremely intuitive decision on Bob's part as it created a cross
>>> platform
>>>> which has unquestionably helped his sales.  A brilliant move.
>>>> 
>>>> But - for obvious reasons, he wanted to avoid using other
> companies
>>> PSUs if
>>>> at all possible.  It only makes sense.  You can easily guarantee
> a
>>> product's
>>>> performance if you can control it's operation.  Once a second
> party
>>> product
>>>> is introduced, you then lose a certain amount of control and
>>> therefore, you
>>>> can no longer unquestionably guarantee the operation.  I'm not
>>> speaking
>>>> about the user side of the faceplate here, that's 200%
> compatible -
>>> I'm
>>>> speaking about it's supply voltage source.  I am also not dissing
>>> the
>>>> Doepfer PSU.  It's a fine unit, it's just not made by Analogue
>>> Systems and
>>>> from a manufacturers standpoint, more of a risk.  The very same
>>> holds true
>>>> with Doepfer modules powered by A. Sys supplies.  It will work
>>> fine - but
>>>> it's not a controlled situation, that's all.
>>>> 
>>>> So how to you design in exclusivity?  You use another connector
>>> scheme and
>>>> that's what Bob did.  Analogue Solutions was willing to take that
>>> risk and
>>>> their modules have accommodations for both the Doepfer inline and
>>> the A.
>>>> Sys's DIP connections.
>>>> 
>>>> Bob's decision to go with DIP connectors make sense as they are a
>>> cost
>>>> effective functional alternative to the Doepfer scheme.  You just
>>> have to be
>>>> careful when connecting them, that's all.  Listen, I've got hands
>>> as large
>>>> as cricket mallets.  It takes a bit of getting used to, but you
> do
>>> and it
>>>> gets easy at that point. One thing I've noticed that really makes
>>>> connections easier is if you remove either the top or bottom
> panel
>>> from the
>>>> rack when making multiple connections (like when setting up your
>>> system
>>>> initially), because it allows you to view things from a shallower
>>> angle so
>>>> you're not covering up the area you need to see with your hand.
>>>> 
>>>> With Bob's new power distribution panel things are much better
> off
>>> because
>>>> he included Doepfer style terminations along with his DIP sockets
>>> on his new
>>>> motherboard.   He also fused the secondary side of the syste (not
>>> just the
>>>> AC mains, but the DC voltsges as well) so even if ther is a
>>> problem, the
>>>> chance of it doing little more than blowing a fuse is distant.
>>>> 
>>>> just my conjecture here...
>>>> 
>>>> - P
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>