Doepfer

hello list,

here is a second go on the ring modulators.

1.
first i made a comparison between a114 and a133 polarizer.
to my surprise the a133 polarizer can be adjusted to sound
almost exactly like an a114. listen to the following example,
first you hear an a114 and then an a133.
can you name the difference?

http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/a114-a133-compare.mp3

file size: 159 kb


2.
then i used a prepared stereo file instead of the vco's,
brought into the system with two a119.
the left channel (x input) is a tr808, the right channel
(y input) is a sustained note from a korg z1.
here is the file, so you can try this at home too.

http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/sources-cut.mp3

file size: 139 kb


this source is presented to the modules in
the following order:

1. a114 original
2. a114 tim's mod (c1 shorted)
3. a114 peter's mod (c2 shorted)
4. blacet klangwerk
5. cgs real ring modulator (inputs buffered with two mx224)
6. a133

http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/ringmods-sequence2.mp3

file size: 411 kb


3.
the same source used with a clavia nord micro modular.
two cycles this time.
 
http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/nord-ringmod.mp3

file size: 139 kb


4.
same as above, but with a simple reaktor 5 patch instead.

http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/reaktor-ringmod.mp3

file size: 139 kb


please don't judge the loudness differences between
analogue and digital ring modulation, i had to re-adjust
the recording level on examples 3 and 4.


best wishes

ingo

Thanks! Once more great job! Regards, Ingo

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

>
> 
> hello list,
> 
> here is a second go on the ring modulators.
> 
> 1.
> first i made a comparison between a114 and a133 polarizer.
> to my surprise the a133 polarizer can be adjusted to sound
> almost exactly like an a114. listen to the following example,
> first you hear an a114 and then an a133.
> can you name the difference?
> 
> http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/a114-a133-compare.mp3
> 
> file size: 159 kb
> 
> 
> 2.
> then i used a prepared stereo file instead of the vco's,
> brought into the system with two a119.
> the left channel (x input) is a tr808, the right channel
> (y input) is a sustained note from a korg z1.
> here is the file, so you can try this at home too.
> 
> http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/sources-cut.mp3
> 
> file size: 139 kb
> 
> 
> this source is presented to the modules in
> the following order:
> 
> 1. a114 original
> 2. a114 tim's mod (c1 shorted)
> 3. a114 peter's mod (c2 shorted)
> 4. blacet klangwerk
> 5. cgs real ring modulator (inputs buffered with two mx224)
> 6. a133
> 
> http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/ringmods-sequence2.mp3
> 
> file size: 411 kb
> 
> 
> 3.
> the same source used with a clavia nord micro modular.
> two cycles this time.
>  
> http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/nord-ringmod.mp3
> 
> file size: 139 kb
> 
> 
> 4.
> same as above, but with a simple reaktor 5 patch instead.
> 
> http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/reaktor-ringmod.mp3
> 
> file size: 139 kb
> 
> 
> please don't judge the loudness differences between
> analogue and digital ring modulation, i had to re-adjust
> the recording level on examples 3 and 4.
> 
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo
>

hello zoran,

when making the examples i was surprised about the different
sound of all the ring modulators, but most surprising was
that the a133 and the a114 sounded so similar.
the standard a114 and a133 had the softest and most mellow sound,
the real ring was the buzziest, and the blacet klangwerk was
the most versatile in terms of functionality and sound.
the digital ringmods from the clavia and reaktor 5 sounded
very crisp and hifi, they are both mathematically perfect over
the whole sampling frequency range, maybe that is why i like the
analogue ring modulators better.

best wishes

ingo




--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Zoran Bosnjak" <dj_allin@h...> 
wrote:
>
> Hello Ingo,
> 
> I think that the most musical combination would be playing the loop 
from 
> ringmods-sequence2.mp3 by A-133 for bar and a half, than playing 
the last 

