Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

Oh oh..
The circle begins anew...

AnalogKid wrote:Based on some of the acerbic replies on this thread, my position on where old “classic” analogs fit in with my personal ideas of bang for the buck doesn’t sit well with some of you out there. I’ve repeatedly used words such as “to me” and “in my opinion” and “subjective” in describing my take on what I believe to be exorbitant prices being asked for old “classic” analogs. It would seem that with some folks on this forum, expressing opinions isn’t acceptable.

actually; to be fair, most people have simply springboarded off of your trolling into discussions about their own ideas related to the vintage synth market...which in my opinion (minded this is just my opinion, subjective, blah, blah, blah) is far more interesting anyway. we know your opinion, and we don't care.

knolan wrote:I'm sorry, but by comparison to the sorts of money paid out for other mundane items, the price of rare, mint, synthesizers is just not that much.

Exactly! how much of what you pay for a mint cs-80 can you get back if you decide to sell it in the same condition? how about...all of it! because vintage instruments are investments . the best part is that technically all vintage synths are "worth" it, largely because not only are they litterally worth the monitary value if you should choose to sell them, but some are appreciating!!!

AnalogKid wrote:My point is: IS THE DIFFERENCE WORTH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS???

Only to someone who can afford to spend that much.

I am glad that the bang for the buck of modern instruments surpasses that of vintage gear.

I love checking out vintage analog gear the same way I like to see restored vintage automobiles, another thing I will never own myself.

AnalogKid wrote:

Cumulus wrote: If one of us went into, say, a vintage Corvette forum and started a thread about how we just don't understand why a '63 Split Window is so expensive when a 2011 Camaro can do the same things an old 'Vette does for less money we'd be immediately flamed and possibly booted.

As I mentioned in a previous post on this thread, to me, $5,000 is a huge sum of money. Perhaps it isn’t to many of you. That being said, in essence what you’re saying in your comment above is that the “huge sum of money” often being asked for “classic” analog synths is due to their value as collector items, not their functionality. ).

That's not really what I am saying at all. You seem to have missed the point of my analogy altogether. I’m not interested in arguing whether the old Corvettes are better than the new Camaros or vice versa nor do I really care why they are worth so much more. Those are opinions and they are going to differ from person to person.

I merely stated that if you were to go into a Corvette forum and make the post I described you would probably be flamed. Be thankful that people here decided to just express their opinions without flaming you.

AnalogKid wrote:Some of you need to learn how to play nice with others. AnalogKid signing out (perhaps to the applause of some).

You seem to feel as if you’re being mistreated here but I don't see it. I am sorry you feel that way but I have no ill will toward you or your opinions. Just because some people here don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they’re attacking you. I stand by my statement that the argument is tired and it has been going on forever.

Back to my Corvette analogy for a moment... You are right about a good portion of the the value of a '63 Split Window being its scarcity but there are other components as well. A non Split-Window '63 is pretty pricey, too. These cars were expensive when they were new. Another factor is that the experience of driving one of these old cars is tangibly different than what you would get in a new car, even a retro-style muscle-car emulator like the new Camaro (the vintage car is somehow "warmer" - LOL!).

Yes, there are ways in which the new Camaro is vastly superior to the old Vette. For instance, I'd rather be in an accident in the new car that is equipped with airbags and seat belts. You could come up with more but to just state that you don't see the value in an old one doesn't change the fact that others do and it certainly won't endear you to the old car crowd.

If you sense some hostility then that is probably where it is coming from. It's the previously-stated idea that someone would feel like they have to apologize for using vintage synths on a vintage synth forum.

"It's a madhouse!" - Charlton Heston

ninja6485 wrote: because vintage instruments are investments

But for how long? I can imagine that current people in their 30's, 40's, 50's grew up drooling over 70's and 80's synths they couldn't afford. But today's youngsters? They grow up in a virtual world in which everything is either cheap or free (freeware or warez), they probably don't have these memories of these large beasts from the 70's and 80's, they grow up accepting a knob being virtual. Heck, in a few years time an iPad may be the king of the hill.. I think the audience for vintage synths is limited to a specific generation, and after that, the investment is worth less 'n less. Certainly the interest in sound design will remain, luckily. Just like the interest in cars will remain, but I don't see myself driving a Renault 4 anno today..

CS_TBL wrote:

ninja6485 wrote: because vintage instruments are investments

But for how long? I can imagine that current people in their 30's, 40's, 50's grew up drooling over 70's and 80's synths they couldn't afford. But today's youngsters? They grow up in a virtual world in which everything is either cheap or free (freeware or warez), they probably don't have these memories of these large beasts from the 70's and 80's, they grow up accepting a knob being virtual. Heck, in a few years time an iPad may be the king of the hill.. I think the audience for vintage synths is limited to a specific generation, and after that, the investment is worth less 'n less. Certainly the interest in sound design will remain, luckily. Just like the interest in cars will remain, but I don't see myself driving a Renault 4 anno today..

