why don't synth manufacturers just make the old synth?

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
User avatar
killanator
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:03 am
Real name: Carl
Gear: Alesis Quadrasynth, Roland SH-201, Various MIDI things, Samson MediaONE 5a Active Studio Monitors
Band: Solo
Location: California

why don't synth manufacturers just make the old synth?

Post by killanator » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:05 am

Instead of just making emulations of older synths, why don't synth manufacturers just make the old synth? I mean couldn't Moog Music just bust out the old Mini blueprints and just make those? So people can get a real Minimoog, which would probably be somewhat cheap, without making anything better? I'm sure not everyone would want this but so what? Instead of just designing new synths that are like the old one but "better" just make the real thing?

Jazzpunk
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:48 pm

Re: i dont get something

Post by Jazzpunk » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:16 am

It's my understanding that the components are no longer available to make exact replications of the classics and thus they don't have the same tone. I'm far from scholarly on this subject though so I'm sure someone else can give you a more informed opinion!

It should be noted as well that guys like Bob Moog and Dave Smith did/do not lust over the vintage sounds that we all hold in such high esteem. To them it was/is old hat so they move on to other designs that inspire them as engineers.

We're the one's stuck in the past!

Jazzpunk
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:48 pm

Re: i dont get something

Post by Jazzpunk » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:25 am

killanator wrote:Instead of just making emulations of older synths, why don't synth manufacturers just make the old synth? I mean couldn't Moog Music just bust out the old Mini blueprints and just make those? So people can get a real Minimoog, which would probably be somewhat cheap, without making anything better?
Also worth mentioning is that Studio electronics licensed the filter, oscillator and VCA designs from Moog for the SE-1 and while the SE-1 sounds great it still doesn't sound like a Model D (to my ears anyway).

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:

Re: i dont get something

Post by Stab Frenzy » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:30 am

"Top 10 reasons companies don't just make the old synth"

10) The old synths have parts that are no longer available, and not ROHS compliant.
9) The old synths use a lot more parts and are able to do a lot less stuff than the new ones.
8) Engineers who design synths think about them differently to internet nerds, they make improvements to tuning stability, add patch memory etc, the nerds complain that new version isn't 'fat' and 'warm' and that the filter steps now. They add cool expressive new controllers, nerds complain there are less knobs. etc. etc.
7) There are only a couple of thousand people in the whole world who would actually want a minimoog reissue, if it was more popular that welsh company would still be making them.
6) "I think this keyboard is broken, it only plays one note at a time"
5) If I tracked down all the parts I'd need to make a new minimoog it might cost me $2000 in parts and labour to make each one. To make money I'd have to sell them to shops for $3000. The shops would then mark them up to $6000, and internet nerds (the ones that actually wanted one instead of wanting a Triton that makez beatz) would say it's a rip off and just buy a second-hand one for $2000 or whatever they cost these days.
4) The synths available now really are better than the old ones. It's just people living in the past who want to be Wakeman/Numan/Eno/Lemmy that think otherwise.
3) There are options like MacBeth, Synthesizers.com, Futureretro, Jomox etc that are making improved versions of the old stuff already.
2) Roland could reissue the Jupiter 8, they've done the costings and it'd be cheaper than an SH-201 but they don't do it because they're mean.

and the number 1 reason companies don't just make the old synth is....

Even if you got actual old Minimoogs and cleaned them up, put them in new cases, and told people they were a brand new exact replica priced at $500, people would still complain that it wasn't as fat and just didn't have the same vibe as an old one.

Hair
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Edison, NJ
Contact:

Re: i dont get something

Post by Hair » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:55 am

Stab Frenzy wrote:2) Roland could reissue the Jupiter 8, they've done the costings and it'd be cheaper than an SH-201 but they don't do it because they're mean.
seriously!? wtf roland!

User avatar
nadafarms
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:33 am
Location: NorCal

Re: i dont get something

Post by nadafarms » Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:08 am

Stab Frenzy wrote:"Top 10 reasons companies don't just make the old synth"

4) The synths available now really are better than the old ones. It's just people living in the past who want to be Wakeman/Numan/Eno/Lemmy that think otherwise.
I would like to any synth new or old try and hold a candle to the MS-20.
for sale/trade: EML-101

User avatar
Hossinfeffa
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:08 pm
Gear: Roland D-50, MT-32, Korg DSS-1, DDD-1, MS-20, Yamaha FB-01, PSS-560, Akai AX-80, MfB 522, Arturia MiniBrute
Location: Everett, WA

Re: i dont get something

Post by Hossinfeffa » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:29 am

My two reasons:

Big name companies are big name because of what they do. Catering to what the masses want. The masses want workstations, VA's, ROMplers, etc. They want these to be as advanced as possible and do as much as they want. The people that want their old products back and stuff are really small in comparison.

The time, money, and work involved in recreating or just creating the classics or analog gear outweighs the profit (in their eyes.) Something that only a few thousand- or less would actually want. If anything, I personally believe Roland would make the most money off of a new TB-303 or TR-808/909. Those have a far greater appeal than say, the Jupiter-8.

And yes I believe Stab Frenzy hit it on the mark as well. Even though some things he said may cause a war.. :lol:
Well fffff.

quicksilverXP
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:48 am

Re: i dont get something

Post by quicksilverXP » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:35 am

nadafarms wrote:
Stab Frenzy wrote:"Top 10 reasons companies don't just make the old synth"

4) The synths available now really are better than the old ones. It's just people living in the past who want to be Wakeman/Numan/Eno/Lemmy that think otherwise.
I would like to any synth new or old try and hold a candle to the MS-20.
I think he means better in a different sense.

