Doepfer

Hi all

Surely I can't be the only person who mourns the lake of a vocoder system on Doepfer.

Is there ANY chance of the modules being reissued?

I am desperate!

Stu

> Hi all
>
>
> Surely I can't be the only person who mourns the lake of a vocoder system on Doepfer.
> Is there ANY chance of the modules being reissued?
>
> I am desperate!
>
> Stu

The vocoder has been stopped because of the poor sales. Of course we could manufacture the vocoder modules again. But from the
economic point of view it does not make sense. It took more than two years to sell the last lot (we have to manufacture at least 100
units to keep the prices).

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

It makes total sense from an economical point of view.  It's just frustrating that the vocoder subsystem (and a few other modules) weren't more popular.  They're really neat!

Still, it says something good about the A-100 when you can say that "only" selling 100 units is considered not worth it. :)

> It makes total sense from an economical point of view.  It's just frustrating that the vocoder subsystem (and a few other
> modules) weren't more popular.  They're really neat!
>
> Still, it says something good about the A-100 when you can say that "only" selling 100 units is considered not worth it. :)

You have to keep in mind the selling period: 100 within 2 years means only 4 per months or even less because the sales were
decreasing. And it's not a Ferrari where 4 units per months would be fine :-)

If we could expect selling 100 units e.g. within 6 or even 12 months the situation would be different. But I don't think that's not
the case for the vocoder sub-system. Maybe a non full modular vocoder (i.e. not a separate analysis and synthesis section with 15
in/outputs, but all in-one) would sell better as it would be cheaper too. And of course a DSP solution would also be cheaper. But
that's not what we want to offer.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

Am 21.07.2015 um 15:38 schrieb yahoo@doepfer.de [Doepfer_a100]:
> And of course a DSP solution would also be cheaper. But that's not 
> what we want to offer.
A DSP-Solution is always delaying the modulator signal. So you can't use 
it for realtime modulation by drums (which is a very common usage today).

Oh totally, I would have thought a 1U version with just carrier, modulator and unvoiced noise in, result out, and a slew knob and switch, would have been even more popular... but then again, I still can't believe the MCV-24 isn't more popular, so maybe I'm not very representative of what most people want.

Hell, I'd love to make a software programmer that edits MCV-24 patch files.  That kind of thing would probably help people realise how much they should want it, hehe... :)

Am 21.07.2015 um 15:49 schrieb Zoë Blade zoe@bytenoise.co.uk [Doepfer_a100]:
> Oh totally, I would have thought a 1U version with just carrier, modulator and unvoiced noise in, result out, and a slew knob and switch, would have been even more popular...
You may think about, why the MAM Vocoder or the Synton/Dynacord Vocoder 
did not survive (both were quite exactly what you describe).

The vocoder system is a very good idea, I think the problem is that it
is not well copnnu the general public, video demos would certainly
make a popular system as a René or Braids

2015-07-21 15:49 UTC+02:00, Zoë Blade zoe@bytenoise.co.uk
[Doepfer_a100] <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>:

> Oh totally, I would have thought a 1U version with just carrier, modulator
> and unvoiced noise in, result out, and a slew knob and switch, would have
> been even more popular... but then again, I still can't believe the MCV-24
> isn't more popular, so maybe I'm not very representative of what most people
> want.
>
> Hell, I'd love to make a software programmer that edits MCV-24 patch files.
> That kind of thing would probably help people realise how much they should
> want it, hehe... :)
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Heh, I used to have a MAM VF-11 waaay back in maybe the late 90s, early 00s...  I don't remember it having a voiced/unvoiced detector or slew though.  Still, it was a pretty nice device, much better than their FB-383.

These days, most people presumably use plug-ins though for these sorts of things...

Well I have the A-100 vocoder subsystem and have been known to make related videos on YouTube... just as soon as I get enough wires, I could make a demo of it if it would help gauge if people really would be interested, they just don't know about it?