> half bar by CGS. Thanks a lot for posting these samples and regards,
> 
> Zoran
> 
> 
> >From: "selfoscillate" <synaptic_music@y...>
> >Reply-To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> >To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [Doepfer_a100] ring modulators - new examples
> >Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:02:41 -0000
> >
> >
> >hello list,
> >
> >here is a second go on the ring modulators.
> >
> >1.
> >first i made a comparison between a114 and a133 polarizer.
> >to my surprise the a133 polarizer can be adjusted to sound
> >almost exactly like an a114. listen to the following example,
> >first you hear an a114 and then an a133.
> >can you name the difference?
> >
> >http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/a114-a133-compare.mp3
> >
> >file size: 159 kb
> >
> >
> >2.
> >then i used a prepared stereo file instead of the vco's,
> >brought into the system with two a119.
> >the left channel (x input) is a tr808, the right channel
> >(y input) is a sustained note from a korg z1.
> >here is the file, so you can try this at home too.
> >
> >http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/sources-cut.mp3
> >
> >file size: 139 kb
> >
> >
> >this source is presented to the modules in
> >the following order:
> >
> >1. a114 original
> >2. a114 tim's mod (c1 shorted)
> >3. a114 peter's mod (c2 shorted)
> >4. blacet klangwerk
> >5. cgs real ring modulator (inputs buffered with two mx224)
> >6. a133
> >
> >http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/ringmods-sequence2.mp3
> >
> >file size: 411 kb
> >
> >
> >3.
> >the same source used with a clavia nord micro modular.
> >two cycles this time.
> >
> >http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/nord-ringmod.mp3
> >
> >file size: 139 kb
> >
> >
> >4.
> >same as above, but with a simple reaktor 5 patch instead.
> >
> >http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/reaktor-ringmod.mp3
> >
> >file size: 139 kb
> >
> >
> >please don't judge the loudness differences between
> >analogue and digital ring modulation, i had to re-adjust
> >the recording level on examples 3 and 4.
> >
> >
> >best wishes
> >
> >ingo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hello Ingo,

I think that the most musical combination would be playing the loop from 
ringmods-sequence2.mp3 by A-133 for bar and a half, than playing the last 
half bar by CGS. Thanks a lot for posting these samples and regards,

Zoran

>From: "selfoscillate" <synaptic_music@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
>To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Doepfer_a100] ring modulators - new examples
>Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:02:41 -0000
>
>
>hello list,
>
>here is a second go on the ring modulators.
>
>1.
>first i made a comparison between a114 and a133 polarizer.
>to my surprise the a133 polarizer can be adjusted to sound
>almost exactly like an a114. listen to the following example,
>first you hear an a114 and then an a133.
>can you name the difference?
>
>http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/a114-a133-compare.mp3
>
>file size: 159 kb
>
>
>2.
>then i used a prepared stereo file instead of the vco's,
>brought into the system with two a119.
>the left channel (x input) is a tr808, the right channel
>(y input) is a sustained note from a korg z1.
>here is the file, so you can try this at home too.
>
>http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/sources-cut.mp3
>
>file size: 139 kb
>
>
>this source is presented to the modules in
>the following order:
>
>1. a114 original
>2. a114 tim's mod (c1 shorted)
>3. a114 peter's mod (c2 shorted)
>4. blacet klangwerk
>5. cgs real ring modulator (inputs buffered with two mx224)
>6. a133
>
>http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/ringmods-sequence2.mp3
>
>file size: 411 kb
>
>
>3.
>the same source used with a clavia nord micro modular.
>two cycles this time.
>
>http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/nord-ringmod.mp3
>
>file size: 139 kb
>
>
>4.
>same as above, but with a simple reaktor 5 patch instead.
>
>http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/reaktor-ringmod.mp3
>
>file size: 139 kb
>
>
>please don't judge the loudness differences between
>analogue and digital ring modulation, i had to re-adjust
>the recording level on examples 3 and 4.
>
>
>best wishes
>
>ingo
>
>
>
>
>
>

Great work again Ingo!
Thanks.
I think I'll get the tools out of the box, Peter's mod sounds niceeee!
I was quite surprised about the A133 example, very cool that it sounds
so similar to the A114.

Greetings,

Ernst

hello ingo,
many thanks for all these helpful audio clips!
you have become the Official [doepfer_a100] group
audio clip provider!
well done!     :-)
best regards,
bakis.





