Doepfer

>    Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:07:04 -0000
>    From: "mritenburg" <mritenburg@yahoo.com>
> Subject: 110 vs 111 (was Re: tuning
>
> Hi Gino,
>
> I believe the A110 is perceived as "richer" sounding as the waveforms
> are not as pure as the A111.  The sine is a shaped triangle, the
> square wave is a little droopy, etc.  This, of course, results is
> more harmonics.  Also, the A110 is a true discrete design whereas the
> A111 uses the CEM chip.  IMHO, this discrete design has the A110
> sounding something like an Emu modular oscillator, whereas, the A111
> sounds very similar to my oberheim matrix 6 oscillators.  I think the
> biggest let down for some people when it comes to Doepfer modules is
> the lack of "moogieness."  Some people go looking for that "moog"
> sound in Doepfer and are let down.  I was looking for something
> different and have been pleasantly surprised along the way.

I think this is right.   The Doepfer VCO 110 sounds to me much more like
a Roland System 100M, than a Moog.  It definitely doesn't have a
Moog sound.   I have a MiniMoog and the Doepfer sounds quite different.
Even the filter A120, which is the "standard" filter doesn't sound Moogish.
It once again sounds like a System 100M filter.  I think the A120 is
based on the Moog design though, isn't it?

I like my Doepfer because it doesn't sound like anything else in
my collection.


Rachel Polanskis		Systems Admin, University of Western Sydney
V1-37, Kingswood Campus		(+61 2) 47 360 291 <r.polanskis@uws.edu.au>
        "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
        deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759