I don't think I can be considered an 'old timer' but I am certainly
not a newcomer :).

I have 7 different filter across 3 different formats. In Eurorack I
have the a-105 lowpass which I really like and is very close to
perfect for what I want in a lowpass filter. I also have the
harvestman polyvoks clone which I really like too as a different
flavor filter that can make some really sick sounds.

However I am doing some changes to my portable setup and need to
replace the polyvoks (I won't sell it just going to a rack setup in my
studio) for something that fits on 8 hp and also would be nice to have
a filter on my eurorack portable that can do high pass.

I am leaning towards the Wasp cause I think I can probably get a good
range of interesting sounds out of it, but I am worried if it can be
used for straightforward highpass filtering without introducing
noise/too much of the filter characteristics to the sound. If it does
then the SEM multimode seems like the other viable option.

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , york luethje <ybl@...> wrote:
>
> No, what really would help Carlos out is an answer to his question.
Both the Wasp-Filter and the SEM-Filter share the same controls, as
stated on the Doepfer website. As is stated there as well, sonically
both filters are miles apart.
>
> So Carlos, can you perhaps tell us whether you have any different
filters Is this your first foray into the modular world or are you an
old-timer
>
> You did state that you want to use the filter for vanilla stuff.
Neither module springs to mind immediately under these constraints.
Have you looked at other modules / do you use other filters
>
>
> On a different note: Argitoth, it would be great if you were to
channel your opinions into something more constructive. Dissing a
module and calling it overpriced crap is all very well. Keep in mind
though that not everyone has your wealth of experience and does not
have access to your mammoth synth collection.So please enlighten us
with your masterly ways and don't despair if it appears too
simplistic.
>
> It's not you, it's us! We don't get it!
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Argitoth <argitoth@...>
> To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 7:05:08 PM
> Subject: Re: 1 Doepfer SEM VCF A-106-5 vs Wasp Filter
>
>
> A-106-5 I used to have an A-106-5 but got rid of it. You could get
an
> overdriven sound out of it, it can't self oscillate, but the sound
it
> had just wasn't worth keeping IMO. Lets get some audio demos of the
> A-106-5 and Wasp Filter, that would really help Carlos out.
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM, york luethje <ybl@...> wrote:
> > except that he was asking about the SEM filter, not the X-treme
filter.
> > A-106-1 / A-106-5. Difference.
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Argitoth <argitoth@gmail. com>
> > To: Doepfer_a100@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 6:14:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: 1 Doepfer SEM VCF A-106-5 vs Wasp Filter
> >
> > I think the A-106-1 makes a really nice bandpass/notch/ highpass
> > filter, but it won't do you any good as a soft lowpass filter
because
> > it can only sound overdriven, bubbly, and screamy. I was looking
to
> > maybe get a wasp filter too, but I want to hear an audio demo
first.
> >
> > Here's an audio demo of A-106-1 Highpass:
> > http://www.elanhick ler.com/misc/ a-106-1_highpass .mp3
> >
> > let me know if you need anymore audio demos
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Carlos <bushwick@gmail. com>
wrote:
> >> trying to decide which of the two I want as a multimode filter. I
know
> >> the wasp is going to be nastier which I will probably like, but
> >> curious if its usable also as a clean high pass and in general
usable
> >> for my subtle filtering. Pretty sure the SEM will be...
> >>
> >> anyone here has both and can shine in or make an a to b example
> >>
> >> thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > www.elanhickler. com
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> --
> www.elanhickler. com
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>