"...waaay back in maybe the late 90s, early 00s.." 

how did "the late 90s" become "waaay back" when i wasn't looking? 
feelin' *really* old now!  ;-)
 
      From: "Zoë Blade zoe@bytenoise.co.uk [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>
 To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:21 AM
 Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder
   
Heh, I used to have a MAM VF-11 waaay back in maybe the late 90s, early 00s...

hmmm.... "Limited-Edition Ferrari-branded Dopefer modules".... might be on to something there....  ;-)
      From: "yahoo@doepfer.de [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>
 To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:38 AM
 Subject: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder
   
And it's not a Ferrari where 4 units per months would be fine :-)

Hi

i still have the VF-11, it has a voice/unvoice detector. my machine does 
pot crackling all over the place,
i was also looking for another vocoder option which is more open then 
the most available.

for eurorack there are maybe more options by now, the 4ms spectral 
filter or the annouced spectral processor
by sputnik modular ( if this will become reality, cause this it seems 
everybody building spectral eq devices ).

i would love to see some doepfer vocoder demos.

felix

Am 21.07.15 um 16:21 schrieb Zoë Blade zoe@bytenoise.co.uk [Doepfer_a100]:
> Heh, I used to have a MAM VF-11 waaay back in maybe the late 90s, early 00s...  I don't remember it having a voiced/unvoiced detector or slew though.  Still, it was a pretty nice device, much better than their FB-383.
>
> These days, most people presumably use plug-ins though for these sorts of things...
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>

-- 
Sozialistischer Plattenbau Hamburg
Gaußstrasse 25 b
22765 Hamburg
Germany

http:sozialistischer-plattenbau.org

> Dieter,
>
>
> Would you consider licensing the sub-system design to a smaller manufacturer who could produce updated boards (perhaps
> using the new parallel version of Cliff sockets, SSM2164, etc) for a DIY project?
>
> I nearly asked permission to build that member the A-129-5 that they're looking for.
>
> Nick

This would be possible. But after all a vocoder is not really a secret but only a lot of work to built it (2 x 15 filters, 15
envelope followers and 15 VCAs, and maybe 15 voltage controlled slew limiters as option). So other manufacturers would be able to
offer a vocoder without the need of licensing.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

> Yes, but the circuit design would be mostly complete, tested, and proven.  By "other manufacturers", I really meant "an
> enthusiast with the passion to keep the sub-system alive", not a team of circuit designers with an established system for
> fabrication and their own idea of what features are necessary.  I'm not an engineer, but I can design a PCB, source all
> the components, and build kits.  I've just had a small batch of PCBs fabricated for a project I'm doing, so I wake up
> with a bit of confidence that anything is possible.  Zöe and Nina might consider taking on this project also and would
> have more experience than I in producing a professional-grade result (front panel).
>
>
> The DIY community can support legacy projects, there just isn't always the capital to invest in bulk purchases to cut
> costs.   If I were to attempt this, it would not be to profit financially, it would simply be to keep the system
> available as an option for future modular users and to provide those "missing pieces" to folks who didn't purchase the
> complete system from you (voiced/unvoiced, slew control, etc).
>
> Nick

To speak the truth I'd not recommend to copy the A-129 modules as they are. As already mentioned by you more modern VCAs (SSM2164)
instead of the obsolete and expensive Curtis VCAs CEM3381 should be used. And it would be also a good idea to use a better type of
VC slew limiter (not the controller/slew limiter combo with pulsewidth controlled VC switches and lowpass filters). After all it
would be a redesign. Only the filter stages could remain unchanged. Maybe we could collect orders. If 50 orders are reached we may
think about a new more compact vocoder, i.e. an all-in-one unit with analysis section, slew limiter, synthesis section. Each channel
linked via jumpers between analysis section/slew limiter input and slew limiter output/synthesis section so that it can expanded to
a fully modular version if desired by replacing the jumpers by output/input sockets. But I don't want to promise anything as we
still have a lot of projects to be finished.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

I’d certainly buy on of those :)