I know plenty of people that know nothing about synths that listen to our Moog Source... and they think the Korg R3 sounds better because it sounds clearer. Then again, they know nothing about synths... but then again... not many people really do. Hardware synthesizers are such a small market anyway that not many people will be able to tell what sounds good vs. what sounds bad.

User avatar
tim gueguen
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:31 am
Location: the Canadian Prairies
Contact:

Re: i dont get something

Post by tim gueguen » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:38 am

Hair wrote:
Stab Frenzy wrote:2) Roland could reissue the Jupiter 8, they've done the costings and it'd be cheaper than an SH-201 but they don't do it because they're mean.
seriously!? wtf roland!
He's kidding.
Keys: Realistic Concertmate 500, Korg K25, Korg Micro X

Guits: '86 Fender Japan '50s Reissue Strat, '80 Aria Pro II TS-300 Thor Sound

Hair
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Edison, NJ
Contact:

Re: i dont get something

Post by Hair » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:46 am

tim gueguen wrote:
Hair wrote:
Stab Frenzy wrote:2) Roland could reissue the Jupiter 8, they've done the costings and it'd be cheaper than an SH-201 but they don't do it because they're mean.
seriously!? wtf roland!
He's kidding.
Haha oops, in retrospect it's obvious.

Seems like most of the valid points have been covered, yet still, it's interesting to see the difference in synths being reissued vs. say, guitars.

I've also thought this about old cars, maybe put all new engines and parts in, but use a reproduction '65 mustang body and not some watered down version of it - some people don't care about aerodynamics! Maybe something like the Voyager OS is the synth equivalent of this idea?

User avatar
xpander
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:15 am
Gear: UltraProteus, Xpander, 200e, Minimoogs, Radias, Prophet VS, PolyEvolver, Arp 2600
Location: los gatos, california
Contact:

Re: i dont get something

Post by xpander » Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:49 am

i blame it squarely on "improved" voltage-controlled oscillator design.

User avatar
Jabberwalky
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:03 pm
Gear: A hybrid of vintage and modern junk
Band: Variar
Location: Pgh, PA
Contact:

Re: i dont get something

Post by Jabberwalky » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:00 am

Old synths contain lead, and we all know lead kills you in about 20 seconds.

Lets say, everyone on the forum that lusts for this sort of thing put down $200. Couldn't at least one exact replica be made? Then.......we could share it and have slumber parties and stuff

User avatar
Hossinfeffa
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:08 pm
Gear: Roland D-50, MT-32, Korg DSS-1, DDD-1, MS-20, Yamaha FB-01, PSS-560, Akai AX-80, MfB 522, Arturia MiniBrute
Location: Everett, WA

Re: i dont get something

Post by Hossinfeffa » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:04 am

Jabberwalky wrote:Lets say, everyone on the forum that lusts for this sort of thing put down $200. Couldn't at least one exact replica be made? Then.......we could share it and have slumber parties and stuff
Getting everyone to agree on what brand/model would be much harder than getting the money up.
Well fffff.

User avatar
xpander
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:15 am
Gear: UltraProteus, Xpander, 200e, Minimoogs, Radias, Prophet VS, PolyEvolver, Arp 2600
Location: los gatos, california
Contact:

Re: i dont get something

Post by xpander » Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:23 am

Jabberwalky wrote:Old synths contain lead, and we all know lead kills you in about 20 seconds.

Lets say, everyone on the forum that lusts for this sort of thing put down $200. Couldn't at least one exact replica be made? Then.......we could share it and have slumber parties and stuff
i'm already dead, but i held my breath and lasted an extra 5. that shamwow faux-hawk avatar is pure win.

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:

Re: i dont get something

Post by Stab Frenzy » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:20 am

Hair wrote:I've also thought this about old cars, maybe put all new engines and parts in, but use a reproduction '65 mustang body and not some watered down version of it - some people don't care about aerodynamics! Maybe something like the Voyager OS is the synth equivalent of this idea?
Actually, I'd say the Juno-G is the synth equivalent of that. Looks vintage but has all the mod-cons that Juno-106 owners would have loved like a sequencer, more polyphony, a realistic piano and a d-beam. The Voyager OS would be like if they made a 65 Mustang body nowdays but still used a cast-iron block pushrod V8 and leaf-spring suspension. The Juno-G is your Mustang body with a Lexus LS430 V8 in it.
quicksilverXP wrote:I know plenty of people that know nothing about synths that listen to our Moog Source... and they think the Korg R3 sounds better because it sounds clearer. Then again, they know nothing about synths... but then again... not many people really do. Hardware synthesizers are such a small market anyway that not many people will be able to tell what sounds good vs. what sounds bad.
Who says your opinion of what sounds good and bad is more important than theirs? Maybe they're right and the R3 is better cause it's clearer. At least they gave a qualifier as to why they thought it was better. I'm not saying that there's a definite right and wrong, just that often it's easy to get carried away thinking about which synth is phat or warm or whatever, and not take into account whether the sound of it fits in nicely with the song.

Different things sound different, and the best one is the one that gives you the sound that you want. If the person listening to it says it sounds good then it is good.

Just playing devil's avocado here, I like synths too. :D

Post Reply