Interesting demos Eric! Thanks
Probably it doesn’t work as an oscillator source, so back to the little phatty rack plan.. 
Point taken, sometimes you just got to get the essentials, especially if you already have a keyboard.
Sounds like you’re on your way to having a pretty nice setup!
THanks!
It does work as an Osc source. It has Osc ins and outs. It DOESN’T Generate multi-waveform voltages like a true Osc(lfo) module would.
You can play it with a CV keyboard, run it through the 101 filter and there you go.
all this talk of polyphony/duophony re:synths brings one comment to mind.
IT"S A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CRUTCH!!! Learn how to make an expressive, shaped line!!!-i realize applications differ, but nobody complains about a sax, trumpet or bone being monophonic!
look at what jan hammer, zawinul, emerson, or stevie and TONTO did on all those classic recordings… i mean, people have been spoiled by nords, yamahas and romplers!
c’mon people, if you complain about the limitations of your gear, it’s not the gear that’s limiting you!!!
I gotta say that Jim makes a good point. In the end, I guess the decision on what to buy really comes down to what you see your sound as being. On the other hand, working musicians need to have tools that will allow them to be flexible in any situation they find themselves in.
The Fender Jazz bass has always been a popular choice of working musicians because it is a tool that allows them to play many different styles without being hampered by the basic sound of their instrument. Many studio musicians use Fender Jazz basses just for this reason. I have heard of some producers turning away bass guitarists just because they came in with instruments that, though beautiful, boutique, and very lust-worthy, were “single-taskers” in that their basic sound would not fit what the producer had in mind.
So, on the one hand, not letting the limitations of our gear limit us is sound advice. However, it is also just as important for a worker to be sure that they have the right tools for the right job. And if tools are chosen carefully, they go a long way towards enabling worker to perform a wide variety of jobs because they have the right tools in their tool box, and they know how to use them for any given job.
My $0.02, FWIW.
Exactly.
Jim,
NO argument about learning to make an expressive line.
Saxes though don’t usually have options to expand their range and capable register either. As a trumpet and sax player I have but rarely try to blow both at the same time…I took an interesting picture trying to accomplish this.
I totally see your point though and can identify with it.
But analogue monophonic synths though, in my opinion seem to beg for expansion. They are great by themselves but once you start getting more sources and destinations then you eventually start craving for a modular the size of a living room wall. We know were buying a monosynth but at the same time if we can play intervals or chords to create better pads then we will. I think this is the reason some modular users have multiple manuals. I also think this is primarily the reason why you have monophonic synths with 15 Oscs, Or some with just just 2 or three. THe polyphony that ive been writing about lately on here refers to simply chaining the voyager to the phatty or RME or the Taurus pedals to MIdi for intervals and triads.
Show me a voltage controlled bone and Ill try to get polyphony out of it lololol.
It all comes down to just preference in the end.
Respectfully,
Eric
I don’t even want to know where the other “mouth” piece would go! 
I just noticed the second page of this topic, so please excuse my intrusion. 
If I am understanding EricK, one could have, say, six MF-101’s and six MF-107’s, and six ribbon controllers, and thereby have a six voice polyphonic modular? And unless my math is wrong, it would cost LESS than a similar setup from Synthesizers.com AND be a Moog? Or, you could have twelve 107’s, six 101’s, and six ribbon controllers and have a TWO oscillator per voice, polyphonic synth? That is something I TOTALLY need to do eventually. 
All youd need with that is a nice mixer module and an envgen/vca and youd be killing folks with Moog.
Eric
Those I could get from Modusonics, right? I’d be looking at about 700 bucks? Maybe 900 tops? I already have the CP-251, so I could forego the mixer.
Hi EricK - after reading your post, I felt compelled to reactivate my account and comment on it.
DCO’s are not ‘inferior’ to VCO’s…if they are to be used polyphonically. I used to have no end of problems with the Jupiter 8 and Prophet 5 going out of tune when doing prolonged, heavy chord work. Let me tell you, its not actually that fun. Sure, playing some simple two finger pads/strings is lovely…but as soon as you start heavily using all the voices simultaneously you have to hit the retune button every 10-15 mins.
The best solution for polyphonic work is to have decent DCO’s which give you the option of inducing some controlled drift. Now, the only criticism I have of the new DSI synths is that they use the less than wonderful ‘synth on a chip’ curtis 3396’s. I mean this with no disrespect to Doug Curtis, but this design was not his best in terms of sonic lovelyness - did people ever rant and rave over the Matrix 1000? or the Cheetah MS-6? No, they were cheap mid 80’s analogs, did the job but were not brilliant sounding. The Prophet 08 in my mind is a modern MS6 with a keyboard.
If DSI had of coupled DCO’s with a 3340 filter clone then we’d all be laughing…
Cheers
DS
CEM3340 is Curtis’ VCO chip. Not filter. You probably meant the CEM3320.
- CM
DCO is a loose term, isn’t it? When we were ranting about the P’08 a while back, MC said that only the exponential converter in the DSI DCO was digital.
Kevin Lightner said DCOs get a bad rep from synths like the Juno (106), where the clock is basically common for all oscillators. This gives it a more dry/flat sound, as every oscillator is sync’ed to each other.
I stand corrected, you’re right…I meant the 3320 filter
Cheers
DS