Page 1 of 1

Sub Phatty vs Slim Phatty/Little Phatty (filter)

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2016 5:15 pm
by madmarkmagee
Hi guys. Looking at buying a Moog Sub phatty. However I have one concern. The filter. I'm someone who isn't prepared to spend lot of $$$ on a synth that can't sound smooth and creamy. All the reviews/demos seem to obsess over how "gritty" the filter can sound, while neglecting the smoother side of things.

Yes it can sound Gritty. Whoopty do. Look, my ESQ-1 to do that just fine. That cost 400 bucks, not a Gazillion dollars with the low Australian dollar atm.

I like the filter of the Slim Phatty. So my question is how do they compare? Additionally can you get anything smooth or creamy with the resonance? Seems that most of the "smooth" leads on youtube are just square waves with some filtering and no resonance.

Thanks Guys. Would try one out myself but their don't seem to be any demo models at any shops lately.

Re: Sub Phatty vs Slim Phatty/Little Phatty (filter)

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 12:26 am
by Rick N Boogie
I own a Little Phatty, and love it. Smooth and fat filter, which can be pushed. I've played with the Sub and Sub 37, which are both great synths, but if warm and creamy is the main concern, go Little Phatty or Slim Phatty.

Re: Sub Phatty vs Slim Phatty/Little Phatty (filter)

PostPosted: Mon May 23, 2016 1:14 pm
by madtheory
Slim, Little and Sub all have the same filter. It's the Moog Ladder Filter. It is the definitive "fat" "creamy" sounding filter. Very different to the CEM in your Ensoniq. The filter overdrive on each of Moogs is slightly different though. Maybe that's where the grit thing is coming from?

Re: Sub Phatty vs Slim Phatty/Little Phatty (filter)

PostPosted: Tue May 24, 2016 1:20 pm
by Cecil Dubreque
I had the same concern before buying my Slim Phatty a while ago but I think it just comes down to those kind of gritty distorted sounds being en vogue at the moment.

As soon as I wiped a load of the awful presets and dialed in some ore funky and mellow patches I was immediately reassured that the Slim Phatty could do the stuff I wanted.

Unless you specifically want a rack unit or you can find a Little Phatty for cheaper the Sub Phatty seems to be the superior model; in terms of having more dedicated parameter controls as well as a few extra features in terms of the control of the sounds.

As madtheory mentions the filter itself seems to be the same.

Re: Sub Phatty vs Slim Phatty/Little Phatty (filter)

PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:54 am
by polysixer
Another vote for Slim Phatty on the smoothness department. It's just better for leads but it also has a nicer filter distortion, more classic and full sounding than the modern multidrive on the Sub Phatty. Also note that the slim has built-in arpeggiator and a couple of nice tricks out of the Sub Phatty's reach like the option to use VCO2 to FM modulate the filter and a better continuous waveform travel with no jumps.

On the cons side the only one I found it's that it takes about 1 hour to warm up properly, but I learned to plan accordingly.

Re: Sub Phatty vs Slim Phatty/Little Phatty (filter)

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:15 pm
by Res6db
Multidrive on the Sub is post filter, don't know about Slim/Little as I don't own one. Back the osc volume off and you get less agro, crank osc for more smudge.