> On 23 Jul 2015, at 12:47, yahoo@doepfer.de [Doepfer_a100] <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, but the circuit design would be mostly complete, tested, and proven.  By "other manufacturers", I really meant "an
>> enthusiast with the passion to keep the sub-system alive", not a team of circuit designers with an established system for
>> fabrication and their own idea of what features are necessary.  I'm not an engineer, but I can design a PCB, source all
>> the components, and build kits.  I've just had a small batch of PCBs fabricated for a project I'm doing, so I wake up
>> with a bit of confidence that anything is possible.  Zöe and Nina might consider taking on this project also and would
>> have more experience than I in producing a professional-grade result (front panel).
>> 
>> 
>> The DIY community can support legacy projects, there just isn't always the capital to invest in bulk purchases to cut
>> costs.   If I were to attempt this, it would not be to profit financially, it would simply be to keep the system
>> available as an option for future modular users and to provide those "missing pieces" to folks who didn't purchase the
>> complete system from you (voiced/unvoiced, slew control, etc).
>> 
>> Nick
> 
> To speak the truth I'd not recommend to copy the A-129 modules as they are. As already mentioned by you more modern VCAs (SSM2164)
> instead of the obsolete and expensive Curtis VCAs CEM3381 should be used. And it would be also a good idea to use a better type of
> VC slew limiter (not the controller/slew limiter combo with pulsewidth controlled VC switches and lowpass filters). After all it
> would be a redesign. Only the filter stages could remain unchanged. Maybe we could collect orders. If 50 orders are reached we may
> think about a new more compact vocoder, i.e. an all-in-one unit with analysis section, slew limiter, synthesis section. Each channel
> linked via jumpers between analysis section/slew limiter input and slew limiter output/synthesis section so that it can expanded to
> a fully modular version if desired by replacing the jumpers by output/input sockets. But I don't want to promise anything as we
> still have a lot of projects to be finished.
> 
> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Hi Dieter,

If you will design a new vocoder, I would buy one too. Thought to order one, but had to realize that I'm too late. 

Greetings,
Claas

Malte Stamm-Gadow
Journalist
Musik- & Theaterwissenschaftler 

Otto-Ernst-Weg 17

24159 Kiel

Tel. 0172 30 797 00


Am 23.07.2015 um 13:47 schrieb yahoo@doepfer.de [Doepfer_a100] <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>:

>> Yes, but the circuit design would be mostly complete, tested, and proven.  By "other manufacturers", I really meant "an
>> enthusiast with the passion to keep the sub-system alive", not a team of circuit designers with an established system for
>> fabrication and their own idea of what features are necessary.  I'm not an engineer, but I can design a PCB, source all
>> the components, and build kits.  I've just had a small batch of PCBs fabricated for a project I'm doing, so I wake up
>> with a bit of confidence that anything is possible.  Zöe and Nina might consider taking on this project also and would
>> have more experience than I in producing a professional-grade result (front panel).
>> 
>> 
>> The DIY community can support legacy projects, there just isn't always the capital to invest in bulk purchases to cut
>> costs.   If I were to attempt this, it would not be to profit financially, it would simply be to keep the system
>> available as an option for future modular users and to provide those "missing pieces" to folks who didn't purchase the
>> complete system from you (voiced/unvoiced, slew control, etc).
>> 
>> Nick
> 
> To speak the truth I'd not recommend to copy the A-129 modules as they are. As already mentioned by you more modern VCAs (SSM2164)
> instead of the obsolete and expensive Curtis VCAs CEM3381 should be used. And it would be also a good idea to use a better type of
> VC slew limiter (not the controller/slew limiter combo with pulsewidth controlled VC switches and lowpass filters). After all it
> would be a redesign. Only the filter stages could remain unchanged. Maybe we could collect orders. If 50 orders are reached we may
> think about a new more compact vocoder, i.e. an all-in-one unit with analysis section, slew limiter, synthesis section. Each channel
> linked via jumpers between analysis section/slew limiter input and slew limiter output/synthesis section so that it can expanded to
> a fully modular version if desired by replacing the jumpers by output/input sockets. But I don't want to promise anything as we
> still have a lot of projects to be finished.
> 
> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo Groups Links
> 
> 
>

> However, the Doepfer all-in-one redesign would not help the people with missing A-129 modules.  

