Doepfer

Hi there,
I don't own an MAQ16 (would really like to though) but I have been 
an a100 user since 1996 and very happy with the build quality.
I hear people talk about things wear out and rub off, but I have had 
no problems, it works and looks 100% sonce I bought it, BUT my 
system stays in my studio and not out gigging so that could be a big 
factor.

You said you found a couple of websites saying doepfer are rubbish, 
I don't know the sites but I found  UK one by FAME. They used to 
distribute doepfer in UK but lost it to another company and I can 
tell you he loved the system, he thought it was the best, but as 
soon as he lost it he said it was terrible and waste of money...
So is he true or just upset?

By the way, he used to charge £120 for a VCF, the new company 
charges £50!

Anyway, I'm not biased about doepfer, it was poor quality I would 
tell you, but MY a100 is 100% perfect, am I the only one?

Oh yes, apparently there is some problems with the MAQ midi clock 
features, not sure what as I don't own one but there was som 
discussion about it.


Thanks
John



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "jauer9" <jauer9@e...> wrote:
> I am new to Doepfer, and I am seeking more info on the build 
quality 
> from all the experienced users here. 
> 
> My first excursion will be a MAQ16, but I have heard that the 
quality 
> of these devices is poor: legends rub off, MIDI loses sync, the 
> rotary encoder wears out quickly. Admittedly, this opinion comes 
from 
> only one or two websites in the UK, so there may be some 
unmentioned 
> bias happening in the background from these sources.
> 
> Nonetheless, I would greatly appreciate anyone's comments about 
the 
> overall quality of Doepfer instruments, the MAQ in particular.
> 
> Would anyone suggest the blue LED version? Would it be more 
reliable? 
> (blue LEDs draw less current, as I understand it, so less taxing 
on 
> power supply...maybe)
> 
> There are two other "MAQ" Yahoo groups, but there is no activity 
> there and few members and many SPAM porn posts.
> 
> I looked into SoftStep, but this is a completely different beast 
and 
> although similar to the MAQ, lacks some of it's features (but adds 
> lots more for algorithmic composition) SoftStep can't replace the 
> MAQ, IMHO.
> 
> I don't really need bells and whistles, just a basic SQ-10-like 
box 
> to get me started in modular synthesis control.
> 
> I have some old modular CV stuff, but would like to go towards all-
> Doepfer eventually.
> 
> Again, anyone's comments would be greatly appreciated. I mean, if 
> these products are well made, this should be made known! If the 
> quality is not-so-hot, this should be stated, too.
> 
> Thanks to all!!
> 
> (and sorry for the newbie 'tude)
> 
> ja