The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
OTHER DISCUSSIONS => General Synthesis => Other Hardware/Software => Topic started by: Paul Dither on May 18, 2016, 02:49:46 PM
-
https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue- (https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue-)
So who's getting one?
-
If it weren't for the $3,500 price tag, I would definitely consider this. But at such a price, one should consider as well an Oberheim Two-Voice Pro. The Moog has the extra keys, but the Oberheim has more synth power.
-
If it weren't for the $3,500 price tag, I would definitely consider this. But at such a price, one should consider as well an Oberheim Two-Voice Pro. The Moog has the extra keys, but the Oberheim has more synth power.
Yep, sort of a bummer. But this premium price policy was to be expected. Well, at least feature-wise this ain't worth more than $999 to me anyway.
-
A lot of things would need to happen. There's this guy who owes me money for development work. He's the kind of guy whose angel investor is always right around the corner, and I've pretty much written the account off. If he ever pays up, maybe I'll do it. There's not a zero-percent chance, because he still needs me for things.
I'd put it at a 20% chance, in other words. I'm interested in it as an instrument because of the MIDI and the CV outs, and the price is a bit less than I guessed. The street price will probably be around $3200 USD, which isn't stratospheric for an instrument with heirloom potential.
-
Dunno, I think it's truly a step back from the Voyager in terms of features. Yes, it's been enhanced and all that, but I still think it's a bit steep. What comes next? A road worn model for $1,000 extra?
-
The new Model D would be worth $2,000 to me. At that price, I'd consider it. But personally, I'd far prefer a Voyager with a better sounding sawtooth.
What's next to appear - a Univox Minikorg? An Arp Pro Soloist? This is all getting a bit ridiculous, even to an old schooler like myself.
-
The new Model D would be worth $2,000 to me. At that price, I'd consider it. But personally, I'd far prefer a Voyager with a better sounding sawtooth.
What's next to appear - a Univox Minikorg?!
Yeah, same here. I mean with rudimentary MIDI (only note messages), no patch memory, a couple of added CV connections I could not justify anything beyond 2k. But maybe it's a good time to get cheap Voyagers now. ;D
-
The new Model D would be worth $2,000 to me. At that price, I'd consider it. But personally, I'd far prefer a Voyager with a better sounding sawtooth.
What's next to appear - a Univox Minikorg? An Arp Pro Soloist? This is all getting a bit ridiculous, even to an old schooler like myself.
Arp Pro Soloist!
-
Dunno, I think it's truly a step back from the Voyager in terms of features. Yes, it's been enhanced and all that, but I still think it's a bit steep.
Sure, and I haven't completely ruled out a Voyager. The downside of the Voyager is that I'd need extra stuff for the extent of CV that I want. The Voyager was the previous instrument on the "in-case-<what's his name>-ever-pays" fantasy list.
I understand that the price is somewhat steep, but I don't see your $999 price point at all, Paul. Certainly the Sub37 is well worth its price, and probably so is the Pro 2, so...
What comes next? A road worn model for $1,000 extra?
HA! Well, it worked for Levi and Fender, right? Expertly faux-palm-worn finish, fretboard worn in, cigarette burns. It must be a fun job.
-
I understand that the price is somewhat steep, but I don't see your $999 price point at all, Paul. Certainly the Sub37 is well worth its price, and probably so is the Pro 2, so...
I'd consider both the Sub 37 and the Pro 2 to be way more flexible than the Model D - and even aesthetically way more pleasing to look at. I mean the Pro 2 can go places the Model D can't even dream of. I get it though, it's going to be about that sound, but as long as I'm not wealthy, my approach to synths is going to be rather rational.
And yes, to me it's kind of a "Fenderization" of Moog. This whole subdivision that's conceptualizing and manufacturing the modulars and now the Model D are some sort of "Custom Shop." Fun for collectors, but not really necessary.
-
I'd consider both the Sub 37 and the Pro 2 to be way more flexible than the Model D - and even aesthetically way more pleasing to look at. I mean the Pro 2 can go places the Model D can't even dream of. I get it though, it's going to be about that sound, but as long as I'm not wealthy, my approach to synths is going to be rather rational.
It's about that Moog sound, and it's also about that Moog label. The Minimoog is the synthesizer of all synthesizers and the very meaning of the word "iconic." So, Moog could charge anything at all they wanted for it, and the Moogites would buy it, regardless. But I don't go for the nostalgia one bit. Again, for a reasonable price, I'd go for one. But I'm not willing to live and die for an icon.
Pardon the smugness, but DSI suits me just fine - features, sound, look, and price.
-
It's about that Moog sound, and it's also about that Moog label. The Minimoog is the synthesizer of all synthesizers; it is the very meaning of the word "iconic."
Sure. It still looks like an opened shoe box though.
To be honest, I hated it for a long time because it seemed to be on almost every recording and sounded super cheesy in most cases (sort of the way an 808 sounds terrible if you really want to replace a drummer with it), which got me more into the stuff that didn't sound Moogish, like ARP, EMS, etc. When I grew up, "Moog" was a sort of four letter word, a kind of bad taste emblem for anything that went wrong in music or was pretentious or pathetic. Although I relativized that view, the Model D is still just one synth amongst many others to me.
-
To be honest, I hated it for a long time because it seemed to be on almost every recording and sounded super cheesy in most cases (sort of the way an 808 sounds terrible if you really want to replace a drummer with it), which got me more into the stuff that didn't sound Moogish, like ARP, EMS, etc. When I grew up, "Moog" was a sort of four letter word, a kind of bad taste emblem for anything that went wrong in music or was pretentious or pathetic. Although I relativized that view, the Model D is still just one synth amongst many others to me.
That's very funny. Think of yourself as fortunate. I grew up adoring the thing, so that it's still hard to think of synthesis without a Model D's image appearing in my mind. It was the gold standard for all things synthesizer. Hence, when I first got back into synthesizer about eight years ago, I instinctively went straight for a Voyager Old School. Now that, I admit, was pure nostagia. Live and learn.
-
When I think about the Model D, I think of like Bobby Sparks and Stevie Wonder, where there's nothing cheesy nor pretentious about that stuff.
I've seen a real Model D only once, at a tiny music store in Ann Arbor, and wondered why it was a thousand bucks. My interest arises out of love for the Little Phatty. The Little Phatty is simple as hell, but its sound moves my soul, so what I can I do? I view the Minimoog as a Little Phatty but with a third oscillator--which I've recently learned is a pretty big deal--and some bonus keys.
-
That's very funny. Think of yourself as fortunate. I grew up adoring the thing, so that it's still hard to think of synthesis without a Model D's image appearing in my mind. It was the gold standard for all things synthesizer. Hence, when I first got back into synthesizer about eight years ago, I instinctively went straight for a Voyager Old School. Now that, I admit, was pure nostagia. Live and learn.
I get it now, but I had to literally force myself to listen to a couple of Moog classics in the beginning. As a teenager, I would listen to those 70s prog records - especially ELP and the likes (the sort of super virtuoso bands) - and I couldn't help but constantly smirk about those sounds that didn't age too well in my opinion. It was a bit like watching a science fiction series from the 1960s with its obnoxious set design or an Ed Wood film for that matter. It had something trashy about it just like all these computer games soundtracks from the 80s and 90s. So that's basically where I come from.
