Re: [AH] doepfer modular systems (less long)

From emis
Sent Tue, Dec 1st 1998, 10:01

>First, I'd like to say that I'm in no way writing this to slam Doepfer,
>as anyone who keeps
>modular synthesis alive in our day and age deserves credit; I just wish
>the modules had a bit
>more character:
>Minor gripes aside, the A-100 system which features over 60 (?) modules
>is a lot of modular for very little cash.  It should not really be
>compared to
>a Moog or Serge system because it costs way less, but I'm left wondering
>if fewer better implemented modules would not have been better in the long
>D  4  V  1  D     K  R  1  5  T  1  4  N

    A VCO is unlikely to ever have "character" in it's pure state, after all
it just sends out a pure waveform, it is the pay it is patched and used that
determines what comes out of the system. Understanding and using modulars is
an art form in it's self, many people dable with modulars and fail to
succeed with anything creative, that is a fault of the operator not the

    I see no reason for not comparing any modular system, a Moog 55, Roland
100m/700, Doepfer, Serge etc.. can all be compared against sound, price and
features. If you feel that the Doepfer shouldn't be compared to a Moog
because it is 10 times cheaper, then that can only prove what an amazing
system the Doepfer is (or perhaps how amazingly expensive Moog is, although
a Roland System 700 is worth about the same as a Moog 55).

    The whole point of a modular is that it is modular, so a VCO should not
be part of a Ring modulator, and a VCF should not have a VCA in it, and a
VCF shouldn't have a mixer as part of it - it is all separate modules and
that is the way it should be.

    Most owners of 10K Moogs and System 700's will find it hard to accept
that something costing 10 times less is as good as their vintage monster - I
have a collection of modulars here in the Synth Museum, but guess which
system is in the studio!

Andy Horrell