Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

Stab Frenzy wrote:I think there's a step missing from this though. In a paraphonic synth like the Poly 800 for example there's a VCA per oscillator, you don't hear all 8 oscs droning when you only press one key down. The Sub 37 doesn't do that, you always hear both oscs no matter how many keys you press.

That's how the Korg Lambda is, too.
It gets messy and indistinct when every single permutation is considered. :::shudders:::
I guess we need a name for those, too.

Stab Frenzy wrote:It's not paraphonic and Moog shouldn't have put that word on the synth. It's a monophonic synth with splittable osc tuning. I guess you could use the word duophonic (as opposed to having a polyphony of two) as that's what the Odyssey was described as. If it was paraphonic when you were in 'paraphonic' mode and pressed down one key you'd hear one osc, not two.

That's what a number of people said. Amos responded on the Automatic Gainsay Facebook page by saying:
"...the new Moog synth is "2-note paraphonic" -- it can play two independent pitches from its two oscillators, in response to two keys played at once. Paraphonic still seemed less misleading than "Duophonic" (to me) because of the single VCF, VCA, and their respective envelope generators. Although ultimately I had very little to do with what got written on the panel"
Amos brings up a point that a lot of people have where a note count isn't valid unless that note count is individually articulated. I personally don't believe that is the case. The term "polyphonic" was used by Bob Moog to describe the first instance of his modular synthesizer, which was actually WAS polyphonic but had the divide-down oscillators sent through a single VCA/VCF arrangement.
The first synths that were "duophonic" were not articulated duophony, either. :/

Stab Frenzy wrote:I guess all this stuff is open to reinterpretation to a certain extent and never set in stone, and for example if you play a chord on a guitar that's going through an auto-wah and a tremolo pedal it doesn't stop being a polyphonic instrument does it?

Well, no. Because polyphony is about whether multiple notes can be played, and not whether those notes are articulated.

Stab Frenzy wrote:If you get right back to the idea of a synth 'voice' in a polyphonic instrument coming from the idea of a human voice in a choir, each voice should have a separate amplitude and tone control system. I always thought of paraphonic instruments has 'not fully polyphonic' instruments, in the same way that a paramedic isn't a full doctor or a paralegal isn't a full lawyer. But that might just be me.

You're not alone with that.
Except that you have to remember that these devices weren't designed to act like acoustic musical instruments. They were designed to allow you to sculpt sound in monophony.
No one describes a pipe organ as "not being real polyphony" because it lacks a filter or source of amplitude control per-voice. They are not articulated voices... and still, they're considered polyphonic instruments. It's only when articulation becomes possible that it becomes an issue.
This is why I have taken to saying that polyphony defines whether it is capable of playing multiple notes... and "articulated" should be used to define whether each of the notes it can play are, in fact, articulated.

The Sub 37 is, in fact, "paraphonic" in the current usage of the word, because its two voices share a single filter and VCA arrangement. But as I've pointed out, all monosynths are paraphonic, too.
I would describe the Sub 37 as duophonic, in the style of the Odyssey and Sonic Six.

Kidney05 wrote:Sooooo who's actually excited for this? I think it'll be awesome to have more tribute editions. Those were always the nicest little phattys. I think the sequencer looks sick too.

I'm very hyped up for the Sub 37. It has pretty much everything I could ever ask for from a two oscillator synth, short of having full CV In/Outs and being semi modular.

The Mod section has so much potential for awesome things: oscillator specific pitch/waveform modulation; Noise level as a destination; being able to have both LFO's modulate one another's rate and affect the pitch/filter due to independent controls for those parameters on each Mod bus. It isn't even in production yet and I already have a to-do list of patch ideas to try out on it.

Unless the thing bursts into flames after a few hours of use, I can easily see it going down as one of the classic keyboard synths of the "analog renaissance" era.

Automatic Gainsay wrote:

Stab Frenzy wrote:I think there's a step missing from this though. In a paraphonic synth like the Poly 800 for example there's a VCA per oscillator, you don't hear all 8 oscs droning when you only press one key down. The Sub 37 doesn't do that, you always hear both oscs no matter how many keys you press.

That's how the Korg Lambda is, too.
It gets messy and indistinct when every single permutation is considered. :::shudders:::
I guess we need a name for those, too.

