Yahoo Groups archive

Doepfer

Index last updated: 2026-04-29 00:15 UTC

Thread

a111-5

a111-5

2008-12-17 by Stu Grimshaw

strange, the lack of feedback over the a111-5 synth voice.
as a
mini-synth i suppose it's pretty run-of-the-mill,
although at that
price i dare say one or two other manufacturers are
uttering the odd
expletive. but as a kind of "five things you use in
nearly every
patch" toolbox, i think it's wonderful, although
i'm usually no fan of
putting as much as possible into a module.

so if you'll forgive me for the one-sided feedback,
here's what i like
about it:

knobs on top, connections at the bottom. i don't really
like the sound
of the cwejman stuff, but the layout i always found very
good.

linear and exponential filter fm. strange that this luxury
should
first appear in this context, but bring it on, say i.

likewise for accurate vcf tracking. could the filter cv
input be
normalled to the cv bus?

tune control with a choice of range. splendid!

adsr/gate switch on the vca. is it connected to the gate
bus?

mini low-space lfo's. not sure how often i'd need
two in one voice,
but what else can you do with the space left over? :)


as soon as the midi-cv interface is available i'll be
buying four of
these. but in the meantime, i look forward to replacing
five modules
with this one.

dieter, how much hassle would it be to add a pin-header to
the pcb?
this could make available the separate vco and lfo
waveforms etc. for
the lightweight diy faction. or is development close to
release?

one more question. what's the difference between the
triangle and
sawtooth in its middle position?

anyway, great module dieter!

stu

Re: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by Richard Scott

seconded, the a111-5 module is a natural for the beauty case of course. 

I also really like the sockets at the bottom - in general the eurorack format is basically too small for my moog-sized hands - having patch cables interferring as well takes away a lot of fun. I would like future doepfer modules to stay with this idea where possible

in my book two LFOs is always better than one but in this case I think I would prefer 1 LFO plus a lag generator, or maybe a single VC LFO

Richard
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stu Grimshaw 
  To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:59 PM
  Subject: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5


  strange, the lack of feedback over the a111-5 synth voice.
  as a
  mini-synth i suppose it's pretty run-of-the-mill,
  although at that
  price i dare say one or two other manufacturers are
  uttering the odd
  expletive. but as a kind of "five things you use in
  nearly every
  patch" toolbox, i think it's wonderful, although
  i'm usually no fan of
  putting as much as possible into a module.

  so if you'll forgive me for the one-sided feedback,
  here's what i like
  about it:

  knobs on top, connections at the bottom. i don't really
  like the sound
  of the cwejman stuff, but the layout i always found very
  good.

  linear and exponential filter fm. strange that this luxury
  should
  first appear in this context, but bring it on, say i.

  likewise for accurate vcf tracking. could the filter cv
  input be
  normalled to the cv bus?

  tune control with a choice of range. splendid!

  adsr/gate switch on the vca. is it connected to the gate
  bus?

  mini low-space lfo's. not sure how often i'd need
  two in one voice,
  but what else can you do with the space left over? :)

  as soon as the midi-cv interface is available i'll be
  buying four of
  these. but in the meantime, i look forward to replacing
  five modules
  with this one.

  dieter, how much hassle would it be to add a pin-header to
  the pcb?
  this could make available the separate vco and lfo
  waveforms etc. for
  the lightweight diy faction. or is development close to
  release?

  one more question. what's the difference between the
  triangle and
  sawtooth in its middle position?

  anyway, great module dieter!

  stu



   

-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 5.7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 1145 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message


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

AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by yahoo@doepfer.de

stu,

you find my comments written inline.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Stu Grimshaw
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Dezember 2008 12:59
> An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5
>
>
> strange, the lack of feedback over the a111-5 synth voice.

