Korg • PS-3200 - mystery synth

[polyklinik]

How can an analog synth works with 48 polyphony? It's a big monster maybe its very massive but has it 48 vco / vcf stuffs? Why don't make analog synths with big polyphony?

[memory cords]

How can an analog synth works with 48 polyphony? It's a big monster maybe its very massive but has it 48 vco / vcf stuff? Why aren't make analog synths with big polyphony?

I asked a similar question a while back about analog string machines.

I think the PS-3200 uses 'divide-down' technology instead of actually having 48 true discrete oscillators... similar to how the old string machines used to work. I'm not sure of the audible difference between 'divide-down' oscillators and 'true discrete' oscillators, maybe someone with more knowlege/experience can elaborate on this.

High polyphony on analog synths makes them significantly more expensive (because of the components and engineering) so I guess manufacturers think there won't be enough consumers who can afford to buy them. Currently the only polyphonic analogs in active production are Dave Smith Instruments Prophet 08 and Studio Electronics Omega8. But I would guess that both Dave Smith Instruments and Studio Electronics make much more profit from their monosynth products than their polyphonic products (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I played the Korg PS-3100 (closely related to the PS-3200) and it sounded awesome, unfortunately I don't have enough money to buy one at the moment.

As far as I know the PS-3200 is pretty rare and hard to find, the PS-3300 also. I've never seen either of them. But I have seen the PS-3100 for sale now and then, usually priced around $3000.

More info here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb01/a ... rokorg.asp

[pflosi]

it's fully polyphonic. one vco / vcf per key

[StepLogik]

it's fully polyphonic. one vco / vcf per key

i never new that. I always assumed it had a fixed set of voices and keyboard assignment logic. I wonder why Korg chose to go that route? Seems like it would add a ridiculous amount of unneeded expense and weight and bulk.

[pflosi]

because they didn't have the necessary digital technology and didn't want a paraphonic / divide down application maybe?

[StepLogik]

because they didn't have the necessary digital technology and didn't want a paraphonic / divide down application maybe?

thats the best argument I could come up with! i guess they figured it was cheaper than trying to build a key assigner using TTL and analogue circuitry. if you look at the CS-80's design you can see how complex it is when you don't have a CPU at your disposal and have to do it the hard way.

[Micke]

Afaik, the PS-3100 uses 12 master oscillators that are divided down, not one VCO per key.

[nathanscribe]

it's fully polyphonic.

Yes.

one vco / vcf per key

No.

It has a divide-down architecture; there is a master oscillator for each note of the octave, and they are divided down across the keyboard. The basic wave is a pulse, and this is run through a waveshaper at each key position. There is indeed a filter for each key, a Korg35. It uses the single-transistor VCA also seen in the MS monosynths.

The 3100 has one set of master oscs, the 3200 has two. On the front panel of each of these synths you can see a bank of tuning pots - 12 on the 3100, 24 on the 3200 - which allow the user to fine tune each note of the scale.

A wave-shaper for each key is not the same thing as a VCO per key. Have you seen the guts of these things? They're insane. And Jurgen Haible made a clone of the 3200, which is well worth checking out if you're that way inclined.

[StepLogik]

Have you seen the guts of these things? They're insane.

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2010/01 ... -3100.html

[adhmzaiusz]

Have you seen the guts of these things? They're insane.

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2010/01 ... -3100.html

The inside of that thing isn't that insane.... ever see the inside of a synthi 100? Now that is insane.

[nathanscribe]

Actually you're right, that 3100 isn't as bad as I expected. The 3200 is more so.

Synthi 100? You must be joking, those things eat people.

[pflosi]

oops sorry completely missed it on that one… :s

but it isn't paraphonic is it? 12 vcfs and egs?

[space6oy]

check out the insides of a polymoog.

[nathanscribe]

but it isn't paraphonic is it? 12 vcfs and egs?

One VCF and VCA for each key, so 48.

The EGs generate CVs which affect the VCF/VCA on a per key basis. They're not quite the same as regular ADSRs though. From what I remember of the circuit, it's a simplified design but there's still a reasonable amount of circuitry for each key on these things. Bob Moog apparently praised the 3300 as the 'best poly' of the time. It'd be nice to have a PS, but they're a bit pricey...

[Automatic Gainsay]

The PS polyphony is what should be termed "real polyphony," as it is much more like a piano (which has arguably been the model of the desired polyphony in synths since the start).

The only limitations in the PS architecture are these (if these are even really limitations):
1. No portamento. Envelopes can be applied to pitch to get "glide (not the same as portamento in most nomenclature- usually just a ascendinding or descending control of the pitch as a note is played or after)," but it's just not the same.
2. The oscillators used in divide-down architecture are different from those used in the other sort of polyphony. They are extremely stable and tend to have a sort of crystalline sound.

The absolute best feature of the PS series is the resonator, which is basically a voltage controlled three-band equalizer with resonance. It's a module which should have been included with more synthesizers as it generates a lot of control over timbre-shaping as well as some really cool (and I mean REALLY f**k COOL) filter effects when you sweep each of the three bands with resonance using a variety of modulation.
For some stupid reason, the PS-3200 didn't have this feature. (perhaps they thought you wouldn't need it as much because you had the second oscillator set? Hmm... it was included on the PS-3300, which had three oscillators, though. the PS-3200 was the last of the series- maybe they were trying to make it more affordable)

The EGs generate CVs which affect the VCF/VCA on a per key basis. They're not quite the same as regular ADSRs though. From what I remember of the circuit, it's a simplified design but there's still a reasonable amount of circuitry for each key on these things. Bob Moog apparently praised the 3300 as the 'best poly' of the time. It'd be nice to have a PS, but they're a bit pricey...

It's true. The EGs are the suck. Their performance can be improved in two ways, though.
1. Use of the voltage processor to create envelopes
2. The PS also has a "GEG," which is a master envelope which can be applied to any sound. While it on its own would take you right down the paraphonic path, the combination of it plus the individual envelopes gives you greater envelope control.
I would say the 3300 is the best polyphonic of ALL time! Unmatched in sonic control!