I see - that explains it very well. Now I understand its usefulness. Thanks!

My concern was since this VCO was not going to be cheap (all those knobs!), that maybe it
wasn't worth the duplication. But I can see how a VCO that can naturally and quickly create
dynamic source waves can easily become useful in every patch.

BTW, I prefer Dieter's consistent and intuitive function naming style rather than those
useless marketing gimmick names.

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "selfoscillate" <synaptic_music@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com , "laryn91" <caymus91@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > the a111/2 offers new possibilities unavailable on other vco's
> >
> > I have to admit I'm one of those who were a bit dissapointed with
> the A111-2 features and
> > example sounds. Now I'm thinking maybe I'm missing something.
> >
> > What exactly makes this VCO unique Doesn't it seem like we can
> currently patch all it's
> > features with current modules
>
>
> some, but not all.
>
> the a111/2 is capable of dynamically switching between
> waveforms within one wavecycle, resulting in new waveshapes.
> this switching can be controlled via cv, so the a111/2 can
> generate lots of dynamically changing timbres right on the
> oscillator level, without the need for additional modules.
>
> the built-in vcf offers linear frequency modulation via
> the waveforms of the vco, which is veeery uncommon.
>
> the a111/2 also has a built-in crossfader and a final vca.
> these goodies look quite "familiar", nothing fancy about
> it if you use these goodies as usual. but the fact that
> they are built-in gives you extra capabilities.
> with the crossfader you can create even more new dynamically
> changing waveforms (when using a wave of the vco at the morph cv).
> if you use the a111/2 as a modulator for fm, then the built-in
> vca is very handy.
> ok, especially the functions of the crossfader and vca can
> be replicated easily, but since these parts are already there
> you don't have to spend extra money on additional modules.
> other manufacturers give "mysterious" names to such module
> functions, just to force users to try a different and new
> approach in using the module. instantly the dual cyclotron
> from livewire comes into my mind. mike (my best wishes to him,
> please get well soon) used the term "axis tilt" instead
> of "pan", "linear" and "discreet" instead of "triangle" and
> "square" and so on. all this makes users think they have something
> fancy in their hands, but its just a unique name for something
> quite common. maybe if dieter had chosen a different name for the
> "pan" knob, lets say "waveform warp" or something like that,
> then the a111/2 would probably look more attractive, but thats
> not dieters style.
>
> the module layout of the prototype suggests a standard
> subtractive patch, maybe thats also a reason why people are
> not so enthusiastic about the features. thats not the
> way how we should use the a111/2. all features should be
> used directly for creation of new waveforms within the a111/2.
> if you do this you will realise that the a111/2 can offer
> a lot more different timbres than almost all other vco's.
> of course you can do similar things with existing modules,
> but it's the same with the cyclotron. you can replicate the
> functions of that module too, but i don't think that
> many users actually do this. having the features side by side
> in one module sometimes makes a huge difference in how we use them.
>
> the prototype had some quirks (f.e. different waveform levels),
> but if dieter can sort these out the a111/2 will be a sure
> shot for me.
>
> best wishes
>
> ingo
>