Hi Ingo,

Here are some extra suggestions.

Option 2, should have a switch that switches between octave control
plus with regular coarse and fine tune knobs, and no octave control
with regular coarse and fine tune knobs. This way you have the
option to sweep the oscillator through its full range with the
coarse tune pot.

Option 3, I would disagree with a single 10 turn pot to control the
frequency, as it would make wide frequency sweeps impossible. The
reason for a multi-turn pot on the frequency is to have a wider
range of control over the frequency range to pick off harmonic
intervals between 2 oscillators or for microtonal tunings. That
said, you can use a multi-turn pot for the fine tune control to a
greater range of precision. You could use a 3 turn pot instead of a
10 turn, to save money on the part, and you will have the best of
both worlds.

You will have a coarse tune control for a wide range frequency and a
3 turn fine tune control for precise control of the frequency. Now,
add switchable octave control and you truly have a versatile
oscillator. This will definitely add to the price of the oscillator,
but also flexibility to control it.

Regards,
RM



--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "selfoscillate"
<synaptic_music@...> wrote:

>
>
> hello list,
>
> i'd like to start a poll, but want to collect
> additional ideas first.
>
> the preliminary frontpanel design of the a111/2 dynamic vco
> offers two knobs for tuning: coarse tune and fine tune.
> lets say, that this is option 1.
>
> actually there are two other ideas regarding the tuning controls.
>
> option 2:
> an additional octave switch (like on the a111),
> so we would have three controls for tuning.
>
> option 3:
> a single multiturn tuning knob (similar to the zeroscillator
> tuning knob, but probably not that big in size), so
> we would have only one knob for tuning. this would be the
> most expensive solution tough.
>
> any other suggestions
>
> btw, from my personal preference i would prefer option 2.
>
> best wishes
>
> ingo
>