Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

celebutante wrote:But I very much agree with the example someone made about Toyota reissuing a Camaro and then being berated for not including power locks, bluetooth, etc. My bigger point was that an Odyssey is a somewhat cantankerous, oddball synth that kind of is what it is and adding patch storage would necessitate some major design changes, which would sort of defeat the purpose.

That's what I was getting at with that comment. This Korg reissue is to be a replica of the original in the vein of the company's replica of the MS-20 with the MS-20 Mini. When Moog produced the Voyager it did not set out to just make a replica of the MiniMoog. It is an adaptation based on the MiniMoog, adding modern features. They are different approaches. I got no beef with anyone that wants presets. Some synthesizers I like having presets, especially with newer digital synths that have very complicated architecture. I can't fully put my head around all the things the Blofeld can do, so I DEFINITELY want presets to give me ideas and to store these very complicated patches. For a single voice analog synthesizer I don't want presets, because I find I'd be perusing the presets for a tone rather than making one of my own that fits the sound I'm looking for. Different horses for different courses.

The main thing that gets me about patch storage is not that you can store your sounds when you have made them, that's obviously a great thing if you are getting complex but I wish that units would ship with no presets, just initialised patches. I don't like to use sounds that other people could potentially have already used (I know, pretty impossible in reality) So, if a synth ships with a s**t load of presets then it narrows down the potential of making your own unique sounds.
Maybe synths should have 10 presets of typical sounds and starting points to inspire people that are new to synthesis.

The kodyssey should not have presets in any way though. I missed the start of this PS debate and who suggested it.

Pro5 wrote:
Anybody here think a V-Synth would be better without patch storage? of course not. It would be an utter nightmare, and you say "that's because it's vastly deep and so many parameters" well it doesn't change a thing. It's only a problem downscaled, yes it's manageable on a simpler analog but it's STILl the exact same problem.

But your comparison is not really valid or fair. Of course the V-Synth benefits from having patches. So does the Prophet 5. Patch storage is a good thing for all the reasons we all know.


But - as I mentioned in my previous post - NOT having patches available is also a good thing too - given the correct sort of synth - because it causes a different: 1) mindset 2) sound design approach 3) interaction with the control surface 4) musical performance approach. Aren't all of these good too? So why not have one synth in your arsenal that forces your hand (mind) in these ways? Won't that add to your musical / sonic versatility and toolkit?


And - take from me - I have 74 synthesisers in two rooms - the minute you put patch memories on a synth, it collapses all of those points I mentioned above. I mean it - and I know virtually every synthesist that has experience of both will corroborate that. It's human nature.

When I sit at my CS80, I care less about patches, precise settings - and get TOTALLY ENGROSSED in that awesome control surface (that's staggeringly complex in performance capability and result by the way, but amazingly straightforward to interact with - and - it's NOT programming - it's live performance / experimentation / sound design). On the other hand - what have I just completed on my OASYS - a 3 year - yes - 3 full year (on and off) effort to optimise my OASYS to have on board the best 500 or so programs from the thousands available. Two instruments side my side in my studio - each forcing a totally different (and almost obsessive) mind set.

It would be nothing short of disastrous to have program banks on my CS80, because it would totally collapse the utterly unique approach of _never caring about precise settings_ and instead viewing the control surface as an ever changing, organic, musical performance experience.

It is NOT a matter of complexity of synth. It is a matter of your mindset and approach - and both instruments with presets (designed that way) and instruments without presets (designed that way) are equally valid and utterly necessary.

If you can't see it, it's because you haven't experienced it. I can't explain what chocolate tastes like - you have to taste it - and likewise, you have to work, practice and integrate a non-programmable synth into your setup to _know_ what extra and equally valid facility it brings. It's not a problem - it's another avenue.

Go on - ruffle your hair - don't shave tomorrow - don't tidy that desk - bet on the Grand National - break the rules - hug your mother tonight - get a synth without program slots - you'll feel GREAT !!

There is a lot of romanticising about not having the option to save patches. It's perfectly fine with me that you guys love not having the ability to save your stuff, but please don't try to convince others this is ideal. Reality, sadly, doesn't support your cause, as saving patches obviously is important for a lot of people. Your confused, elitist sentiments won't change a thing about that.

