There sure is, the AFG comes close too... ;-)

But one from Doepfer would be nice, I rather give them my money.

Alex

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:46 PM, laryn91 < caymus91@... > wrote:

> I think there's already a good dynamic VCO available that's pretty close
> to that - the
> Zeroscillator.
>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Alex Pearson" <alexpears@...> wrote:
> >
> > For me... A "dynamic" VCO would have the following:
> > 1. Ability to reach sub-audio
> > 2. horizontal and vertical waveshaping w/ cv control and attenuation
> > 3. linear / exponential fm w/ attenuation
> > 4. harmonic automation
> > 5. focused on additive rather than subtractive synthesis
> > 6. the ability to create new and interesting waveforms
> >
> > but hey, who am I
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:00 PM, ilanode <techmeier@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, it's relativly costly to bring those features out. On the other
> > > hand you get a highly normalized VCO which enables you to try various
> > > dynamic waveshaping on the fly which can be very inspiring and thus
> > > might pay off. Rgds, Ingo
> > >
> > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "laryn91" <caymus91@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Several people have posted that because the CEM has a filter and
> > > VCAs ,we're somehow
> > > > getting the features for free (or even low cost). Look at all the
> > > additional pots, knobs,
> > > > jacks, connections and circuit boards required to implement these
> > > additional functions!
> > > >
> > > > Ask any DIYer, usually the overwhelming cost and time is in those
> > > passive components -
> > > > not the semiconductors.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "selfoscillate"
> > > <synaptic_music@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com><Doepfer_a100%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Chris Muir <cbm@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 1:51 AM, selfoscillate wrote:
> > > > > > > i don't see a problem here. you can just add a vca of your
> > > > > > > choice to the patch to get dynamic fm.
> > > > > > > imho separate vca's give the best flexibility, as you can use
> > > > > > > them for other purposes too, if you don't use dynamic fm
> > > > > > > in your actual patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's certainly true that you can patch a VCA into FM in. I
> > > mentioned
> > > > > > that in my original message.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A complex vco like the A-111-2 is all about integration. By your
> > > > > > logic, why have an integrated filter or waveshaper Wouldn't a
> > > > > > separate filter [waveshaper] be more flexible
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All I was saying was that for a large class of FM sounds, dynamic
> > > > > > depth is important, and that, at least for me, having this VCA
> > > > > > integrated into the oscillator would be a good thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris Muir
> > > > > > cbm@
> > > > > > http://www.xfade.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > hello chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > i totally agree with you that dynamic depth fm is great,
> > > > > but including such a function would be nothing else than
> > > > > adding a vca, which is already available in many incarnations.
> > > > >
> > > > > so why including a filter and a waveshaper on the a111/2
> > > > > because they are already on the cem chip, so it would be
> > > > > a waste not to use them.
> > > > >
> > > > > best wishes
> > > > >
> > > > > ingo
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]