the poll should have been more simple yes, maybe or no. that way
people don't have to confuse themselves. kind of like the route of
the touch seq. having a poll about jacks and knobs, makes it
redundant and a waste of time . i have not even voted because it's
about apples and oranges when it should be about which apples and
why an orange. the point i am trying to make here , first figure out
what the function set should be. then design it so it follows the
function set and not the other way around. the keyboard should just
be that, A touch keyboard. the sequencer should be just that, A
sequencer. the trick is to have them behave together in sync. have
buttons on the the touch KB to control the seq. directly. if you
could do it in one package without losing functions then all the
power to you . let's get to point. we should be voting about the
functions it should do. we should be dicuusing the same. not one
person has replied or dicussed the functions i proposed in post #848,
#860 and #881 . if these types of suggestions are way off let me
know and i won't bother posting them. just trying to stir some ideas.
isn't that what a group is all about. i am happy that it might get
built. but you won't me see doing hand stands,somersaults and jumping
for joy until it is feature rich and functions properly.
regards,
RM


--- In Doepfer_a100@y..., "Andreas Lindholm"
<andreas.k.lindholm@t...> wrote:

> I just went thrugh the polls on the site and found that 10 people

had cast

> their votes on To what extent do you think Doepfer should try to

fix flaws

> and bugs in the product line . 7 people say that it should be fixed

in some

> way, but they range from "Nothing is more important" to "It depends

on the

> nature of the error". Three people say either "well, you fell for

the sales

> talk..." or "no, don't fix anything, make new stuff". Haven't seen

results

> this divergent since the Swedish general elections ;)