Goldfrapp Synth Interview in MT

[HideawayStudio]

If there are any Goldfrapp fans on VSE, Will recently had a long chat with the boys at MusicTech about his vintage synths...

Part 1: http://www.musictech.net/2017/06/goldfr ... interview/

Part 2: http://www.musictech.net/2017/06/will-g ... ular-gear/

I can probably answer any questions, if anyone has any.

...well, as long as they are nice questions!

Dan.

[desmond]

Nice interview!

And nice shout out to Dan...

Love me some 'frap!

He's such a nice chap, Wil, but please tell him that a digital sound isn't 'steppey', it's just displayed like that because of the underlying sample storage - those steps are *not* any part of the sound, which is every bit as analog as what went in (subject to Nyquist and dynamic range considerations of course)

[madtheory]

Awesome! Love Will and Alison's music. I'd love to hear more from him about the interface and how quickly you can get an inspiring thing that is talking to you. I always hope technology will make "flow" easier, but it often doesn't. Learning an instrument is too hard too. I want it all now LOL! One solution is to stick with proven ways of doing things. Sometimes we end up with oddball gear choices and that's just great- I see he's still using an 02R. My guess is that is a carefully considered choice, given that he could use any desk he wants. I'd love to hear more about making those kinds of choices- unless they're the kind of things that gets spoiled if you think about them too much!

I agree with desmond's point too.
"...the fact is, when you zoom in on a waveform produced digitally, it quite quickly turns into little steps, but when you zoom in on an analogue waveform it never does, it just goes on showing you a smooth wave."

This is such an interesting statement. We all do stuff like this all the time- we have a preconception that is untrue, and actually imagine that we really did see evidence of it. Obviously digital is not perfect, but the point he's making is unreal- there is no way to zoom in on an analogue waveform like that. If he's using a 'scope on a DA output, the waveform would be smooth as well, even on a crappy DA where you might see the aliasing.

[Mooger5]

Poor Synthex...

[madtheory]

I have an actual synth question. The PolyMoog is sitting in front of the Korg PS 3100 (or is it a 3200?). Do they sound somewhat alike? Because they're both divide down oscillators and both have resonators? Yes I know the Korg and Moog filters are quite different. But I'd love to hear a comparision between the two synths.

[Mooger5]

It´s a 3300. The keyboard seems out of sight. Can´t spot it. But the synth sees some use, as its output is connected to a preamp, or DI.

[Mooger5]

There are free (!) VSTi versions in this impressive collection here http://kbrownsynthplugins.weebly.com/

[madtheory]

No good.
"...there is no claim that their sound emulates what they're based on/inspired by."

https://www.kvraudio.com/developer/kbplugs

[ppg_wavecomputer]

[...] Do they sound somewhat alike? [...]

No, not really.

Hard to nail down the differences but I for one would always opt for the PS-3200 or 3300 as it sounds a lot nicer to my ears without the need of heavy external processing. The PS tends to sound softer, mellower, more well-rounded -- I've always perceived the Poly Moog as being rather harsh-sounding by comparison but that might be my ears.

Stephen

[HideawayStudio]

I have an actual synth question. The PolyMoog is sitting in front of the Korg PS 3100 (or is it a 3200?). Do they sound somewhat alike? Because they're both divide down oscillators and both have resonators? Yes I know the Korg and Moog filters are quite different. But I'd love to hear a comparision between the two synths.

I restored both Will's PS-3300 and the Polymoog 203A sitting in front of it - both were big projects. I adore both synths and although it is possible to create some overlap sonically between the two it must be remembered that the Polymoog is an early velocity sensitive polysynth which makes it quite a performace synth especially with piano/harpsichord type timbres. The other trick the Polymoog has up its sleeve is that the two divide down ranks can be run in sync mode with a variable trigger level from the ramp or free-wheel thus leading to a whole plethora of basic oscillator shapes. This is not possible on the PS-3300 as all three synth modules comprise of 12 free-running master oscillators driving separate divide down chains and thus don't rely on a Top Octave Generator from a single master osc like the 203A does on each rank. The PS excels in its sheer polyphonic power (144 VCF/VCAs!) and the fact that its effectively 3 separate polysynths in one box so there is real scope for layered/evolving sounds.