Only within this group. Outside we have a lot of feedback and pre-orders.
Some customers suggested to name the module A-404. I have no idea why :-)

> as a mini-synth i suppose it's pretty run-of-the-mill,although at that
> price i dare say one or two other manufacturers are uttering the odd
> expletive. but as a kind of "five things you use in nearly every
> patch" toolbox, i think it's wonderful, although i'm usually no fan of
> putting as much as possible into a module.
>
> so if you'll forgive me for the one-sided feedback, here's what i like
> about it:
>
> knobs on top, connections at the bottom. i don't really like the sound
> of the cwejman stuff, but the layout i always found very good.
>
> linear and exponential filter fm. strange that this luxury should
> first appear in this context, but bring it on, say i.
>
> likewise for accurate vcf tracking. could the filter cv input be
> normalled to the cv bus?

The VCF frequency control input is internally connected to the CV socket of
the VCO via the tracking switch. You can select full, half or zero tracking.
The CV socket of the VCO is normalled to the bus (can be turned off by means
of an internal jumper, same is valid for the ADSR gate).

> tune control with a choice of range. splendid!
>
> adsr/gate switch on the vca. is it connected to the gate bus?

It was, but we changed it. We found that controlling the ADSR directly from
the gate leads to audio clicks especially for low frequency signals (that's
normal because you cut the wave withing the period). This is why we removed
this feature and added a range switch for the ADSR. I think that's more
useful. If you want to control the VCA directly from gate you can patch it
at the front panel.

> mini low-space lfo's. not sure how often i'd need two in one voice,
> but what else can you do with the space left over? :)
>
> as soon as the midi-cv interface is available i'll be buying four of
> these. but in the meantime, i look forward to replacing five modules
> with this one.
>
> dieter, how much hassle would it be to add a pin-header to the pcb?
> this could make available the separate vco and lfo waveforms etc. for
> the lightweight diy faction. or is development close to release?

The corresponding pins are already available (not a pin header but single
pins, like the single outputs of the A-137-2).

> one more question. what's the difference between the triangle and
> sawtooth in its middle position?

In the center position of the switch saw and tri are off. That's necessary
if you want to have only the rectangle. If the PW of the rectangle is fully
CCW or CW even the rectangle is off. This is necessary if the VCF is used as
a sine oscillator, e.g. modulated in a linear way from the VCO, in an
exponential way from the LFO and/or from the pitch CV. But even all three
modulations are available simultaneously. I hope I will find some time to
make sound examples. The simultaneous linear and exponential FM leads to
really weird sounds.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> anyway, great module dieter!
>
> stu

AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by yahoo@doepfer.de

> in my book two LFOs is always better than one but in this case I
> think I would prefer 1 LFO plus a lag generator, or maybe a single VC LFO
>
> Richard

We built the slew limiter into the A-190-2. One idea was to offer a
miniature midi controlled synth assembled into the A-100 miniature case
(A-111-5 + A-190-2) - hoping to get some new modular fans hooked :-)
And there was no place left for a slew limiter on the A-111-5 front panel.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

Re: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by Florian Anwander

Hi

Another suggestion: what about two Envelopes in the Moog-Rogue style 
instead of one ADSR. For those who don't know the Rogue envelope:
It has two potentiometers, one for risetime (=Attack), one for falltime 
(Decay or Release). You have a switch which selects two envelope modes.

- mode "AD" is like Attack variable, Decay variable, but Sustain at 
zero, Release not relevant. The Decay-phase is not stopped by a gate-off.
- mode "AR" is like Attack variable, Decay not relevant, Sustain at 100% 
Release variable.

It may depend on the individual style of music, but I use an ADSR 
envelope 90% of the time in one of those two settings (percussive or 
brass like AD-shape for VCF, percussive AD or organ/string like AR for VCA).

Florian

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by york luethje

This is all great stuff but the really important question has not been adressed: Does it produce a pure and harmonically rich sinewave?

