Fattest polysynth ever made

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
User avatar
Joey
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Gear: 18u Eurorack, Octatrack, Pro2
Band: BLUSH_RESPONSE
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Post by Joey » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:26 am

your mom is so fat her blood type is RAGU.

:lol:

excuse me, I'm really f**k bored.
No one cares, no one sympathizes,
so you just stay home and play synthesizers.

http://wearereplicants.com

Leeroy Jenkins
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Euguine, Novacheinchia

Post by Leeroy Jenkins » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:25 am

Interesting that people bring up the Jupiter-8 as being in the same league of fatness as the Memorymoog, OBX, P5, etc.

The funny thing is, those who've been around long enough remember the reputation Japanese synthesizer manufactures had for sounding THINNER than their American counterparts. Remember? The only exception, at least in the polysynth arena, was the CS80!

It seems like perceptions change over time, at least with respect to synthesizer "fatness." Odd how that works...

User avatar
Amos
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:17 pm
Location: Between 0 and +5V

Post by Amos » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 am

Weighing in at nearly 200 tons, Thaddeus Cahill's Telharmonium is without a doubt the fattest polysynth of all time. End of discussion. ;)

On a more easily-compared note, I'd nominate the Hammond Novachord as a polysynth of clearly superlative fatness.
"The tb-303 sounds like poo and I think I could sell it for way more if I need some gas money, but no other poo sounds as pooey as it, plus it has a sequencer..." - Zamise

keybdwizrd
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 1:57 am
Location: Windy City
Contact:

Post by keybdwizrd » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:06 am

I sometimes suspect the amount of interest in "fatness" is inversely proportional to the actual amount of music generated with said synths (whether fat or not).

User avatar
Cycom
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:07 am
Gear: Mac Pro
T.C. Electronic Konnekt 24D
ADAM A7
SCI Prophet VS
Roland Super JX
Logic 8
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post by Cycom » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:40 am

keybdwizrd wrote:I sometimes suspect the amount of interest in "fatness" is inversely proportional to the actual amount of music generated with said synths (whether fat or not).
There's nothing much to suspect. You're basically right.
"We try to encode the world, decoded and recorded on our machines." -Clock DVA

User avatar
neandrewthal
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:43 am
Location: Ontari-ari-o

Post by neandrewthal » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:44 am

Cycom wrote:
keybdwizrd wrote:I sometimes suspect the amount of interest in "fatness" is inversely proportional to the actual amount of music generated with said synths (whether fat or not).
There's nothing much to suspect. You're basically right.
So, basically what you are trying to say is music is a compensation for thinness?
What happens at fondue stays at fondue!

User avatar
Mr Rich
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:04 pm
Gear: Excessive.
Location: Ireland

Post by Mr Rich » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:48 am

Amos wrote:Weighing in at nearly 200 tons, Thaddeus Cahill's Telharmonium is without a doubt the fattest polysynth of all time. End of discussion. ;)
And that's without the case. Some would call it a building of course...
On a more easily-compared note, I'd nominate the Hammond Novachord as a polysynth of clearly superlative fatness.
I heard one once, probably the one that we've all heard. I reckon 'eirie-weirdness' is the order of the day for that one. Lovely though.
Mr Rich
(Eventually tired of Clint.)

User avatar
kaffekick
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:32 am
Contact:

Post by kaffekick » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:04 pm

Yamaha GX-1...but some of you might count it as an organ. :)
Gear: Yamaha Electone B-405

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 » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:07 pm

Amos wrote: On a more easily-compared note, I'd nominate the Hammond Novachord as a polysynth of clearly superlative fatness.
Wow, we're just going point by point with all of the contentious posts I've ever made. ; )

I'm going to have to say that if you're using Phil's Novachord as a basis for the sound of the Novachord, you're going to have to amend that to "I'd nominate Phil's Novachord," as his has a unique sound. :)
‎"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

User avatar
carbon111
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:15 am
Band: Carbon111
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Post by carbon111 » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:45 pm