Where the Polymoog falls a long way short vs the PS-3300 is that although both synths effectively have formant filter back ends there is a KORG35 VCF (same as MS-20 Mk1) on every single note on the PS-3300 with resonance (although its calibrated somewhat more tamely than the MS-20!) but only a basic single pole low pass per note on the Polymoog's Polycom cards (there really to brighten sounds at higher velocities to piano like timbres).

That said I actually prefer the resonator section on the Polymoog to the PS-3300 as its more flexible, offers control over the Q per band and runs in Low Pass, Band Pass and High Pass modes.

The PS-3300 in Action:

https://soundcloud.com/hideaway-studio/ ... s-ensemble

The Polymoog 203A in action whilst trying some polypedals:

https://soundcloud.com/hideaway-studio/horizon-pm203a

And another 203A I restored a while back:

https://soundcloud.com/hideaway-studio/ ... 37-awakens

[madtheory]

So basically, you're saying one needs both Great demos, thanks!

[adamstan]

there is a KORG35 VCF (same as MS-20 Mk1) on every single note on the PS-3300 with resonance (although its calibrated somewhat more tamely than the MS-20!) but only a basic single pole low pass per note on the Polymoog's Polycom cards (there really to brighten sounds at higher velocities to piano like timbres).

You reminded mi again that I must someday finish my TOS project, as it combines oscillator section based on Polymoog with Korg filters per key

[minime123]

done right, the ps3300 and polymoog *always* take a huge investment of time and money. theyre complicated synths that need a full rebuild to work properly nearly 40 years after their creation. every time we fully refurbish another, i swear "never again!"... and then we get another and need to refurbish it.
mini

[tim gueguen]

It's not quite the same, but you can hear a Polymoog and a Korg PS3100 side by side on Ryuichi Sakamoto's Thousand Knives of Ryuichi Sakamoto and the first Yellow Magic Orchestra album.

[HideawayStudio]

Awesome! Love Will and Alison's music. I'd love to hear more from him about the interface and how quickly you can get an inspiring thing that is talking to you. I always hope technology will make "flow" easier, but it often doesn't. Learning an instrument is too hard too. I want it all now LOL! One solution is to stick with proven ways of doing things. Sometimes we end up with oddball gear choices and that's just great- I see he's still using an 02R. My guess is that is a carefully considered choice, given that he could use any desk he wants. I'd love to hear more about making those kinds of choices- unless they're the kind of things that gets spoiled if you think about them too much!

Will often gets ridiculed about his poor old 02R Mixer but the main reason why he still uses it is that its served him extremely well for many years now (used on pretty much all of the Goldfrapp albums!), he knows it inside out, and does the job. Basically it forms an audio bus between a large patch bay and the audio interfaces as well as permitting monitoring. He almost never uses the built in FX or compression and relies mostly on it being a neutral sounding audio source with automation.

I agree with desmond's point too.
"...the fact is, when you zoom in on a waveform produced digitally, it quite quickly turns into little steps, but when you zoom in on an analogue waveform it never does, it just goes on showing you a smooth wave."

This is such an interesting statement. We all do stuff like this all the time- we have a preconception that is untrue, and actually imagine that we really did see evidence of it. Obviously digital is not perfect, but the point he's making is unreal- there is no way to zoom in on an analogue waveform like that. If he's using a 'scope on a DA output, the waveform would be smooth as well, even on a crappy DA where you might see the aliasing.

The irony there is that if you've ever used a digital scope the display is horribly steppy and aliased even on the expensive models. Although DSOs have their place for certain in a modern workshop working on digital kit I have to say it is a joy occasionally wheeling out an analog scope when working on analog kit as they are much better suited for working on audio - My gorgeous 1968 Tektronix 543B tube scope being the ultimate - synth waveforms just look lovely on that big old beast and since there is no memory buffering everything triggers and displays in realtime so smoothly/fluidly in comparison!