Stab Frenzy wrote:It's not paraphonic and Moog shouldn't have put that word on the synth. It's a monophonic synth with splittable osc tuning. I guess you could use the word duophonic (as opposed to having a polyphony of two) as that's what the Odyssey was described as. If it was paraphonic when you were in 'paraphonic' mode and pressed down one key you'd hear one osc, not two.

That's what a number of people said. Amos responded on the Automatic Gainsay Facebook page by saying:
"...the new Moog synth is "2-note paraphonic" -- it can play two independent pitches from its two oscillators, in response to two keys played at once. Paraphonic still seemed less misleading than "Duophonic" (to me) because of the single VCF, VCA, and their respective envelope generators. Although ultimately I had very little to do with what got written on the panel"
Amos brings up a point that a lot of people have where a note count isn't valid unless that note count is individually articulated. I personally don't believe that is the case. The term "polyphonic" was used by Bob Moog to describe the first instance of his modular synthesizer, which was actually WAS polyphonic but had the divide-down oscillators sent through a single VCA/VCF arrangement.
The first synths that were "duophonic" were not articulated duophony, either. :/

Stab Frenzy wrote:I guess all this stuff is open to reinterpretation to a certain extent and never set in stone, and for example if you play a chord on a guitar that's going through an auto-wah and a tremolo pedal it doesn't stop being a polyphonic instrument does it?

Well, no. Because polyphony is about whether multiple notes can be played, and not whether those notes are articulated.

Stab Frenzy wrote:If you get right back to the idea of a synth 'voice' in a polyphonic instrument coming from the idea of a human voice in a choir, each voice should have a separate amplitude and tone control system. I always thought of paraphonic instruments has 'not fully polyphonic' instruments, in the same way that a paramedic isn't a full doctor or a paralegal isn't a full lawyer. But that might just be me.

You're not alone with that.
Except that you have to remember that these devices weren't designed to act like acoustic musical instruments. They were designed to allow you to sculpt sound in monophony.
No one describes a pipe organ as "not being real polyphony" because it lacks a filter or source of amplitude control per-voice. They are not articulated voices... and still, they're considered polyphonic instruments. It's only when articulation becomes possible that it becomes an issue.
This is why I have taken to saying that polyphony defines whether it is capable of playing multiple notes... and "articulated" should be used to define whether each of the notes it can play are, in fact, articulated.

The Sub 37 is, in fact, "paraphonic" in the current usage of the word, because its two voices share a single filter and VCA arrangement. But as I've pointed out, all monosynths are paraphonic, too.
I would describe the Sub 37 as duophonic, in the style of the Odyssey and Sonic Six.

Some very good points Marc. I think the crux of the matter is that the word Paraphonic is right there on the panel as though that's the main feature of the synth. I (and a lot of other people if this thread is anything to go by) feel like they're overpromising by putting that word there, in fact the original title of this thread was by someone who was confused and thought the Sub 37 was polyphonic. I feel as though if the split osc trick was just treated as a bonus extra rather than the description of the synth on its front panel then more people would be happy.

Sometimes marketing a product is about managing expectations rather than talking things up. That's why McDonalds is so popular.

Stab Frenzy wrote:Some very good points Marc. I think the crux of the matter is that the word Paraphonic is right there on the panel as though that's the main feature of the synth. I (and a lot of other people if this thread is anything to go by) feel like they're overpromising by putting that word there, in fact the original title of this thread was by someone who was confused and thought the Sub 37 was polyphonic. I feel as though if the split osc trick was just treated as a bonus extra rather than the description of the synth on its front panel then more people would be happy.

Sometimes marketing a product is about managing expectations rather than talking things up. That's why McDonalds is so popular.

I thought it was polyphonic, initially, too because of that.

I'm with you on this.

Automatic Gainsay wrote:No one describes a pipe organ as "not being real polyphony" because it lacks a filter or source of amplitude control per-voice. They are not articulated voices... and still, they're considered polyphonic instruments.

Actually pipe organs are fully articulated in the sense that each note triggers a specific pipe in each rank that is currently engaged. Playing (or releasing) any single note has no effect on the sound of any other note.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's behind what they call it. It sounds good. Nothing else matters.

Aaron2 wrote:Frankly, I don't give a rat's behind what they call it. It sounds good. Nothing else matters.

yes, bring on the Moog Octophonic Polyunsaturated Phatty!

meatballfulton wrote:

Automatic Gainsay wrote:No one describes a pipe organ as "not being real polyphony" because it lacks a filter or source of amplitude control per-voice. They are not articulated voices... and still, they're considered polyphonic instruments.

