Page 5 of 6

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 12:50 am
by Automatic Gainsay
madtheory wrote:The f**k Voyager IS a MiniMoog with patch memories!!! It's a beautiful instrument. It's got the feel and the sound. If you're not happy with yours I'll gladly relieve you of it.
This isn't remotely true. The Voyager is a completely different design from the Minimoog, using different components, with a different overall sound.

That being said, it is a masterwork of design, functionality, and sound... no doubt about it. The people, like me, who argue against the notion that the Voyager is a Minimoog do so because:

1. It has different components and functionality.
2. It has a different sound (and how could it possibly sound the same or even similar overall when it is a completely different design with much more functionality?).
3. The name "Minimoog" was added to it for marketing purposes, late in the game.

Bob wasn't making a Minimoog, he was making a new performance synthesizer that was "done right" in his esteem... featuring aspects that he wanted to implement that he had not implemented in the past (including the touch pad, which Bob had completely invented at home, and had sold in his Synton days as a modular add-on).

So, yes... absolutely fantastic, powerful, great-sounding synth. But the same thing as a Minimoog at all.


DISCLAIMER FOR IDIOTS: Saying something isn't a Minimoog is not necessarily a bad thing, so try to keep your panties unbunched.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 12:52 am
by Bitexion
If you go by that logic, then a "decently sized modular" could blow the socks off any polysynth aswell. Just slap in 10 oscillators, 5 filters and 5 VCA's and you got yourself a prophet-5. And lose $50k in the process.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 12:57 am
by Automatic Gainsay
griffin avid wrote:A decently sized modular blows the Voyager away so hard it's not even funny.

I'd honestly like to see/hear a link with that exact thing going on.
I am new to modular, but I don't know what set of pieces for a similar price point blow away the Voyager and Andromeda A6. That's the only reason I haven't started with sound generating modules.

Unless you are being sarcastic or offering an idea that is meant to win an argument and isn't really serious.
I can never tell anymore the difference between trolling/sarcasm and unique points of view based on legitimate experience that's expressed in a passionate way.
Seriously. Even having the same function count... which is to say five oscillators (two LFOs), two filters, two envelopes, a VCA, some sort of touch controller, and a keyboard... with modules, you simply have more routability than the Voyager provides, even with its pretty awesome LFO routing. Of course, things might be different if they had gone with the original idea and had voltage OUTPUTS along with the inputs along the back... But having the ability to literally connect any function to any function makes a synthesizer FAR more powerful. A medium-sized modular system has more modules than the Voyager has components... and as such, is very vastly more powerful.
(keeping in mind some modules may have more or less functionality than the components in the Voyager)

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 1:13 am
by griffin avid
But having the ability to literally connect any function to any function makes a synthesizer FAR more powerful.

That seems pretty obvious as long as we stick the inherent strengths which is the ROUTING aspect.
But that goes for ANY SYNTH product that...um...isn't modular.

I thought we were speaking in terms of sound.
I don't think you can rightfully say you blow something away and then say I'm only speaking about what I can do with patch cables...doesn't make sense.

But now, according to you, there's some modular that is composed of a similar number of parts that really is sounding ace...I'd like to know what some of those parts are and I'd like to find something that has the tone of Studio Electronics type products from a few years ago (before the CODE). They seem like they slap in 'parts to clone' so I don't know if this is becoming a circle of chips and such.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 1:25 am
by Hallu
Maybe Moog should try to honor Robert Moog's vision of the future rather than cash in on his past

"PSF: What do you think is the future of synthesizers?

Back in the late '70s, I wrote a long article on the future of electronic music for a magazine called 'The Music Journal.' In that article, I predicted that the band of the future would have its own finely-crafted custom controllers, but that the sound-producing hardware would be standardized to the point where it would be part of the facilities of the hall, like a sound system. I think we're getting close to that now. Look at instruments like the 'Zen Drum' which is a beautiful percussion controller that plugs into fairly standard sound modules via MIDI. I still think that this is the future: finely-crafted control devices (performance interfaces), standardized sound producers, and a network like MIDI to link the two."

------------------------------------------------------

Surely this will always be a problem as long as the keyboard is the main player interface for electronic music?

"That's right, and that's why I'm more interested these days in alternative controllers. The multiple touch-sensitive keyboard that I developed was built around a conventional keyboard because that was something that was available, not necessarily because the keyboard is the best means of control."

------------------------------------------------------

"Ah, the optimum control system! I don't think there's such a thing as the optimum control system, but there are a lot of good ones and more will come. That, I think, is the big area for the near future. I believe it is a mistake to think in terms of one parameter for one finger, another parameter for another finger, but somehow you should be able to control many high level parameters that have to do with things that we hear. For example, if we had a sound with 40 overtones, I don't think anybody would want to be able to control the overtones individually, but we may want to be able to control a whole band of overtones at once. With MIDI now, you can build a controller and then use the output of that controller to vary any parameter you want, and I think that type of experimentation could shed some light on what aspects of sound musicians like to control."