Hugo76 wrote:Reality, sadly, doesn't support your cause [...] Your confused, elitist sentiments won't change a thing about that.

The irony here is overwhelming.

Re: mindset, sound design approach, interaction with the control surface, and musical performance approach...

You are not locked into any of these things just because you could push a button and save the patch you're using.

Having patch memory doesn't make me any more or less likely to focus on anything (except I'm less likely to focus on an old-fashioned manual patch sheet).

Everybody is differentof course. Maybe having patch memory makes some people act a certain way but I've never been like that.

If my CS-50 had the patch memory that your CS-80 had it would not stop me from tweaking the interface and experimenting with sound design at all. I do it on the CS-50 and the Mini Moog but I also do it on the MicroKORG, the Ion, and numerous soft synths that have patch memories.

commodorejohn wrote:

Hugo76 wrote:Reality, sadly, doesn't support your cause [...] Your confused, elitist sentiments won't change a thing about that.

The irony here is overwhelming.

No, it isn't. I'm stating plain facts, and the fact is patch memory is important for a lot of people. A product that doesn't feature what many consider a key element, is (obviously) not going to sell well to that group of people. Producing meters of text with fantastic descriptions of the marvellous effects not saving patches will have on the producer isn't going to change a thing. It's a fantasy.

Hugo and Cumulus - I just don't agree.

Totally get the need for patches - dozens of my synth have them and I'm near on obsessed about optimising sound sets, buying the best out there and so on.

But - there is nothing falsely or naively romantic about having the other side of it.

Let me ask you - were the composers in the Radiophonic Workshop who retired nearly en-masse right to retire when the Moog Modular was brought into the workshop, because they saw it as an easy way out? For them the Moog Modular represented a preset device - a device that already delivered, on hand, what they had to spend weeks assembling with tape and non voltage controlled oscillators?

Do you understand WHY they retired or left? It's the same point. If you understand why they retired, you understand my point. I don't thick you understand. It's not my opinion here. It's human nature.

I have never met you, but I know that if two synths are put in front of you with the same feature set and control surface, but one with patch memories and one without; you will explore the one without the patch memories more; and use the other one differently - to create coveted programs that you'll then store. And - when you fill the memory banks, you'll stop exploring. Why? Because - what's the point - you have no where left to store them.

THAT has been the behaviour of thousands of synthesists and keyboard players through the decades. Its well documented. What was that statistic - more than 90% of all Prophet 5's returned for service had no new programs in their memory banks.

You may be the exception, but most will behave differently sitting at a synth without preset options than one with.

That's important.

And tell me - in all the forums you have every followed, have you ever, even once, seen a thread lamenting the lack of presets on an original Minimoog?

So don't underestimate this point. Synthesizers, especially modular and monophonic analogue ones, without presets, are very important to the landscape of synthesis.

Hugo76 wrote:There is a lot of romanticising about not having the option to save patches. It's perfectly fine with me that you guys love not having the ability to save your stuff, but please don't try to convince others this is ideal. Reality, sadly, doesn't support your cause, as saving patches obviously is important for a lot of people. Your confused, elitist sentiments won't change a thing about that.

The Synth God has spoken, this is the defining moment on the subject.
I guess we with differing opinions must bow our heads and go home, there's nothing to discuss anymore.
I feel so dirty.

seamonkey wrote:

Hugo76 wrote:There is a lot of romanticising about not having the option to save patches. It's perfectly fine with me that you guys love not having the ability to save your stuff, but please don't try to convince others this is ideal. Reality, sadly, doesn't support your cause, as saving patches obviously is important for a lot of people. Your confused, elitist sentiments won't change a thing about that.

The Synth God has spoken, this is the defining moment on the subject.
I guess we with differing opinions must bow our heads and go home, there's nothing to discuss anymore.
I feel so dirty.

Actually, it's the other way around - I'm not the one representing the elitist position. There is no denying that having the option to save is THE BEST solution. That way all are satisfied, both savers and non-savers (well perhaps with the exeption of the most uber-cool analog purists who have nothing but contempt for a product that lets you save a patch, and even more so for the person actually choosing to do so).

