First: Thank you all for putting up with me and give me such good advice!
@dewster: Yes, exactly. I know I'm not the first. And not the last, who want to trim via pot rather than inductor/capacitor. And at least some oscillators should be straight forward to replace. Look at the fixed pitch oscillator in the "Paradox" design. It uses a 470µ trimmer inductor. The signal is fed into a clock input of a counter, so the waveform isn't critical at all (save for jitter, if any) so I really don't understand why that one should be trimmed by expensive and hard to obtain parts. BOM optimization cannot be the reason.
And, if I understand the theory, the beat frequency is the shit, and the IF/RF from the oscillators is only means to get a beat frequency. So, one of the oscillators shouldn't need any trimming at all, provided that the trimmed oscillator had sufficient trim range. And in this case, where an oscillator very well may produce square wave, shouldn't is suffice with a fixed pitch oscillator (maybe simple trimmer cap on the PCB instead of a front panel one) and then do the trim with the fixed pitch oscillator, which can be replaced (the context here is the Paradox design) with just about anything, wine bridge, 555, neon bulb relaxation osc (ok, ok, the last one wasn't serious!) or whatever oscillator that can provide the frequency and may have a panel mounted potentiometer? And no, I don't mind the digital approach. Except I want to build from a proven design with proven sound. "Paradox" is my best bet I think, I like the design (and it do have a crucial digital step).
@Buggins: Me too. I'm playing in LTSpice under wine with different LC-oscillators and try to make them trimable by pots. No cigar yet. Trimming is possible, but with horrendous bad range or linearity.
@Thierry: Yes, I'm following you and this is precisely what I think is reasonable. Problem is, I'm not really confident when it comes to theremins. I mean, I'm just a run-of-the-mill engineer with focus on digital stuff and all my analog experience comes from measurement and calibration industry. Here is the most stupid thing: I've never been into audio. At all. Never built an amplifier for audio. So, if you guys have a hard time replacing those trimming inductors and -caps, there is something I don't understand.
It feels like I missing something. I *hope* theremin builders put variable caps and coils into your constructions because of the handiwork as a hobby, not out of necessity.
I'm following different paths here, and one is to come up with some design of variable caps. But I don't like it. Don't really have the tooling or time. But for the most part, I of course want to understand the concepts of theremin design.
What is your spontaneous reaction to my silly suggestion that one maybe can use an ordinary RC-oscillator for the var pitch osc, and having a high voltage to compensate for doing away with the inductor? Don't mind the problem with generation of higher voltages. A 70 V full-swing RC-osc, how about that? Doable? Idiotic?
(Totally off topic: Isn't it strange that Firefox's spellchecker knows "theremin", but not "inductor"? )