Analogue systems

hello list,

sorry to sound like this but i really feel a bit pissed.
i can't understand why i have to pay extra for the
module power cables when i want a fully featured old rs15 frame.
i need special cables because there are not enough connectors
inside the frame. also the cables are like cheap computer stuff
and difficult to remove from the bus for re-installation, because
the sockets are really close to each other.

i don't know if the new frame is better, i guess so.
the modules are really good, but not the old rs15 frame.
virtually every company i know is doing better here,
regardless how big or little the companies are.

again, sorry if i trampled on some feet, but i had
to tell somebody. hopefully i feel better tomorrow.
maybe i can even laugh about it then.

best wishes

ingo

Very interesting.  One thing, though.  Why mount the Doepfer 
sockets upside-down (apropos to the Doepfer system).  I 
learned this at the weekend while repositioning my Doepfer 
modules.  I went on the D website and followed the instructions 
about not twisting the cables, and...BANG!  I burnt out 5 fuses 
and I blew up my VCA.  A cheap chip change later, and all is well, 
but it was an unneccessary occurence (from a design point of 
view).  The purpose of those sockets it to power Doepfer 
modules, so it would make sense to adhere to the Doepfer 
design brief in all respects.  By the way, mine is a month old 
RS15.

just my dá sgillean.

Stuadh

--- 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

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

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

hello again,

i got an email from the german seller which i asked
for the cables. they wrote now that the cable price was
wrong and they cost 10 euros instead of 20 euros.
looks much more comfortable now.

best wishes

ingo



--- In analogue_systems@yahoogroups.com, "selfoscillate" 
<synaptic_music@y...> 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

hello once more,

i got another email from the re-seller in germany, so i want to
send another message to the group and also to bob, i guess he is
reading the group messages too.

i want to state clearly that i'm really happy with the
integrator system itself and with the service provided by
bob and his re-sellers. i had no intention to be rude or
anything. i just wanted to tell my feelings about the
cables and the old rs15 frame, but this is not really
important anymore, since the new rs15 frame got a re-design
and now features more connectors, no extra cables are
necessary anymore.

best wishes

ingo



--- In analogue_systems@yahoogroups.com, "selfoscillate" 
<synaptic_music@y...> wrote:
> 
> hello again,
> 
> i got an email from the german seller which i asked
> for the cables. they wrote now that the cable price was
> wrong and they cost 10 euros instead of 20 euros.
> looks much more comfortable now.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo
> 
> 
> 
> --- In analogue_systems@yahoogroups.com, "selfoscillate" 
> <synaptic_music@y...> 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

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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

Um...I just went to Big City Music to see his new RS15's.

You'll notice that Bob used the polarized collared connectors for the
Doepfer rows, which take advantage of the key on the cable end so it can't
be plugged in backward.

On this particular unit, the keyways on the backplane were all facing AWAY
from the transformer.

I plugged a Doepfer module into the RS 15 without reversing the cable and
buzzed out continuity from the + and - rails and they were OK.  I took it
one step back and verified +12 volts from the RS15 power supply to pin 4 of
the Doepfer's TL074 op amp, and then verified -12 from the Analogue Systems
motherboard to the Doepfer's TL074 pin 11.

In short, this RS15 was correct and due to Bob's use of polarizing sockets,
it';s impossible to connect it on his that end backwards. Not so on the
Doepfer module end though.  I tried to intentionally insert the Doepfer
connector in backwards and the A. Sys's backplane won't let you.

Possibly the unit you had had it's connectors reversed or it was reversed on
the Doepfer end??  This RS15 was OK.  Again, the keyway's faced AWAY from
the PSU's transformer.


stuadh wrote:

> 
> Very interesting.  One thing, though.  Why mount the Doepfer
> sockets upside-down (apropos to the Doepfer system).  I
> learned this at the weekend while repositioning my Doepfer
> modules.  I went on the D website and followed the instructions
> about not twisting the cables, and...BANG!  I burnt out 5 fuses
> and I blew up my VCA.  A cheap chip change later, and all is well,
> but it was an unneccessary occurence (from a design point of
> view).  The purpose of those sockets it to power Doepfer
> modules, so it would make sense to adhere to the Doepfer
> design brief in all respects.  By the way, mine is a month old
> RS15.
> 
> just my dá sgillean.
> 
> Stuadh
> 
> --- 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Actually, my only complaint about the power connectors is that they aren't
keyed, so it's possible to place them in the socket offset by one pin,
which with the older power supplies can really do a number on a module
(I've got one dead VCA and one S&H/Noise with no noise).

One of these days I'm going to make all my cables into two halves, one
half permanently connected to the power distro board with a female keyed
connector on the other side, the other half with a male keyed connector on
one side and the module on the other.

-Brandon

hello peter,

please take my apologies if i was rude in my last post.
i don't have a new rs15 frame and i thought that the new
one has more than 10 connectors, so i was a bit confused.
i was convinced that you meant the old frame.
but i must confess that now i'm even more confused
about the rs15. well, maybe it's just me. please forget it.

best wishes

ingo

p.s. i'm looking forward to your vco's.
     can't wait to get them :-)



--- In analogue_systems@yahoogroups.com, Peter Grenader <peter@b...> 
wrote:
> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >