Doepfer

> hello dieter,
>
> maybe a lot of potential customers are waiting for the redesign,
> which is mentioned on the a111/2 product page, before they order.
> maybe i'm wrong but i would not expect many inquiries for a module
> which is subject to change. i had the pleasure to try the first
> prototype (thanks for that) and imho this vco is very cool,
> something i will buy for sure if it will become available.
> the a111/2 offers new possibilities unavailable on other vco's,
> all at a reasonable price. if you run out of cem3340, then the
> a111/2 would be a great substitute for the a111/1. during the last
> few years a lot of new advanced vco's have been released for the
> eurorack and for me that shows a demand for good vco's.
> after all the vco is the main sound source and should not
> be disregarded. i hope that the availability problem with the
> cem3340 will be resolved, so that you can continue with the a111/1,
> but i would also encourage you to keep on working on the a111/2.
>
> best wishes
>
> ingo

Ingo,

I noticed a extremely poor interest in the A-111-2 even compared to other
modules that were not available and which were - from my point of view -
much less "spectacular" that the A-111-2. We had e.g. much much more
inquiries for all of the new modules (A-106-6, A-132-3, A-134-2, A-138e,
A-189-1) than for the A-111-2. Even for the extremely simple switched
multiple module (A-182) the inquiries were better. This is why the
development of the A-111-2 has not been put on the back burner. But I think
we will continue with the A-111-2, even because I stand by this module. And
I noticed in the past that this is sometimes more important than poll
results or customer inquiries :-)

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

On Aug 4, 2008, at 4:56 AM, <hardware@doepfer.de>  
<hardware@doepfer.de> wrote:

> But I think
> we will continue with the A-111-2, even because I stand by this  
> module. And
> I noticed in the past that this is sometimes more important than poll
> results or customer inquiries :-)


That's certainly true.

My biggest complaint with the A-111-2, FWIW,  is that the linear FM to  
the VCO section is not "dynamic depth," which means that for a large  
class of FM sounds an external VCA would have to be patched in.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

well, you can always add a linear vca into your patch. 
or, Dieter, you may add it into the A111-2 itself.
it should not be very difficult, probably...?

best regards,
Bakis.
 

Bakis Sirros - Parallel Worlds / Interconnected / Memory Geist
[Doepfer_a100] group owner
www. parallel - worlds - music. com
www. myspace. com/ parallelworldsmusic
www. myspace. com/ interconnectedmusic
www. myspace. com/ memorygeist
www. DiN. org. uk
www. musicamaximamagnetica. com
www. shimarecords. co. uk
www. rubberrecords. gr
Athens - Greece

--- On Mon, 8/4/08, Chris Muir <cbm@well.com> wrote:

From: Chris Muir <cbm@well.com>
Subject: Re: WG: [Doepfer_a100] Re: discontinuation of all modules with CEM3320, CEM3340 and CEM3381/PA381
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 10:34 PM







On Aug 4, 2008, at 4:56 AM, <hardware@doepfer. de> 
<hardware@doepfer. de> wrote:

> But I think
> we will continue with the A-111-2, even because I stand by this 
> module. And
> I noticed in the past that this is sometimes more important than poll
> results or customer inquiries :-)

That's certainly true.

My biggest complaint with the A-111-2, FWIW, is that the linear FM to 
the VCO section is not "dynamic depth," which means that for a large 
class of FM sounds an external VCA would have to be patched in.

-C

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com 
http://www.xfade. com

 














      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Bakis Sirros <synth_freak_2000@...> wrote:
>
> well, you can always add a linear vca into your patch. 
> or, Dieter, you may add it into the A111-2 itself.
> it should not be very difficult, probably...?
> 
> best regards,
> Bakis.
>  

Hi i am new here (nevertheless watching this for months).

