AW: AW: motm or doepfer

[jorgen.bergfors at idg.se]

You have to take into account what the synth is going to be used for. Is it 
just a hobby thing? Will it be used for commercial recording? In a band? For 
live performances? My point is that it is wrong to recommend the highest 
possible quality for everybody. For heavy professional use -- yes, sure. But 
for a hobbyist it just isn't cost effective. 
If the pots get scratchy or not partly depends on the environment. If it is 
smoky and/or humid, then you better get the best pots that you can afford. So 
if you quit smoking, you save double. You can use cheaper pots and don't have 
to buy cigarrettes. The worst thing for your synth is to smoke pot (8~>). 
I haven't used the more recent Doepfer stuff, so I can't comment on it. I have 
his older kits and just the electronics, not any pots/panels. I designed my own 
panels and bought pots, switches and (3,5 mm) jacks from other sources. My 
panels are all brass, by the way...
For me 1/4" jacks just would be too expensive and consume too much space. I 
have an internal patching system though (gold contacts), so I don't need to use 
the jacks all the time. It's both quicker and more compact.

/Jorgen

 >I have ordinary quality potentiometers that are 20 years old and
still are not 
 >scratchy.

Then your "ordinary quality" is rather high quality already. I have had
nothing but problems with the potentiometers you can buy for DM 2 ... 3
(1.5 US$) here in Germany, for example.

 >Of couse you should mount the pots firmly in the chassis and not
just solder 
 >them to the board! 

Not every manufacturer seems to know that, unfortunately.

 >Well, if it's too big and heavy, it will be awkward to transport to
gigs. And 
 >will be used less for that reason. That's of course fine if you
only want to 
 >use it in the studio or att home and have enough space for it.

Portability - agreed.
Taking it out on the road increases the need for sturdy mechanical 
compontents, however.

 >Maybe not for pots, but definitely for PCBs.

I am with you here. I also use the cheapest PCB material. (For
one single reason: I can use cheap HSS drills.)

 >Oscillator count was just an example. I'm sure you understand the
general idea: 
 >More modules usually produce a better sound than fewer (up to a
point of 
 >course).

I understand the idea, but I disagree.

 >Well, in that case you are stuck with a less than satisfactory
sound in the 
 >meantime. And who knows what have happened when you finally have
bought 
 >everyting. Then analog synthesizer sound might not be in demand
anymore. 

The error is that more quantity gives a more satisfactory sound.
Who wants more than 2 or 3 analogue oscillators in one patch,
anyway? In case you want (ever tried a polyphonic patch on an
analogue modular?), you're hit by reality either way or the other:
You (probably) can't afford 16 high quality VCOs, and you (probably)
can't _tune_ 16 low quality VCOs.

But your point was that 4 cheap VCOs are still better than 2 high
quality ones. And it's hard to deny that you can find examples for
this. Or for the contrary. Show me one synth that produces "fatter"
sounds than the (2-VCO) Moog Taurus Pedal. I have a Prophet
with 10 VCOs in unison mode. That's the reason why I turn 3 or
4 voices *off* when I play monophonic. Just an example, of course.

 >>The problem is that you have almost zero chance to upgrade a
Doepfer
 >>system to higher quality. You can't just replace the tiny
frontpanels 
 >>with larger ones. You can't just add another potentiometer where a
module
 >>lacks enough input connections. You can't just replace the tiny
connectors.
 >>And believe me you will want to do all this some time.
 >
 >Nothing mass produced will be exactly the way you want it. Isn't
this why we 
 >want to build our own synths in the first place? The advantage with
kits is 
 >that you can modify and add to them as you build them. 

Ok, I want to try as many different circuits as possible myself. That's
just human curiousity. So I am at the test bench with veroboards all
the time. I have even recorded a song with my frequency shifter
prototype before it had an enclosure, everything connected with alligator
clips. It's exciting to use a new module, and creativity flows so nicely
when you use something the first time. I guess the effect is similar
with a new, rather unexpensive Doepfer module, and I even rate
tiny 3.5mm conections slightly above alligator clips (;->).
But after some time, you want to have a sturdy, reliable device that
you can use comfortably when you need it. 

In the DIY case, the 2nd (and harder) part begins: choosing the right
number of input / output / modulation connections, the best level
sensitivities, polarity switching, lin or log response and everything else
you need to get an ergonomic instrument. And you have to build all this.

In case of a high quality product, you can hope that the designer has
all this done for you. Well, he may have or may have not - that's the
risk you take when you buy an expensive product, no doubt.

In the Doepfer case, you're always stuck with a compromise. In
terms of ergonomics and input capabillity of each module, a very
low standard compromise (IMOHO).
The real problem is that you simply cannot upgrade it.
Sure you can replace the pots with conductive polymer types.
And you don't *need* to change the pcb material. But what about the
rest? Do you really have fun to make parameter changes with your
fingertips, while you carefully avoid to touch one of these thin patchcables
with the rest of your hand ?? Look at the vocoder module(s): It's certainly
nice to crosspatch the cannels some time, but does this justify that you
have to dive  into a tight cobweb of cables even when you use it in
standard configuration? Separate modules for the lag / freeze feature
even ?! 
Is this unexpensive? Is this economic? Is this portable?
It is cheap.

JH.