Well if it includes slew and the voiced/unvoiced toggling, I'd consider selling my A-129 subsystem to replace with this, and save on my patch cables. :)

I owned a MAM VF-11, a A-129 System and a Roland SVC-325. I sold them 
all, and own now an Electrix WarpFactory, a Alesis Metavox and the 
NordModular. All three are digital

I have to say: for any standard voice orientated vocoding, I would use 
always a digital vocoder. They sound not only way better. No, they are 
miles ahead. What the Electrix does is incredible. Price on ebay is 
between 170 and 230 Euros.

If I would want an analogue vocoder again, then only because digital 
vocoders have a timelag, which annoys if you use percussive sounds for 
the modulator.


The other argument for an analogue vocoder would be its patchability. I 
really appreciated the A-129-2 as VC filterbank. Also the 129-1 as 
frequency selective envelope follower is nice, but a A-119 with a 
multimode filter does usually a better job.

But I always missed other features on the A-129 system. For instance I 
do find the fixed centerfrequencies of the filterbands as very limiting. 
They are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of vocals. And 
even worse: they are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of 
german vocals. I once wanted to use the voice of a turkish speaker, but 
turkish vocals are much darker than german ones. The vocoding with the 
A-129 was disappointing. I don't blame Dieter for it, but it is 
something that should be kept in mind, if someone designs a new vocoder.

What I would want is a vocoder with VC-Bandpasses in the analysis and 
synthesis section. The center frequency of each band should be 
adjustable in a certain range, it should be possible to shift the center 
frequencies of the whole bank and also one could adjust the spread of 
the bands. Also I'd like to have the resonance adjustable.

So I doubt that a "simple vocoder" on analog basis does make sense. The 
recent three auctions for an Alesis Metavox here were between 45 and 109 
Euros (and the Metavox sounds at a least as good as the MAM or a Korg 
VC10).  Beat that price with analogue gear.

If someone ever will build an analog vocoder, then it should be more 
sophisticated than the A-129.

Just my 2cts.

Florian

I don't have Florian's extensive knowledge about so many vocoders but I do think that the A129 would have been pushed into another whole class had the resonance of the filters been adjustable. It would have increased the versatility of the system considerably - for non "vocoder" uses. But I do like my A129 system (I have all the parts :-)) 

David

www.movingisliving.co.uk

Sent from my iPhone 

> On 23 Jul 2015, at 16:27, Florian Anwander fanwander@mnet-online.de [Doepfer_a100] <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> I owned a MAM VF-11, a A-129 System and a Roland SVC-325. I sold them 
> all, and own now an Electrix WarpFactory, a Alesis Metavox and the 
> NordModular. All three are digital
> 
> I have to say: for any standard voice orientated vocoding, I would use 
> always a digital vocoder. They sound not only way better. No, they are 
> miles ahead. What the Electrix does is incredible. Price on ebay is 
> between 170 and 230 Euros.
> 
> If I would want an analogue vocoder again, then only because digital 
> vocoders have a timelag, which annoys if you use percussive sounds for 
> the modulator.
> 
> 
> The other argument for an analogue vocoder would be its patchability. I 
> really appreciated the A-129-2 as VC filterbank. Also the 129-1 as 
> frequency selective envelope follower is nice, but a A-119 with a 
> multimode filter does usually a better job.
> 
> But I always missed other features on the A-129 system. For instance I 
> do find the fixed centerfrequencies of the filterbands as very limiting. 
> They are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of vocals. And 
> even worse: they are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of 
> german vocals. I once wanted to use the voice of a turkish speaker, but 
> turkish vocals are much darker than german ones. The vocoding with the 
> A-129 was disappointing. I don't blame Dieter for it, but it is 
> something that should be kept in mind, if someone designs a new vocoder.
> 
> What I would want is a vocoder with VC-Bandpasses in the analysis and 
> synthesis section. The center frequency of each band should be 
> adjustable in a certain range, it should be possible to shift the center 
> frequencies of the whole bank and also one could adjust the spread of 
> the bands. Also I'd like to have the resonance adjustable.
> 
> So I doubt that a "simple vocoder" on analog basis does make sense. The 
> recent three auctions for an Alesis Metavox here were between 45 and 109 
> Euros (and the Metavox sounds at a least as good as the MAM or a Korg 
> VC10).  Beat that price with analogue gear.
> 
> If someone ever will build an analog vocoder, then it should be more 
> sophisticated than the A-129.
> 
> Just my 2cts.
> 
> Florian
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo Groups Links
> 
> 
>