[User was banned for this remark]




________________________________
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "yahoo@doepfer.de" <yahoo@doepfer.de>
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:42:39 AM
Subject: AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5


> in my book two LFOs is always better than one but in this case I
> think I would prefer 1 LFO plus a lag generator, or maybe a single VC LFO
>
> Richard

We built the slew limiter into the A-190-2. One idea was to offer a
miniature midi controlled synth assembled into the A-100 miniature case
(A-111-5 + A-190-2) - hoping to get some new modular fans hooked :-)
And there was no place left for a slew limiter on the A-111-5 front panel.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

    


      

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

Re: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by Denis Gökdag

I agree, i *rarely* ever use the full ADSR, it's either AD or AR for  
me most of the time.


On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Florian Anwander wrote:

> Hi
>
> Another suggestion: what about two Envelopes in the Moog-Rogue style
> instead of one ADSR. For those who don't know the Rogue envelope:
> It has two potentiometers, one for risetime (=Attack), one for  
> falltime
> (Decay or Release). You have a switch which selects two envelope  
> modes.
>
> - mode "AD" is like Attack variable, Decay variable, but Sustain at
> zero, Release not relevant. The Decay-phase is not stopped by a gate- 
> off.
> - mode "AR" is like Attack variable, Decay not relevant, Sustain at  
> 100%
> Release variable.
>
> It may depend on the individual style of music, but I use an ADSR
> envelope 90% of the time in one of those two settings (percussive or
> brass like AD-shape for VCF, percussive AD or organ/string like AR  
> for VCA).
>
> Florian
>
> 



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

Re: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by Richard Scott

me too on the ADSR! good point florian - for sure some modules can be made more economical in this way

allowing more space for lag generators and therefore more wobbly sounds

i love lag generators :) 

R
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Denis Gökdag 
  To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5


  I agree, i *rarely* ever use the full ADSR, it's either AD or AR for 
  me most of the time.

  On Dec 17, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Florian Anwander wrote:

  > Hi
  >
  > Another suggestion: what about two Envelopes in the Moog-Rogue style
  > instead of one ADSR. For those who don't know the Rogue envelope:
  > It has two potentiometers, one for risetime (=Attack), one for 
  > falltime
  > (Decay or Release). You have a switch which selects two envelope 
  > modes.
  >
  > - mode "AD" is like Attack variable, Decay variable, but Sustain at
  > zero, Release not relevant. The Decay-phase is not stopped by a gate- 
  > off.
  > - mode "AR" is like Attack variable, Decay not relevant, Sustain at 
  > 100%
  > Release variable.
  >
  > It may depend on the individual style of music, but I use an ADSR
  > envelope 90% of the time in one of those two settings (percussive or
  > brass like AD-shape for VCF, percussive AD or organ/string like AR 
  > for VCA).
  >
  > Florian
  >
  > 

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



   

-- 
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 5.7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 1145 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message


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

AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by yahoo@doepfer.de

> Hi
>
> Another suggestion: what about two Envelopes in the Moog-Rogue style
> instead of one ADSR. For those who don't know the Rogue envelope:
> It has two potentiometers, one for risetime (=Attack), one for falltime
> (Decay or Release). You have a switch which selects two envelope modes.
>
> - mode "AD" is like Attack variable, Decay variable, but Sustain at
> zero, Release not relevant. The Decay-phase is not stopped by a gate-off.
> - mode "AR" is like Attack variable, Decay not relevant, Sustain at 100%
> Release variable.
>
> It may depend on the individual style of music, but I use an ADSR
> envelope 90% of the time in one of those two settings (percussive or
> brass like AD-shape for VCF, percussive AD or organ/string like
> AR for VCA).
>
> Florian

Hi Florian,

maybe there will come an "A-111-6". The A-111-5 is too close to production
to change anything and we have already a lot of pre-orders as it is.