I wouldn't add to much features to A111-2 because A100 is a modular system. In my opinon 
the A111-2 is big enough already.

ciao herw

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 4:56 AM, <hardware@...>  
> <hardware@...> wrote:
> 
> > But I think
> > we will continue with the A-111-2, even because I stand by this  
> > module. And
> > I noticed in the past that this is sometimes more important than poll
> > results or customer inquiries :-)
> 
> 
> That's certainly true.
> 
> My biggest complaint with the A-111-2, FWIW,  is that the linear FM to  
> the VCO section is not "dynamic depth," which means that for a large  
> class of FM sounds an external VCA would have to be patched in.
> 
> -C
> 
> Chris Muir
> cbm@...	
> http://www.xfade.com
>


hello chris,

i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
in your actual patch. however, the built-in vca on the a111/2
is only there because it is present on the cem-chip anyway,
but due to the architecture of the cem-chip it cannot be used
at the lin fm input of the same a111/2, only at its final output.

best wishes

ingo

I agree with Ingo. It is best to have utility circuits such as VCAs as separate modules so that they may be used elsewhere. 

Tony

> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> From: synaptic_music@yahoo.com
> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:51:41 +0000
> Subject: WG: [Doepfer_a100] Re: discontinuation of all modules with CEM3320, CEM3340 and
> 
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Aug 4, 2008, at 4:56 AM, <hardware@...>  
> > <hardware@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > But I think
> > > we will continue with the A-111-2, even because I stand by this  
> > > module. And
> > > I noticed in the past that this is sometimes more important than poll
> > > results or customer inquiries :-)
> > 
> > 
> > That's certainly true.
> > 
> > My biggest complaint with the A-111-2, FWIW,  is that the linear FM to  
> > the VCO section is not "dynamic depth," which means that for a large  
> > class of FM sounds an external VCA would have to be patched in.
> > 
> > -C
> > 
> > Chris Muir
> > cbm@...	
> > http://www.xfade.com
> >
> 
> 
> hello chris,
> 
> i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> in your actual patch. however, the built-in vca on the a111/2
> is only there because it is present on the cem-chip anyway,
> but due to the architecture of the cem-chip it cannot be used
> at the lin fm input of the same a111/2, only at its final output.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > in your actual patch.
> 
> 
> It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I mentioned  
> that in my original message.
> 
> A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your  
> logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a  
> separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> 
> All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic  
> depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA  
> integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> 
> Chris Muir
> cbm@...	
> http://www.xfade.com
>

hello chris,

i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
but including such a function would be nothing else than
adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.

so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2?
because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
a waste not to use them.

best wishes

ingo

Several people have posted that because the CEM has a filter and VCAs ,we're somehow 
getting the features for free (or even low cost). Look at all the additional pots, knobs, 
jacks, connections and circuit boards required to implement these additional functions!

Ask any DIYer, usually the overwhelming cost and time is in those passive components - 
not the semiconductors. 


--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "selfoscillate" <synaptic_music@...> wrote:

>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > in your actual patch.
> > 
> > 
> > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I mentioned  
> > that in my original message.
> > 
> > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your  
> > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a  
> > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> > 
> > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic  
> > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA  
> > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> > 
> > Chris Muir
> > cbm@	
> > http://www.xfade.com
> >
> 
> hello chris,
> 
> i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
> but including such a function would be nothing else than
> adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.
> 
> so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2?
> because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
> a waste not to use them.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo
>

Yes, it's relativly costly to bring those features out. On the other
hand you get a highly normalized VCO which enables you to try various
dynamic waveshaping on the fly which can be very inspiring and thus
might pay off. Rgds, Ingo

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "laryn91" <caymus91@...> wrote:
>
> Several people have posted that because the CEM has a filter and
VCAs ,we're somehow 
> getting the features for free (or even low cost). Look at all the
additional pots, knobs, 
> jacks, connections and circuit boards required to implement these
additional functions!
> 
> Ask any DIYer, usually the overwhelming cost and time is in those
passive components - 
> not the semiconductors. 
> 
> 
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "selfoscillate"
<synaptic_music@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Chris Muir <cbm@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > > in your actual patch.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I
mentioned  

> > > that in my original message.
> > > 
> > > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your  
> > > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a  
> > > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> > > 
> > > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic  
> > > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA  
> > > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> > > 
> > > Chris Muir
> > > cbm@	
> > > http://www.xfade.com
> > >
> > 
> > hello chris,
> > 
> > i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
> > but including such a function would be nothing else than
> > adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.
> > 
> > so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2?
> > because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
> > a waste not to use them.
> > 
> > best wishes
> > 
> > ingo
> >
>

On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> in your actual patch.