"Fascinating..."    :-)
seriously, thank you Florian, that is a lot of great technical info i wasn't aware of, especially in context of this recent vocoder-thread. i've only ever played around with digital vocoding (currently i have vocoding covered by a V-Synth GT & microKorg, and the built-in plug-ins in Reason & DP).
i was particularly interested in the "lag" aspect re: analog vs digital with regard to percussion fx, good to know ("vocoding with percussion" is one of those things on "The 10,000 Things I Really Wanna Gotta Try Someday List"...).
specific question for your (and anyone's) expertise and experience: how do software/computer-based plug-in digital vocoders compare with hardware digital units when it comes to such timing issues? i imagine with plug-ins/dsp there are coding tricks one could do to tweak things to work faster, or at least seem to, especially on a pc with enough horsepower (though at the end of the day, analog will always be better than digital for certan things since no amount of clever coding can match the Laws of Thermodynamics messing with raw voltage in a physical circuit in real time).
and i agree that, if Dieter were to do a new analog vocoding system it should be a newer, better, more variable & capable updated unit, not just a nostagia-flashback recreation of older tech. but, as with Florian, "...that's just, y'know, like, uh, my opinion, man..."  ;-)
-chris

(ps- total non sequitur and irrelevant to the group, apologies to all, but Florian: i got the Roland book last month... very nice! :-)  just *slightly* disappointed that, of all my Roland gear, i only have one thing that's in the book - my 707, which is currently dead, but resurrectable with proper soldering skills - though a JX-3P was one of the first synths i ever got my hands on over 30 years ago, and i did have a 505 as a loaner for a while... and though i don't have a Jupiter 8, i do have an MKS80/MPG80.... ok i've gone completely off the rails here, shutting up now!!!  ^_^  )

      From: "Florian Anwander fanwander@mnet-online.de [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>
 To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder
   
I owned a MAM VF-11, a A-129 System and a Roland SVC-325. I sold them 
all, and own now an Electrix WarpFactory, a Alesis Metavox and the 
NordModular. All three are digital

I have to say: for any standard voice orientated vocoding, I would use 
always a digital vocoder. They sound not only way better. No, they are 
miles ahead. What the Electrix does is incredible. Price on ebay is 
between 170 and 230 Euros.

If I would want an analogue vocoder again, then only because digital 
vocoders have a timelag, which annoys if you use percussive sounds for 
the modulator.


The other argument for an analogue vocoder would be its patchability. I 
really appreciated the A-129-2 as VC filterbank. Also the 129-1 as 
frequency selective envelope follower is nice, but a A-119 with a 
multimode filter does usually a better job.

But I always missed other features on the A-129 system. For instance I 
do find the fixed centerfrequencies of the filterbands as very limiting. 
They are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of vocals. And 
even worse: they are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of 
german vocals. I once wanted to use the voice of a turkish speaker, but 
turkish vocals are much darker than german ones. The vocoding with the 
A-129 was disappointing. I don't blame Dieter for it, but it is 
something that should be kept in mind, if someone designs a new vocoder.

What I would want is a vocoder with VC-Bandpasses in the analysis and 
synthesis section. The center frequency of each band should be 
adjustable in a certain range, it should be possible to shift the center 
frequencies of the whole bank and also one could adjust the spread of 
the bands. Also I'd like to have the resonance adjustable.

So I doubt that a "simple vocoder" on analog basis does make sense. The 
recent three auctions for an Alesis Metavox here were between 45 and 109 
Euros (and the Metavox sounds at a least as good as the MAM or a Korg 
VC10).  Beat that price with analogue gear.

If someone ever will build an analog vocoder, then it should be more 
sophisticated than the A-129.

Just my 2cts.

Florian




------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

I’ll just throw this into the vocoder discussion. I’ve said this before but I’ll mention it again now; 

 

I have the Electro-harmonix V256 and it is absolutely amazing. I know it doesn’t have the functionality of the Doepfer, but if you want a vocoder that sounds good and does a bunch of cool things all in one little box, I can’t say enough about this one. 

