Wether it is a big deal or not doesn't really concern me here. I think you
guys are beeing unessecary defensive, it almost reads out to me that you are
selling off your a155s and don't want them to drop in value or something. I
was just adressing this from a point of curiosity since I am about to blow
off the dust from my a100 and start making some music again and perhaps
expand it with a couple of switches. The a155 has always struck me as too
much in one box. On the other hand I find the a154 more to my liking. But in
the end of it all it is just a matter of personal taste.

Hey it's about music in the end, one mans crap and off tune singing is loved
by millions of Swedes and hated by just as many, there is no right or wrong
=)

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Husted" < james@... >
To: < Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com >
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: 1 Re: a154 ideas


> On 2/8/03 11:19 AM, "ps_minor < pscottm@... >" < pscottm@... >
> wrote:
>
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "James Husted"
> > <james@e...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I agree with this 100%. The idea of having the section of the
> > a155 not being
> >> used is troublesome.
> >
> >
> > well, i see your point but unless i'm mistaken, looking at my
> > a155, only 4 sockets will be disabled by connecting to an a154,
> > (start, stop, clock, and reset). what's the big deal
> >
> > imho, the amount of space wasted by adding a 154 to a 155 is
> > negligible, 2 sq inches (approx 14 sq cm) of face plate area..
> > was curious so i measured. to me, the new gains of adding an
> > a154 far outweigh this loss.
>
> I'm thinking more of electronics not being used. The electronics that
> convert these inputs are not necessary if an external counter module is
> used. These cost money. I think the A155 without the added unused
> electronics that make up it's clock/reset circuitry and pcb would be
cheaper
> to make. Jacks and switches and the labor to mount them all cost more than
> they do for just raw parts. Holes alone cost money. I used to design
> metalwork for a pro audio company and every punch cost money, especially
at
> low quantities. The cost of the jacks a switches alone must be a couple of
> dollars. Just look at the cost of a A180 or A181 and they have no
> electronics.
> >
> > i think the a100 as a whole is a marvel of features-per-sq-inch
> > as it is, so this loss of 4 sockets on one module (only when
> > combined w an expander module) is not a problem.
> >
> > however, if this issue caused loss of potential HP space i may
> > think differently.
> >
> > the way i see it, shortening the a155 to do away w the unused
> > control section will not give you any HP space. the glide ouputs
> > and s&h outputs are positioned right below the would-be 'dead'
> > control section.
>
> As far as space is concerned, remove these 4 jacks. Move the scale, glide
> and range blocks down, move the trigger outputs above the glide pots, turn
> the jacks for the glide/scale blocks into a single row and you have
> shortened the unit by the width of the last row of jacks and start stop
etc.
> switches. But this is not the point anyway, I said to leave this unit
alone
> and still sell it as is. I suggest to make a *new* pot bank modules with
> different layouts, 4 rows of pots (a 4x8 and a 2x16 version ) three rows,
16
> . And a trigger module with 4 or more rows of toggle switches in a *much*
> narrower module (so you can do 32 beat patterns). Things like this. I've
> heard talk of the A154, but nothing of other versions of the A155.
>
> -James
>
> --
> James Husted
> The ErsatZ Planet Graphics & Sound
> james@...
> www.ersatzplanet.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> doepfer_a100-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>