Hello Dieter, Ken has licensed some of his circuits to Metalbox
(FracRak compatible) and Cyndustries (Modcan compatible), added to a
Serge cicuit for Banalogue (finaly: Euro Rack compatible) thus he
probably would license the RRM to you. (None of the above offering
the RRM.)
I doubt that he will add buffers to the circuits he's selling. Since
he's supplies the DIY-community he surely is expecting the user to
add these goodies if thought neccessary.
I'd love to see an RRM with a pots at the inputs so one could choose
freely btn buffered inputs and non buffered which are loading back
on the VCOs and an amp to bring the output back to the common signal
level. Regards, Ingo

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "Dieter Doepfer"
<hardware@d...> wrote:

>
> > However, Ingo's CGS recording seems to show that a "real"

ring

> > modulator sounds quite different from the balanced modulators

we've

> > all gotten accustomed to. I wonder if our good friend Dieter
> > Doepfer would be interested in making a "real" diode ring

modulator

> > that also has some active electronics to eliminate the pesky

signal

> > loss in the CGS passive circuit. Would there be any interest in
> > this
>
> Though the ringmodulator (the original one with 4 diodes and a

transformer)

> is a well-known circuit I do not want to copy Ken Stones idea of a

module

> that uses just this circuit. Adding an amplifier would not really

change

> very much.
> I'd recommend to ask Ken Stone to add an amplifier to his circuit.

I'm sure

> that this is not a problem for him.
> Another possibility would be to manufacture Ken Stone's RM under

licence,

> e.g. by purchasing the diodes and transformer from him and adding

an

> amplifier in our module. But I'm not sure if Ken will agree to this
> procedure.
>
> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
>