 

I highly recommend a condenser mic to use with it though. At first I was using my Shure 58 but then I got an AT2020 and suddenly all speech became crystal clear. 

 

It also does auto-tuning and voice gender changing. 

 

That is all!

Scott

From: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:17 PM
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder

 

  

"Fascinating..."    :-)

 

seriously, thank you Florian, that is a lot of great technical info i wasn't aware of, especially in context of this recent vocoder-thread. i've only ever played around with digital vocoding (currently i have vocoding covered by a V-Synth GT & microKorg, and the built-in plug-ins in Reason & DP).

 

i was particularly interested in the "lag" aspect re: analog vs digital with regard to percussion fx, good to know ("vocoding with percussion" is one of those things on "The 10,000 Things I Really Wanna Gotta Try Someday List"...).

 

specific question for your (and anyone's) expertise and experience: how do software/computer-based plug-in digital vocoders compare with hardware digital units when it comes to such timing issues? i imagine with plug-ins/dsp there are coding tricks one could do to tweak things to work faster, or at least seem to, especially on a pc with enough horsepower (though at the end of the day, analog will always be better than digital for certan things since no amount of clever coding can match the Laws of Thermodynamics messing with raw voltage in a physical circuit in real time).

 

and i agree that, if Dieter were to do a new analog vocoding system it should be a newer, better, more variable & capable updated unit, not just a nostagia-flashback recreation of older tech. but, as with Florian, "...that's just, y'know, like, uh, my opinion, man..."  ;-)

 

-chris

 

(ps- total non sequitur and irrelevant to the group, apologies to all, but Florian: i got the Roland book last month... very nice! :-)  just *slightly* disappointed that, of all my Roland gear, i only have one thing that's in the book - my 707, which is currently dead, but resurrectable with proper soldering skills - though a JX-3P was one of the first synths i ever got my hands on over 30 years ago, and i did have a 505 as a loaner for a while... and though i don't have a Jupiter 8, i do have an MKS80/MPG80.... ok i've gone completely off the rails here, shutting up now!!!  ^_^  )

 

 

 

  _____  

From: "Florian Anwander fanwander@mnet-online.de [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder


I owned a MAM VF-11, a A-129 System and a Roland SVC-325. I sold them 
all, and own now an Electrix WarpFactory, a Alesis Metavox and the 
NordModular. All three are digital

I have to say: for any standard voice orientated vocoding, I would use 
always a digital vocoder. They sound not only way better. No, they are 
miles ahead. What the Electrix does is incredible. Price on ebay is 
between 170 and 230 Euros.

If I would want an analogue vocoder again, then only because digital 
vocoders have a timelag, which annoys if you use percussive sounds for 
the modulator.


The other argument for an analogue vocoder would be its patchability. I 
really appreciated the A-129-2 as VC filterbank. Also the 129-1 as 
frequency selective envelope follower is nice, but a A-119 with a 
multimode filter does usually a better job.

But I always missed other features on the A-129 system. For instance I 
do find the fixed centerfrequencies of the filterbands as very limiting. 
They are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of vocals. And 
even worse: they are trimmed to hit the typical resonance frequencies of 
german vocals. I once wanted to use the voice of a turkish speaker, but 
turkish vocals are much darker than german ones. The vocoding with the 
A-129 was disappointing. I don't blame Dieter for it, but it is 
something that should be kept in mind, if someone designs a new vocoder.

What I would want is a vocoder with VC-Bandpasses in the analysis and 
synthesis section. The center frequency of each band should be 
adjustable in a certain range, it should be possible to shift the center 
frequencies of the whole bank and also one could adjust the spread of 
the bands. Also I'd like to have the resonance adjustable.

So I doubt that a "simple vocoder" on analog basis does make sense. The 
recent three auctions for an Alesis Metavox here were between 45 and 109 
Euros (and the Metavox sounds at a least as good as the MAM or a Korg 
VC10).  Beat that price with analogue gear.

If someone ever will build an analog vocoder, then it should be more 
sophisticated than the A-129.