And what I meant by cheesy is connected a lot to of clichés, and that would include people like Stevie Wonder too: Moog leads, Moog basses, the typical sawtooth or square fifths, and all that stuff stuck in the collective memory. I dunno, there's a very typical sonic palette associated with the Moogs and especially the Minimoog (especially in the genres Fusion, Prog Rock, and Funk). It's stronger than with instruments like the ARP 2600 and the Odyssey, or the EMS synths - not even talking about Buchla here. I'm not saying though that there are no other synths that come close to that sort of stereotype perception. The MS-20 comes to my mind, for example. Anyway, other synths seemed to be more interesting to me, purely because they haven't been used and heard that often.
I consider this to be my favorite demonstration of the Minimoog though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agFgMYp97yY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agFgMYp97yY)
-
The Little Phatty is simple as hell, but its sound moves my soul, so what I can I do? I view the Minimoog as a Little Phatty but with a third oscillator--which I've recently learned is a pretty big deal--and some bonus keys.
Now that makes sense, and it speaks well of a normal appreciation for a fine synthesizer. As it is, I think very highly of the Minimoog. I love simple fundamental synthesis on a rich-sounding instrument, and that certainly describes the Minimoog. What I don't care for is the Minimoog cult of devotion and the astronomical price that this seems to warrant.
By the way, my initial introduction to the Minimoog was through Richard Tandy of ELO, whose simple but tasteful work I greatly admired. I must have listened to the album "On the Third Day" with head phones a thousand times just to hear that Minimoog, especially "Daybreaker" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsPEbO23K4M). But now Paul has me almost wondering if this is just the enhanced glow of adolescent memories. Perhaps if I heard a Minimoog again in person, I'd roll my eyes and reach for an Evolver!
-
By the way, my initial introduction to the Minimoog was through Richard Tandy of ELO, whose work I greatly admired.
I still love ELO. Mr. Blue Sky is my favorite song ever, but I'll have to go back and see if it has any Minimoog on it.
I do have a favorite Minimoog solo, and that's Bobby Sparks playing on St. Vincent's "Huey Newton." It sounds simple, but the tone is sublime and Sparks's musicianship is inspiring.
-
But now Paul has me almost wondering if this is just the enhanced glow of adolescent memories. Perhaps if I heard a Minimoog again in person, I'd roll my eyes and reach for an Evolver!
Nah, I'm just from a different generation and got all that stuff filtered already, or rather perceived it through historical lenses.
I don't doubt that the Minimoog is a damn fine instrument, but a lot has happened since it came out. Anyone who has a basic understanding of subtractive synthesis will be able to get dozens of signature sounds out of it. And while that can be entertaining (see parts of my Prophet-6 demos), it's also nice to move on and to discover other type of sounds. Let's not forget that when all this stuff came out, it was new and no nostalgia. By now, it would be quite a challange to get unheard sounds out of a Minimoog. I mean, maybe a new generation's approach would help, but it's quite hard to ignore the historical burdon of iconic instruments like this.
Either way, I can't imagine this to be a best seller like the Sub 37, since a majority of musicians won't be able to afford one. So in that regard it'll be like with the original which was too expensive for the average musician. Maybe it will even be a limited production run, just as they did it with the modular reissues. Tomorrow we'll now more though.
-
I like to put things in perspective. For the price of a new Minimoog, you could get a Prophet-6 or an OB-6 with a hardshell case. I mean, that just ends it for me.
-
Plus: the synth community is quite different around the globe. While there were almost some heart attacks on GS, in a German forum people would post things like, "a Model D, how innovative by Moog."
-
I think something like an enlarged Sub 37 would have been far preferable. Add a third oscillator, another LFO and an envelope, stereo panning, lengthen the keyboard a bit, and who would be missing the Model D?
-
Well, business-wise they went the more clever route. Without the Voyager, nothing's cannibalizing anything in their catalog now. Plus: they knew that the Model D is sought after, even though it might not be affordable. It was a safe bet. I'm honestly surprised that they waited for that long in the current synth landscape.
-
That's true about the cannibalizing, but I don't think the Model D quite fills the vacuum between the Sub 37 and Voyager XL. That spot would be the one of greatest interest to the serious professional musician who has some disposable income, but not too much. Instead, he or she is now left with this exercise in, or devotion to, vintage. Most folks don't care about honoring an icon; they simply want the best modern instrument they can afford.
There were plenty of improvements that the Voyager needed. The touch screen could have been removed and all sorts of things added. I think a Voyager Mk II would have been a much better idea.
-
That's true about the cannibalizing, but I don't think the Model D quite fills the vacuum between the Sub 37 and Voyager XL. That spot would be the one of greatest interest to the serious professional musician who has some disposable income, but not too much. Instead, he or she is now left with this exercise in, or devotion to, vintage. Most folks don't care about honoring an icon; they simply want the best modern instrument they can afford.
There were plenty of improvements that the Voyager needed. The touch screen could have been removed and all sorts of things added. I think a Voyager Mk II would have been a much better idea.
I think people are too busy fetishizing an icon, and this is by no means related to the person Bob Moog, who did his version of an updated Minimoog anyway. The serious professional musician, who's most likely a performing musician doesn't care too much about these things. Practicability, reliability, and flexibility are the priorities here - far beyond any discussion that involves questions about whether a synth is analog or digital. The Model D would totally fail in this category without patch memory. Also, it better be rock stable with regard to tuning, because I haven't heard too many charming stories from people who actually used one back in the day. - It's not that digital and digitally controlled synths have been embraced for no reason.
My problem with all this is mainly that it's 2016 though, and they're planning to ask 3.5 grand for a mono synth that does not even have PWM or oscillator sync - two features one could have easily added. So it can sound as good as it possibly can, but those are amongst the most rudimentary features I'd like to see on any analog synth beyond $500.
-
Well... it's not for me, but I guess everyone would have guessed that... no MIDI protocol exept notes... no SysEx, which means no editor, no storage... nope, I'm perfectly happy with my Sub37 :)
-
Korg Kronos 61 $3000, old moog clone $3500.
I know which one I would buy.
-
My problem with all this is mainly that it's 2016 though, and they're planning to ask 3.5 grand for a mono synth that does not even have PWM
It's been a while since I've looked at a Model D panel. Lack of PWM is a deal breaker for me. I'm sure there would have been others, but that's the one that says Look Away.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JObFpceZysA
-
Not only does the Minimoog lack pulse width modulation. It also lacks a parameter than can cover the whole PW range. (This is one reason the Minimoog is so recognizable on recordings.) Instead, you select one of only three pulse settings - a square and two others. These don't even include the width I most often use, which is just slightly off from a perfect square. Nor, obviously, does it allow for manual PWM. And then there's the three-stage envelopes. The list of shortcomings is long.
I think Moog is capitalizing on their deceased founder a bit too much. Listen to that video. It's as if they've revived Bob Moog for their advertising. This is sick.
The re-issue will certainly revive interest and fascination towards the most iconic of all synthesizers. But for how long could it last? I would expect a rush of orders, but once the staunchest Moogites have filled their platter, I can't imagine the Model D will remain a big seller. Folks will simmer down and start considering features again.
I wish they had put all the lessons learned from their last few products - especially the Sub 37 - into a substantially new design, even a Voyager Mk. II or a Model E. And I'm glad DSI doesn't follow this modus operandi. Even when they look back, they also look forward.
And the next re-issue will be...the Telharmonium. Start clearing out your basements, fellas. This baby's a big one!
-
After more than 30 years, the Minimoog Model D returns with a pilot-production run at Moogfest 2016 in Durham, NC. Handcrafted in the Moog Pop-Up Factory, the pilot-production units built during the festival will only be available for purchase on-site in the Moog Store by Guitar Center.
Ahem…
-
I think Moog is capitalizing on their deceased founder a bit too much. Listen to that video. It's as if they've revived Bob Moog for their advertising. This is sick.
