I tend to be atmosphere rather than music orientated (primarily because
I am not a musician). Because of that I love change and the more
parameters that have VC the better.
David Salter
Reuters Consulting
Tel: +44 20 7542 2402
Mob: +44 7990562402
Fax: +44 20 7542 2699
-----Original Message-----
From: rwert [mailto:
musicagenera@...
]
Sent: 04 November 2002 21:45
To:
Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Odp: 1 A145 <>A147
Hi David,
thanks for the answer
seem like 147 is more what I need, regarding this I use A100 as
experimental instrument
to generate different colours of noise and harsh.
regards
r
Hi there,
I have both the 145 & 145 and would say that they are
different enough
to say that either is a valid option.
The 145 is nice because like the 146 it has the range control.
Being
able to have rising and falling sawtooth at the same time is
great
because it means that in a dual VCA or VCF situation you can
simulate a
pseudo cross fade (one opening while the other closes).
The 147's main benefit is the VC control of frequency, this
allows the
modulation rate to vary by patching in another LFO or
envelope. Great
for sounds that evolve in interesting ways instead of in a
repetitive
way.
Both have a sine out which is wonderful for vibrato. VC
vibrato using
the 147 is even more expressive (if you have a 174 joystick).
Regards
David Salter
Reuters Consulting
Tel: +44 20 7542 2402
Mob: +44 7990562402
Fax: +44 20 7542 2699
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
doepfer_a100-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> .
------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Visit our Internet site at
http://www.reuters.com
Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit
http://www.reuters.com/messaging
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]