Best wishes
Dieter

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by Florian Anwander

Hi Dieter,

> maybe there will come an "A-111-6". The A-111-5 is too close to production
> to change anything and we have already a lot of pre-orders as it is.
And what about a dual simple-envelope module? A142-2 ?

Florian

AW: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by yahoo@doepfer.de

> Hi Dieter,
>
> > maybe there will come an "A-111-6". The A-111-5 is too close to
> production
> > to change anything and we have already a lot of pre-orders as it is.
> And what about a dual simple-envelope module? A142-2 ?
>
> Florian

That's an interesting option and would not take more than a few hours to
develop (noting but a slimmed A-143-1).

Best wishes
Dieter

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by achtung_999

I would definately be interested in what Florian proposes here..Can you give
a rough estimate what the cost price would be then Dieter?

greetings,

Ernst








On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM, <yahoo@doepfer.de> wrote:

>   > Hi Dieter,
> >
> > > maybe there will come an "A-111-6". The A-111-5 is too close to
> > production
> > > to change anything and we have already a lot of pre-orders as it is.
> > And what about a dual simple-envelope module? A142-2 ?
> >
> > Florian
>
> That's an interesting option and would not take more than a few hours to
> develop (noting but a slimmed A-143-1).
>
> Best wishes
> Dieter
>
>  
>


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

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by achtung_999

this will be voltage controlled then?


On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:43 PM, achtung_999 <
heinrich.himmelwasser@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would definately be interested in what Florian proposes here..Can you
> give a rough estimate what the cost price would be then Dieter?
>
> greetings,
>
> Ernst
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM, <yahoo@doepfer.de> wrote:
>
>>   > Hi Dieter,
>> >
>> > > maybe there will come an "A-111-6". The A-111-5 is too close to
>> > production
>> > > to change anything and we have already a lot of pre-orders as it is.
>> > And what about a dual simple-envelope module? A142-2 ?
>> >
>> > Florian
>>
>> That's an interesting option and would not take more than a few hours to
>> develop (noting but a slimmed A-143-1).
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Dieter
>>
>>  
>>
>
>


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

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by Bakis Sirros

no, i haven't banned you...     :-)


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 Wed, 12/17/08, york luethje <ybl@yahoo.com> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: york luethje <ybl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 4:45 PM






This is all great stuff but the really important question has not been adressed: Does it produce a pure and harmonically rich sinewave?

[User was banned for this remark]

____________ _________ _________ __
From: "yahoo@doepfer. de" <yahoo@doepfer. de>
To: Doepfer_a100@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:42:39 AM
Subject: AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

> in my book two LFOs is always better than one but in this case I
> think I would prefer 1 LFO plus a lag generator, or maybe a single VC LFO
>
> Richard

We built the slew limiter into the A-190-2. One idea was to offer a
miniature midi controlled synth assembled into the A-100 miniature case
(A-111-5 + A-190-2) - hoping to get some new modular fans hooked :-)
And there was no place left for a slew limiter on the A-111-5 front panel.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

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

 














      

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

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5

2008-12-17 by Bakis Sirros

yes, and i think that the adsr is really useful for some sounds.
 
i too like AR (or AD) envelopes, but i also like ADSR's...


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 Wed, 12/17/08, yahoo@doepfer.de <yahoo@doepfer.de> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: yahoo@doepfer.de <yahoo@doepfer.de>
Subject: AW: [Doepfer_a100] a111-5
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 6:07 PM






> Hi
>
> Another suggestion: what about two Envelopes in the Moog-Rogue style
> instead of one ADSR. For those who don't know the Rogue envelope:
> It has two potentiometers, one for risetime (=Attack), one for falltime
> (Decay or Release). You have a switch which selects two envelope modes.
>
> - mode "AD" is like Attack variable, Decay variable, but Sustain at
> zero, Release not relevant. The Decay-phase is not stopped by a gate-off.
> - mode "AR" is like Attack variable, Decay not relevant, Sustain at 100%
> Release variable.
>
> It may depend on the individual style of music, but I use an ADSR
> envelope 90% of the time in one of those two settings (percussive or
> brass like AD-shape for VCF, percussive AD or organ/string like
> AR for VCA).
>
> Florian

Hi Florian,

maybe there will come an "A-111-6". The A-111-5 is too close to production
to change anything and we have already a lot of pre-orders as it is.