There's a reason why the Bob Moog Foundation and the company Moog are not on good terms with each other.
-
After more than 30 years, the Minimoog Model D returns with a pilot-production run at Moogfest 2016 in Durham, NC. Handcrafted in the Moog Pop-Up Factory, the pilot-production units built during the festival will only be available for purchase on-site in the Moog Store by Guitar Center.
Ahem…
Yes, I saw that. It didn't seem clear whether this means only a very short production run for the Moogfest, or if it would begin at Moogfest and continue afterwards.
-
After more than 30 years, the Minimoog Model D returns with a pilot-production run at Moogfest 2016 in Durham, NC. Handcrafted in the Moog Pop-Up Factory, the pilot-production units built during the festival will only be available for purchase on-site in the Moog Store by Guitar Center.
Ahem…
Yes, I saw that. It didn't seem clear whether this means only a very short production run for the Moogfest, or if it would begin at Moogfest and continue afterwards.
Well, it's called pilot production, so I guess they'll see how it goes. I can't imagine they went this far just to produce 30 units in total. They're probably sold out by now anyway.
-
Here's another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvwwSOigxlg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvwwSOigxlg)
This video could have as well been shot 30 years ago: Wow, aftertouch!
-
Well, I do like the aforementioned idea that folks are going to be dumping their Voyagers for this. That could be beneficial if the timing is right.
-
Well, I do like the aforementioned idea that folks are going to be dumping their Voyagers for this. That could be beneficial if the timing is right.
This is pure speculation though, since the Voyager is now vintage and out of production too. I would also depend on how many resissues Moog are planning to manufacture in the end.
-
Velocity, adjustable after touch, CV outputs, and an added audio range LFO (in addition to the third oscillator's ability to double as one). That allows for the coveted simultaneous vibrato and pulse width modulation. These are major improvements. This is not the Model D I had when I was twenty years old. But until further notice, they'll only be available to the privileged few at Moogfest.
-
I'll shut up for now. I only seem to annoy people today because for some reason I don't seem to be able to worship the Minimoog cult (to me: more like religion that fact based), and am unable to see how in the world this could ever be perceived as a timeless instrument.
-
I'm not venerating the thing; I'm just noting that these little improvements are actually substantial, in that they improve the infamous shortcomings of the instrument.
-
I'm not venerating the thing; I'm just noting that these little improvements are actually substantial in that they improve the infamous weaknesses of the instrument.
Nah, I didn't refer to you. It's just that the whole internet seems to go bonkers about this while I don't understand. I can only see consumer fetishism, but maybe I'm too cynic for this.
-
It's fine with me, Paul, if you don't like the Minimoog. Have a field day criticizing it. It's actually useful in that it helps to regain a more balanced opinion of the instrument. The Model D is like a fishing story that's been told so many times that the minnow that swam under the boat has become the whale that jumped over it.
-
Maybe they did the reissue so that people will finally shut up about the Minimoog Model D. Maybe this is more of a corporate exorcism than a product release.
-
It's fine with me, Paul, if you don't like the Minimoog. Have a field day criticizing it. It's actually useful in that it helps to gain a more balanced opinion of the instrument. The Model D is like a fishing story that's been told so many times that the minnow has become a whale.
See, it's not that I don't like the Minimoog. I just don't get anymore what's so special about it. And I'm not denying its historical significance. But it is what it is in the end: historical. It's also not that it has been a hidden secret or a super rarity. The Minimoog is all over the place on records, which makes the artistic side in me ask first of all: "Why do I want to sound like everybody else?" - I think Tony Banks made a sort of similar statement in the 1970s when he was asked why he doesn't use a Minimoog. Honestly, I find the abundance of its use quite boring. It's like you can tell in what decade a specific record was probably recorded due to recording, processing, and mixing standards. That's what I meant by the cheesy effect. To me, the use of the Minimoog on Prog Rock, Funk, or Fushion records of the 1970s doesn't qualitatively differ from the use of the DX7 E-Piano in 1980s pop ballads. It's the lack of that sort of omnipresence that naturally makes other synths more interesting to me.
So in this sense, the Minimoog is stuck too much in its history to be interesting enough for me in comparison to other instruments for example. There's a whole body of work out there that shaped how the Minimoog is being perceived along with all of its so-called trademark sounds, which - for reasons of ubiquity - have become huge clichés, especially with regard to certain bass and lead sounds.
I would maybe consider paying about 3 grand for a mono synth, which would be my only mono synth then. But in order to be that it would have to be capable of so much more than the Minimoog is able to offer despite its nice sounding raw sound.
-
Maybe they did the reissue so that people will finally shut up about the Minimoog Model D. Maybe this is more of a corporate exorcism than a product release.
I think it's the opposite of exorcism. It's rather museumization and turning Bob Moog into a zombie by means of marketing.
-
Maybe they did the reissue so that people will finally shut up about the Minimoog Model D. Maybe this is more of a corporate exorcism than a product release.
I'm gonna bet that there will be quite a few vintage "D" owners that will spring for the CV out modification - or, for that matter, a rebuild to new "D" spec. Call me cynical, but that's some nice add-on revenue right there.
-
I'm not venerating the thing; I'm just noting that these little improvements are actually substantial in that they improve the infamous weaknesses of the instrument.
Nah, I didn't refer to you. It's just that the whole internet seems to go bonkers about this while I don't understand. I can only see consumer fetishism, but maybe I'm too cynic for this.
Don't worry you are not the only one.
If it was a 2600 though I might be loosing it a bit.
-
I had a MiniMoog D for several years, and despite the various challenges including cigarette burns on the keys, I still miss it. I just haven't heard lead tones like the D being reproduced by other instruments. Am I hearing things? What else can sound like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeHaO1bF8Ng&list=WL&index=11
There are also many examples of Rick Wakeman using one to cut through a thick mix:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJApGdm97c
I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm seriously asking what else can sound like this? Yes, I know these sounds sound old to many people, but I like them. I'm not a very nostalgic person and would be happy to get these tones with something else. My perception is that a Voyager doesn't get you there. Part of what I love about the Prophet '08 is how well it can simulate these lead sounds... in addition to doing so many other things so well. (I may soon be getting even closer: I'm taking delivery of a Prophet '08 Desktop Module today to thicken up my '08... similar to Sacred Synthesis.) Unlike many, I'm not as interested in using a MiniMoog for bass sounds. But what else gets us those smooth, over-driven, thick lead sounds?
-
Coming from the opposite end of the musical spectrum, I'd have to agree with you. The Minimoog undeniably has a tone all its own, and folks usually either love it or hate it. I understand the impatience with digging up old synth relics and trying to re-present them as new and exciting. But on the other hand, I also feel a frustration with what I consider the redundant complexity of modern instruments and the often resultant lack of character. Having synthesizers that do everything just doesn't appeal to all of us, and having one that does only a few things - but very well - can be a refreshing change. Such a synthesizer also tends to be the "go-to" instrument when you want to get right down to designing useable sounds and then making music. I think this is the reason the Prophet-6 and OB-6 have been so popular. They're repeatedly described as "immediate." It's also the reason I like the Prophet '08 so much.
These are two Minimoog recordings that strike me as sonically distinctive and musically impressive. The second shows the classic "Minimoog sound" at its best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JN2dOM47F4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9SdqIqgskI
-
I prefer Józef Skrzek to Mr. Wakeman here, mostly because Wakeman's thick sawtooth lead acts on me like a cultural signifier that I associate with pretentious solos and 1970s cheese, which kind of turned the Model D into the Gouda of synthesizers for me personally. But that depends of course on a matter of taste in the end. Nevertheless, it serves as a good example for what I meant by the aforementioned Moog clichés.