It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I mentioned  
that in my original message.

A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your  
logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a  
separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?

All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic  
depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA  
integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.

Chris Muir
cbm@well.com	
http://www.xfade.com

The reason I voted "no" to the A111-2 in the poll, is twofold.

To me, modular synthesis is all about modularity (d'oh).
One exception to that would be the "patch-programmability"
of the Serge & Buchla systems, but that is not the case here.

All of the functionality of that complex VCO can easily be
replicated with other modules, with the added benefit of
having those modules still available to other tasks.
A truly modular system with one dedicated function-per-module
is always more flexible than a semi-modular or semi-integrated system.

Another thing with the A111-2 which throws up a few questions,
is its estimated price-point. I'm just wondering about the overall
sound quality of such module if you integrate a VCO, VCA,
VCF and Waveshaper in one go for about €250, when a
single decent VCO or VCF hovers around the same price
or just slightly below... (no offence, Dieter!)

And another - somewhat lesser point - would be the technical
quality of such a module; talking about bleed-through and
crosstalk and such... though I'm not technically proficient
enough to have a solid opinion on this... just a question.



-gd2

www.guyd2.com [photography]
www.sweetcucumber.com [blog]
www.pillion.be [music]

On 05 Aug 2008, at 18:07, Chris Muir wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > in your actual patch.
>
> It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I mentioned
> that in my original message.
>
> A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your
> logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a
> separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
>
> All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic
> depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA
> integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
>
> Chris Muir
> cbm@well.com	
> http://www.xfade.com
>

GD2, I believe the VCF and VCA is contained on the CEM chip being used for the VCO, thus the lower price, and probably the reason to include all such things in one module.  Perhaps somebody could confirm this...

Tony

> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> From: guy@guyd2.com
> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:27:38 +0200
> Subject: Re: WG: [Doepfer_a100] Re: discontinuation of all modules with CEM3320, CEM3340 and
> 
> The reason I voted "no" to the A111-2 in the poll, is twofold.
> 
> To me, modular synthesis is all about modularity (d'oh).
> One exception to that would be the "patch-programmability"
> of the Serge & Buchla systems, but that is not the case here.
> 
> All of the functionality of that complex VCO can easily be
> replicated with other modules, with the added benefit of
> having those modules still available to other tasks.
> A truly modular system with one dedicated function-per-module
> is always more flexible than a semi-modular or semi-integrated system.
> 
> Another thing with the A111-2 which throws up a few questions,
> is its estimated price-point. I'm just wondering about the overall
> sound quality of such module if you integrate a VCO, VCA,
> VCF and Waveshaper in one go for about �250, when a
> single decent VCO or VCF hovers around the same price
> or just slightly below... (no offence, Dieter!)
> 
> And another - somewhat lesser point - would be the technical
> quality of such a module; talking about bleed-through and
> crosstalk and such... though I'm not technically proficient
> enough to have a solid opinion on this... just a question.
> 
> 
> 
> -gd2
> 
> www.guyd2.com [photography]
> www.sweetcucumber.com [blog]
> www.pillion.be [music]
> 
> 
> On 05 Aug 2008, at 18:07, Chris Muir wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > in your actual patch.
> >
> > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I mentioned
> > that in my original message.
> >
> > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your
> > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a
> > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> >
> > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic
> > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA
> > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> >
> > Chris Muir
> > cbm@well.com	
> > http://www.xfade.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are.  Start here.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

you're absolutely right, tony.
the basic functions of the a111/2 (vco, vcf, vca, crossfader) are
all integrated in one cem chip. thats why all these functions
are available, thats why the unit is so affordable, thats why
crosstalk is not really an issue. if we would pay per function
than the a111/2 would be much more expensive, but luckily we
just have to pay for the parts and the development effort.

