Hi RM
I have four rows of modules, so I was considering the 129/1 and 129/2
and associated modules that would fit in a single 3U row.

So maybe 129/1, 129/2 and 3X 129/3 - 80U, there's a row.

Or for adding vocal processing, maybe 129/1, 129/2, 129/3, 129/5, 117,
146, 192 (for recording the analysis CVs.)

Why is DNG recommended on the Doepfer web page I already have an 118,
would that be adequate for unvoiced

Likewise the 146 I already have 2X 145 and 147

Sorry I'm a bit ingnorant about vocoder stuff.

Joe

--- In Doepfer_a100@y..., unknown freak <ospengler@r...> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I'm not quite sure I'm getting the gist of your terms "voice" and
> "one-row configuration", but as for the vocoder I'd say you could
get by
> for a lot of purposes just fine with just the analysis section and
the
> synthesis section (A-129/1 and A-129/2). If you're bringing in a
> microphone, the A-129/5 is useful. The A-129/3 takes you into a
realm
> of being able to edit the voltages you're bringing into the
synthesis
> section (three 129/3s -- the ideal full complement -- turns the
vocoder
> into a filterbank; I've only got one), and the A-129/4 adds slew.
>
> For most of my uses, I'm really only using the analysis and
synthesis
> modules. That certainly won't eat up a row.
>
> But if by "one-row configuration" you mean a 3U row of modules as
the
> extent of the instrument, I think the standard 3U configuration
offered
> by Doepfer hits the mark with module choices for versatility, and
> shoehorning in the vocoder would probably not be advisable there.
If
> you just wanted a simple outboard vocoder you could probably pick up
an
> Electrix WarpFactory for under $200 on eBay, and though not modular
it's
> a pretty fun and good-sounding, especially for the price. Frankly
it
> tempts me, too, for certain kinds of quick and easy
formant-capturing,
> and it's stereo.
>
>
> buechlerjoe wrote:
> >
> > Hi UF
> >
> > You've got me kind of interested. Jeez, I swore I was happy with
my
> > A100 configuration, too :-)
> >
> > What you recommend for a Vocoder configuration as a supplement to
an
> > existing A100 voice Would this allow a decent one-row
configuration
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > P.S. As far as EVERYONE's knowledge here in the group, I think
> > that's what's unquestionable. I'm constantly amazed at the range
of
> > useful information shared by everyone here.
> >
> > --- In Doepfer_a100@y..., unknown freak <ospengler@r...> wrote:
> > > Hey Pig,
> > >
> > > I don't mind your having a wallow. Yes, I've got the vocoder,
and I
> > use
> > > and like it a lot, also never vocally controlled. My most
typical
> > use
> > > actually involves controlling it with a sine wave from a
sequenced
> > or
> > > LFO'd or etc. VCO or resonating filter to pick out individual
bands.
> > > Vocoders have a ton of uses. My comment that the patch Peter
> > described
> > > could be done with the vocoder was prime facie true -- what's a
> > vocoder
> > > after all but a fixed filterbank in which each band has its own
VCA.
> > > The difference is that the vocoder has one unity output for all
the
> > > bands, but as I said, for lots of uses that wouldn't really
matter.
> > > There must be patches for which it *would* matter to have
individual
> > > band outputs for separate processing, but for simple VCAing of
bands
> > > where they'd be going to the same destination, the vocoder does
the
> > > job. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an individual band
output
> > > helper module for the fixed filter bank, just that the
particular
> > > example sounded like one that could be done without one.
> > >
> > >
> > > As for as Peter's knowledge, it's unquestionable.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > doepfer_a100-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/