Well, I'm 20 and I don't like minimoogs, but I would kill for a PPG Wave 2.2 The truth is that they will always be collectors, and I'm sure that many people really love vintage synth because of the meaning, the importance they have.

CS_TBL wrote:They grow up in a virtual world in which everything is either cheap or free (freeware or warez), they probably don't have these memories of these large beasts from the 70's and 80's, they grow up accepting a knob being virtual. Heck, in a few years time an iPad may be the king of the hill.. I think the audience for vintage synths is limited to a specific generation, and after that, the investment is worth less 'n less. Certainly the interest in sound design will remain, luckily. Just like the interest in cars will remain, but I don't see myself driving a Renault 4 anno today..

Yeah, because it's not about sound, or physical interaction, or aesthetic appreciation. Those aren't things humans like, need, appreciate, or seek. We only want what is the current cultural norm.

ravenmek wrote:

CS_TBL wrote:

ninja6485 wrote: because vintage instruments are investments

But for how long? I can imagine that current people in their 30's, 40's, 50's grew up drooling over 70's and 80's synths they couldn't afford. But today's youngsters? They grow up in a virtual world in which everything is either cheap or free (freeware or warez), they probably don't have these memories of these large beasts from the 70's and 80's, they grow up accepting a knob being virtual. Heck, in a few years time an iPad may be the king of the hill.. I think the audience for vintage synths is limited to a specific generation, and after that, the investment is worth less 'n less. Certainly the interest in sound design will remain, luckily. Just like the interest in cars will remain, but I don't see myself driving a Renault 4 anno today..

Well, I'm 20 and I don't like minimoogs, but I would kill for a PPG Wave 2.2 The truth is that they will always be collectors, and I'm sure that many people really love vintage synth because of the meaning, the importance they have.

I grew up in the 90's: I don't have memories of them either. in fact, when I bought my first synth, I diddn't even know what the different types of synths were! so it must not be a generational thing, although that certainly may contribute to their popularity at this point in time.

Automatic Gainsay wrote:

CS_TBL wrote:They grow up in a virtual world in which everything is either cheap or free (freeware or warez), they probably don't have these memories of these large beasts from the 70's and 80's, they grow up accepting a knob being virtual. Heck, in a few years time an iPad may be the king of the hill.. I think the audience for vintage synths is limited to a specific generation, and after that, the investment is worth less 'n less. Certainly the interest in sound design will remain, luckily. Just like the interest in cars will remain, but I don't see myself driving a Renault 4 anno today..

Yeah, because it's not about sound, or physical interaction, or aesthetic appreciation. Those aren't things humans like, need, appreciate, or seek. We only want what is the current cultural norm.

I don't agree with CS_TBL.... in fact I'm old enough to have seen this happen twice now.... 1st with analog to digital and then back to analog and now with hardware to software and some starting to rediscover hardware - what goes around comes around and there will always be someone breaking the mould one day who will yet again discover the magic of some lost technology and then I guarantee everyone who has sold their gear will be crying in their soup - think I'm talking B/S - I'm already hearing it first hand with some very big names! In history things alway become more interesting and more tempting when they've been forgotten and then rediscovered by a new generation who haven't become cynical/stuck in their ways about it!

to add to my rant.... beware of busy studio owners warping the whole discussion - these people talk about efficiency and workflow - recording musicians and composers need all the creative tools they can get - whether it be a $10,000 PC or a rusty trashcan lid beaten with a stick - whatever works!

What a thread.

Oh, for sure there'll always be people who insist on using genuine vintage synths. But because most younger people have grown up with different musical production mindsets I think the hunt for old/vintage synths will be less than in the last few years, hence: less demand, less value, less return of investment. That's the only point I'm trying to make here.. ^^

I think that when some guy pays a lot of money for a synth-legend, say the cs-80, the JP-8, the memorymoog, the Synthex, the AKS, the ARP 2600 etc., satisfies a combination of needs, not just the real musical usefulness of the synth.
These synths belong to the history of electronic music and are famous, because at their time was groundbreaking...
So, being a vintage car maniac, with an Alfa Romeo 2000 Veloce of 1974, i fully understand why people buy and restore vintage synths...But true enough, some vintage synth prices are out of (any) reason...

meatballfulton wrote:

AnalogKid wrote:My point is: IS THE DIFFERENCE WORTH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS???

Only to someone who can afford to spend that much.

I am glad that the bang for the buck of modern instruments surpasses that of vintage gear.

I love checking out vintage analog gear the same way I like to see restored vintage automobiles, another thing I will never own myself.

I'm going to really throw the cat among the pigeons here:

You are wrong in stating that the bang for the buck surpasses vintage gear. Instruments such as the Minimoog, CS80 and Prophet 5 are _literally_ superior to any modern synthesizers.