Automatic Gainsay wrote:
carbon111 wrote::idea: "Fat" is arbitrary. Some use the term to refer to harmonic distortion, some use it to refer to drift and others ascribe something ineffable to the term.
Yes, but just because some people called synthesizers organs, it did not mean that they became organs or lost their definition because of a misapplied term.
The first "some people" were right, the second "some people" were mistaken, and the "others" simply couldn't hear what was being described.
The propogation and acceptance of "fat" being applied to anything that anyone liked on the internet hasn't helped.
That smells of "long winded justification" to me. There are no "first definitions" that superceed all others. Language has never worked that way. :D

Sorry AG, I don't buy your "fat". :lol:
Best Regards, James
--
My New album "Persephone":

Carbon111 Website: http://www.carbon111.com

Carbon111 Blog: http://carbon111.blogspot.com

User avatar
urgetoplay
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:18 am
Location: phila,pa.

Post by urgetoplay » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:16 pm

I've a number of Polys and I'm half tempted to try to create a single patch on all of them, post the files anonymously and see who thinks which is fat vs. not fat.

AG: I agree w/ Carbon, there's never been a "hard" definition for fat/Phat.
Just people's varying opinions. You can't make a standard just by saying its so.
Resonance in Humans is called Empathy.

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 » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:46 pm

urgetoplay wrote:I've a number of Polys and I'm half tempted to try to create a single patch on all of them, post the files anonymously and see who thinks which is fat vs. not fat.
Oh please do! I'd like to toss in a similar sounds made with FM8 then to see how it holds up against analogues .. :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
THM
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:27 am
Gear: ARP 2600
Elka Synthex
EML Polybox
EMS SynthiAKS
mTron
MOOG Mini- & Memorymoog
Oberheim SEM
Roland Jupiter-8/...
Yamaha CS80
DotCom
>see MySpace
Band: THM
Location: Belgium - in de Westvloanders
Contact:

Post by THM » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:44 pm

OMNI26 wrote:I'm not so sure about the CS-80 as "fattest". I had a CS-60 for awhile, and although it sounded great, I wouldn't have described it as "fat". It was actually a thinner sound, but absolutely analog and not digital. I would think that even doubling what it sounded like to create a CS-80 sound would still not be all that "fat".

My Minimoog with oscillators slightly detuned sounded much "fatter" than the CS-60, I thought (but yes, I know we are discussing polysynths, so it doesn't count).


But... a Mini is not polyphonic.
And I can assure (I'm glad I had the chance to try the CS-50/-60/-80 next to each other) that a CS-50 and CS-60 are pretty fat, but still absolutely thinner (even if layered or put together) as a CS-80.
Last edited by THM on Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DotCom Modular * ARP 2600 * Elka Synthex * EML PolyBox * EMS Synthi AKS * MOOG Minimoog Model D, Memorymoog * Kurzweil PC88 * Oberheim SEM * Roland Jupiter-8, JP-8080, Juno-60, TR808, TB303, MKS50, RE301, SDE330, SRV330 * Yamaha CS0 * see THM on MySpace

maindeglorie
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:17 am
Gear: Voyager Select,Little Phatty,ARP Solus,Omni II,Yamaha CS-40M,Prophet 5,Prophet 08,OB-Xa,MaxiKorg,Nord Lead 3,Nord Wave,Eurorack modular, etc.
Location: Pennsylvania (NEPA)

Post by maindeglorie » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:23 pm

Joey wrote:your mom is so fat her blood type is RAGU.

:lol:

excuse me, I'm really f**k bored.
HA HA HA

:lol:

User avatar
Sexor
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:01 pm
Gear: Prophet6, Jupiter-7, MS25, Juno-50, TR-303, Rhodes 63
Location: IJsland

Post by Sexor » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:39 am

My softsynths were all sounding so thin compared to my fat analogs these days until I finally found out what the problem was.... The controller keyboard was actually too thin!

Image

Now I'm using the big fat EX5 as a controller and my softsynths sound much fatter! :D
Monkey business since 2007!

Post Reply