Illusory to speak of a vintage synth sound ?

[KBD_TRACKER]

threads and threads here about the characteristic sound, texture, 'creaminess', 'fatness' etc.. of vintage gear. from the tb303 to jupiters.... and i was wondering if based on what i read here (and other synth forums) if i would necessarily get the sound each vintage synth was reputed for, if i got that specific synth.

i mean, the sound of a synth rests on electronic components, these components are transformers, ICs and transistors, caps, resistors, inductors, etc... i would expect these components to evolve and change theirs characteristics over 10, 20 and more years of functioning, in heat, differents environments, dust , etc.. (as a matter of fact, i would expect a cap to start changing after 20hrs of functioning), so that the sound of EACH vintage synth is unique and so one really cannot predict and bank on the sound of an old prophet or moog or juno 60 or tr909 or what not...

in other words, we cannot really speak of the sound of a fizmo or jupiter but only of the sound of a fizmo serial number xxxxxxx and jupiter serial number yyyyyyy.

so that in getting a vintage synth, the sound one gets is really a crapshot (of course leaving aside the question of reliability and malfunction), and more important, probably does not reflect at all the sound the instrument produced when it was new. and so the "vintage sound" is just the sound in 2007 of 'age-mutated' electronic circuits.

would anybody agree, disagree ???

[Martin P268]

Theoretically, it's true. In reality, those changes in sound character are too small to make the talk about certain synth's character nonsensical.

I own a vintage synth that still sounds like those on the 80's records.

[memo]

I've played multiple Juno 60, Mono/Poly, and Minimoogs, and they all share the same basic tonal characteristics as other serials of the same model.

Some vary more from specific serial to serial, like Minimoogs. Some are basically identical, like Junos. But there is definitely a consistency to the sound.

[Stab Frenzy]

I agree, you can hear the difference after a recap on an old synth for sure. However, the old components don't make as much of a difference as the differences from discrete versus IC designs, and other more major design differences.

[clueless]

The only synth I can swear to having it's own individual character from piece to pieces I have owned has been the MS20. I've had more than one on many an ocassion and did comparison tests. Some have very subtle differences. Others are waay different. I have one that I will never sell and now never play. I don't know who put what inside it but it was quite extraordinary next to other MS's. It may have had some work in the past done on it but I ain't no spark.

[Soundwave]

Worn out parts will have an effect on the characteristics of the sound like worn pots or an unstable PSU but I doubt it's this element alone that lends itself to the vintage sound.
A lot of the factors are down to stability of the components which tend to be made more stable as time goes on and the way the circuit is built like discrete or Curtis or SSM ect.
In this regard something new with discrete circuitry like a Macbeth can sound just as vintage as an old Moog or Roland however replicating an exact vintage tone will rely more on the specific components used. It's like a 303 kit which gives a choice of US or Japanese components depending on what how fussy the consumer is.

[gfriden]

There are two schools here among synth enthusiasts and repairmen that I have met. A) 'Do not change the original components unless they are broken. The gradual change in sound is part of the character of vintage synths.' B) 'Replace the old components when they start messing with the original intended sound of the synth.' Call A) continualism and B) intentionalism. Both are valid points if it is indeed the case that there is a gradual shift in sound quality. And totally incompatible of course. I would say that A) appeals more to collectors and B) to sound-architects...

[clusterchord]

a dried out capacitor is - a dried out capacitor. its not doing its funciton anymore. there is NOTHING desirable about it.

at one point u just gotta change it or your machine will fail.


as for original question - on most vintage models the differences are even less than subtle. on some special cases it is noticeable, again functional state of the instrument can influence this a lot (is it perfectly calibrated/tuned, is the PSU dying or renewed), but general character is always there.



i remeber playin an uncalibrated P5 rev3.3 that did the biggest organic bass ive heard on a SCI machine. playin antoher one which was up to spec tuned and all, it didnt have this bass, but could do much smoother strings.. with less noise.go figure.

[Automatic Gainsay]

There are two schools here among synth enthusiasts and repairmen that I have met. A) 'Do not change the original components unless they are broken. The gradual change in sound is part of the character of vintage synths.' B) 'Replace the old components when they start messing with the original intended sound of the synth.' Call A) continualism and B) intentionalism. Both are valid points if it is indeed the case that there is a gradual shift in sound quality. And totally incompatible of course. I would say that A) appeals more to collectors and B) to sound-architects...

I think I need a C category that combines both: Ultimately, I would say that the desire of this particular vintage synth enthusiast would be "replace the parts when they cease to function as they should with parts of the exact type used in the original." Certainly, there are some components that wouldn't have an effect on the sound, and some that would. Where the new part could have an effect on the sound, I would hope for an original part replacement. (although I know that NOS parts are getting extremely rare in some cases, and this just isn't possible)
I say the most important concept regarding repair of analog synths is keeping the signal path as true to the original as possible.
And I would say that my C. designation appeals most to musicians.