This is not a subjective statement, but actual fact. I know that this sounds arrogant but I genuinely do not mean it that way. There are many indicators:

- The sound of the moog filter is sonically superior to every single filter being manufactured today and is coveted for that reason, and not for nostalgia. It literally has greater sonic strengths in ways humans deem ‘musical’

- The performance capabilities of the CS80 – polyphonic Aftertouch, approximately 30 performance levers, ribbon control, 5-control Ring Modulator has never been surpassed.

I could go on, but, reliability aside, the Minimoog, ARP 2500, Moog 55, Prophet 5 and Jupiter 8 are already regarded as historic instruments of true superior quality. Note – not all vintage synthesizers are regarded that way. Others regarded superios include the famous suspects such as the Hammond B3, Fender Rhodes, CP80... There’s nothing contentious or ambiguous in this. Its the same as with the Stradivarius, Fender Strat – and nothing to do with vintage – its about superior design and performance capabilities. Already, society has deemed these instruments as historically superior.


It is not clear that any synthesizers, whatsoever, made today fall into that category. Perhaps the Nord Lead 2, but that’s about it.

And isn’t it amazing (at least it is to me) that virtually every VA synth tries to emulate the strength of the Moog, but fails. I can’t comprehend how, with all our advancements in digital technology, we cannot make filters as strong as the Moog filter of the 70s. Even Moog cant do it. It’s like trying to make a new Stradivarius - it seems not possible.

So be very careful with your appraisal of Vintage. Not all Vintage is good for sure; but reliability aside (now fully resolvable in restoration), many vintage synthesizers _are_ now in historic terms classic - because they are literally better than almost all synthesizers in the market, past and present.

This is why, ubiquitously, top bands seek out vintage synthesizers whenever possible – they know that they will get a better sound, better performance – and a historically recognisable and accepted sound to boot (a good enough reason on its own to own a good vintage synth by the way).

A top violinist will only use top violins, and top bands and contemporary composers / keyboardists will always seek out the best keyboards – and the plethora of stuff released to day pales into insignificance when compared to the dozen of superior vintage synthesizers that we are incapable of matching sonically today, and unwilling to match through performance controls (how many synthesizer manufacturers are willing to put polyphonic Aftertouch on a synthesizer to day – none!).

If you’re smart and want to get ahead of the posy – you will seek out mainly vintage keyboards of historically recognised superiority – that’s what all top bands and artists do. By comparison, virtually all modern synths are all candy and no substance, no depth of character and capability – when compared to the pinnacle of the classics released in among one of the most adventurous phases of music instrument development – from the first Moogs to the last ARPs and Oberheims.

Kevin.

CS_TBL wrote:Oh, for sure there'll always be people who insist on using genuine vintage synths. But because most younger people have grown up with different musical production mindsets I think the hunt for old/vintage synths will be less than in the last few years, hence: less demand, less value, less return of investment. That's the only point I'm trying to make here.. ^^

To be honest I'm not seeing any let up at all in demand for genuine classic synths - in fact if anything it's the opposite - people are getting more and more determined to own something which is why things like Minimoogs and 2600's have become so madly expensive. We often forget that some of these beasts were not made in huge numbers as they might have been "affordable" compared to the big modulars but to most they were still extremely expensive - the EII was $10,000 when it was new - but it was considered "affordable" compared to the Series II and yet not all that many were made by today's standards. Even "mass produced" flagship synths such as the SY77 weren't made in huge numbers.

knolan wrote: And isn’t it amazing (at least it is to me) that virtually every VA synth tries to emulate the strength of the Moog, but fails. I can’t comprehend how, with all our advancements in digital technology, we cannot make filters as strong as the Moog filter of the 70s. Even Moog cant do it. It’s like trying to make a new Stradivarius - it seems not possible.

This is a point well made... one of the problems is that the very thing that makes an analog system interesting is the very thing that is hardest to model - for example - when a diode or transistor ladder is pushed into near self-resonance it's behaviour is partly chaotic due to fact that it's far from a stable situation feeding a complex signal back on itself in a positive feedback loop (the one thing you're always taught not to do in electronics... unless you want to make an oscillator!) - when a filter is dancing the on edge like this it's behaviour is entirely at the mercy of complex interactions and imperfections of the components making up the circuit. The slightest change can completely alter the nature of the filter - including the nature of the signal fed back eg. whether there is any filtering within the feedback loop itself.

This is one reason why the use of monolithic filter chips started to remove some of the magic in my opinion - they were put to good use for commercial reasons - especially in later polysynths where calibration of multiple discrete filters would have been a nightmare but in doing so some of that random nature was lost.

The Moog ladder (and indeed any of Bob's original circuits) is a wonderful example of a minimal design doing such a wonderfully effective and elegant job - his infamous single transistor ramp to triangle shaper is another example of his brilliant grasp of analog electronics.