I'm still not saying that a Model D sounds bad. My problem with this particular reissue is only that it's purely nostalgia driven, that's all. And I assume, Dr. Bob Moog wouldn't be happy with this either, as he wasn't particular obsessed with looking backwards. Let's also not forget that the Model D was never a priority for Moog in the beginning. It started as a side project that was mainly driven by Moog's assistant, built from leftover parts. Although he supervised it in the end, Moog wasn't as involved in it as he was with regard to the modular systems that preceded the Minimoog. And although an instrument like the Voyager was most certainly inspired by it, they only added the "Minimoog" brand for pure marketing reasons, which was not Bob Moog's original aim.
Like Sacred Synthesis, I would have been happier to see something in the spirit of the Voyager - a further development inspired by the original Minimoog. But we all know that the reissue has nothing to do with innovation, nor with keeping up a legacy. It's about business and introducing another boutique item to the vintage collection of blasts from the past (systems 15, 35, and 55). Many guitar manufacturers like Fender or Gibson did this before. Now, this phenomenon has finally reached the synth market. From a technical standpoint, Moog is now offering affordable instruments with mass production compatible surface mount technology including the Mother-32, Minitaur up to the Sub 37, and reissured high-end vintage models based on handbuilt through-hole components. So basically, Moog is two companies now: one for the average player, and one for the wealthy collectors.
-
And then there's the list of shortcomings of a reissued Model D based on expectations in the year 2016, many of which have been mentioned already:
no PWM (except for a very esoteric approach which sacrifices VCO 2 and 3)
no oscillator sync
no full MIDI implementation (only note on/off)
no editor
no adjustment with regard to note priority (I think the Moog default is low note)
no patch memory
no internal power supply
no stereo
no four-stage envelopes
-
- No PWM (except for a very esoteric approach which sacrifices VCO 2 and 3)
- No four-stage envelopes
Adding to this shortened list the astronomical price tag, the above are unpardonable sins, from my perspective. It's almost impossible to musically function without such features. Even if the Minimoog were selling for $2,000 - which would put it within my financial range - these shortcomings would still make me hesitate. It comes down to whether or not the classic Model D sound compensates for the loss of the other features. I've always loved the Minimoog sawtooth and square, and they alone almost make the losses worthwhile. But not quite. If only it had proper pulse width modulation. Such a ridiculous omission.
-
- No PWM (except for a very esoteric approach which sacrifices VCO 2 and 3)
- No stereo
- No four-stage envelopes
Adding to this shortened list the astronomical price tag, the above are unpardonable sins, from my perspective. It's almost impossible to musically function without such features. Even if the Minimoog were selling for $2,000 - which would put it within my financial range - these shortcomings would still make me hesitate. It comes down to whether or not the classic Model D sound compensates for the loss of the other features. I've always loved the Minimoog sawtooth and square, and they alone almost make the losses worthwhile. But not quite. If only it had proper pulse width modulation. Such a ridiculous omission.
This is going to be an aficionado's synth. It's all about that particular sound. From the comments I've read, this also seems to be the synth for the crowd that is of the opinion that presets are for people who are too lazy to get to know their synth, digital control produces unnecessary stepping and ruins the "organic character" of parameter changes, and everybody who's happy with less valuable items should get happy with crappy sounding machines.
I mean, I'm not even arguing about the price when it comes to how it is being manufactured. It is built by hand 100%. All boards are assembled manually. That of course has its price, so I won't argue about it from this POV. I'm only interested in what's possible by comparison, and in that regard $3,500 is quite a hefty price tag. I'm not denying that a good basic sound is less important than features, but in the end we're talking about a couple of keys, boards, capacitors, resistors, cables, and a bit of wood, just like a guitar is just a plank of wood with some wires.
-
If you're going to grit your teeth and re-issue something, you can't be bothered by the march of progress. You'd always get folks who say, "The original sounded better because the circuitry required to add continuously-variable pulse-width threw off, you know, the temperature regulation with, you know, an electron cascade."
I really think they were trying to get out from under the Minimoog by digging it up. They've taken the incessant clamoring off the table, for ever and ever, and now that's one long shadow that they can get out of. They do innovate the for common musician. The Mother-32 is a huge testament to how they can make kick-ass things at reasonable prices. They just needed to finally pop the Minimoog zit off their collective face. It is accomplished.
-
I really think they were trying to get out from under the Minimoog by digging it up. They've taken the incessant clamoring off the table, for ever and ever, and now that's one long shadow that they can get out of. They do innovate the for common musician. The Mother-32 is a huge testament to how they can make kick-ass things at reasonable prices. They just needed to finally pop the Minimoog zit off their collective face. It is accomplished.
That's certainly an interesting take. Nevertheless, - and granted this would be true to some degree - how well did Fender and Gibson for example step out of the shadows of the much adored 1950s and 1960s models? I mean, isn't this just the same business strategy that has been used in the guitar industry to cash in big time - at least from those people (doctors, lawyers, etc.), who can afford it?
With a completely paralleled vintage production line, Moog could move forward a little bit faster now on the other side, yes. Instruments like the Sub 37 are not really innovative, only relative to Moog standards I'd say. Otherwise, those are the kind of instruments you would expect to be released by such a company by now - it's not really a surprise instrument though.
I think what Moog did with the Model 15 app is probably going to be more significant in the long run.
-
I was thinking the same thing, Chysn. Anybody want to bet that the staunchest Moogites will still claim that the re-issue pales before the old? That extra LFO will have just ruined the whole thing.
-
how well did Fender and Gibson for example step out of the shadows of the much adored 1950s and 1960s models?
Touché.
-
Used Model Ds seem to be changing hands for just north of $4K US on Craigslist, slightly higher on reverb.com, so it will be interesting to see what the shootouts reveal (especially the Voyager Old School vs. reissue Model D vs. vintage Model D).
There is, though, an interesting revisionist aspect to these re-issues: will the vintage units endure, or will the memories of their sound, function, design faults etc. be overridden with those of their modern copies?
This is, by the way, one of those things that has been nagging me regarding a possible purchase of a Tom Oberheim SEM vs. a vintage one....
-
The Minimoog Model D is in no way the only instrument that carries the heavy burden of being a seventies and eighties musical icon. Although I have to agree that the Model D's unmistakable sound is both its strength and its weakness, again, it isn't alone. So, while thinking today that it would be laughable for some of us to even try to adopt the sound of Wakeman or Emerson in producing our own music, it struck me that the list of associated instruments is rather long. Personally, I couldn't possibly and wouldn't use the following instruments, for the same reasons I wouldn't use a Minimoog Model D:
- Drawbar and combo organs (Hammond, Farfisa, Vox, etc.)
- Electric pianos (Yamaha CP, RMI, Rhodes, Wurlitzer, Hohner)
- Clavinet
- String synthesizers (ARP, Elka, Roland, Logan, etc.)
- Mellotron
- Effects (Small Stone Phaser, Roland Space Echo, Leslie rotating speaker, etc.)
I'm sure we could all add a few more items to this outstanding vintage instruments list. Perhaps the Prophet 5, Oberheim OB 8, Yamaha DX 7, and Roland Junos belong on it, too. But my point is, the Minimoog is not unique in having its own inescapable sound. All of the above do as well, and they all also have far less sonic versatility than the Minimoog, which makes them all-the-more identifiable. So, in the name of consistency, it seems to me the whole list could be added to our present debate.
