MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Cš-L vs DPO
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Author Cš-L vs DPO
macio
Hi,

I'd like to choose a all-mountain-west-coasty OSC to my rack. It'll be the main OSC. I might want to complement it with additional voices like STO.

Which would you choose from the two I mentioned:
Instruog Cš-L
or
MakeNoise DPO?
paranormind
I remember I asked the same question a while back when I was about to buy a DPO but the Cs-L was just being announced.

I had decided to wait for the Cs-L, I got one, and still have it. Honestly speaking I think I don't master complex oscillators enough to the point that having one or the other would make a huge difference.

I was pretty sold on the wavefolder capabilities of the Cs-L, as well as its multiply output. I slightly preferred the look'n'feel too (some people find the Cs-L gorgeous, but frankly I also like Makenoise designs). Bonus point for the Cs-L in the bass territory, from what I heard.

Well, in retrospect I'm very happy with my Cs-L, but without a doubt I would have been happy with a DPO too. I wanted to add a complex osc to my rack for complex timbres and west-coast style synthesis, and that's were both are good at.
Ray Finkle
I have the DPO.
Think this video is pretty good at comparing the sounds/features of both. Ultimately the decision would be yours. Do you have a local shop that stocks both where you can try them?

SnipeCatcher
Both modules are just so good. A friend loaned me a DPO for a couple weeks and I liked it a lot, but was so new to eurorack I’m sure I didn’t use it to it’s potential. Later, he added a Cs-L which I also tried and made up my mind I’d be getting a CS-L, but I had an opportunity to grab a new Cwejman SM-1 and couldn’t resist. The Cwejman is probably more HP and way more money than the DPO and CS-L combined, but I couldn’t pass up the chance at having a brand new Cwejman and I’m thrilled about my purchase. That said, if my choice were between the DPO and CS-L, I’d have no problem choosing the Cs-L. Still might one of these days smile
But first I gotta try one of the new Instruo granular modules!
ozmoziz
Hi,

I ended up with the Cš-L. What got me there was the fact that both Osc have a wavefolder (which can process external audio sources!), the ability to use the sqaure wave out as a sub octave (the upper osc got synced to the square wave, so sub octave syncing creates some killer vowel sounds - the multiply out is some handy tool) and the simple fact that I "got" how it works (I've watched different videos about the DPO und Verbos CO but didn't realy got how they work). I also really like the Instruo design and the Cš-L takes less HP.

I'm very happy with my Cš-L but honestly I guess I would have been happy with a DPO too.
macio
Guys, thanks for your feedback. I just need to carefully watch video you posted Ray Finkle. But I really consider going more HP-wise. I like Cš-L design very much.
DonKartofflo
While this may sound like a minor detail, trust me its not.
The CSL has no attenuators for most of its cv inputs while the DPO has attenuators on every input!
This makes a huge difference in both studio and performance use. You will patch more freely and spontaneously with integrated attenuators.
Personally, 9 out of 10 times when presented with a choice of two functionally similar modules, i will go for the one with attenuators.
insoul8
I am a bigger fan of the wavefolding section on the dpo personally. The follow circuit on the dpo is also very fun to play with. It would have been nice to have the pwm on the dpo though but I guess you can’t always have it all. Angle can kind of sound like pwm on the final output I suppose.
windchill
DonKartofflo wrote:
The CSL has no attenuators for most of its cv inputs while the DPO has attenuators on every input!


I'm confused by this statement. The Cs-L has attenuverters on both wave folder cv inputs, attenuverters on both symmetry inputs, attenuators on both FM inputs, and a depth knob on the multiply section.

So as far as i can tell it's just the PWM input that has no attenuator.

How can you claim that there are 'no attenuators for most of it's cv inputs'?

Have I misunderstood what you're saying?
paranormind
+1, I don't remember lacking attenuators.
hawkfuzz
Waiting for the CsL to arrive. Had a DPO and absolutely loved it and it's functions, especially including the RxMx internal connection. Didn't get rid of it because I hated it or was bored of it, just needed some extra cash.

The best part of the DPO was the attenuation while sending a sequence into an input other than the 1v/oct. It's fun. So many sounds to get out of it.
Pighood
Ray Finkle wrote:
I have the DPO.
Think this video is pretty good at comparing the sounds/features of both. Ultimately the decision would be yours. Do you have a local shop that stocks both where you can try them?



This is how oscillator demos should ALWAYS be done applause
joskery
Yeah, there must be some confusion concerning attenuators on the Cs-L, 1v/oct and PWM inputs are the only ones without. Attenuversion or attenuators for the rest.
fjoesz
had DPO
still love it
now have Cs-L
love it too hihi

pro's cs-l: way more possibilities, less hp, folders for external use, ring mod, am, sub out etc etc AND better pitch stability

pro's DPO: wavefolder sounds better(to me), follow pot
evs
my biggest concern after watching over some csl videos
is that you have to learn button combinations for internal routing things...
that's a game stopper for me. as no one ever seems to mention this, is this a wrong assumption?
Chaos
evs wrote:
my biggest concern after watching over some csl videos
is that you have to learn button combinations for internal routing things...
that's a game stopper for me. as no one ever seems to mention this, is this a wrong assumption?


