Doepfer vs. MAM vocoder (was:Re: VP-330 (analog speech synthesis) /Popol

From Haible Juergen
Sent Mon, Aug 10th 1998, 16:00

>as for vocoders/analog speech synthesis I'm kind of annoyed that if
>anyone on this list has the Doepfer A-129 series Vocoder modules they
>sure aren't talking.
[...]
>Everyone just sort of says "buy the MAM VF-11". Now I certainly don't
>want to knock the unit, and it has things going for it (like 40% or less
>of the cost of the Doepfer fully configured. Another highlight is
>Voiced/Unvoiced switching, something not many other units have, though
>the Doepfer does). 
[...]
>I mean think about it, the Doepfer is fully patchable. You can swap the
>analysis/synthesis bands like high end units. 

Well, IMSBO (slightly biased opinion (;->) ), the problem with the doepfer
is that you *have* to patch it together. Do you really want to *always* do
this ?
Especially with these tiny jacks on crowded front panels? One look at this
unit at the Frankfurt Musikmesse last year was enough for me to know that
I would *never* wanted such a thing. (And this speaks someone who loves
modular systems in general.) I mean, I would be glad if my MAM vocoder
had optional patchpoints, and maybe some day I will retrofit it (preferably
with a tiny patch matrix). And when I will do this, I'll take care that I
have
enough panel space that I can still turn the knobs easily without getting
stuck inside patch cords and possibly causing intermittent contacts.
Maximum flexibillity is *one* design goal, but ergonomics is a not less
important one. 
As for sound and quality, I can't compare, because I never touched a 
doepfer. MAM don't rely on standard tolerance components, they are
tuning each filter by hand. Does doepfer even claim to have such high
quality standards?

JH.