--- selfoscillate <synaptic_music@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> hello list,
> 
> here is a second go on the ring modulators.
> 
> 1.
> first i made a comparison between a114 and a133
> polarizer.
> to my surprise the a133 polarizer can be adjusted to
> sound
> almost exactly like an a114. listen to the following
> example,
> first you hear an a114 and then an a133.
> can you name the difference?
> 
>
http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/a114-a133-compare.mp3
> 
> file size: 159 kb
> 
> 
> 2.
> then i used a prepared stereo file instead of the
> vco's,
> brought into the system with two a119.
> the left channel (x input) is a tr808, the right
> channel
> (y input) is a sustained note from a korg z1.
> here is the file, so you can try this at home too.
> 
>
http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/sources-cut.mp3
> 
> file size: 139 kb
> 
> 
> this source is presented to the modules in
> the following order:
> 
> 1. a114 original
> 2. a114 tim's mod (c1 shorted)
> 3. a114 peter's mod (c2 shorted)
> 4. blacet klangwerk
> 5. cgs real ring modulator (inputs buffered with two
> mx224)
> 6. a133
> 
>
http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/ringmods-sequence2.mp3
> 
> file size: 411 kb
> 
> 
> 3.
> the same source used with a clavia nord micro
> modular.
> two cycles this time.
>  
>
http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/nord-ringmod.mp3
> 
> file size: 139 kb
> 
> 
> 4.
> same as above, but with a simple reaktor 5 patch
> instead.
> 
>
http://www.selfoscillate.de/a100files/reaktor-ringmod.mp3
> 
> file size: 139 kb
> 
> 
> please don't judge the loudness differences between
> analogue and digital ring modulation, i had to
> re-adjust
> the recording level on examples 3 and 4.
> 
> 
> best wishes
> 
> ingo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Bakis Sirros
Parallel Worlds
Athens-Greece
[Doepfer_a100] group owner
http://www.shimarecords.co.uk
http://www.rubber.gr


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Great work again Ingo!

1000% agree.

> Thanks.
> I think I'll get the tools out of the box, Peter's mod sounds niceeee!
> I was quite surprised about the A133 example, very cool that it sounds
> so similar to the A114.

Even I'm very surprised as completely different circuits are used. The A-114
uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally for high frequency
applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA design.

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

Hi Dieter and Ingo


>>I think I'll get the tools out of the box, Peter's mod sounds niceeee!
>>I was quite surprised about the A133 example, very cool that it sounds
>>so similar to the A114.
> Even I'm very surprised as completely different circuits are used. The A-114
> uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally for high frequency
> applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA design.
I think this is valid only for the very simple sources of the first 
example. Also a resonating VCF crossmodulated by a sine VCO won't sound 
much different.
The example with the TR-808 and the continuous sound from the korg shows 
clearly the difference between the 114 and the 133.

Florian

The preliminary information of the BBD module has been updated. I think that
the main features of the module are defined in the meantime. But there is
one thing that leaded to internal discussions in the company and I'd like to
hear your comments:

Should we manufacture a single module similar to the prototype shown on the
page with 2048 or 1024 stages BBD (can be chosen by the customer in his
order). The pc board will be designed for both types which are unfortunately
not compatible.

Or do you prefer a double module with both BBDs on the module. Both
solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of the
single module is the lower price. But one would need two of these modules to
have both time ranges available (down to 7ms or 2,5ms resp.). The advantage
of the dual module would be the lower price if both time ranges are required
simultaneously (compared to two single modules), and the mixing
possibilities of both BBD sections. But the lower price is attainable only
if the module contains only one HSVCO for both BBDs. Otherwise the price of
the double module will be nearly the same as for two single modules.

I'd prefer the single version (though I voted for the double version in the
past ...).

I can't wait to see your comments. Bakis, maybe you could start a poll (very
simple: single or double module prefered).

Best wishes
Dieter Doepfer

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Florian Anwander
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. November 2005 14:51
> An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Re: ring modulators - new examples
>
>
> Hi Dieter and Ingo
>
>
> >>I think I'll get the tools out of the box, Peter's mod sounds niceeee!
> >>I was quite surprised about the A133 example, very cool that it sounds
> >>so similar to the A114.
> > Even I'm very surprised as completely different circuits are
> used. The A-114
> > uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally for high frequency
> > applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA design.
> I think this is valid only for the very simple sources of the first
> example. Also a resonating VCF crossmodulated by a sine VCO won't sound
> much different.
> The example with the TR-808 and the continuous sound from the korg shows
> clearly the difference between the 114 and the 133.
>
> Florian
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Dieter

> single module is the lower price. But one would need two of these modules to
> have both time ranges available (down to 7ms or 2,5ms resp.). 
What would be the maximum delay time ?