Bog Moog seems pretty excited about MIDI.
The future of Moog is digital control over parameters.



Automatic Gainsay wrote:What the f**k is "analog purity?"

Automatic Gainsay wrote:Also: I am probably the most irritatingly analog person on this forum... :D

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 1:36 am
by calaverasgrande
Of course a modern Voyager does not sound like a vintage Mini. But seriously the differences are far smaller than the similarities. I do not own a Voyager or an original model D. But I have had both in my studio on extended loan. They are both the same axe as far as I am concerned. The same way a 65 Jazz bass and a 2014 Jazz bass are the same. Sure both are technically different in terms of electrical components and some mechanical changes, but anyone familiar with one, will be at home on the other.

If your argument is solely that the Voyager has a micro-controller and DA on the various parameters, I think that is nit picking. If it did not have such an arrangement you wouldn't have any patch storage or midi access.

AS far as CV outs, the voyager has those, it simply requires the CV out expander accessory which connects via a DSub cable.

AS far as sound. I can get the same nice warm fart out of either.
I am not being juvenile. I can think of no less offensive way to describe the combination of warm and wet that a Moog is capable of.
The older moogs had a more unstable sound to be sure. The filter was little wilder, and the pitch was sometimes not very cooperative? But I ascribe a lot of that to the glorious sound of capacitors on the very edge of death.
"Turn it up a little louder, I may last another few measures!"

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 2:01 am
by commodorejohn
Hallu wrote:Maybe Moog should try to honor Robert Moog's vision of the future rather than cash in on his past
With all due respect to Bob Moog, we've had standard sound modules since the '90s, and they've never been better than "basically usable in a pinch." No other class of musician thinks that hammering the distinction out of an instrument to make it completely generic is a good thing; it baffles me as to why so many keyboardists seem so fixated on the idea.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 3:00 am
by Stab Frenzy
calaverasgrande wrote:I'd also love to see a moog keyboard with one or two moog features, lets say just one Osc and one ladder filter. And then maybe like 50-80hp of empty eurorack to be filled with modules.
That would kill!
I'd like to see them make a full-on axe, a really simplified synth with an amazing interface that was just made for playing. Like a Voyager OS but cut down, no patch memory, no patching, limited LFO routing on rotary switches, really basic stuff like osc->lpf FM on those moog rocker switches. Just make it really really fun to play and sound as good as they could possibly make it sound. 44 keys, semi-weighted, aftertouch (routable via a rotary switch). Lots of space between the knobs so you can just grab the exact one you want. A really well laid out panel that makes sense from the point of view of signal flow but also playability. Envelopes on sliders not knobs, and 45mm ones not 30mm. A nice preamp like the Moogerfooger input section so you can run an external source through it, and have external source available to trigger the envelopes. Made really well so it feels good and solid to touch.

Aesthetically I'm thinking Moogerfooger in synth form. They may not sell as many of them as they did LPs because they're made more for people just to play rather than as a piece which adds 'analogue' to a normally digital workflow, but they should sell as many as they do the Paul Vo guitars.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 4:41 am
by silikon
I'd just be happy to see the Sub 37 released.

It's the one thing I've been waiting for in earnest. That and the MFB Dominion 1, but I digress.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 6:49 am
by madtheory
Automatic Gainsay wrote:This isn't remotely true.

This is an exaggeration. You can get the same sounds (not quite as quick, but you can, whatever, kill me)- like I said, it has the feel and the sound. But yes, they are not exactly the same. Jeez.
calaverasgrande wrote:Of course a modern Voyager does not sound like a vintage Mini. But seriously the differences are far smaller than the similarities.
This.
Automatic Gainsay wrote:Bob wasn't making a Minimoog, he was making a new performance synthesizer that was "done right"
And this.

Someone asked earlier for a "Model D" (aargh) with patch memories. That's a Voyager.
Automatic Gainsay wrote:3. The name "Minimoog" was added to it for marketing purposes, late in the game.
Seems to be US only, that? But like you that did stick in my craw. At least they didn't call it a Model D2 or some s**t like that. Also stupid because it's the biggest synth they make, nothing miniature about it.
Stab Frenzy wrote: I'd like to see them make a full-on axe, a really simplified synth with an amazing interface that was just made for playing.
I think that would be a Little Phatty with a knob per function. I'd really like that. It's a lovely sounding synth but I find the UI annoying.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 8:47 am
by alan partridge
"7) A workstation that's part synth, string synth, part theremin and has digital effects."

