Page 2 of 6

Re: i dont get something

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:39 am
by Murderhausen
"Whereas the Voyager provided distinct advantages of digital technology, the Old School (OS) takes them all away."

http://emusician.com/elecinstruments/re ... index.html

Re: i dont get something

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:29 am
by kuroichi
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.
Although, Roland most likely will never touch analog again, since they can make an SH-201 for about £40 and they sell for £300.

They've been using more or less the same software for ages, and just spit out different versions of the same thing featuring either more or less or the available features, and a higher resolution sequencer ect. I personally think they have a super computer in Japan thats bent on music business domination that just spews thousands of cheap soldiers ready to line the pockets of its masters.

Analog although popular is still very much a niche market. For example, all the yuppies in s**t indie bands who go to buy a keyboard would hardly dish out for a Moog, when they can buy a cheap Roland that has some kind of cheesy vintage emulation thats good enough for them. Plus as strange as it may seem saying it here, a LOT of people outside of these kinds of forums have no idea what a CV jack is for, and don't understand that a sample based keyboard, and a Moog Voyager are not the same.

Re: i dont get something

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:41 am
by xpander
Murderhausen wrote:"Whereas the Voyager provided distinct advantages of digital technology, the Old School (OS) takes them all away."
reading that line, you'd get the impression that that wasn't a rave review, which it pretty much is. 5 out of 5 for quality of sounds, too.
I also understand and applaud Moog Music's decision and intent to stay faithful to the instrument's all-analog heritage, which is why I wasn't disappointed by the absence of MIDI, USB, or any other digital connectivity or control that synthesists have become so accustomed to.
...
You'd be hard-pressed to find a more exciting or beautiful little monophonic performance synth.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:36 pm
by meatballfulton
As someone who actually designs electronic products, I'd like to discuss one other reason noone has mentioned.

Once a popular product has recouped it's development costs, it might seem to be a no-brainer to keep making it forever. However there is only so much capacity in a factory and if you keep making the old products there's no capacity for new products. The manufacturing engineers have to go figure out how much $$$ it costs to keep making the old product and compare that product to spending the same $$$ towards making the new higher profit product . Guess what the result is.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:33 pm
by StepLogik
I think that one of the main reasons is because the mass-market manufacturers can't make analogue instruments. Everything is software and specialized DSP chips. Designing analogue circuits is a completely different skill and one that most of the "big 3" don't keep in-house. Why should they? The only analogue components in any modern synth is the buffering between the DAC's and the output jacks.

Do you honestly think that anyone over at Roland could possibly engineer a Jupiter-8? Of course not. All those DSP programmers would be baffled by its VCF circuit.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:50 pm
by soundxplorer
I'd prefer it if they made something brand new, that SOUNDED different than any other product, and in no way made reference or comparison to any vintage product (so as to avoid the "it doesn't sound like ___" comparisons).

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:51 pm
by Syn the Sizer
As they say "The future is influenced by the past"

I'm all for the Moog Voyagers or Prophet 8's,up to date reliability coupled with real Analog synthesis,but how many times can you keep reinventing the wheel.

These instruments may sound and look nice but its basically covering the same ground over and over,Whilst i like Analog,I'm more inspired by new ways of making music rather than Rebadging and reissuing cult favourites,things that move my music to newer levels,

Everything new today seems to cover the same aspects of everyone elses Designs,all that changes are the Samples and sample rates,I would like see more interesting ways of playing with sound design,Roland seem to have approached this with the V synth philosophy,its allows you to sculpt sounds in a physical way as well as synthesis methods,and also allows through sampling your own discovery of sound,that the only limitation is your lack of imagination.

We've had the VA and Analogs,the Vintage stuff will always have a place in history and of course influenced almost everything after it,and eventually come full circle,but isn't it time to look for newer ways of approaching Music creation rather than simply living off thJewels of the past.
I don't think we have really seen any milestone synths in the past two decades that would have the same impact or legacy as the Minimoog or the like.

Re: i dont get something

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:20 pm
by Synthaholic
Murderhausen wrote:"Whereas the Voyager provided distinct advantages of digital technology, the Old School (OS) takes them all away."

http://emusician.com/elecinstruments/re ... index.html
Believe it or not, there is still digital technology in the Voyager OS. The keyboard is digitally scanned, and the OS has selectable note priority.

I don't know if the knobs are digitally scanned or not. They could be, since they probably just took the Voyager innards and designed a case and firmware sans MIDI, patch memory, and the X-Y pad.

Someone should put a Voyager and an OS side-by-side and compare the "steppiness" of the knobs.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:38 pm
by cornutt
The parts thing is a much bigger problem than most people realize... it's starting to get in the way of new designs, never mind reproducing old ones. For reasons not quite clear to me, the economics of integrated circuit production have (contrary to most of the rest of the economy) move hugely to favor parts that are produced in enormous numbers. Thus, every manufacturer is eager to crank out the next cellphone-on-a-chip design that they figure they can sell ten million of, while even people who have money and are willing to pay for, say, CA3280s can't get anyone who has the equipment interested. Hardly a month goes by that I don't hear about some part that is widely used in synth designs being discontinued.

Another problem (and it pains me to say this as a digital-centric guy, but the truth must be told) is that EE students aren't interested in learning analog design anymore, and schools aren't interested in teaching it. Thus, even the handful of fabs that are interested in analog designs can't find engineers to design them. I'm waiting for the day that cell phones become no longer available because no one knows how to design a simple RF amplifier anymore.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:46 pm
by cornutt
Syn the Sizer wrote:These instruments may sound and look nice but its basically covering the same ground over and over,Whilst i like Analog,I'm more inspired by new ways of making music rather than Rebadging and reissuing cult favourites,things that move my music to newer levels,
There's a lot of truth to that too, and to be honest, some of the blame from that lies at our own feet. As Paul Schreiber (among others) has learned, once you get out of VCO-VCF-VCA-EG territory, the market shrinks considerably. I think I was one of about 100 people who ordered the MOTM-510 the first time around; Paul actually had to discontinue it before anyone else got interested.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:26 pm
by Solderman
I thought the recent Andromeda thread with the comments from Mike Peake and a6dev sheds some light on the struggles to actually build a modern day analogue synth for a corporation(and a struggling one at that) like Alesis.

There was another thread I saw here recently where someone pointed out the reason the original Moog Modular VCF sounded so fat was because Doctor Bob was using transistors in the design for something they weren't designed to do, and hence the signal running through the circuit degraded in an unexpectedly pleasant way.

I think a more practical thing to wish for would be keeping more of the parts for the vintage instruments available.

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:36 pm
by Villi
What would happen to the boutique companies like DSI or Moog if rokoyamandorg mass-produced an analog synth though? How would they compete?

Re: i dont get something

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:54 pm
by OriginalJambo
Stab Frenzy wrote: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 think the word you're looking for may be different?

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

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:59 pm
by steveman
Villi wrote:What would happen to the boutique companies like DSI or Moog if rokoyamandorg mass-produced an analog synth though? How would they compete?
Probably exactly what happened last time, they'd be out of business. Anyway, not going to happen.

Re: i dont get something

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:44 pm
by xpander
Synthaholic wrote:Someone should put a Voyager and an OS side-by-side and compare the "steppiness" of the knobs.
the OS doesn't have steppiness.

if GC/Musician's Friend/Sweetwater carry your products, you really aren't a boutique company anymore.