best wishes

ingo



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Rolando <goldenechos@...>
wrote:
>
> 
> GD2, I believe the VCF and VCA is contained on the CEM chip being
used for the VCO, thus the lower price, and probably the reason to
include all such things in one module.  Perhaps somebody could confirm
this...
> 
> Tony

not all features can be dublicated with other modules.

the linear FM of the filter frequency is Unique to the A111-2.

also, patch-programmability have many of the doepfer modules (for example: the a143-1 can do many things depending on how it is patched. it can even process audio...
but even this vco has patch-programmability. many connections can be made within the module and do change the sound dramatically.

so, bottom-line: patch-programmable IS this A111-2 vco, too.


Bakis Sirros - Parallel Worlds / Interconnected / Memory Geist
[Doepfer_a100] group owner
www. parallel - worlds - music. com
www. myspace. com/ parallelworldsmusic
www. myspace. com/ interconnectedmusic
www. myspace. com/ memorygeist
www. DiN. org. uk
www. musicamaximamagnetica. com
www. shimarecords. co. uk
www. rubberrecords. gr
Athens - Greece


--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Guy D2 <guy@guyd2.com> wrote:

> From: Guy D2 <guy@guyd2.com>
> Subject: Re: WG: [Doepfer_a100] Re: discontinuation of all modules with CEM3320, CEM3340 and
> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 7:27 PM
> The reason I voted "no" to the A111-2 in the poll,
> is twofold.
> 
> To me, modular synthesis is all about modularity
> (d'oh).
> One exception to that would be the
> "patch-programmability"
> of the Serge & Buchla systems, but that is not the case
> here.
> 
> All of the functionality of that complex VCO can easily be
> replicated with other modules, with the added benefit of
> having those modules still available to other tasks.
> A truly modular system with one dedicated
> function-per-module
> is always more flexible than a semi-modular or
> semi-integrated system.
> 
> Another thing with the A111-2 which throws up a few
> questions,
> is its estimated price-point. I'm just wondering about
> the overall
> sound quality of such module if you integrate a VCO, VCA,
> VCF and Waveshaper in one go for about €250, when a
> single decent VCO or VCF hovers around the same price
> or just slightly below... (no offence, Dieter!)
> 
> And another - somewhat lesser point - would be the
> technical
> quality of such a module; talking about bleed-through and
> crosstalk and such... though I'm not technically
> proficient
> enough to have a solid opinion on this... just a question.
> 
> 
> 
> -gd2
> 
> www.guyd2.com [photography]
> www.sweetcucumber.com [blog]
> www.pillion.be [music]
> 
> 
> On 05 Aug 2008, at 18:07, Chris Muir wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add
> a vca of your
> > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > imho separate vca's give the best
> flexibility, as you can use
> > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use
> dynamic fm
> > > in your actual patch.
> >
> > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into
> FM in. I mentioned
> > that in my original message.
> >
> > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about
> integration. By your
> > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper?
> Wouldn't a
> > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> >
> > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM
> sounds, dynamic
> > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having
> this VCA
> > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> >
> > Chris Muir
> > cbm@well.com	
> > http://www.xfade.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

For me... A "dynamic" VCO would have the following:
1. Ability to reach sub-audio
2. horizontal and vertical waveshaping w/ cv control and attenuation
3. linear / exponential fm w/ attenuation
4. harmonic automation
5. focused on additive rather than subtractive synthesis
6. the ability to create new and interesting waveforms

but hey, who am I?