Although at first the news of the Model D re-issue admittedly excited me, after thinking things through, I'm no longer interested for some of the reason Paul Dither previously cited. Personally, as a guy who played in bands in the eighties and listened to all the big synthesizer/keyboard progressive groups, but who has moved on to a very different musical direction, I couldn't possibly get far enough away from all of the above instruments and devices - due both to their sonic character and their musical associations as well.
I appreciate the fresh new start that modern instruments offer. Although I've done tons of research into many instruments by various companies, DSI strikes me as the right place to be. Although their instruments are certainly of the traditional analog design, still, their versatility allows you to craft a unique personal sound. I suppose the Prophet '08's tone has become somewhat recognizable by now, but I don't think it's overly identifiable. The Poly Evolver Keyboard is more recognizable, but it's also more flexible, so, sounding typical or sounding unique is all up to the synthesist.
I could imagine adding, say, a Modal Electronics or Artisan Electronic Instruments synthesizer at some point, so I'm open to other possibilities. But I'm fit to leave all thought of vintage gear and re-issues behind. It was good back then, but it wasn't nearly as good as what I have now.
-
Used Model Ds seem to be changing hands for just north of $4K US on Craigslist, slightly higher on reverb.com, so it will be interesting to see what the shootouts reveal (especially the Voyager Old School vs. reissue Model D vs. vintage Model D).
There is, though, an interesting revisionist aspect to these re-issues: will the vintage units endure, or will the memories of their sound, function, design faults etc. be overridden with those of their modern copies?
This is, by the way, one of those things that has been nagging me regarding a possible purchase of a Tom Oberheim SEM vs. a vintage one....
An official announcement is yet to be awaited, but I've heard from various sources that they are only going to build the reissues for about two years, so there would be a limited supply only, which might not affect the originals. On the other hand, they are still building Sub 37s, which would have been discontinued in summer 2015 if they had followed the original plan.
-
The Minimoog Model D is in no way the only instrument that carries the heavy burden of being a seventies and eighties musical icon. Although I have to agree that the Model D's unmistakable sound is both its strength and its weakness, again, it isn't alone. So, while thinking today that it would be laughable for some of us to even try to adopt the sound of Wakeman or Emerson in producing our own music, it struck me that the list of associated instruments is rather long. Personally, I couldn't possibly and wouldn't use the following instruments, for the same reasons I wouldn't use a Minimoog Model D:
- Drawbar and combo organs (Hammond, Farfisa, Vox, etc.)
- Electric pianos (Yamaha, Rhodes, Wurlitzer, Hohner)
- Clavinet
- String synthesizers (ARP, Elka, Roland, Logan, etc.)
- Mellotron
- Effects (Small Stone Phaser, Roland Space Echo, Leslie rotating speaker, etc.)
I'm sure we could all add a few more items to this outstanding vintage instruments list. Perhaps the Prophet 5 and Oberheim 8 belong there, too. But my point is, the Minimoog is not unique in having its own inescapable sound. All of the above do as well, and they all also have far less sonic versatility than the Minimoog, which makes them all-the-more identifiable. So, in the name of consistency, it seems to me the whole list could be added to our present debate.
That's absolutely true. These instruments clearly belong in that list. Hence, the description of them being timeless is always a bit problematic. They've made it to the mainstream, they proved to be successful, they shaped whole genres. Still, each of us could easily associate them with a certain era or decade, which is very unlike traditional instruments. Okay, clocks were ticking much slower hundreds of years ago, and one could also argue that there is maybe just not the violin just as much as there is not the synthesizer, which would be true at least with regard to certain historic instruments that do sound a bit strange when compared to our standards. Nevertheless, what's fundamentally different compared to the times when traditional instruments were developed and built, is the whole manufacturing process and all the indications of late capitalism. Let's not forget that we live in a consumer culture that didn't exist in this shape and form before the 20th century. And before anybody gets me wrong here: This is not meant to be an inherent critique, but from the point on where technological progress shaped the development of instruments at a much higher pace and mass production just as much as all the forms of marketing strategies kicked in, we all take for granted now, things became also much more affected by fashion movements for example. And while all of the above mentioned instruments are certainly classics to a degree, they are hugely associated with certain styles and genres, which are by definition not timeless - at least not in an era of radio, MTV, and all the other PR tools, which belong first and foremost to an industry, i.e. the production of a certain culture that is meant to create profit based on what is hot at a certain time (for whatever reason). Above that, let's also not forget that most musicians from yesterday will tell you that they've only used all of this stuff because there wasn't anything better available. So part of what turned these instruments into classics is a product of retroactive glorification.
-
I've definitely got a soft spot for vintage string machines / electronic organs, though this may be due to the fact that I wasn't gigging during the 1970s. :D
Thing is, like a real piano or organ, the sum of their parts never exceeds the pitches that are present, unlike a synthesized emulation which might double up voices where they could never possibly co-exist. These therefore sit much better in a mix than their synthesized counterparts.
In the same way, a monosynth emulates the constraints of a solo instrument, where individual notes are meaningful, rather than the handful that one can execute on an organ / piano / string machine, etc.
Of course, I grew up in an era where Japanese analog polysynths were the rage; anything that was monophonic, paraphonic or divide-down was poo-pooed as cheap and nasty (they may very well have been); it took me a very long time to understand the musical or textural cleverness inherent in some of these old-school approaches.
Of the two links that Sacred Synthesis posted, each represents a different perspective on the monosynth that many of us microprocessor / FPGA / DSP kids may never have considered: - live monophonic voice in-the-round, so to speak, using delay as a means to stagger melodic lines in time
- multitracked mono synth with effects
So that is why I believe that these vintage monosynth designs have a certain appeal to those who never had to grow up with their constraints.
-
Yes, these vintage instruments may appeal to those who didn't use them in their day nor listened to them for endless hours when young. To the newcomers, they may seem new, interesting, and esoteric. Plus, the re-issues will have components that are substantially improved over the originals.
The interesting question is: Can a musician make fresh new music with these re-issued instruments that is free and independent of the past? Can he or she break with the past, or will new compositions made with these vintage instruments always appear as nods to another era? I have my doubts.
-
The interesting question is: Can a musician make fresh new music with these re-issued instruments that is free and independent of the past? Can he or she break with the past, or will new compositions made with these vintage instruments always appear as nods to another era? I have my doubts.
Generally, I'd say yes. But it takes some active forgetting about the determining past.
-
I think the best chance is when the instruments are used individually. As a combination, they tend to take on that 1980's progressive rock sound, whether one wants it or not. Here are a few beautiful examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ__xHVDOuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj9ODNkJmIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLTk5iGu8Q
-
Paul, I'll give you a Model D, a B-3, a Mellotron, and an RMI. Now try not to sound like a 1980 progressive rocker. I'd say it would require the awkward avoidance of the sounds and techniques that are the very strengths of these instruments.
Oh, I'd totally be in for that challenge, and I believe it can be avoided as long as one follows the rules.
By the way, have we swopped opinions on this?
About non-traditional instruments being exposed more to fashions?
I think the best chance is when the instruments are used individually. As a combination, they tend to take on that 1980's progressive rock sound, whether one wants it or not. Here are a couple of beautiful examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ__xHVDOuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj9ODNkJmIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLTk5iGu8Q
Sure, that works. But even in conjunction one could step out of genre specific associations.
-
I think the best chance is when the instruments are used individually. As a combination, they tend to take on that 1980's progressive rock sound, whether one wants it or not. Here are a few beautiful examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ__xHVDOuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj9ODNkJmIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLTk5iGu8Q
#2 (Yamaha CP-80B) and #3 (Clavinet) definitely have a vibe about them, but not as negative as, say, a Leslie-less Hammond or a Rhodes piano bass, neither of which age gracefully. The RMI piano (#1) screams "department store", or better yet, destined for the corner at the local used music store for a generation or three....