Just my 2cts.

Florian

 




------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

Hello Christian

Am 23.07.2015 um 21:17 schrieb christian ienni ienni23@yahoo.com 
[Doepfer_a100]:
> specific question for your (and anyone's) expertise and experience: how
> do software/computer-based plug-in digital vocoders compare with
> hardware digital units when it comes to such timing issues? i imagine
> with plug-ins/dsp there are coding tricks one could do to tweak things
> to work faster, or at least seem to, especially on a pc with enough
> horsepower.
You cannot compare a DSP-based hardware device, that has to work within 
an analog audio environment, with a plugin that works in the virtual 
audio environment of an DAW. In the box (=in the DAW) you will always be 
able to add an offset delay to each signal individually, so you cope 
with the latency of the plugins.
In the hardware  audio world you won't have delays, for each and every 
audiosignal.

Florian

ah yes, exactly what i thought but put in much better & clearer terms! 
standalone hardware dsp is always hampered by the double-whammy of whatever its own processing horespower ceiling is PLUS having to manage AD/DA conversions in Real Time, and that will be the case until someone time travels and steals a tachyon-accelerator from the Enterprise or TARDIS to couple with the AD converter, so the signal gets into the unit a few nanoseconds IN THE FUTURE, thus offsetting the latency..... 

"You're a very silly person and i'm not going to interview you..."

;-)
(seriously though, thanks for the info and expertise! and again, the Roland book is wonderful!!)

      From: "florian anwander fanwander@mnet-online.de [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>
 To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:50 PM
 Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder
   
    Hello Christian

Am 23.07.2015 um 21:17 schrieb christian ienni ienni23@yahoo.com 
[Doepfer_a100]:
> specific question for your (and anyone's) expertise and experience: how
> do software/computer-based plug-in digital vocoders compare with
> hardware digital units when it comes to such timing issues? i imagine
> with plug-ins/dsp there are coding tricks one could do to tweak things
> to work faster, or at least seem to, especially on a pc with enough
> horsepower.
You cannot compare a DSP-based hardware device, that has to work within 
an analog audio environment, with a plugin that works in the virtual 
audio environment of an DAW. In the box (=in the DAW) you will always be 
able to add an offset delay to each signal individually, so you cope 
with the latency of the plugins.
In the hardware audio world you won't have delays, for each and every 
audiosignal.

Florian

same thng with my V-Synth GT: vocoding, autotuning, gender/formant shifting, etc; plus built-in phantom power - i use a Røde NT5 and it sounds wonderful! don't even bother with dynamic mics (unless there's a particular effect you're after, of course).

      From: "'Scott Rogers' scott@scottfromcanada.com [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>
 To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:04 PM
 Subject: RE: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder
   
I highly recommend a condenser mic to use with it though. At first I was using my Shure 58 but then I got an AT2020 and suddenly all speech became crystal clear.  It also does auto-tuning and voice gender changing.

> A good microphone is good for sure, but more important is the "pre-treatment" of the microphone signal before you send it to the
vocoder.

Exactly. Kraftwerk used a graphic equalizer (I think it was a 32 band unit) to optimize the voice signal before it was fed into the
vocoder.

Dieter

This is great information and it makes sense but I have one question: How do I plug that back into the mic input of the vocoder? Both in terms of the XLR jack and the signal level. I would think that after processing the mic you would end up with a line level signal which is MUCH hotter than a mic. So do you have to reduce it somehow? Do you need to have a special cable made up to go from a line out to an XLR mic in? (I only have XLR on the V256)

 

Thanks!

Scott

From: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 3:58 AM
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] Vocoder

 

  

Am 23.07.2015 um 22:04 schrieb 'Scott Rogers' scott@scottfromcanada.com [Doepfer_a100]:

I highly recommend a condenser mic to use with it though. At first I was using my Shure 58 but then I got an AT2020 and suddenly all speech became crystal clear. 

A good microphone is good for sure, but more important is the "pre-treatment" of the microphone signal before you send it to the vocoder. I recommend for voice the following signal chain

preamp->multiple->EQ->compressor->noisegate->vocoder(modulator-in)
           |                         /
        multiple------------>ng-sidechain

The EQ should increase the range between 800Hz and 3000Hz, the low end (below 100Hz) should be dropped.


