Fattest polysynth ever made

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
Leeroy Jenkins
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Euguine, Novacheinchia

Fattest polysynth ever made

Post by Leeroy Jenkins » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:39 am

I have read that the Yamaha CS80 is the fattest polysynth ever made. Anyone care to dispute that claim?

radiospace
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:18 pm

Post by radiospace » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:44 am

It certainly might be the heaviest polyphonic synth ever made...

User avatar
Stab Frenzy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9723
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:41 pm
Gear: Eurorack, RYTM, Ultranova, many FX
Location: monster island*
Contact:

Post by Stab Frenzy » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:46 am

Depends on what units you're measuring with, and also if you're using a logarithmic or linear scale.

User avatar
Dave Bryce
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 10:48 pm

Post by Dave Bryce » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:19 am

radiospace wrote:It certainly might be the heaviest polyphonic synth ever made...
GX-1 wins that award, I think. :idea:

Might be more accurate to say that CS-80 is probably the heaviest polysynth that any of us stand a chance of ever owning. ;)

dB
Alesis Andromeda (x2)/QS8/QSR/NanoBass/Ion, Casio VZ10M, DSI PEK (x2)/PER/MEK/P'08, Korg M3/WSSR/M1R, Kurzweil K2000/PC3, Macbeth M5, heavily modded MiniMoog, Nord Electro 2, Oberheim OB5, Roland V-Synth XT/MKS80/MKS70/JD990/D550, Yamaha MOTIF ES8

User avatar
Yoozer
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:31 pm

Re: Fattest polysynth ever made

Post by Yoozer » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:05 am

Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Anyone care to dispute that claim?
Find me a good description of the word "fat" that everyone here can agree on, and we'll get back to you.


PS: 8 Macbeth M5's controlled by a MIDI splitter
"Part of an instrument is what it can do, and part of it is what you do to it" - Suzanne Ciani, 197x.

sam
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1303
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: Europe

Post by sam » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:33 am

My memorymoog in unison shakes the windows... :D
Lam memorymoog.Sonic six.Vp330 mk1.SH101.OSCar.ARP odyssey..multivox mx3000.Solina stringsynth.polivox
ms20/50.Andromeda. OBX.
Prophet 5 Pro-one. Wasp.EMS AKS.

User avatar
Jexus
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:59 am

Re: Fattest polysynth ever made

Post by Jexus » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:16 am

Yoozer wrote:
Leeroy Jenkins wrote:Anyone care to dispute that claim?
Find me a good description of the word "fat" that everyone here can agree on, and we'll get back to you.

Image


Resembles ARP2600 most, if you ask me.

User avatar
clusterchord
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:35 pm
Real name: Tomislav
Band: Nimbus Dei
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Post by clusterchord » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:32 am

id say CS-80, OBX/4voice/8voice, Chroma and Memorymoog each in its own way.
Image

jupiter · oberheim · prophet · sh · moog · andromeda · ppg wave · vs · waldorf · yamaha · eii · casio
rhodes · solina · acetone · eurorack · system100 · förster · lexicon · eventide · space echo · svc350 etc

User avatar
Stab Frenzy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9723
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:41 pm
Gear: Eurorack, RYTM, Ultranova, many FX
Location: monster island*
Contact:

Post by Stab Frenzy » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:47 am

I insist that anyone posting in this thread must state units and the methodology they used to get results to measure fattness, otherwise don't post at all.

Any unscientific measurements will be removed by our crack team of nazi moderators.

jupiter8
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by jupiter8 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:20 am

Stab Frenzy wrote:I insist that anyone posting in this thread must state units and the methodology they used to get results to measure fattness, otherwise don't post at all.

Any unscientific measurements will be removed by our crack team of nazi moderators.
I had a synth specially made for this purpose with zero phatness so i just play it with the synth i want to measure and reverse the polarity so the nonphat parts cancel out and you're left with just phat.

I contemplated getting one with the polarity reversed but decided against it for several reasons:
1. If you measure a really low paht synth the result can be difficult to hear
2. The resolution of digital summing is much higher than analog so i wanted the polarity change done in digital.

