200e

Beware: winding post...

As far as I understood it, the main conceptual difference between the  
259e and the 261e is that the 259e's sound generation path is all  
digital (modulator osc, principal osc and waveshaper are digital),  
whereas in the 261e has a hybrid sound generation path with the  
modulator and principal oscillator still being digital and the  
waveshaper being analog. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I tried out the 261e at NAMM–I know, this is most certainly not the  
best environment to do the qualities of any instrument justice–and  
noticed that when FM'ing the modulator with the principal, and  
gradually increasing the modulator pitch to its top registers, the FM  
result at the principal output turned into some sort of digital noise  
in the upper registers of the modulator. I guess this is a result that  
is to be expected given the digital nature of both modulator and  
principal being digital, right?

Reading Thomas' original post made me recall this NAMM experience.  
Now, if both modulator and principal oscillators were analog, I guess
(a) the FM result were different (no digital noise), and
(b) the ranges of the fundamentals of the oscillators were not limited  
to 7040 Hz. (Assuming that the resolution of the 200e's storage system  
can be scaled to accomodate a wider oscillator frequency range).

If I now take at Cuari7's comments about the quantizing errors at the  
waveform generator's frequency control inputs into account, which led  
to him buying 259 (not 259e) waveform generators, it looks to me that  
there might be a need in the 200e community for yet another Buchla  
waveform generator, one with not only the waveshaper being analog, but  
also the principal and modulator oscillator being analog.

Or am I misinterpreting things here?

Best regards,
Jan-Hinnerk