200e

yeah there is some kind of limit on the integrity of the data bus with
a large number of modules. this limit is unknown and seems to depend
on the modules and maybe other things. 24 panels is usually ok, but
splitting up the preset space is more reliable, and is the recommended
way to go.

2x 12p cabinets was always the plan for 24-panel systems. it saves a
great deal on manufacturing overhead to stick to a couple of modular
form-factors of the aluminum boats. if you use a custom rack or
cabinet you can use a bunch of 4p boats and never see the difference
anyway.


On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Alessandro Cortini <cortini@gmail.com> wrote:
> i personally prefer a 18-12 configuration for the simple reason that i
> carry my system around quite often, and it's great to be able to have
> a more compact "live" setup in a 201e 12, while still having plenty of
> space in the studio within a 201e 18.
> Also, ( I might be wrong) I think you wouldn't be able to have a 206e
> and a 225e in the same hypothetical 24 space case, and if i remember
> well a 225e or 206e alone won't be able to save settings for 24
> modules....
>
> A.
>
> On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:13 PM, cuari7 wrote:
>
>> Yes, you're right about this. But it would still be wonderful to have
>> the option of a few non preset-devoted modules (like the beautiful
>> 255)
>> for those of us who are not interested in saving module settings.
>>
>> Now, switching gears toward the 24-module cabinet option: this would
>> certainly be a fantastic option for some of us with this bad case of
>> buchlaholism. Think of how beautiful it would look!!
>>
>> jd
>>
>> --- In 200e@yahoogroups.com, "ezra buchla" <ezra.buchla@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> i do not concur
>>>
>>> presets dude
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>