Yes, I totally see your point, if the module is going to have temperature compensation/be useful as quad VCO. Maybe it would be worth the extra expense (HP and €) to have both: 2 CV ins + reset in per LFO/VCO (Or at least a simple compromise: a single "common" reset/sync in for all 4 LFOs/VCOs, which would fit on the panel without making the module wider.)

That would be very useful when for example using the four square outs for triggering synchronised polyrhythmic stuff. And wouldn't the reset inputs be the same as hard sync inputs in the audio range (please inform me if I am wrong) Think of the monstrous sync lead sounds that could be made, syncing all 4 VCOs to a master oscillator :-) Or the intersting things that could be made by syncing one "submodule" to another's square out. Now I'm just speculating of course.

--- 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
> >