In fact, there's definitely a Roxy Music-esque quality to both #2 and #3 that still sounds quite interesting (to me, at least). I enjoyed playing a CP-70B, and might eventually end up with one at the right price. There are plenty of 80s drum machines and factory patches that bear a greater proportion of suckage.
-
It seems like a Minimoog-like synth (with through-hole parts) could actually be made for less, i.e. in this case roughly $1,444: http://synthrestore.co.uk/ar57.html (http://synthrestore.co.uk/ar57.html)
-
These are two Minimoog recordings that strike me as sonically distinctive and musically impressive. The second shows the classic "Minimoog sound" at its best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JN2dOM47F4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9SdqIqgskI
Again about the really moving Józef Skrzek piece: I think it shows one of the most beautiful sides of the Minimoog. This simple lead captures a great tone and thickness. The Space Echo of course adds the icing on the cake. Looks like you have a musical cousin in Poland, Sacred Synthesis. ;)
Btw, he has quite a history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Skrzek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Skrzek)
-
Józef Skrzek is a good example of a musician who feels the Minimoog does not age and get outdated, that what it does, it does so well that it cannot become obsolete.
-
The RMI piano (#1) screams "department store", or better yet, destined for the corner at the local used music store for a generation or three....
I sort of agree. I've never heard an RMI piece or part that I especially liked, and it does have that old Casio timbre, as well as the look of a 1970's household appliance. But the little piece played by the young lady above was the nicest thing I've ever heard done with an RMI, and I somewhat took to liking it. If the sustained organ tone were removed and only the harpsichord stop used, it would have sounded better, less cheap. I could enjoy quite a bit of similar classical music performed with it. Harpsichord-type tones have always been among my favorites.
Anyway, I've gotten us off track here. The thread is supposed to be about the Minimoog re-issue, rather than vintage instruments in general. My fault.
-
This thread needs this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ)
-
This thread needs this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ)
I thought that was Hilarious. Reading some of the comments, people clearly thought that it was actually mint and in perfect working order... so there was a lot of hate. The best Christmas gift I ever received was a DX7 around 1985. They said I turned white... (I'm the middle of five children, so gifts like that were definitely not the norm.) I got an incredible amount of use out of it and loved it like no other possession for many years. But as a long-time keyboardist and guitarist, who scratches his head with incredulity and confusion at the vintage movement, this really tickled me this morning.
Getting back to the MiniMoog D: It would seem that there is agreement that nothing sounds like a Model D... and yet, many don't like the sound... or at least, no longer like the sound. I am surprised at all the contempt held among keyboardists for progressive music. To anyone who has followed the link to my bandmix page, I am obviously on the other side. Of the four covers that I currently have loaded there, three are by Keith Emerson and one is by Rick Wakeman. (Although only one has a Moog sound on it.) Btw, my "live in the basement" version of Hoedown is the only time I've ever used the pedals on my Hammond, which turned out to be quite fun to learn.
I loved progressive music in high school, and I love it still. When I try to learn anything by Emerson, I am amazed at how difficult it turns out to be. (In contrast, Wakeman is often easier than it sounds... though rarely easy.) After struggling to learn something by Emerson and then finally getting it down, I am also surprised at how quickly it fades if I don't revisit it. How keyboard players can turn their noses up at brilliant work like Tarkus, Karn Evil 9, or Pirates is beyond me. But again, the brilliance seems much more apparent after attempting to learn to play such work. Maybe I'm a little defensive of Emerson in particular because I'm still mourning his death.
Did familiarity breed the contempt? I certainly don't spend much time listening to the old progressive classics. If I did, I would get tired of them too. But for those who used to like this style of music, there are many modern musicians turning out wonderful new work: Transatlantic, Neal Morse, Karmakanic, The Flower Kings, Kerry Livgren, Van Der Graaf Generator, Riverside, I.Q., etc... I still find this music more exciting than just about anything else, and here we still hear Hammonds, Mellotron (samples!), and blessed MiniMoogs.
-
I don't think there has been much criticism on this thread of progressive rock. It's just been admitted several times that certain vintage instruments will inevitably associate one's sound with that musical style, and some of us don't want that association. I don't think that's a harsh criticism; it's an acknowledgment that people and life move on to other things, including other styles of music.
This thread takes the Minimoog Model D as a starting point and then considers the various meanings of the re-issues phenomenon. I personally find it interesting and in some ways amusing I share some of the attitudes, but not all. For example, I share the view that finds constant and excessive complexity wearisome. A Prophet 12 is great, but at other times it's refreshing to turn to a simple bare-bones non-programmable analog synthesizer - be it monophonic or polyphonic. Hence, I can appreciate the Minimoog re-issue, and it is tempting. But I'm also wary of thinking the solution to an abundance of complexity is in going back to the simplicity of 70's and 80's instruments.
So, the discussion here is mostly about instruments and their associations, and in this case, whether or not the Minimoog points right back to progressive rock. I think is does, but the tie is not unbreakable. The question is, will those who are willing to spend $3,500 for this instrument make new music with it, or will they lead a revival? The posts I've read on various forums more often suggest the latter. There's an excitement about having back again an important piece of the past.
If there's one effect of the re-issue phenomenon that I don't like, it's the reduction in the number of new monophonic analog synthesizers. I would love if there were many full-sized programmable mono synths from which to choose, but there aren't. Instead, there are a few, and a number of these are re-issues. I would be thrilled to see DSI produce a mono version of the Prophet-6 with the same keyboard size. Or any of the other companies, if they would produce a big bona fide analog mono synth. Of course, the Arturia Matrixbrute and Vermona 14 are still forthcoming, but still, the number is small. I would have preferred if the main companies had put their research and development into brilliant new designs with results that could be used for all styles, without sounding too much like the past.
-
Well, particularly the Minimoog has been used all along the board. From Prog Rock, Rock, and electronic music productions to Hip Hop, R'n'B, Funk, Reggae, and Trip Hop. So there's not really the one genre for the Minimoog. The rest pretty much depends on the category of sounds. A Minimoog used for subtle bass purposes, for example, will most likely become less of a cliché than a Minimoog used for flashy synth solos - just by nature of what stands out more in a mix or rather composition.
-
It's true that the Minimoog has been used in all contemporary styles of music, but this was often in a supplementary or supportive way - perhaps for bass or a little melody. But progressive rock, because of its emphasis on instrumental music and virtuosic soloing, put the Minimoog in the foreground, loud and clear. I think that's a main place it gained its name and recognizable sound. So, I do think the Minimoog sound especially belongs to progressive rock.
-
It's true that the Minimoog has been used in all contemporary styles of music, but this was often in a supplementary or supportive way - perhaps for bass or a little melody. But progressive rock, because of its emphasis on instrumental music and virtuosic soloing, put the Minimoog in the foreground, loud and clear. So, I do think the Minimoog sound especially belongs to progressive rock.
I terms of virtuosic soloing, yes. But all in all, I think that the players not being in any prog rock outfit outnumber the former. I mean, how many acutal prog rock bands were there that shaped that particular notion of the Minimoog in action? - ELP, Yes, ELO, Rush, and now I'm already starting to struggle to name popular prog rock bands that actually used a Model D.
-
I would be thrilled to see DSI produce a mono version of the Prophet-6 with the same keyboard size.
Yes, yes, yes. Four octaves* is plenty for a single-voice instrument, and while the Pro-2 has the right stuff in terms of filters and connectivity, there may exist an argument for a Curtis-filter based monosynth with real VCOs, rich modulation capabilities, and decent-quality effects, a sort of yang to the Pro-2's yin.
