If someone wants to do something unique, what I actually really miss is
the continuously-variable LFO-able ramp-to-narrow-pulse oscillator in my
Micromoog. The problem with the variable saw in the AS VCO is the
harmonics dropout in the middle of the travel at the triangle wave,
which to me sounds less rich and interesting, more like a tremolo, than
pulse-width modulation. For me it's more interesting when using the VCO
as an LFO, or when modulating with audio-rate frequenciesas a form of
mangling, though it's something I could explore more, e.g. for
cancellation effects with another VCO. But that Micromoog ramp-to-pulse
sound was really beautiful. Blacet's new VCO does a variable
square-to-triangle output, which I'd also prefer to saw-to-triangle.
Synthesizers.com makes a very solid VCO that's very feature-packed,
though without any variable waves. For sheer amenity, one could always
add a rack of those.
> > I have three of those AS VCOs and you're right, they're nice. But
> > since the AS VCOs fit the Doepfer frame, what's to prevent Doepfer
> > owners from just dropping the AS VCOs into their systems
> No need for
> > Doepfer to replicate them. I also have two A-111s and enjoy their
> > distinctive sound -- no need for AS to make an A-111 clone.
>
> For the fact that they don't really match perfectly on the
> rails and that you need the power convert cables, but you
> are right they could be fitted in a doepfer rack. But my main
> gripe here is that the A111 tracks nice but lacks the saw
> feature. The A110 tracks like a slug on a booze-up and should
> be discontinued in my opinion. I just hate it, I use mine as
> a LFO in the higher range. And my the retailer says that the
> A111 is hard to get in stock due to a shortage of SEMs...
>
> >
> > The A-111s are definitely more deluxe -- an attenuator for pulse
> > width, hard and soft sync, linear FM, octave switch (even if it
> > doesn't track perfectly), fine tune. AS could stand to
> emulate some
> > of those features.
>
> Yes, the octave switch is sensible.
>