Anyways after doing extensive testing i found the MemoryMoog was about 3.4 % more phat than the CS80 and the Korg PS 3300 about 7.6 % more phat. I guess you can't beat more oscillators when it comes to phat. My measuring equipment was a bit flakey that day so you might want to take it with a grain of salt. Mmmmmm salt and phat. My favourite combo.
Last edited by jupiter8 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OriginalJambo
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:04 am
Gear: Check my sig
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom

Post by OriginalJambo » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:29 am

The Memorymoog.

Measurement: 3 Moog oscillators per voice x 1 Classic Moog ladder filter = a rating of 3 on the Richter scale for fatness (i.e. very fat!). In theory of course, I've never seen or played on in person.

User avatar
CS_TBL
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1677
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:47 pm
Gear: All "In-The-Box"
Mainly FM8
Location: NL
Contact:

Post by CS_TBL » Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:17 pm

totally subjective of course, but:

-imho-

What makes a sound fat:

- it behaves as if it was an acoustic sound played by a human
- it has a well-balanced spectrum, not too stingy at some freqs
- sounds that emulate an ensemble (strings e.g.) should sound like that ensemble, and not sound like a single player and a chorus. But this may be a personal taste. I don't want to hear that obvious LFO waveform in an ensemble sound. In the most ideal case I'd really like something like 12 individual voices, each with its own LFOs and sound/pitch/volume fluctuations and then play one note with it. The sound should be uniformly fuzzy and meaty.. that's what I call 'fat'.. :P
"You know I love you, CS, but this is bullshit." (Automatic Gainsay)
s: VSL/FM8/EWQL/LASS h: DX7/FS1r/VL70/SY77/SN2r/JD800/JD990/XV88/Emu6400/Poly61/Amek35:12:2/genelec1030 r: Violin/AltoSax/TinWhistle c: i7-4770/RAM32GB/SSD
FM8 vids

User avatar
sensorium
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Post by sensorium » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:23 pm

OriginalJambo wrote:The Memorymoog.

Measurement: 3 Moog oscillators per voice x 1 Classic Moog ladder filter = a rating of 3 on the Richter scale for fatness (i.e. very fat!). In theory of course, I've never seen or played on in person.

Actually, the Memorymoog used Curtis 3340 chips as opposed to the Moog oscillators.


Back to this whole fat thing. I have a Memorymoog, and my vote goes for it (curtis oscillators and all), but I think people get carried away with fatness.....Try getting an 18 osc saw lead in unison, or even an 18 osc pad, to sit in the mix. When using the Mm, I normally use 2 osc's and sometimes disable voices (for mono) just to make a mixable patch...

User avatar
Johnny Lenin
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:56 pm
Gear: JX8P | AX60 | Little Phatty Stage II | DW8000 | Vox Jag | Fantom X6 | Juno-G | P-Bass | AS-120 | Double Jet

Post by Johnny Lenin » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:12 pm

Try getting an 18 osc saw lead in unison
Supersaw!

User avatar
Automatic Gainsay
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3962
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 am
Real name: Marc Doty
Gear: Minimoog, 2600, CS-15, CS-50, MiniBrute, MicroBrute, S2, Korg MS-20 Mini, 3 Volcas, Pro 2, Leipzig, Pianet T, Wurli 7300, Wurli 145-A, ASR-10, e6400.
Band: Godfrey's Cordial
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:33 pm

As always, I say we hearken back to the origin of the word, which came about when 1970s synthesizers were compared to Moog modulars. The Moog modulars had something that the others didn't, which was a very warm, broad, thick sound.

If that is the basis for "fat" (and it should be), I would have to agree that the Memorymoog probably wins for fatness. (I've heard a lot of complaints from Memorymoog owners that it is difficult to sit the Memorymoog in a mix because of this audio quality)

I have a CS-50, which uses the same oscs and filters as the CS-80, and it is definitely fatter than most polysynths I've owned or played, so I have to say that the CS polys are up there.
‎"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage
"Unity and Mediocrity are forever in bed together." -Zane W.
http://www.youtube.com/automaticgainsay

Post Reply