As for the general topic of this thread:
I suppose it is possible that aging components could have an effect on a sound. The way to distinguish this is to compare the sound of your vintage synth now to a recording of the vintage synth when it was new.

I have a hard time thinking of the synths of the 80s as "vintage." They had so many more digital components... and these digital components are less likely to change the character of the sound when they fail, and more likely to just stop working. The fully analog synths of the 70s are more likely to have components that change the sound quality over time, I would think... if that's what happens.

In my experience, the changes in vintage synths brought on by age are changes in functionality more than sound quality. My vintage synths stand up in direct comparisons to recordings from the times they were released... including a 1939 Novachord.

[Peake]

Ask Nord Modular users if their patches sound more "vintage" with the Tilt Filter, than without.

[Sir Ruff]

I think AG is right as far as all analogue stuff being more prone to sound alteration over time.

I have never had the chance to A/B any of my synths except for the two ahem SH-5s I had recently. One was Japanese and one was American voltage (whether this matters), but there were definitely differences in the sound: the former was brighter/clearer sounding, but somehow thinner? (maybe), while the latter was duller, but had much more oomph-slightyl faster envelopes, and tighter filters. Which sounded better? tough call.

Now, I can only imagine that a proper service and calibration, recapping, etc. would have probably made these sound near identical, but it was interesting hearing how components can change the sound over time in the same units.

[Soundwave]

Ask Nord Modular users if their patches sound more "vintage" with the Tilt Filter, than without.

I didn't realise the NM sounded ‘vintage’ at all unless the age of late 90's VA has had a revival? Maybe that answers your question?

As far as I know the Virus TI and Ion are they only current stand alone VA’s purposely designed to emulate a vintage tone, whether they do or not is a subjective answer.

[Solderman]

I can testify to switching out IC's and getting a different sound out of an SCI Pro~One. I replaced the 3320 filter and its VCA IC's with stockpiled replacements after it started misbehaving at one point.
The Pro~One already has a significant amount of intermodulation distortion between the two VCO's mixed at around equal levels, especially at the same pitch. This got worse when I replaced the chips. The effect is when they "phase each other out" most all of the fundamental frequency disappears, making it ultimately less fat sounding. The moment of this cancellation also lowers resonance until the phase difference becomes summing again, which might be part of the problem. Needless to say, fat resonant basses are very difficult to dial in now, as the VCO mix is continuously modulating resonance, subtly but noticeably.
The other problem was the filter cutoff knob seemed to max out at around 5-6, even with no envelope modulation, whereas before it maxed out closer to 8. This also made the very low bottom end unreachable without external CV modulation.

Overall, it made the synth sound slightly thinner and it will not overdrive anywhere now. Still, very useful for sound effects and certain crossmod basses. One of the better analogue brass sounds, as well. Certainly didn't ruin the instrument, but definately changed its character.

[shaft9000]

As far as I know the Virus TI and Ion are they only current stand alone VA’s purposely designed to emulate a vintage tone, whether they do or not is a subjective answer.

the MS2000 is particularly good at sounding creaky and 'old'. it does 'outer limits' & theremin better than anything else i've tried, Moog keyboards included. the delay behaves much like an analog one when it's tweaked, too.
this is not it's characteristic 'sound' at all, i know, but nevertheless a testament to it's versatility

RE: "vintage sound"

an old piece is an old piece. old dried-up capacitors add noise and that's a big culprit. i don't believe in 'vintage tone'.
it comes down to design and materials, yes, but 'vintage voodoo': not in the least. My new LP sounds in many ways just like a new Mini did on 70's recordings, truth be told. the "vibe" is just there, it's uncanny.
since VAs/digitals do not depend on caps and individual components for audio/sound, the 'sound of material decay' is not there - barring faulty analog outputs and d/a converters it'll either sound the same, produce no sound at all, or a garbled mess.

[gfriden]

a dried out capacitor is - a dried out capacitor. its not doing its funciton anymore. there is NOTHING desirable about it.

at one point u just gotta change it or your machine will fail.

Well, I have no quarrels with you there. I was just reporting two very common attitudes among the synth entusiasts that I have had the opportunity to talk to. Obviously no one would be foolish enough not to repair their synths if they cease to function normally. And I also agree with Automatic Gainsay on this matter. The C category he proposes is the sensible position to hold, I think. But I've met a couple of people who are into synths who aren't in the slightest bit sensible... I once handed in one of my synths for repair, and when I collected it, the repairman said 'Hey, guess what, I changed all the electrolytes for you and I'm not going to charge you anything extra!' Very nice of him, but there was no discernible change in its sound. So was that necessary?