Actually pipe organs are fully articulated in the sense that each note triggers a specific pipe in each rank that is currently engaged. Playing (or releasing) any single note has no effect on the sound of any other note.

Articulation in this instance describes having control of the amplitude and harmonic content of individual notes, or having a situation where each individual note by virtue of what it is, has its own pattern of amplitude and harmonic content change over time.
As pipe organs are "on/off," and the harmonic content of the average pipe does not change, they would not fit into that description.
In fact, no one describes pipe organs as being paraphonic despite the fact that their amplitude is controlled by a single pedal.

The way that synthesizers trigger the envelope(s) when they have a single VCA and Filter has nothing to do with how many notes they play. That is not related to polyphony. The irritation some feel about how the triggering of one note affects the amplitude and filtering of another note is specifically the problem of individual-note-articulation.

Automatic Gainsay wrote:As pipe organs are "on/off," and the harmonic content of the average pipe does not change, they would not fit into that description.
In fact, no one describes pipe organs as being paraphonic despite the fact that their amplitude is controlled by a single pedal.

They're not bloody paraphonic. There's no divide-down; each pipe is a seperate sound source. And pipe organs only have pedals as in the pedal board for the bass; volume changes are effected through a) doubling across several manuals, or b) pulling out more stops to open up more pipes/reeds -- eg. vox humana alone versus the whole lot. Massive dynamic range.

They're also multi-timbral, when you think about it.

I just preordered mine from proaudiostar, for 1350, cool!

clubbedtodeath wrote:

Automatic Gainsay wrote:As pipe organs are "on/off," and the harmonic content of the average pipe does not change, they would not fit into that description.
In fact, no one describes pipe organs as being paraphonic despite the fact that their amplitude is controlled by a single pedal.

They're not bloody paraphonic. There's no divide-down; each pipe is a seperate sound source. And pipe organs only have pedals as in the pedal board for the bass; volume changes are effected through a) doubling across several manuals, or b) pulling out more stops to open up more pipes/reeds -- eg. vox humana alone versus the whole lot. Massive dynamic range.

They're also multi-timbral, when you think about it.

First and foremost, I miss you.

Paraphonic does not require divide-down. Many paraphonic synths ARE divide down... but some are not.
Each pipe is an oscillator that doesn't go through a filter... but does go through a single "amp" which is controlled by the swell pedal.
Certainly the volume of the overall sound can be controlled by adding "oscillators," but timbre is also changed by that.

megamanx wrote:I just preordered mine from proaudiostar, for 1350, cool!

How'd you get it for $149 below the usual street price of $1,499?!? Are you friends with DJ Ghostdad or something?

Automatic Gainsay wrote:

clubbedtodeath wrote:

Automatic Gainsay wrote:As pipe organs are "on/off," and the harmonic content of the average pipe does not change, they would not fit into that description.
In fact, no one describes pipe organs as being paraphonic despite the fact that their amplitude is controlled by a single pedal.

They're not bloody paraphonic. There's no divide-down; each pipe is a seperate sound source. And pipe organs only have pedals as in the pedal board for the bass; volume changes are effected through a) doubling across several manuals, or b) pulling out more stops to open up more pipes/reeds -- eg. vox humana alone versus the whole lot. Massive dynamic range.

They're also multi-timbral, when you think about it.

First and foremost, I miss you.

Paraphonic does not require divide-down. Many paraphonic synths ARE divide down... but some are not.
Each pipe is an oscillator that doesn't go through a filter... but does go through a single "amp" which is controlled by the swell pedal.
Certainly the volume of the overall sound can be controlled by adding "oscillators," but timbre is also changed by that.

A swell pedal is just a foot actuated volume knob, not an "amp" or EG. You're totally off on this line of reasoning...

Aaron2 wrote:

megamanx wrote:I just preordered mine from proaudiostar, for 1350, cool!

How'd you get it for $149 below the usual street price of $1,499?!? Are you friends with DJ Ghostdad or something?

pro audio star, you just have to ask...

megamanx wrote:

Aaron2 wrote:

megamanx wrote:I just preordered mine from proaudiostar, for 1350, cool!

How'd you get it for $149 below the usual street price of $1,499?!? Are you friends with DJ Ghostdad or something?

pro audio star, you just have to ask...

JRR Shop is always 10% off everything as well. They have a new customer discount. And if you by from them, included in the package is a flyer with a return customer coupon code.