I have had my Cs-l for two weeks now and don't find the button combinations difficult to understand or remember. You basically only press the center button to be able to activate any of the other routings by pressing their respective buttons. It's pretty straight forward.
The sound of the Cs-l is great. I also like its wavefolders very much. I had a DPO for a couple of days and didn't warm up to it. I clearly prefer the Cs-l.
lisa
I have both. They have different sets of features and sound different from each other (DPO is rubbery and Cš-L is harsher). Both are great. I wouldn’t want to have to choose.

But if you are getting only one of them I’d say that you should go with the one you like the sound of the most. There are many good videos of both.
synonymist
fjoesz wrote:
pro's cs-l: way more possibilities, less hp, folders for external use, ring mod, am, sub out etc etc AND better pitch stability


Ring, amplitude, and rectifier mod for external use, yes? It works and sounds great.

Although I can't compare to DPO, since I never owned one, I can attest to pitch stability in Cš-L. Last night I recorded a "case audition" (because they can't all fit) that turned out to be musical. Cš-L was not being auditioned, but topped off the piece with melody. It spanned at least five octaves; and it was rock solid.

If you have the patience, note the range of Cš-L's melody throughout this track. It's the timbre that gets me, however. This is a perfect showcase for Cš-L's super-precise and sibilant voice. Yet in context here (admittedly with a filter using 1v/oct scaling, etc.), in its lower registers it is absolutely dulcet. Cš-L provides its own vibrato, with Osc A as a modulated LFO. The echo simply enlarges on it. The only other sound sources are STO and Tš-L, each with a filter:

https://soundcloud.com/synonymist/auditions-344


evs wrote:
my biggest concern after watching over some csl videos
is that you have to learn button combinations for internal routing things...
that's a game stopper for me. as no one ever seems to mention this, is this a wrong assumption?


In my experience of Cš-L, the modulation routing scheme is a poor design decision; a false optimization. My mind doesn't work that way, so I always have to think it through before changing the routing. I find it to be Cš-L's only actually unlikeable feature.
lisa
You could also just choose a routing that you like and keep it that way. If a feature isn’t doing it for you, just ignore it. smile
synonymist
lisa wrote:
You could also just choose a routing that you like and keep it that way. If a feature isn’t doing it for you, just ignore it. smile

The underlying range of routing options is useful, indeed intrinsic to the module's character as a complex oscillator. What is not useful is how that functionality is exposed. If you're suggesting that I forego the former because I am challenged by the latter, then I don't understand.

The Cš-L's modulation routing control scheme is not a feature. Rather it is the poorly considered means of using the range of routing options, which is a feature.
fjoesz
really? cs-l routing buttons are very easy

four outside buttons are for the folders, only thing you have to remember
other two for fm

really it isn't that hard and actually a clever layout

I love how much stuff is packed in that thing

it's very not like mutable where I can never remember different modes and stuff
synonymist
fjoesz wrote:
really? cs-l routing buttons are very easy

four outside buttons are for the folders, only thing you have to remember
other two for fm

really it isn't that hard and actually a clever layout

I love how much stuff is packed in that thing

it's very not like mutable where I can never remember different modes and stuff

Mutable Instruments's panels that employ mode switching are entirely self-documenting. They use icons and color cues to achieve this. They enable the player to discover everything about the module's intended use (except easter eggs) and do not require the player to remember anything.

Cš-L's routing options mode switching is entirely unlabeled. Anyone who does not already know the scheme, and does not have documentation of it, has appreciably no chance of discovering it; or if they do, of understanding its intended function. This is a textbook example of poor discoverability in user interface design. To the end of usability, cleverness and design rarely make good bedfellows.
fjoesz
all I ment was I've read the cs-l manual 1 time and will allways remeber the buttons. For al the more complex mutable modules I have to check multiple times again to see what was what

cs-l 4 outside buttons are for the folders, done
macio
I watched the youtube comparison. But Cs-L CV-Wavefold isn't exactly the same as DPO Strike? There's some vactrol behind.
rew_
macio wrote:
I watched the youtube comparison. But Cs-L CV-Wavefold isn't exactly the same as DPO Strike? There's some vactrol behind.


correct, the Cs-L wavefolder can go from (virtually) silent to some unity gain but it's not a true gate/vca, it's just how Mr Instruo decided to design the wavefold circuit.

I prefer the more typical sine --> folded sine setup, I think it makes mixing waveforms much simpler, but ymmv.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> Eurorack Modules Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Page 1 of 2
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group