Hi Andreas et al,

I've seen the MuffWiggler thread you posted. Unfortunately it only deals with extending AD time. The opposite of my goal.
Since Dieter is out of the office for a while I sent my question to another address at Doepfer. They replied and said that I CAN decrease the attack time by lowering the value of C1 but I will also be lowering the decay time. So now I'm wondering if it will be possible to get the attack around 1ms without ruining the decay time. Anyone know what the "stock" decay time is I don't require super looooong decay's. Basically, I'm wondering what the proportion is between; attack time/decay time. Has anyone made their A-143-1 snappier What basis should I go by to figure this out (value of C1) to get 1ms attack time

Thanks,
John

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "Andreas- theCovertOperators.Org" <a@...> wrote:
>
> Once again the MuffWiggler forum is THE place online for modular knowledge!
>
> http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php p=23126#23126
>
> - the mod is way easy, John, you should totally do it. Oh, and sign up
> at the forum there and share your progress!
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> j_inform3r skrev:
> > I just searched the list and found no posts regarding this modification. I purchased this module when it first came out and I thought it was great, except that the attack time was a wee bit too slow. I was surprised when I found on the Doepfer site a page which shows a way to mod the Attack/Decay time by changing one capacitor value. Here's the page:
> > http://www.doepfer.de/DIY/a100_capacitors.htm
> >
> > It says that the timing capacitor (C1) is a 2.2 microfarad, corresponds to about 5ms shortest attack/decay time. Does "shortest attack/decay time" mean that it can't get any quicker What if I lower the value of the cap I wanted to ask if anyone has done this and what value did they use. I'm really hoping that it's possible to make the attack a bit more snappy (like 1ms) because the module is great but the attack time is too slow for my personal use. I'd love to hear any responses regarding this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
>