(And imagine what it would be like to have audio-rate mod capabilities to line up with the DSM stuff....)
* - four octaves certainly gets us past the Sequential Pro-One comparisons, which I've had a bug for lately....
-
This is the instrument I've been hoping for from DSI for years now, since just before the Mopho Keyboard appeared. Since then I've been posting about this. With the Prophet-6 now in existence, it should be a cinch to produce. (Just add a dedicated vibrato LFO!) But I don't get any sense from DSI that they're inclined to produce such a mono synth.
-
I would be thrilled to see DSI produce a mono version of the Prophet-6 with the same keyboard size.
Yes, yes, yes. Four octaves* is plenty for a single-voice instrument, and while the Pro-2 has the right stuff in terms of filters and connectivity, there may exist an argument for a Curtis-filter based monosynth with real VCOs, rich modulation capabilities, and decent-quality effects, a sort of yang to the Pro-2's yin.
(And imagine what it would be like to have audio-rate mod capabilities to line up with the DSM stuff....)
* - four octaves certainly gets us past the Sequential Pro-One comparisons, which I've had a bug for lately....
This is the instrument I've been hoping for from DSI for years now, since just before the Mopho Keyboard appeared. Since then I've been posting about this. With the Prophet-6 now in existence, it should be a cinch to produce. (Just add a dedicated vibrato LFO!) But I don't get any sense from DSI that they're inclined to produce such a mono synth.
I'm not entirely sure whether this is a case of missing the forest for the trees, but that mono synth (minus the extra LFO) is already included in the Prophet-6. I mean you basically only need to activate and define the Unison mode.
-
Well, obviously I would want a mono synth at a mono synth price. Sure, I could use a Prophet-6 in both modes, but I don't need another poly synth. I'd rather get only a mono version and pay only for a mono version. This would also be an improvement in DSI's current range of instrument prices, which is certainly on the high side. It would be nice to a have a VCA mono synth around the $1,500 or so mark.
The same issue existed with the Prophet '08. Sure, you could use a P'08 as a mono synth. Nevertheless, DSI saw fit to produce a Mopho Keyboard and a Mopho SE. I'm thinking along the very same lines regarding the Prophet-6. And besides, the previously named mono synths have been discontinued. Yes, there are still the Mopho x4 (for now) and the Pro 2, but those are beasts of another sort.
-
Well, obviously I would want a mono synth at a mono synth price. Sure, I could use a Prophet-6 in both modes, but I don't need another poly synth. I'd rather get only a mono version and pay only for a mono version.
The same issue existed with the Prophet '08. Sure, you could use a P'08 as a mono synth. Nevertheless, DSI saw fit to produce a Mopho Keyboard and a Mopho SE. I'm thinking along the very same lines regarding the Prophet-6.
It would certainly be a rather expensive - and unchallenged - mono synth, that's true. The parallel with the Prophet '08 doesn't work though, as the Prophet-6 has a sub oscillator and allows for voice assignment (1 to 6 voices) in unison mode, which makes for a more flexible mono synth. - Okay, one could ignore the sub oscillator, since one could use one layer for that purpose. What remains though is the advantage of a configurable unison mode.
-
In addition to that I don't think that mono duties have ever been the Prophet '08's forte. It's a damn fine poly synth, but as a mono synth it can either be a little too weak or too much over the top with those chorus-like unison modes. The latter can work, but just not that well for analog mono synth bread and butter sounds. The Prophet-6 has just more oomph in that department. It doesn't need to hide from a Moog, for example.
-
For my needs, the Prophet '08 makes an excellent mono synth. True, the unison modes have limited uses (and I never use them), but the single voice setting is wonderful. It sounds better than the Evolver does in mono. I would even consider getting an additional Prophet '08 to use as a dedicated mono synth, due to its more reasonable price. But it would be ideal to get the fuller rawer Prophet-6 analog tone in mono form. In fact, if it only had eight voices, rather than six, I'd probably do somewhat as you suggest and buy a P-6 Module, control it with a Prophet '08 Keyboard, and then use it in mono mode when I needed to. But with the mis-matched voice count, it wouldn't make sense, since the poly combination would be awkward.
DSI has generally done the poly-mono parallels for each of their instruments: Poly Evolver Keyboard/Mono Evolver Keyboard; Prophet '08/Mopho Keyboard and Mopho SE; Prophet 12/Pro 2. I'm only suggesting more of the same with the Prophet-6.
-
For my needs, the Prophet '08 makes an excellent mono synth. True, the unison modes have limited uses (and I never use them), but the single voice setting is wonderful. It's sounds better than the Evolver in mono. I would even consider getting an additional Prophet '08 to use as a dedicated mono synth, due to its more reasonable price. But it would be fabulous to get the fuller rawer Prophet-6 analog tone in mono form.
Hm, that's funny. I always preferred the mono voice of the Evolver due to the stereo filter that made everything a bit more alive. But yeah, the Prophet-6 definitely sounds fuller and rawer than the '08.
DSI has generally done the poly-mono parallels for each of their instruments: Poly Evolver Keyboard/Mono Evolver Keyboard; Prophet '08/Mopho Keyboard and Mopho SE; Prophet 12/Pro 2. I'm only suggesting more of the same with the Prophet-6.
Sure, I know. I guess I'd just prefer to see them moving on and beyond.
-
Hm, that's funny. I always preferred the mono voice of the Evolver due to the stereo filter that made everything a bit more alive. But yeah, the Prophet-6 definitely sounds fuller and rawer than the '08.
With the Evolver's hardwired design, using only the two analogs oscillators in stereo produces a thin sound because, since each oscillator is sounding from a different side, the oscillator beating is reduced to almost nothing. Hence, to get that nice rich oscillator beating back, you have to draw them together, losing the stereo depth.
I find the stereo possibilities with the Prophet '08 to produce a better analog mono tone: Use identical monophonic A/B layers, and then pan them at the mixer.
-
Hm, that's funny. I always preferred the mono voice of the Evolver due to the stereo filter that made everything a bit more alive. But yeah, the Prophet-6 definitely sounds fuller and rawer than the '08.
With the Evolver's hardwired design, using only the two analogs oscillators in stereo produces a thin sound because, since each oscillator is sounding from a different side, the oscillator beating is reduced to almost nothing. Hence, to get that nice rich oscillator beating back, you have to draw them together, losing the stereo depth.
I find the stereo possibilities with the Prophet '08 to produce a better analog mono tone: Use identical monophonic layers, and then pan them at the mixer.
Technically, that makes sense, yes. Yet, the Mono Evolver always sounded better to me as a mono synth. But that may also be due to its overall unique sound.
-
Sure, the Evolver sounds good in mono when you're using all four oscillators, because that obviously places two oscillators in each channel. Perhaps that's what you have in mind. But I've done many side-by-side comparisons between the PEK and the P'08 using the same mono patches, and my ear always favors the P'08 for its better analog sound. I realize that the two instruments basically have the same analog engine, but there's obviously more to it than that. In fact, the differences are quite audible.
-
To get back on topic: Here's quite a good comment by Peter Kirn. He miscalculated the inflation-adjusted price though. An original Minimoog cost $1,495 in 1970, which would equal $9,218.95 in 2016.
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2016/05/minimoog-model-d-now-two-moogs/ (http://createdigitalmusic.com/2016/05/minimoog-model-d-now-two-moogs/)
-
To get back on topic: Here's quite a good comment by Peter Kirn. He miscalculated the inflation-adjusted price though. An original Minimoog cost $1,495 in 1970, which would equal $9,218.95 in 2016.
