Doepfer

+1 for both 2 CV ins *and* reset ins...that would definitely be better  
than either 1 CV + RST or 2 CVs.  If necessary the reset ins could be  
on a separate extension module maybe?

The resets should effectively be the same as a hard sync i guess, yes,  
and would be very useful for many applications.

cheers,
d


On Jan 28, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Henrik Medquist wrote:

> Yes, I totally see your point, if the module is going to have  
> temperature compensation/be useful as quad VCO. Maybe it would be  
> worth the extra expense (HP and €) to have both: 2 CV ins + reset in  
> per LFO/VCO? (Or at least a simple compromise: a single "common"  
> reset/sync in for all 4 LFOs/VCOs, which would fit on the panel  
> without making the module wider.)
>
> That would be very useful when for example using the four square  
> outs for triggering synchronised polyrhythmic stuff. And wouldn't  
> the reset inputs be the same as hard sync inputs in the audio range  
> (please inform me if I am wrong)? Think of the monstrous sync lead  
> sounds that could be made, syncing all 4 VCOs to a master  
> oscillator :-) Or the intersting things that could be made by  
> syncing one "submodule" to another's square out. Now I'm just  
> speculating of course.
>
> --- On Wed, 1/28/09, a_wetterberg <a@thecovertoperators.org> wrote:
>
> > From: a_wetterberg <a@thecovertoperators.org>
> > Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: Question about the future A-143-4
> > To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 5:00 PM
> > I would prefer that that layout did not change one bit -
> > having an
> > attenuator for a secondary input is critical, imo - 1v/oct
> > + a
> > modulation input, for instance.
> >
> > andreas.
> >
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Medquist
> > <longforparade@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I looked at the page for the future A-143-4 Quad
> > VCLFO/VCO module
> > (http://www.doepfer.de/a1434.htm), and it really seems to
> > become a
> > very useful and versatile module. Just one question: would
> > it be
> > difficult/expensive to add Reset inputs to the LFOs,
> > perhaps instead
> > of the second (or rather, first) CV in? IMO that would be a
> > very
> > useful addition, and much more useful than having two CV
> > ins per LFO.
> > Also a common Reset input for all LFOs would be very nice.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Henrik