This is actually one of the most interesting ideas of those presented. Firstly it would be cheap ; and paraphonic, and the Sub 37 indicates Moog moving towards paraphonic ; and mainly because the analog workstation idea is taking off with the Analog Keys. The only thing I would be less sure about might be digital rather than analog effects, because that might conflict with Moog's brand.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 1:13 pm
by pelican
I want nothing from moog. Moved on a long time ago

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 4:54 pm
by pflosi
Wow, don't know where to start quoting :lol: Maybe I shouldn't make controversial statements before a 20 hours flight :mrgreen:
griffin avid wrote:A decently sized modular blows the Voyager away so hard it's not even funny.

I'd honestly like to see/hear a link with that exact thing going on.
I am new to modular, but I don't know what set of pieces for a similar price point blow away the Voyager and Andromeda A6. That's the only reason I haven't started with sound generating modules.

Unless you are being sarcastic or offering an idea that is meant to win an argument and isn't really serious.
I can never tell anymore the difference between trolling/sarcasm and unique points of view based on legitimate experience that's expressed in a passionate way.
I was totally serious. As AG rightly pointed out, it's so much more flexible with just a bunch of modules. And, IMO there are Euro oscs that blow the Voyager oscs away, e.g. the Addac 701 (which is basically a Moog clone, ironically). I have access to an RME and I have a modular, I don't touch that RME at all (it's not mine but in a studio I share with some mates). It's boring in comparison IMO. But I guess I couldn't provide any links that would convince you... YMMV and all.
calaverasgrande wrote:
pflosi wrote:A decently sized modular blows the Voyager away so hard it's not even funny. IMO something is strange about those Voyager oscs.
except whatever patch storage you have on your modular is local to each module, and not global.
The Voyager has a few warts, but being a Mini with patch storage is pretty huge.
I really don't need patch storage. That's kind of one of the points of a modular. Or of a Minimoog for that matter :mrgreen:
Bitexion wrote:If you go by that logic, then a "decently sized modular" could blow the socks off any polysynth aswell. Just slap in 10 oscillators, 5 filters and 5 VCA's and you got yourself a prophet-5. And lose $50k in the process.
Yeah, you could argue like that. But I didn't. So I don't see your point. Yes, my modular is more expensive then a Voyager. But it does a gazillion more things. If I just take a couple of VCOs, LFOs, ADSRs and a VCF, it's in the same territory money-wise.

In the end, IMO there's so much stuff out there, I couldn't care less what Moog does or doesn't produce. I'll happily blow that money on Cwejman modules.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 6:30 pm
by calaverasgrande
to me the whole "modular is better" is kind of a pedantic argument. It has more flexibility of course. But that does not automatically make it better. Using my tired old bass guitar analogy, this is like saying a 5 string bass is better than a 4 string bass.
Nope. They are just different!

While you can argue that a modular has greater capability, it can also be argued that an integrated synth has greater reliability and is more of a designed instrument. The people who put that synth together hopefully had a vision and certain goals to hit.

I'd also posit that flexibility and endless possible combinations of modules is not the be-all end-all.
I own two drum machines (well 4 really) a Machinedrum SPS1 and a Korg KPR77.
90% of my stuff is entirely the KPR77. A drum machine with no editing of the tones. Difficult pattern editing and very little flexibility. Why? It just sounds good, and it suits my musical goals.

The same is true of ANY musical gear. What is better is what suits your goals. Not what has the 'most' of any particular feature.

Re: What do you want from Moog?

Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 7:09 pm
by pflosi
calaverasgrande wrote:to me the whole "modular is better" is kind of a pedantic argument. It has more flexibility of course. But that does not automatically make it better. Using my tired old bass guitar analogy, this is like saying a 5 string bass is better than a 4 string bass.
Nope. They are just different!
That's a bad analogy IMO. Adding one more element is something different than totally freeing up the single elements. Ironically, a better guitar analogy would be Moogerfoogers + utilities vs. a multieffect.
calaverasgrande wrote:While you can argue that a modular has greater capability, it can also be argued that an integrated synth has greater reliability and is more of a designed instrument. The people who put that synth together hopefully had a vision and certain goals to hit.
I agree there. I like my fixed architecture synths. It's good to have the options, doesn't contradict each other in the end.
calaverasgrande wrote:I'd also posit that flexibility and endless possible combinations of modules is not the be-all end-all.
I own two drum machines (well 4 really) a Machinedrum SPS1 and a Korg KPR77.
90% of my stuff is entirely the KPR77. A drum machine with no editing of the tones. Difficult pattern editing and very little flexibility. Why? It just sounds good, and it suits my musical goals.

The same is true of ANY musical gear. What is better is what suits your goals. Not what has the 'most' of any particular feature.
Of course. 90% of my drum sounds are 808 + 707 which are not exactly very editable either. But still, in your synths, how often have you missed that one more LFO or that other routing option, etc.?

There's so many tools out there, in the end I guess I just don't understand why it has to be Moog to do something innovative or Roland to do analog again and so on. It's always the same topic.