From unknown freak Sent Tue, Oct 23rd 2007, 14:32
From unknown freak Sent Tue, Oct 23rd 2007, 14:32
Fair enough. I just want to bring this back to the comparison between the S1 Mk2 and the M5, though. After all, whether or not a Doepfer rack is more flexible than the semimodular S1 Mk2 -- which of course it is, no one would dispute that -- would you compare a the question is really whether as compared with other patchpoint over hardwire or purely prepatched synths the Cwejman is more or less flexible, and I'd say it's at the outer extreme of flexibility within that family, i.e. the family under discussion. I have about 25U of Doepfer, AS, PlanB, ASol, and Blacet modular in a rack beside the Cwejman. I like both. It would be easy to take the Cwejman somewhere and have a very powerful synth in a compact package, most if not all the patching of which could be done with knobs and switches. --Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Mati [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:06 AM > To: charles graef > Cc: 'AH' > Subject: Re: [AH] Cwejman S1 mkII OR Macbeth M5? Shootout anyone? > > The S1 is just so standard. Many of my friends also said the same > thing when I had it. Great tone, but nothing really exciting or new > about the layout. > > So after I sold it, I started my Doepfer rack, and I have far more > interesting things happening in it, for example a clock divider, RCV, > joystick, 3 different filters (SSM, MS20, WASP), MULTIPLES!!!, plus a > VCO with morphing (Plan B), BBD, etc. > > I can do FAR more damage with a Doepfer that cost about $1000 less. > And in the end, if I want that filter tone back, I will just add the > Cwejman filter. > > /m > > > On Oct 23, 2007, at 6:56 AM, charles graef wrote: > > > This is a confusing comment to me. How is a 3 VCO +LFO semimodular > > synth > > with about 70 patchpoints on the front panel, an adjustable-slope > > LP and MMF > > that can run serial or parallel, ring mod, and dual VC DADSRs etc. > > etc. "a > > pretty vanilla synth" in a way that the M5 would somehow escape? > > > > Does this image of the front panel: > > http://www.cwejman.net/cwejman.net/s1-mk2-big.htm suggest a "pretty > > vanilla > > synth"? What would it need to have or do to be less "vanilla", > > particularly > > in comparison with the M5? What I see is a really flexible synth > > with one > > of, if not the, cleverest front panel(s) for flexibility I've seen > > in a > > synth its size. > > > > --Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mati [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx] > > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:01 PM > > To: Ancient Eyeball Recipe > > Cc: watson; AH > > Subject: Re: [AH] Cwejman S1 mkII OR Macbeth M5? Shootout anyone? > > > > I had an S1 for about a year and a half. I loved the tone, but lets > > just say I got REALLY bored with it after while. It is actually a > > pretty vanilla synth at the end of the day. > > > > /m > > >