Best wishes
Dieter

 














      

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

AW: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by yahoo@doepfer.de

> I would definately be interested in what Florian proposes 
> here..Can you give
> a rough estimate what the cost price would be then Dieter?
> 
> greetings,
> 
> Ernst

About Euro 60, but that's only a ballpark figure.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

AW: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by yahoo@doepfer.de

> this will be voltage controlled then?

no. The A-143-1 is not voltage controlled and consequently a slimmed version
as well.

The voltage controlled version would be something like the A-142 but with an
additional Attack control and CV.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by achtung_999

I personally think a voltage controlled version is more useful.As it fills a
gap in what the Doepfer range has to offer now.
Since the only other voltage controlled envelope is the A141.. Next to the
A142 of course.

I really like voltage controllable envelopes and I own an A141.
But I must confess that this module is a bit too extensive for most of the
stuff I do with it.
For most purposes an AD would suffice. It would be nice to have voltage
control over A and D..
But a dual AD with only control over the D would be a winner too!

greetings,

Ernst










On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:24 PM, <yahoo@doepfer.de> wrote:

>   > this will be voltage controlled then?
>
> no. The A-143-1 is not voltage controlled and consequently a slimmed
> version
> as well.
>
> The voltage controlled version would be something like the A-142 but with
> an
> additional Attack control and CV.
>
> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
>
>  
>


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

Re: AW: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by Florian Anwander

Hi Dieter

> That's an interesting option and would not take more than a few hours to
> develop (noting but a slimmed A-143-1).
nope. Its not only an AD envelope like in the 143! It is on one hand an 
AD (not gate orientated, but triggered only by a positive edge), and on 
the other hand a gate orientated AR envelope like the A170.

see 
http://www.emusic-diy.org/MoogManuals/Rogue?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=rogue7lg.gif

Florian

Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-17 by Florian Anwander

Hi Ernst

> I personally think a voltage controlled version is more useful.
Ok: I oppose. :-) Already the A143-1 and the A-143-2 are much too 
complex (where the A143-3 is great; its just "LFOs now!"). I really 
think of very unexpensive slimmed down bread and butter modules.


Aah, and btw: The 143 is much too slow. A new AD-Envelope must be much 
faster (the usual three position switch should be there).

Florian

AW: AW: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-18 by yahoo@doepfer.de

> Hi Dieter
>
> > That's an interesting option and would not take more than a few hours to
> > develop (noting but a slimmed A-143-1).
> nope. Its not only an AD envelope like in the 143! It is on one hand an
> AD (not gate orientated, but triggered only by a positive edge), and on
> the other hand a gate orientated AR envelope like the A170.

Yes I know. But it's easy to change the AD mode to AR (the other way round
would be more difficult because a comparatur and a flipflop are required).

Dieter

Re: AW: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Simple Envelope -> was a111-5

2008-12-18 by achtung_999

Ah well, whichever version it will be.. they all have some application for
me anyway.
greetings,

Ernst



On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM, <yahoo@doepfer.de> wrote:

>   > Hi Dieter
> >
> > > That's an interesting option and would not take more than a few hours
> to
> > > develop (noting but a slimmed A-143-1).
> > nope. Its not only an AD envelope like in the 143! It is on one hand an
> > AD (not gate orientated, but triggered only by a positive edge), and on
> > the other hand a gate orientated AR envelope like the A170.
>
> Yes I know. But it's easy to change the AD mode to AR (the other way round
> would be more difficult because a comparatur and a flipflop are required).
>
> Dieter
>
>  
>


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

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.