How much have a thought about it 'Only some' would be the
best answer.

I'm proud of this VCO. It works, it's stable, is made of parts
which are readily availible in the 21st century and behaves like a
VCO I covet - the 258. It's different enough inside that if I did
release and ran into Don Buchla I wouldn't feel I would have to
duck down a corridor to avoid him. That's really important to me.

But to date it's only been made on a breadboard (two of them)
and while they both worked, you never really know if the design is
solid until it's on PCB and you make 20 of them and they all fly on
power up. Not to mention I'm a DIYer who's been on a lucky
streak. If I did this, I would need to pass it under the nose of an
EE to get the possible trainwrecks out of it.

Being triangle core, having similarly scaled (33 to 1), full range
with one freq pot, bipolar attenuation on the VC inputs and
expodential FM, it behaves like a 258 to AC and DC voltage
control and does this in a different manner and a reduction of
discrete parts. In short, it sounds like a 258 and different than
Doepfer, A. Sys, MOTM, Serge, Modcan, A. Solutions,
Technosaurus, Synth.com and Blacet VCOs when exposed to
the same stimuli (VC). It has more bells and whistles hung on it
than a 258 but even with those enhancements, its not even
close to a 259 functionally.

One, it's single VCO - no second mod osc. Outside of the same
sine shaper as the 258 (which was a public domain circuit
published in 1965 for that purpose), the waveshaping is MUCH
less complex than the 259. It can't do AM like the 259 did. It does
however have a very pure sine, a ramp, a tri and pulse/square via
very unique sounding manual and VC PWM. It can morph from
one waveform to another by a pot or by external VC. You can
even select the waveform it starts at and ends with in that morph.
That isn't at all as complex as what the 259 was doing with the
even/odd multiplying. Oh yeah - mine also has sync, fine tune, a
single 1v/octave input and it's more stable than a 258. More
stable than a 259 I dunno - never tried one.

So the only thing that would be accurate would be to say I've
come up with something that sounds like a 258. A 259 is a
whole different animal. A quantum leap different.

- Peter


--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "shm1400"
<shm14@h...> wrote:

> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "(i think you can figure

that

> out)" <peter@b...> wrote:
> > OK OK OK - I've done a VCO which while not a clone of the

258

> > by any means, sounds pretty much identical on all counts

and

> > does things it didn't (both hard and soft sync, PWM, a

triangle

> > output and selectable wavemorphing among other things)

and

> > it's much more stable. I am contimplating bringing it to

market.

> > although the jury is still hung on this one. I have two made

now,

> > both in Doepfer size configuration to fit my system, with a

couple

> > more to come in the next few months (i'm having PCBs

designed

> > now).
> >
> > hope this helps,
> >
> > Peter
>
> How seriously are you thinking of marketing this thing What

would

> be the target price Will it be two oscilators like the '58, one
> for saw and one for square If you do produce it, sign me up!
>
> SHM