@knolan: I can totally respect a person for not saving their work. That is their personal choice. But I just don't agree with your perspective. I've never run out of patch memory, but if I did, I would dump the memory for a whole new, fresh bank. Well, I have actually done this several times on my V-Synth, come to think of it. I would never let the V-Synths internal memory restriction stop me from creating new sounds on it.

BUT: if people choose to not create new patches, that must be entirely up to them.

Oh, btw, Knolan: this debate isn't really about wether non-patch synths are good or not. It all started with me asking if anyone knew if patch storage would be implemented, and Automatic Gainsay scoffing at the mere idea of saving patches. All I'm saying is that if it is doable without raising the cost significantly, patch storage should most definately be implemented. For me personally, a no patch synth must be really, really cheap if I am to by it.

It's kind of funny to read all this. I suggest thinking back to circa 1977 and what was on the want list for most electronic musicians, and it was an affordable synth that had programmable memory. That wish was answered for a lot of people when the Prophet 5 was released. And then it only 40 memory locations. That was quickly bumped up to 120 in the later revisions, as people wanted more.

We have the luxury of synths now that can store thousands of patches - it's just a different time now. We can afford to debat the merits of programmable/nonprogrammable, as either kind of synth is readily available.

That said, a programmable Odyssey would be cool, but as a re-creation, I hope to see it released without.

knolan wrote:when you fill the memory banks, you'll stop exploring. Why? Because - what's the point - you have no where left to store them.

This is a bunch of malarkey. You can easily save over any patch you don't use as much, but assuming such a scenario is somehow impossible due to, I don't know, Synth Patch Gremlins that stop you from doing so, then you are in the exact same situation as using a synth without any patch storage to begin with. I've maxed out the patch banks on my Juno-60, but nothing doesn't stop me from simply turning it on, hitting the "Manual" button and tweaking something new at any given moment in time. Even on my VAs and Romplers, I leave an initialized patch which I never save over so that when I'm in the mood to start a sound from scratch, the option is always there.

Re-Member wrote:

knolan wrote:when you fill the memory banks, you'll stop exploring. Why? Because - what's the point - you have no where left to store them.

This is a bunch of malarkey. You can easily save over any patch you don't use as much, but assuming such a scenario is somehow impossible due to, I don't know, Synth Patch Gremlins that stop you from doing so, then you are in the exact same situation as using a synth without any patch storage to begin with. I've maxed out the patch banks on my Juno-60, but nothing doesn't stop me from simply turning it on, hitting the "Manual" button and tweaking something new at any given moment in time. Even on my VAs and Romplers, I leave an initialized patch which I never save over so that when I'm in the mood to start a sound from scratch, the option is always there.

You're missing the point !


@Hugo76: Fair point - sorry for shifting the discussion (excellent thread all round though !!).

knolan wrote:when you fill the memory banks, you'll stop exploring. Why? Because - what's the point - you have no where left to store them.

You have heard of the recently-added technological feature of saving patches out to an external device, right? Even back in the day when you had synths that could store patches, one could usually save them off to some sort of storage device, whether cassette, floppy disk or other medium.

There's absolutely no reason why someone can't buy a synth with presets and immediately blow that shite away. In fact, this is what I find myself famous for. Especially with modern synths, I'll usually kill off all of the presets after flipping through them once or twice (or even -- blasphemous, I know -- finding one that I enjoy and expounding on it), and begin programming.

knolan wrote:You may be the exception, but most will behave differently sitting at a synth without preset options than one with.

Count me as part of that exception. I'm certain there are more.

Here's a quick flowchart:
Buy synth with patch storage.
Init all patches.
Create.
Full storage -> sysex dump
Repeat.

Don't want to save your patches? Who's making you? Just because the facility exists doesn't require you use it.


I like the option of being able to save an idea for later review, or simply to bundle in multiple timbres for use in whatever show/song/album I'm making. That's not to say I wouldn't consider a synth based on whether it stores patches or not; I have had and still have modular and other synths that have no patch storage. I am personally much less concerned about patch storage than features that allow me to create sound.