None of that makes a lick of difference. Seriously, I get very tired of debating this. Whether it's all in one, or discrete, makes virtually no difference in terms of sound. DCOs sound like they do because of very precise timing.
If you like it, good for you, I like certain DCO based synths as well. But, DCOs are not VCOs and this impacts both how you use a synth, and how the synths sounds, in several ways.
My blog has the articles if you're interested in details.
To quote yourself from your blog:
But, why does it matter?
You are discussing tons of technical and theoretical aspects at your blog but without giving practical examples which means audio examples.
At the end the sound is what matters and could be even good on a fully DSP based synth lik e.g. Diva.
When i tried to compare my Moog Slim Phatty (which got VCOs) to my Pulse 2 i never got an impression that the Pulse 2 sounded "crappy" in comparison. In seeveral ways the Pulse 2 is even superior which alos includes the fact that i do not need to let the Pulse 2 warm up before it has a stable tuning.If i want to use the Slim Phatty without warm up time i have to enable the auto-tune all the time which then would be closer to a DCO.
The fact that the Pulse 2 uses discrete components is in some way important. Waldorf does not use pre-built filter chips and they got their own circuit designs which means that a Pulse 2 sounds like a Pulse 2 and not like another synth. The circuit design is even different from the Pulse 1 while they tried to keep the resulting sound as compatible as possible and you could even import Pulse 1 Sysex bank files.
A fully analog Pulse 2 with VCOs, anaölog LFOs and analog envelopes would be a lot more expensive, bigger in size, more unstable in tuning and could not do some of his special features including e.g. the XOR Osc modes or paraphonic sounds.
Also not sure if the Unison modes for both monophonic and paraphonic modes could be implemented in the same way.
While the oscillators are mostly based on analog circuits (and there are also dedicated circuits for the Noise) some of controls and interactions for those which are possible in the Pulse 2 would be difficult or even impossible without any control via a CPU and D/A converter combination.
AFAIK for the Sawtooth waveform of the Pulse only a minimum of digital control is necessary (mostly tuning stability).
Overall the design of the Pulse 2 seems to be a nive one and it is not easy to find another analog synth with the same features and sound for that price.
In terms of interface the matrix editor is maybe even better usuable than some fully knobbed designs that i have seen/checked.
Some features like e.g. the APW modes (including monophonic, paraphonic and Unison modes) were not included with the very first OS versions of the Pulse 2. This is an advantage of a digitylly controlled analog synth vs a fully analog one which has atotally fixed architecture and routings. Also the filter calibration and the envelopes were optimized which is difficult with a fully analog synth where this would lead to physical changes in the synth that would make it difficult to do beta testing as it would involve multiple shipping of the hardware.
BTW i just found the full statement of Wolfram Franke concerning the Pulse 1 (at the "A Word from Waldorf" paragraph):http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996_ar ... pulse.html
FWIW going back on topic that Xenophone synth looks interesting indeed with many similar features compared to the Pulse 2. Anyway for me it seems to be too similar to have it besides the Pulse 2 and some of the Pulse 2 features seem to be missing but for others it could be an interesting choice.
What confused me about the Xenophone is that it is mentioned to have 3 Oscs but the third Osc has almost no controls at the interface besides one knob and an edit button.
This kind of combination of dedicated controls and menus (with multiple pages) in terms of workflow is maybe not the best solution. In the Pulse 2 there are menus for the mod matrix and the advanced Arp setting (but for both all settings on one page o the display) while all main features have a dedicated place in the editing matrix which makes it quite simple to use.
The nvelopees in the Xenophone use 4 knobs and a selector button nd those knobs are also used for other functions omn combination with the display. That part of the interface is closer to how the editing matrix of the Pulse 2 works.