Yes, now that I have thought a little more about it, I am also convinced that 2 cv ins really is necessary (provided the unattenuated one is 1V/oct.) But I also agree with Denis that the coolest thing would be 2 cv ins _and_ 1 reset in per submodule, and well worth the extra 4( )HP in panel width added by the extra jack. But of course, all my suggestions are strictly academic - let's wait and see what Dieter says.

--- On Wed, 1/28/09, a_wetterberg < a@... > wrote:

> From: a_wetterberg < a@... >
> Subject: 1 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
> >