Doepfer

Is there a difference in the span of the tuning knob between the 110 and
111?  I can tune my 111s up or down about an augmented 4th, but the
range on the 110s seems less, so that I can't necessarily bring it to a
specific pitch without a CV.  Is that weird performance that differs
from other people's 110s?  (Personally I prefer the sound of the 111s
for its slightly more sharp and robotic quality.  But both pack a
punch.)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: code_pig [mailto:code_pig@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:50 PM
> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Doepfer_a100] Re: A-100 questions
> 
> 
> Excellent choice Joe.  The first thing that came to mind was the 
> A132.  It isn't flashy or trendy, but have four of them.
> 
> I also agree with you on the differences between A110/111.  I have 
> both, but in the future will only buy A110's.
> 
> Regards,
> Kevin
> 
> --- In Doepfer_a100@y..., "Joe Buechler" <buechlerjoe@t...> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm wondering about the sonic differences between the A-110
> > > oscillator and the A-111 "High End" oscillator.  
> > > 
> > > I know that the A-110 is discrete and the A-111 is using a CEM
> chip 
> > > and has more CV and FM options.  What I'm wondering about is the
> > > sound characteristics of the two oscillators.  Does the A-110 
> > > sound "fatter" and the A-111 sound "thinner?"  
> > > 
> > > If someone could upload a sample of both oscillators, I'd really
> > > appreciate it.  I haven't been able to find many high-quality 
> audio 
> > > samples of the oscillators and filters online.
> > 
> > I have both. I think it might be more accurate to say that tha A-
> 110 
> > sounds "dirtier" and the A-111 sounds "cleaner". The A-111 has a
> > dedicated cult following. I currently use 3 A110s, can't justify 
> the 
> > extra space or expense for the A111s to myself.
> > 
> > > Also, the A-112 looks great, but how does it sound?  How easy is
> it 
> > > to create your own wavetables?
> > 
> > I'm not familiar with the A-112. Bakis will probably give you
> > comments on it.
> > 
> > > Also, I've been trying to decide if I should get the MAQ 16/3 or
> if 
> > I
> > > should get an A-155 sequencer module?  Is there anything the A-
> 155 
> > > offers that the MAQ doesn't?  I like the idea of being able to
> use 
> > > the MAQ for driving the A-100 system plus other CV and MIDI
> synths. 
> >  
> > > Just wondering if the A-155 would offer anything more than the
> MAQ 
> > > would (specifically driving the A-100)?
> > 
> > The A-155 offers ties rather than just 16th notes.
> > The A-155 has a toggle switch for each step, whearas the MAQ 16/3 
> uses 
> > the knobs for both pitch and step on/off functions, nowhere near as
> > musical or useful. 
> > The A-155 is easy to sync with Midi, but the MAQ 16/3 is reputed to 
> > have problems if it's not the master clock.
> > The A-155 can sequence external audio or CV signals, the MAQ can't.
> > 
> > Having both might be ideal. I use both an A-155 and a Regelwerk for
> > step sequencing.
> > 
> > > Is there an FAQ for these types of questions.?
> > 
> > The group archives contain a wealth of information on all these
> > topics. Use the Search function.
> >  
> > > Last question:  What's the most under-rated module Doepfer offers?
> > 
> > Many people dislike the A-132 dual VCA. I love the thing.
> > 
> > Joe
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Sell a Home for Top $ 
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/jd3IAA/QnLolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
doepfer_a100-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/