Florian

Hi Scott

Am 24.07.2015 um 14:26 schrieb 'Scott Rogers' scott@scottfromcanada.com 
[Doepfer_a100]:
> I would think that after processing the mic you would end up with a 
> line level signal which is MUCH hotter than a mic. 
It is not MUCH hotter, but a little hotter.

> So do you have to reduce it somehow? 
Yes. Input Gain control; at the V256 it is a switch. Set it to "Lo".


> Do you need to have a special cable made up to go from a line out to 
> an XLR mic in? (I only have XLR on the V256)
A 1/4" to XLR cable ist not a very special cable. Any musical 
instruments shop should be able to sell you one.

Florian

Sent from my phone

On 23.07.2015, at 13:47, "yahoo@doepfer.de [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Maybe we could collect orders. If 50 orders are reached we may
> think about a new more compact vocoder


I'd be in! Please put me on the list!

Thank you!
Kai

> Count me in for a complete set, only 3 pleas:
> - same functionality with separate ins/outs of each freq band as the A-129
> - a global pot for bandwidth steepness of all freq bands, so with higher q values it sounds more metallic
> - Florian's idea to be able to spread frequencies, even better separately, a pot for the analyzer and a pot for the
> synthesizing filters.

Such flexible filters (at least a fully voltage controlled 24dB VCF for each channel) would multiply the costs for the vocoder and
consequently reduce the sales again. I think we will refrain from the development of a new vocoder, not because of the additional
suggestions but as there are many good DSP based vocoders on the market (as mentioned by Florian) and because we would have to do a
total redesign the A-129 because of the obsolete Curtis VCAs and the Atari-based design of the former A-129 modules.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

> Hi Dieter,
>
> And doing the analyzer in dsp while the synthesizing filters stay analog wouldn't help ?
> The audio signal could stay throughout in the analog domain.

The filters of the analysing and synthesizing section should match and be the same. And to speak the truth we don't have the
manpower and experience with DSPs to realize such a project.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

From: "Florian Anwander fanwander@mnet-online.de [Doepfer_a100]" <Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com>
 To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 

 Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 12:01 PM
 Subject: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Re: Utility Module Request
   
  >Sorry, but it is the audio section, which suffers the flaws of analog technology. Analog does not mean necessarily good audio quality.
 
analog has its place, digital has its place, all different tools in the toolbox. but this whole "analog is inherently superior in all respects" is just pure urban myth fetishization, like those delusional vinyl-worshipping uber-high-end audiophiles who pay $4000 for a vintage McIntosh tube preamp.
 
face the Grim Meathook Reality folks: the Doepfer analog vocoder system has officially passed into the "vintage gear" category, and if you just Absolutely Must Have One then you'll have to don your ebay-fedora and go Indiana Jones-ing through the used instrument marketplace.

>Folks, get a Microkorg, say "Autobahn" to it, be happy.
hehe, exactly! or, "In Wien sitzenwir im nachtcafe/Direktverbindung: T.E.E....", or the Wendy Carlos "Clockwork Orange" 9th for that matter.enough with the "singing synth" shtick already; it has its place and CAN be used well and effectively, but it also can too easily turn cliche. finding all the OTHER interesting things vocoders (of whatever basis technology) can do is where the real fun begins...
"But that's just, y'know, like, uh, my opinion, man..."   ;-)




 Visit Your Group    
   -  New Members 1 
    • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
  

   .

Am 27.07.2015 um 22:56 schrieb julianboyd@web.de [Doepfer_a100]:
> great, but you are jumping to the wrong conclusion. I couldn't care 
> less for hi end audio quality.
> It's the FLEXIBILITY of analog cv that i haven't seen in plugins or 
> elsewhere.
We are discussing in circles. The analog flexibility COSTS a s**tload of 
money, and there are not enough people willing to pay that, so there is 
no producer willing to produce it. Now it is your turn for the next 
cycle in this thread. I will wait here, until the discussion arrives 
again at the same point.