Why having so many analog polysynths ??

[Richard Gear]

I have five analog monosynths and I could barely get rid of one. Each of them brigns a very different flavour. But I feel that having just one analog polysynth is just enough for me. For instance, I can make my JX-3P sounds warm, piercing, epic, deep, bassy, ambient, razory, pyschedelic or light as a feather ...and with a Doppelganger, it can get swirly like a Polysix.

While I realise that each monophonic synth has a very distinct sound from an other, I have the impression that polyphonic synths are not THAT MUCH different from other polysynths. Am I right or is it because I haven't owned enough polysynths in my life?

[Z]

For starters, nothing sounds like an Oberheim except an Oberheim. And even there, you've got the warm discrete electronics of the OB-X compared to the harsher sounding (yet, still great sounding) CEM based OB-Xa & OB-8.

On a similar note, the Roland Jupiter 8 is huge sounding compared to the Jupiter 6, yet I still gravitate to my JP-6 because of the multi-mode filter.

Just like the monosynths, every polysynth has its own unique character and capabilities.

[shaft9000]

+1 on fx. they make a bigger difference a lot of the time than having yet another synth.

it is true that it becomes a matter of diminishing returns when it gets past a really complimentary pair of analog polys. exceptions are the more unique ones like the CS-80 and Chroma that really call to keyplayers in their own way and offer some very different things from other polys.

there are only so many combos. having an assortment of mid-level polysynths can give a wide palette to choose from, but you have to be careful you're not buying up a bunch of synths based around the same IC chips and/or legacy designs. i find it best to have synths from different eras, but it ultimately comes down to what suits my musical style, along with financial and space concerns.

[Richard Gear]

FX: Yes, that's why I have decided to buy this Lovetone Doppelganger rather than a Polysix. I was not convinced at first, but now I'm very happy with it. It doesn't change your sound the way a chorus/small stone does. But it really add some warmth, space and live.

So.. Oberheim synths are much different from the other polysynths? Gotta try one someday. I rember that I was quite fascinated by KFL White Room's keyboard when I was a kid. It was an OB-8, I think; very good sound indeed.

About the CS-80; That must be a great polysynth for sure!! That was even Vangelis muse.

Shaft9000: Are you satying that the Chroma Polaris is one of those few very unique synths that can sounds like nothing else? [edit: okok, Rhodes Chroma, right. I've read that they sound nearly as good as ARP 2500's. The YouTube videos I've heard, despite being lo-fi, are very convincing.]

[Solderman]

Considering the circuit miniaturization necessary for most analog polysynths so they aren't the size of house boats, I can see why someone may think they lack as much character as some of the more well known monosynths that contain significantly less IC's. But they are still several complete synthesizers, each voice with a (usually similar)character of their own, under processor control. Often the latter is what gives them the flexibility you're talking about, but then you lose more direct control over each voice.
Think about the design of the power supply, how it not only has to accommodate for more electronics, but also has to power a small CPU, so it has more stringent power stability requirements, or you end up with a very moody piece of gear, like your average Memorymoog or Jupiter 4.
There are exceptions. The Oberheim polyphonic and Yamaha CS80/GX-1 come to mind. And those are frickin' huge.

There's another advantage to having several vintage monosynths versus one poly: It's more practical to have a multi-timbral setup for triggering things like drums.

[pricklyrobot]

Back then, when you were scaling up from a mono to 6 or 8 voices, some things just had to go by the wayside (for space reasons and '80s processor limitations, as Solderman mentions). Unfortunately, those things left out were frequently some of the more interesting modulation options.

Also I'd imagine that as years went by certain synth features became seen as standard and mandatory, while others deemed too esoteric (ones we my now think of as quirky classics) by the time we got to the heyday of analog polysynths (in the early to mid-'80s) were abandoned as relics of the '70s.

Not to mention, monosynths had been around for many more years than polys when digital started killing off analog in the mid-'80s. So monosynths had more time to evolve and get interesting than did analog polysynths.

[madtheory]

This is bizarre logic. A lot of monos are cut down polys- the SH-101 with its chips, the SCI Pro One. There are plenty of polys that do stuff no mono can do- the Synthex hasn't been mentioned. The poly mod on the P5 is so good... they made a monosynth version! Actually the monosynths that have more modulation options than your average poly are in the minority. A large number monosynths are monophonic purely because of economics.

