200e

All i am trying to say, in different words, is that you might change
your mind on what is a limitation when you get your system .
I too had questions and issues i thought were limitations before
receiving mine, but most of them became somehow either forgivable or
not as limiting as i thought they would be.

The only one limitation that bothers me still, is the 281e's speed in
LFO mode, as cuari7 has brought up early: it makes it harder to create
longer envelopes, and forces the user to integrate other modules in
order to achieve that (either 255e or 256e, i am assuming, or
249e/250e as  more complex  envelope generators).

Hope this helps.




On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:05 AM, cuari7 <cuari7@comcast.net> wrote:
> OK, so here's my smelly $0.2 on the whole subject:
>
> I was one of the first few to take the plunge and part with a five-
> figure sum for the promise of something DIFFERENT from the multiple,
> available conventional analog/modular systems.
> The first thing it did for me is swoon me with its physical beauty.
> It is the most beautiful piece of equipment in my studio. However, I
> soon encountered a few peculiarities in it that did not meet my
> personal expectations. These "limitations" were mainly in the
> oscillators (259e). While they are capable of incredibly wild
> timbres, they are also quite noisy, which narrowed the spectrum of
> musical styles I was hoping to get from them. The 261e brought a
> significant improvement of the noise issue, but its main oscillator
> is rather thin (for MY test) and its pitch jitters, especially when
> being fed a control voltage for pitch.
> Another limitation for my own personal needs is the fact that the
> 281e's lowest frequency (when used as an lfo) is not low enough for
> the kinds of slow, evolving drones I sometimes aim for.  I also would
> like to have a voltage mixer/attenuator that would allow me fine,
> continuous scaling (instead of the stepped, coarse attenuation we get
> from the 210e or the 256e).
>
> The 200e would be PERFECT (for ME, at least), if the afore mentioned
> issues were changed. In my quest for improvement of these, I have
> acquired a couple of 259's (without the "e"). I have also
> incorporated an M-class Serge scaling/mixing module, which also
> happens to have a dual comparator, so I also get rich, gorgeous PWM
> as a bonus (which I could also get from the 261e, BTW).
>
> On the positive side, I have to comment on the 291e resonator, which
> is, in MY opinion, the best resonator available (although I haven't
> yet tried out the Cwejman ones).
>
> So in escence, I love the Buchla, and have no regrets about
> the "commitment" to get it.
> You should learn more about all of its features and decide if it
> truly is something that will meet your own needs/expectations.
> Especially if you are forking over 4 or 5-figure chunks o'cash.
>
> Do it now, before the Democrats raise our taxes!!!
>
> (OK, just kidding. Don't wanna get into political diatribes on this
> forum).
>
> ;-P
>
>
> Salutations.....
>
>
> cuari7
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>