I prefer the single module too: its more flexible to have two separate 
modules, then one complicated multipurpose module.

Florian

Good evening to all,
under these circumstances I prefer the single module too and will install two of them with the different BBDs. The double module is only interesting with independant HSVCOs. I also want to know something about the values of up to x ms for both numbers of stages.
All the best
Axel Jungkunst


"Dieter Doepfer" <hardware@doepfer.de> schrieb:

> I'd prefer the single version (though I voted for the double version in the
> past ...).
>

hello dieter,

after thinking twice, i would choose the
single module concept too.
separate clocks are not a bad thing :-)

best wishes

ingo



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Doepfer" <hardware@d...> 
wrote:
>
> The preliminary information of the BBD module has been updated. I 
think that
> the main features of the module are defined in the meantime. But 
there is
> one thing that leaded to internal discussions in the company and 
I'd like to
> hear your comments:
> 
> Should we manufacture a single module similar to the prototype 
shown on the
> page with 2048 or 1024 stages BBD (can be chosen by the customer in 
his
> order). The pc board will be designed for both types which are 
unfortunately
> not compatible.
> 
> Or do you prefer a double module with both BBDs on the module. Both
> solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of 
the
> single module is the lower price. But one would need two of these 
modules to
> have both time ranges available (down to 7ms or 2,5ms resp.). The 
advantage
> of the dual module would be the lower price if both time ranges are 
required
> simultaneously (compared to two single modules), and the mixing
> possibilities of both BBD sections. But the lower price is 
attainable only
> if the module contains only one HSVCO for both BBDs. Otherwise the 
price of
> the double module will be nearly the same as for two single modules.
> 
> I'd prefer the single version (though I voted for the double 
version in the
> past ...).
> 
> I can't wait to see your comments. Bakis, maybe you could start a 
poll (very
> simple: single or double module prefered).
> 
> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
> 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Florian 
Anwander
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. November 2005 14:51
> > An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Re: ring modulators - new examples
> >
> >
> > Hi Dieter and Ingo
> >
> >
> > >>I think I'll get the tools out of the box, Peter's mod sounds 
niceeee!
> > >>I was quite surprised about the A133 example, very cool that it 
sounds
> > >>so similar to the A114.
> > > Even I'm very surprised as completely different circuits are
> > used. The A-114
> > > uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally for high frequency
> > > applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA design.
> > I think this is valid only for the very simple sources of the 
first
> > example. Also a resonating VCF crossmodulated by a sine VCO won't 
sound
> > much different.
> > The example with the TR-808 and the continuous sound from the 
korg shows

> > clearly the difference between the 114 and the 133.
> >
> > Florian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

But the lower price is attainable only
> if the module contains only one HSVCO for both BBDs. Otherwise the price of
> the double module will be nearly the same as for two single modules.

This also depends on which current modules can be used to alter 
the HSVCO-output, the a-163 probably not, but maybe the a-151, a-
196 or a-160? But I prefer single anyway

For a guitar stomp box a switch to change eg btn chorus and flanger 
is a good and common idea. For a modular synth an independent delay 
which can be combined with another independent one makes much more 
sense. Regards, Ingo
--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Doepfer" 
<hardware@d...> wrote:
>
> The preliminary information of the BBD module has been updated. I 
think that
> the main features of the module are defined in the meantime. But 
there is
> one thing that leaded to internal discussions in the company and 
I'd like to
> hear your comments:
> 
> Should we manufacture a single module similar to the prototype 
shown on the
> page with 2048 or 1024 stages BBD (can be chosen by the customer 
in his
> order). The pc board will be designed for both types which are 
unfortunately
> not compatible.
> 
> Or do you prefer a double module with both BBDs on the module. Both
> solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of 
the
> single module is the lower price. But one would need two of these 
modules to
> have both time ranges available (down to 7ms or 2,5ms resp.). The 
advantage
> of the dual module would be the lower price if both time ranges 
are required
> simultaneously (compared to two single modules), and the mixing
> possibilities of both BBD sections. But the lower price is 
attainable only
> if the module contains only one HSVCO for both BBDs. Otherwise the 
price of
> the double module will be nearly the same as for two single 
modules.
> 
> I'd prefer the single version (though I voted for the double 
version in the
> past ...).
> 
> I can't wait to see your comments. Bakis, maybe you could start a 
poll (very
> simple: single or double module prefered).
> 
> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
> 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Florian 
Anwander
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. November 2005 14:51
> > An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Re: ring modulators - new 
examples
> >
> >
> > Hi Dieter and Ingo
> >
> >
> > >>I think I'll get the tools out of the box, Peter's mod sounds 
niceeee!
> > >>I was quite surprised about the A133 example, very cool that 
it sounds
> > >>so similar to the A114.
> > > Even I'm very surprised as completely different circuits are
> > used. The A-114
> > > uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally for high frequency
> > > applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA design.
> > I think this is valid only for the very simple sources of the 
first
> > example. Also a resonating VCF crossmodulated by a sine VCO 
won't sound
> > much different.
> > The example with the TR-808 and the continuous sound from the 
korg shows