On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ilanode <techmeier@web.de> wrote:

>   Yes, it's relativly costly to bring those features out. On the other
> hand you get a highly normalized VCO which enables you to try various
> dynamic waveshaping on the fly which can be very inspiring and thus
> might pay off. Rgds, Ingo
>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "laryn91" <caymus91@...> wrote:
> >
> > Several people have posted that because the CEM has a filter and
> VCAs ,we're somehow
> > getting the features for free (or even low cost). Look at all the
> additional pots, knobs,
> > jacks, connections and circuit boards required to implement these
> additional functions!
> >
> > Ask any DIYer, usually the overwhelming cost and time is in those
> passive components -
> > not the semiconductors.
> >
> >
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "selfoscillate"
> <synaptic_music@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Muir <cbm@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > > > in your actual patch.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I
> mentioned
> > > > that in my original message.
> > > >
> > > > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your
> > > > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a
> > > > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> > > >
> > > > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic
> > > > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA
> > > > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> > > >
> > > > Chris Muir
> > > > cbm@
> > > > http://www.xfade.com
> > > >
> > >
> > > hello chris,
> > >
> > > i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
> > > but including such a function would be nothing else than
> > > adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.
> > >
> > > so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2?
> > > because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
> > > a waste not to use them.
> > >
> > > best wishes
> > >
> > > ingo
> > >
> >
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think there's already a good dynamic VCO available that's pretty close to that - the 
Zeroscillator.

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Pearson" <alexpears@...> wrote:

>
> For me... A "dynamic" VCO would have the following:
> 1. Ability to reach sub-audio
> 2. horizontal and vertical waveshaping w/ cv control and attenuation
> 3. linear / exponential fm w/ attenuation
> 4. harmonic automation
> 5. focused on additive rather than subtractive synthesis
> 6. the ability to create new and interesting waveforms
> 
> but hey, who am I?
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ilanode <techmeier@...> wrote:
> 
> >   Yes, it's relativly costly to bring those features out. On the other
> > hand you get a highly normalized VCO which enables you to try various
> > dynamic waveshaping on the fly which can be very inspiring and thus
> > might pay off. Rgds, Ingo
> >
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "laryn91" <caymus91@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Several people have posted that because the CEM has a filter and
> > VCAs ,we're somehow
> > > getting the features for free (or even low cost). Look at all the
> > additional pots, knobs,
> > > jacks, connections and circuit boards required to implement these
> > additional functions!
> > >
> > > Ask any DIYer, usually the overwhelming cost and time is in those
> > passive components -
> > > not the semiconductors.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "selfoscillate"
> > <synaptic_music@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Chris Muir <cbm@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > > > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > > > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > > > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > > > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > > > > in your actual patch.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I
> > mentioned
> > > > > that in my original message.
> > > > >
> > > > > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your
> > > > > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a
> > > > > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> > > > >
> > > > > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic
> > > > > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA
> > > > > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Muir
> > > > > cbm@
> > > > > http://www.xfade.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > hello chris,
> > > >
> > > > i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
> > > > but including such a function would be nothing else than
> > > > adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.
> > > >
> > > > so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2?
> > > > because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
> > > > a waste not to use them.
> > > >
> > > > best wishes
> > > >
> > > > ingo
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I suspect going digital is an effective way to make new dynamic VCOs. The Plan B Model 30 
looks very interesting. I wish they'd hurry up and put up some demo sounds!


--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Pearson" <alexpears@...> wrote:
>
> There sure is, the AFG comes close too... ;-)
> 
> But one from Doepfer would be nice, I rather give them my money.
> 
> Alex
> 
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM, laryn91 <caymus91@...> wrote:
> 
> >   I think there's already a good dynamic VCO available that's pretty close
> > to that - the
> > Zeroscillator.
> >
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Alex Pearson" <alexpears@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For me... A "dynamic" VCO would have the following:
> > > 1. Ability to reach sub-audio
> > > 2. horizontal and vertical waveshaping w/ cv control and attenuation
> > > 3. linear / exponential fm w/ attenuation
> > > 4. harmonic automation
> > > 5. focused on additive rather than subtractive synthesis
> > > 6. the ability to create new and interesting waveforms
> > >
> > > but hey, who am I?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ilanode <techmeier@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, it's relativly costly to bring those features out. On the other
> > > > hand you get a highly normalized VCO which enables you to try various
> > > > dynamic waveshaping on the fly which can be very inspiring and thus
> > > > might pay off. Rgds, Ingo
> > > >
> > > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
<Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "laryn91" <caymus91@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Several people have posted that because the CEM has a filter and
> > > > VCAs ,we're somehow
> > > > > getting the features for free (or even low cost). Look at all the
> > > > additional pots, knobs,
> > > > > jacks, connections and circuit boards required to implement these
> > > > additional functions!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask any DIYer, usually the overwhelming cost and time is in those
> > > > passive components -
> > > > > not the semiconductors.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
<Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "selfoscillate"
> > > > <synaptic_music@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In 
Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com<Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%

> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > Chris Muir <cbm@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > > > > > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > > > > > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > > > > > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > > > > > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > > > > > > in your actual patch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > that in my original message.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your
> > > > > > > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a
> > > > > > > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic
> > > > > > > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA
> > > > > > > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris Muir
> > > > > > > cbm@
> > > > > > > http://www.xfade.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hello chris,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
> > > > > > but including such a function would be nothing else than
> > > > > > adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2?
> > > > > > because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
> > > > > > a waste not to use them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > best wishes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ingo
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

There sure is, the AFG comes close too... ;-)

But one from Doepfer would be nice, I rather give them my money.

Alex

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM, laryn91 <caymus91@mac.com> wrote:

>   I think there's already a good dynamic VCO available that's pretty close
> to that - the
> Zeroscillator.
>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Alex Pearson" <alexpears@...> wrote:
> >
> > For me... A "dynamic" VCO would have the following:
> > 1. Ability to reach sub-audio
> > 2. horizontal and vertical waveshaping w/ cv control and attenuation
> > 3. linear / exponential fm w/ attenuation
> > 4. harmonic automation
> > 5. focused on additive rather than subtractive synthesis
> > 6. the ability to create new and interesting waveforms
> >
> > but hey, who am I?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ilanode <techmeier@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, it's relativly costly to bring those features out. On the other
> > > hand you get a highly normalized VCO which enables you to try various
> > > dynamic waveshaping on the fly which can be very inspiring and thus
> > > might pay off. Rgds, Ingo
> > >
> > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "laryn91" <caymus91@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Several people have posted that because the CEM has a filter and
> > > VCAs ,we're somehow
> > > > getting the features for free (or even low cost). Look at all the
> > > additional pots, knobs,
> > > > jacks, connections and circuit boards required to implement these
> > > additional functions!
> > > >
> > > > Ask any DIYer, usually the overwhelming cost and time is in those
> > > passive components -
> > > > not the semiconductors.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "selfoscillate"
> > > <synaptic_music@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com<Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Chris Muir <cbm@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > > > > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > > > > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > > > > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > > > > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > > > > > in your actual patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I
> > > mentioned
> > > > > > that in my original message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your
> > > > > > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper? Wouldn't a
> > > > > > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic
> > > > > > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA
> > > > > > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris Muir
> > > > > > cbm@
> > > > > > http://www.xfade.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hello chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
> > > > > but including such a function would be nothing else than
> > > > > adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.
> > > > >
> > > > > so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2?
> > > > > because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
> > > > > a waste not to use them.
> > > > >
> > > > > best wishes
> > > > >
> > > > > ingo
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> GD2, I believe the VCF and VCA is contained on the CEM chip being
> used for the VCO, thus the lower price, and probably the reason
> to include all such things in one module.  Perhaps somebody could
> confirm this...
>
> Tony

To disclose the "secret": the core of the A-111-2 is the CEM3394. This
circuit contains a triangle based VCO, a 24 dB VCF with VC resonance, an
audio VCA and several pre-patched auxiliary VCAs (e.g. for linear FM of
VCO -> VCF or 2 opposite as crossfader working VCAs at the VCF audio input).
The CEM3394 was e.g. used in the Sequential Circuits Sixtrack and some
Simmons drum modules. This explains why the A-111-2 has a filter and VCA
available "for free".

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer