Doepfer

How much have a thought about it?  'Only some' would be the 
best answer.

I'm proud of this VCO.  It works, it's stable, is made of parts 
which are readily availible in the 21st century and behaves like a 
VCO I covet - the 258. It's different enough inside that if I did 
release and ran into Don Buchla I wouldn't feel I would have to 
duck down a corridor to avoid him.   That's really important to me.  

But to date it's only been made on a breadboard (two of them) 
and while they both worked, you never really know if the design is 
solid until it's on PCB and you make 20 of them and they all fly on 
power up.  Not to mention I'm a DIYer who's been on a lucky 
streak.  If I did this, I would  need to pass  it under the nose of an 
EE to get the possible trainwrecks out of it.

Being triangle core, having similarly scaled (33 to 1), full range 
with one freq pot,  bipolar attenuation on the VC inputs and 
expodential FM, it behaves like a 258 to AC and DC voltage 
control and does this in a different manner and a reduction of 
discrete parts. In short, it sounds like a 258 and different than 
Doepfer, A. Sys, MOTM, Serge, Modcan, A. Solutions, 
Technosaurus, Synth.com and Blacet VCOs when exposed to 
the same stimuli (VC). It has more bells and whistles hung on it 
than a 258 but even with those enhancements,  its not even 
close to a 259 functionally.

One, it's single VCO - no second mod osc. Outside of the same 
sine shaper as the 258 (which was a public domain circuit 
published in 1965 for that purpose), the waveshaping is MUCH 
less complex than the 259. It can't do AM like the 259 did. It does 
however have a very pure sine, a ramp, a tri and pulse/square via 
very unique sounding manual and VC PWM.  It can morph from 
one waveform to another by a pot or by external VC.  You can 
even select the waveform it starts at and ends with in that morph.  
That isn't at all as complex as what the 259 was doing with the 
even/odd  multiplying.  Oh yeah - mine also has sync, fine tune, a 
single 1v/octave input and it's more stable than a 258.   More 
stable than a 259?  I dunno - never tried one.

So the only thing that would be accurate would be to say I've 
come up with something that sounds like a 258.  A 259 is a 
whole different animal.  A quantum leap different.

- Peter


--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "shm1400" 
<shm14@h...> wrote:
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "(i think you can figure 
that 
> out)" <peter@b...> wrote:
> > OK OK OK - I've done a VCO which while not a clone of the 
258 
> > by any means, sounds pretty much identical on all counts 
and 
> > does things it didn't  (both hard and soft sync, PWM, a 
triangle 
> > output and selectable wavemorphing among other things) 
and 
> > it's much more stable.  I am contimplating bringing it to 
market. 
> > although the jury is still hung on this one.  I have two made 
now, 
> > both in Doepfer size configuration to fit my system, with a 
couple 
> > more to come in the next few months (i'm having PCBs 
designed 
> > now).
> > 
> > hope this helps,
> > 
> > Peter
> 
> How seriously are you thinking of marketing this thing? What 
would 
> be the target price?  Will it be two oscilators like the '58, one 
> for saw and one for square? If you do produce it, sign me up!
> 
> SHM