> > clearly the difference between the 114 and the 133.
> >
> > Florian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

hello,
yes, dieter, i would prefer the single module too.
maybe you could label one as A188-1a and the other
A188-1b to avoid confusion.
bakis.






--- ilanode <techmeier@web.de> wrote:

> For a guitar stomp box a switch to change eg btn
> chorus and flanger 
> is a good and common idea. For a modular synth an
> independent delay 
> which can be combined with another independent one
> makes much more 
> sense. Regards, Ingo
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter
> Doepfer" 
> <hardware@d...> wrote:
> >
> > The preliminary information of the BBD module has
> been updated. I 
> think that
> > the main features of the module are defined in the
> meantime. But 
> there is
> > one thing that leaded to internal discussions in
> the company and 
> I'd like to
> > hear your comments:
> > 
> > Should we manufacture a single module similar to
> the prototype 
> shown on the
> > page with 2048 or 1024 stages BBD (can be chosen
> by the customer 
> in his
> > order). The pc board will be designed for both
> types which are 
> unfortunately
> > not compatible.
> > 
> > Or do you prefer a double module with both BBDs on
> the module. Both
> > solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The
> main advantage of 
> the
> > single module is the lower price. But one would
> need two of these 
> modules to
> > have both time ranges available (down to 7ms or
> 2,5ms resp.). The 
> advantage
> > of the dual module would be the lower price if
> both time ranges 
> are required
> > simultaneously (compared to two single modules),
> and the mixing
> > possibilities of both BBD sections. But the lower
> price is 
> attainable only
> > if the module contains only one HSVCO for both
> BBDs. Otherwise the 
> price of
> > the double module will be nearly the same as for
> two single 
> modules.
> > 
> > I'd prefer the single version (though I voted for
> the double 
> version in the
> > past ...).
> > 
> > I can't wait to see your comments. Bakis, maybe
> you could start a 
> poll (very
> > simple: single or double module prefered).
> > 
> > Best wishes
> > Dieter Doepfer
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > > [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag
> von Florian 
> Anwander
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. November 2005 14:51
> > > An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > > Betreff: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Re: ring
> modulators - new 
> examples
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Dieter and Ingo
> > >
> > >
> > > >>I think I'll get the tools out of the box,
> Peter's mod sounds 
> niceeee!
> > > >>I was quite surprised about the A133 example,
> very cool that 
> it sounds
> > > >>so similar to the A114.
> > > > Even I'm very surprised as completely
> different circuits are
> > > used. The A-114
> > > > uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally
> for high frequency
> > > > applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA
> design.
> > > I think this is valid only for the very simple
> sources of the 
> first
> > > example. Also a resonating VCF crossmodulated by
> a sine VCO 
> won't sound
> > > much different.
> > > The example with the TR-808 and the continuous
> sound from the 
> korg shows
> > > clearly the difference between the 114 and the
> 133.
> > >
> > > Florian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Bakis Sirros
Parallel Worlds
Athens-Greece
[Doepfer_a100] group owner
http://www.shimarecords.co.uk
http://www.rubber.gr


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

Or 188-1 for 1024 stages and the further one 188-2 for 2048!
all the best
Axel

"Bakis Sirros" <synth_freak_2000@yahoo.com> schrieb:

> hello,
> yes, dieter, i would prefer the single module too.
> maybe you could label one as A188-1a and the other
> A188-1b to avoid confusion.
> bakis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- ilanode <techmeier@web.de> wrote:
> 
> > For a guitar stomp box a switch to change eg btn
> > chorus and flanger 
> > is a good and common idea. For a modular synth an
> > independent delay 
> > which can be combined with another independent one
> > makes much more 
> > sense. Regards, Ingo
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter
> > Doepfer" 
> > <hardware@d...> wrote:
> > >
> > > The preliminary information of the BBD module has
> > been updated. I 
> > think that
> > > the main features of the module are defined in the
> > meantime. But 
> > there is
> > > one thing that leaded to internal discussions in
> > the company and 
> > I'd like to
> > > hear your comments:
> > > 
> > > Should we manufacture a single module similar to
> > the prototype 
> > shown on the
> > > page with 2048 or 1024 stages BBD (can be chosen
> > by the customer 
> > in his
> > > order). The pc board will be designed for both
> > types which are 
> > unfortunately
> > > not compatible.
> > > 
> > > Or do you prefer a double module with both BBDs on
> > the module. Both
> > > solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The
> > main advantage of 
> > the
> > > single module is the lower price. But one would
> > need two of these 
> > modules to
> > > have both time ranges available (down to 7ms or
> > 2,5ms resp.). The 
> > advantage
> > > of the dual module would be the lower price if
> > both time ranges 
> > are required
> > > simultaneously (compared to two single modules),
> > and the mixing
> > > possibilities of both BBD sections. But the lower
> > price is 
> > attainable only
> > > if the module contains only one HSVCO for both
> > BBDs. Otherwise the 
> > price of
> > > the double module will be nearly the same as for
> > two single 
> > modules.
> > > 
> > > I'd prefer the single version (though I voted for
> > the double 
> > version in the
> > > past ...).
> > > 
> > > I can't wait to see your comments. Bakis, maybe
> > you could start a 
> > poll (very
> > > simple: single or double module prefered).
> > > 
> > > Best wishes
> > > Dieter Doepfer
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > > > [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag
> > von Florian 
> > Anwander
> > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. November 2005 14:51
> > > > An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Betreff: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Re: ring
> > modulators - new 
> > examples
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Dieter and Ingo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>I think I'll get the tools out of the box,
> > Peter's mod sounds 
> > niceeee!
> > > > >>I was quite surprised about the A133 example,
> > very cool that 
> > it sounds
> > > > >>so similar to the A114.
> > > > > Even I'm very surprised as completely
> > different circuits are
> > > > used. The A-114
> > > > > uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally
> > for high frequency
> > > > > applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA
> > design.
> > > > I think this is valid only for the very simple
> > sources of the 
> > first
> > > > example. Also a resonating VCF crossmodulated by
> > a sine VCO 
> > won't sound
> > > > much different.
> > > > The example with the TR-808 and the continuous
> > sound from the 
> > korg shows
> > > > clearly the difference between the 114 and the
> > 133.
> > > >
> > > > Florian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Bakis Sirros
> Parallel Worlds
> Athens-Greece
> [Doepfer_a100] group owner
> http://www.shimarecords.co.uk
> http://www.rubber.gr
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

so what, approximately, would the price difference be? for maybe $30-$50, i
think the double is worth it, but this may depend on the bottom line price
to begin with? so if it's maybe 25-40% more the dual is better, over 50%,
then the single?
I'm leaning towards the dual unless it's a lot more costly. what if there
was a way to CV morph between the two chips? With two of the dual modules it
seems like endless possibilities. And switching between ranges is very nice
for live performances, much easier than re-patching.

best,
phil

hello phil,

that was what i thought in the beginning too,
switching the time range for only a few bucks more
would be great. but finally the dual module needs
an extra mixer and even more front panel controls
than two separate modules, so the price
for a dual module will be more than just a bit higher.
i estimate around 100 euros for a single module and
a minimum of 150 euros (or more) for a dual module.
the most important point for a single module
is the dedicated hs-vco.
we can morph between the two bbd's with modules like
a134 anyway. ok, you need another module for this,
but you get voltage control of the morphing then and
you can still use both bbd's separately, which is
not possible with the dual module.

just my two cents

best wishes

ingo



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "p.hendricks" <ph@c...> wrote:
>
> so what, approximately, would the price difference be? for maybe 
$30-$50, i
> think the double is worth it, but this may depend on the bottom 
line price
> to begin with? so if it's maybe 25-40% more the dual is better, 
over 50%,
> then the single?
> I'm leaning towards the dual unless it's a lot more costly. what 
if there
> was a way to CV morph between the two chips? With two of the dual 
modules it
> seems like endless possibilities. And switching between ranges is 
very nice