You have to consider the musicality of the instrument too. A Memorymoog can lead you in certain directions that a Nord Lead 2x would not, for a random example.

[pricklyrobot]

The poly mod on the P5 is so good... they made a monosynth version!

But then you could look at the Prophet-600 and say that's a Pro-One with more voices but fewer features. It depends if you're comparing flagship models or their budget brethren. I guess I was just thinking of the latter since the OP mentioned the JX-3P.

So, if you really wanted to be scientific about it, you'd have to come to some kind of consensus as to what were the flagship and budget monos, and which were their corresponding poly equivalents, and then start comparing features. Someone on here might be nerdy enough to make that chart, but it ain't me.

I think my second point may have been the more valid one (i.e. some synths made in the '70s, that just happen to be monosynths, seem more unique because they were made before synth features really became standardized).

[Stab Frenzy]

I also think that if you have a crapload of modulation going on when you're playing chords it can get a bit messy, whereas with a monosynth it is a bit easier to control. When playing a polysynth you can change the timbres somewhat by altering the chords you're playing.

[Richard Gear]

I also think that if you have a crapload of modulation going on when you're playing chords it can get a bit messy, whereas with a monosynth it is a bit easier to control. When playing a polysynth you can change the timbres somewhat by altering the chords you're playing.

That's a good point.

I still feel that it's best to get as many analog monos as possible, one or two analog polys, and one or two digital polys.

[Psy_Free]

I still feel that it's best to get as many analog monos as possible, one or two analog polys, and one or two digital polys.

+1 (and a few VA's & romplers)

[madtheory]

Stab, that's a great point.

Nah, that's only an assumption. How can you know what synths have what features, and where there is overlap? Mono vs poly is a crude cataegorisation. What we need is:

So, if you really wanted to be scientific about it, you'd have to come to some kind of consensus as to what were the flagship and budget monos, and which were their corresponding poly equivalents, and then start comparing features. Someone on here might be nerdy enough to make that chart, but it ain't me.

But I couldn't be bothered either.

[Stab Frenzy]

I also think that if you have a crapload of modulation going on when you're playing chords it can get a bit messy, whereas with a monosynth it is a bit easier to control. When playing a polysynth you can change the timbres somewhat by altering the chords you're playing.

That's a good point.

I still feel that it's best to get as many analog monos as possible, one or two analog polys, and one or two digital polys.

How minimal and restrained of you.

[goom]

I think there is lot of overlap betwen analog polysynths. Most of them can do the standard sounds very well.

On the other hand, there is often something that each one does that can sound different. Esp. if you compare something like a Prophet 5 to something like an Xpander or Matrix12. The Xpdr/M12 can produce very different sounds than a Prophet can. I'd also imagine a Prophet 600 can belt out sounds that the JX3p can't do, and vice-versa.

It's probably more of a function of what you will use your polysynth for. If you're only needing the bread and butter ana-poly sounds, then the JX3p might be all you need. If you want different filter types, patch layering, more EGs, etc.. then the JX3p will be lacking.

[Automatic Gainsay]

Polyphony has always been a problem for analog synthesis.
To get polyphony, you have to do a LOT of things which diminish either the timbral pleasure, or functionality.
People always go ON and ON about how awesome 80s polysynths are, but in them, you have f**k 6-8 oscillators you essentially can't control, all working in tandem with the same settings. It leads to a very static, brittle, cold sound.

Primarily, people expected a synth with keys to behave like a piano. Synth polyphony, at least on a consumer level, came entirely from this assumption. Synth companies fought, sacrificed, begged, borrowed, and stole to come up with polyphonic designs which weren't fabulously expensive... but that meant sacrificing a LOT of control. Most polyphonics are basically synth/organ hybrids to one degree or another... because it's just simply too expensive to combine synthesis and polyphony.

The horrible discovery I made (and have posted about SO frequently here) is that when you multitrack monosynths, you get a much more pleasing, exciting, beautiful, and functional sound than when you play most polysynths... especially those from the 80s.