well, yesterday i thought again about the panel widths
and made up my mind. there are so many modules already
available which have 10, 14, 22 or 26 hp, so it probably
wouldn't make much sense to fix the panel width to
multiples of 4 hp for future modules.

it is also true that if modules were unnecessarily wide,
we would loose space which should better be filled with
an extra module.

best wishes

ingo




--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "unknown freak"
<vogelscheiss@v...> wrote:

> I just as fully disagree. An extra 2P on any two modules in a row

and you

> just lost space for a clock divider, sample-and-hold, ring mod,

inverter, or

> multiple. Couple that with the price of a G6 and you'll find

yourself

> spending hundreds of extra dollars/euros for the privilege of a

nominally

> neater rack.
>
> --Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: selfoscillate [mailto:synaptic_music@y...]
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:56 AM
> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: 1 Re: Instead of new module suggestions ->

module size

>
>
>
>
> hello florian,
>
> i fully agree.
>
> best wishes
>
> ingo
>
>
>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , Florian Anwander
> <Florian.Anwander@c...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I received a lot of new modules the last weeks. So I rearranged

the

> > modules in my system ... and found it quite annoying, that there
> are
> > again modules with a width of uneven or impairy numbers of HPs. I
> really
> > would appreciate it, if the modules would have at least a width

of

> 4HPs
> > (like A180) and multiples of 4HPs.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind if some modules would have more surface space;

this

> > would make a more user friendly "interface". It would be easier
> also to
> > add input jacks or switches for optional features, which are

given

> on
> > the pcb already.
> >
> > Any oppinions about that (I know that we would have to buy more
> 19"
> > frames...)
> >
> > Florian