...would it be better if i had along with the pedal the moogerfooger 12 stage phaser or a CP251? i'd really like to have some awesome sweeps and an LFO is a must for me. phaser looks appealing but the CP251 has an LFO there too so i'm just wondering.
sorry if it seems like i have no idea what i'm talking aobut... because it's true!
to have an LFO accompany the low pass filter moogerfooger...
-
hieronymous
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:09 am
- Location: northern CA
- Contact:
I found the LFO in the CP-251 to be nowhere near as deep or slow as the one in the MF-103. It's definitely cool to use an LFO to sweep the frequency of a filter. You can also use the envelope in the MF-101 to control the phaser, like the Pigtronix Envelope Phaser (or whatever it's called). Both the low-pass filter and the phaser at the same time sounds cool too.
(Oh, and I forgot to mention that the MF-103 is really great in and of itself - makes practically anything you put through it sound great!)
(Oh, and I forgot to mention that the MF-103 is really great in and of itself - makes practically anything you put through it sound great!)
On the flipside, the CP-251 gives you a lot of options that you can't get with the MF-103. Sample and Hold filter effects, combining square and triangle waves with the mixer section, the lag processor for creating more complex wave forms, the voltage inverter for flipping the envelope control voltage from the MF-101, etc.
Best solution: get both!
Bryan
Best solution: get both!
Bryan
-
hieronymous
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:09 am
- Location: northern CA
- Contact:
Some extra info, you can apply a negative voltage to the 251's lfo to get it's frequency down to .03hz, not as slow as the 103's .01hz, but still pretty slow (I don't know if you can apply a negative voltage to the 103 to get an even lower frequency). I usually just use the mixer's offset to do this with the 251.
If all you want is an lfo for the 101 than I say get the 251 (you'll end up discovering a lot of other ways to control the 101 you hadn't thought about before). If you're less interested in all the cv patching and want a greater variety of sounds then the 103 might be the way to go (that's a tough call though).
I imagine once you start to get into the mf's more you'll want to get both anyways...
If all you want is an lfo for the 101 than I say get the 251 (you'll end up discovering a lot of other ways to control the 101 you hadn't thought about before). If you're less interested in all the cv patching and want a greater variety of sounds then the 103 might be the way to go (that's a tough call though).
I imagine once you start to get into the mf's more you'll want to get both anyways...
the 103s lfo has a greater range of speed but only has 1 (sine or tri?) waveform
on the cp251 you get tri and square and you can use the lag to create sawtooth waves
also if you plug the lfo on the 103 direct into the filter, you won't be able to vary the depth of the modulation, on the cp251 you get 2 attenuators to do this.
if you just want to use some LFOs on the filter then the cp251 has way more options for fine tuning your modulation, along with many other modulation options
i'd say get the cp251 first and then get the 103, and then slowly pick up all the other foogers.
on the cp251 you get tri and square and you can use the lag to create sawtooth waves
also if you plug the lfo on the 103 direct into the filter, you won't be able to vary the depth of the modulation, on the cp251 you get 2 attenuators to do this.
if you just want to use some LFOs on the filter then the cp251 has way more options for fine tuning your modulation, along with many other modulation options
i'd say get the cp251 first and then get the 103, and then slowly pick up all the other foogers.
-
spacefuzzz
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:20 pm