> for live performances, much easier than re-patching.
> 
> best,
> phil
>

Would it raise the cost too much to have CV control of wet/dry mix? 
It seems a shame to tie up an additional module when this could 
surely be implemented on board.

brian

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Doepfer" 
<hardware@d...> wrote:
>
> The preliminary information of the BBD module has been updated. I 
think that
> the main features of the module are defined in the meantime. But 
there is
> one thing that leaded to internal discussions in the company and 
I'd like to
> hear your comments:
> 
> Should we manufacture a single module similar to the prototype 
shown on the
> page with 2048 or 1024 stages BBD (can be chosen by the customer 
in his
> order). The pc board will be designed for both types which are 
unfortunately
> not compatible.
> 
> Or do you prefer a double module with both BBDs on the module. Both
> solutions have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of 
the
> single module is the lower price. But one would need two of these 
modules to
> have both time ranges available (down to 7ms or 2,5ms resp.). The 
advantage
> of the dual module would be the lower price if both time ranges 
are required
> simultaneously (compared to two single modules), and the mixing
> possibilities of both BBD sections. But the lower price is 
attainable only
> if the module contains only one HSVCO for both BBDs. Otherwise the 
price of
> the double module will be nearly the same as for two single 
modules.
> 
> I'd prefer the single version (though I voted for the double 
version in the
> past ...).
> 
> I can't wait to see your comments. Bakis, maybe you could start a 
poll (very
> simple: single or double module prefered).
> 
> Best wishes
> Dieter Doepfer
> 
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com]Im Auftrag von Florian 
Anwander
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. November 2005 14:51
> > An: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> > Betreff: Re: AW: [Doepfer_a100] Re: ring modulators - new 
examples
> >
> >
> > Hi Dieter and Ingo
> >
> >
> > >>I think I'll get the tools out of the box, Peter's mod sounds 
niceeee!
> > >>I was quite surprised about the A133 example, very cool that 
it sounds
> > >>so similar to the A114.
> > > Even I'm very surprised as completely different circuits are
> > used. The A-114
> > > uses the balanced modulator MC1496 (normally for high frequency
> > > applications), the A-133 a LM13700 Dual OTA design.
> > I think this is valid only for the very simple sources of the 
first
> > example. Also a resonating VCF crossmodulated by a sine VCO 
won't sound
> > much different.
> > The example with the TR-808 and the continuous sound from the 
korg shows

> > clearly the difference between the 114 and the 133.
> >
> > Florian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hello,

I power up my Doepfer G6 with "standard" power supply (0.6 A), than it works 
for a few minutes, than it dies. Sometimes gentle tap will bring it back to 
life, sometimes it requires firm shake.

Is there any place on power supply that I could check myself for loose cable 
(without killing myself), before taking it to my Doepfer distributor?

Is there any chance that third-party module I had at the time, and that was 
failing on and off by itself (loose connection on the module itself) could 
affect the power supply? Sorry if this question is stupid, I am really 
clueless when it comes to electronics.

Regards,

Zoran

>
>Is there any place on power supply that I could check myself for loose cable
>(without killing myself), before taking it to my Doepfer distributor?

Try the fuse, it may be loose or it might have a hair line crack 
causing the fault.
-- 
Take care.

- Loren Nerell

-------------------------------------------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~lnerell/
http://www.soundclick.com/lorennerell
http://www.analoguehaven.com/
-------------------------------------------------

hi, check the coloured cables that connects the busboards to the power supply. they 
were a little loose in one of my G6s.

daniel



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, "Zoran Bosnjak" <dj_allin@h...> wrote:

>
> Hello,
> 
> I power up my Doepfer G6 with "standard" power supply (0.6 A), than it works 
> for a few minutes, than it dies. Sometimes gentle tap will bring it back to 
> life, sometimes it requires firm shake.
> 
> Is there any place on power supply that I could check myself for loose cable 
> (without killing myself), before taking it to my Doepfer distributor?
> 
> Is there any chance that third-party module I had at the time, and that was 
> failing on and off by itself (loose connection on the module itself) could 
> affect the power supply? Sorry if this question is stupid, I am really 
> clueless when it comes to electronics.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Zoran
>