When I worked at a musical instrument store in the early aughts, we acquired a Prophet 10. We bought it from the original owner who said that he sold his Corvette to buy it in 1980.
-
I realize that the two instruments basically have the same analog engine, but there's obviously more to it than that. In fact, the differences are quite audible.
Yes, maybe that's why I find myself missing the Mopho. Even without using the sub oscillators, they're definitely not the same.
-
One of the most frequently repeated errors that I come across on the forums is the matter-of-fact assertion that the Prophet '08 is simply the analog side of the Poly Evolver; therefore, the two are and sound exactly the same. But it just isn't that simple. I believe the Evolver uses AD/DA conversions that must be the cause of a substantial difference in tone. Hence, I use the analog aspects of the two instruments in different ways. They're certainly not interchangeable to my ears. Even DSI's website goes no further than this:
"The analog oscillators and the analog low-pass filters are the same in both product lines, so it’s possible to make an Evolver sound very much like a Prophet ’08."
Yes, I agree they can sound "very much" alike. But identical? No way.
-
I realize that the two instruments basically have the same analog engine, but there's obviously more to it than that. In fact, the differences are quite audible.
Yes, maybe that's why I find myself missing the Mopho. Even without using the sub oscillators, they're definitely not the same.
That will be happily resolved if you get a Prophet-6. Is it still a possibility?
-
The next "synth shootout" that begs to be made is a side-by-side comparison between the new Minimoog and the Prophet-6 in mono mode. I would enjoy listening to that.
-
To get back on topic: Here's quite a good comment by Peter Kirn. He miscalculated the inflation-adjusted price though. An original Minimoog cost $1,495 in 1970, which would equal $9,218.95 in 2016.
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2016/05/minimoog-model-d-now-two-moogs/ (http://createdigitalmusic.com/2016/05/minimoog-model-d-now-two-moogs/)
So, regarding the new Minimoog Model D, in place of the term "re-issue" is the expression "exact recreation." I wouldn't expect to see many instances of these. Perhaps only this one.
The article says,
"That means we now have essentially two iterations of Moog Music. One is making luxury recreations of its original history, in their original form. The other is making new products and new designs – and for a larger audience (especially because of price)."
This sounds familiar. Dave Smith has two lines now as well, although the comparison is only approximate, since the Sequential line is not one of "exact recreations," but one of new improved versions of old instruments. Of course, we don't know exactly where the Sequential line is going. It may just remain the VCO line of instruments, without any references to past Sequential Circuits instruments. I would be fine with that. JUST MAKE A MONO VERSION OF THE PROPHET-6!
-
That will be happily resolved if you get a Prophet-6. Is it still a possibility?
Two paths diverged in a yellow wood, and I took the one strewn with eurorack modules. All my money is going into building my own monosynth now.
-
You're truly the Robert Frost of the forum, Chysn.
-
You're truly the Robert Frost of the forum, Chysn.
"...Sorry I could not travel both. But this $#!%'s expensive." --Robert Frost
-
That was the first version that never got published. And he was talking about the costs of those good fences that make good neighbors.
-
The next "synth shootout' that begs to be made is a side-by-side comparison between the new Minimoog and the Prophet-6 in mono mode. I would enjoy listening to that.
That would be pointless, since the Prophet-6 is not meant to be a recreation of the Prophet-5. That aside, it would still be apples and oranges.
-
To get back on topic: Here's quite a good comment by Peter Kirn. He miscalculated the inflation-adjusted price though. An original Minimoog cost $1,495 in 1970, which would equal $9,218.95 in 2016.
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2016/05/minimoog-model-d-now-two-moogs/ (http://createdigitalmusic.com/2016/05/minimoog-model-d-now-two-moogs/)
So, regarding the new Minimoog Model D, in place of the term "re-issue" is the expression "exact recreation." I wouldn't expect to see many instances of these. Perhaps only this one.
The article says,
"That means we now have essentially two iterations of Moog Music. One is making luxury recreations of its original history, in their original form. The other is making new products and new designs – and for a larger audience (especially because of price)."
This sounds familiar. Dave Smith has two lines now as well, although the comparison is only approximate, since the Sequential line is not one of "exact recreations," but one of new improved versions of old instruments. Of course, we don't know exactly where the Sequential line is going. It may just remain the VCO line of instruments, without any references to past Sequential Circuits instruments. I would be fine with that. JUST MAKE A MONO VERSION OF THE PROPHET-6!
The major difference is not only that Sequential doesn't do exact copies of past models, but that it's currently limited to one synth anyway. There are no concrete signs yet, as to whether this was only a one-off, or whether more products are going to follow. Even the ingredient VCO doesn't seems to set that line apart, otherwise we would have seen an OB-6 by Sequential and Tom Oberheim.
-
The next "synth shootout' that begs to be made is a side-by-side comparison between the new Minimoog and the Prophet-6 in mono mode. I would enjoy listening to that.
That would be pointless, since the Prophet-6 is not meant to be a recreation of the Prophet-5. That aside, it would still be apples and oranges.
Who said anything about a Prophet 5? I'm not comparing the fidelity of the new and old Minimoogs with the fidelity of a Prophet-6 to a Prophet 5. I don't personally care about that one bit. I'm simply wondering how the sound of a Prophet-6 in mono mode would compare with the sound of a Minimoog. Not to declare one a winner and the other a loser, but just hear the differences and similarities. As synthesists do constantly, as Doty did with the Prophet-6 and OB-6, and Carr with the Prophet '08 and Prophet-6.
-
The next "synth shootout' that begs to be made is a side-by-side comparison between the new Minimoog and the Prophet-6 in mono mode. I would enjoy listening to that.
That would be pointless, since the Prophet-6 is not meant to be a recreation of the Prophet-5. That aside, it would still be apples and oranges.
Who said anything about a Prophet 5? I'm not comparing the fidelity of the new and old Minimoogs with the fidelity of a Prophet-6 to a Prophet 5. I don't personally care about that one bit. I'm simply wondering how the sound of a Prophet-6 in mono mode would compare with the sound of a Minimoog. Not to declare one a winner and the other a loser, but just hear the differences and similarities. As synthesists do constantly, as Doty did with the Prophet-6 and OB-6, and Carr with the Prophet '08 and Prophet-6.
I brought that up, because a Prophet-6 will sound modern and a Minimoog (new or old) will sound vintage. I simply think that both instruments speak to different audiences.
-
I found a nice parallel to our wider discussion here in Theo Bloderer's article on the ARP 2600, which ends like this:
All in all, the 2600 sound character ist beautiful, but the instrument’s virtuosity may not knock you off your chair these days. There are so many superb modern, brand-new analog synthesizers with similar potential, that it’s hard to remain attached to the myth of the ARP 2600: Arturia MicroBrute (small, but briliant), MFB Dominion 1 (slightly bigger, with CV-panel and with a hell of a sound), MacBeth Elements, Tom Oberheim Two Voice Pro, just to name a few.
So we return to the question of the instrument’s true value. Are the demanded prices for the ARP 2600 realistic in 2015, or not? The answer is up to you. It is worthwhile thinking about …
http://greatsynthesizers.com/en/test/arp-2600-holy-grail-of-analog/ (http://greatsynthesizers.com/en/test/arp-2600-holy-grail-of-analog/)
There's also the other side to this discussion, this time triggered by the COTK Model 15 (this seems to summarize in a nutshell what seems to be appealing to most people about the Model D as well):
The enormous increase in features and expressive potential has been paid for with a drastic loss in sound quality. Sound – the crux of the matter. The vibrant sound that makes a musical instrument a musical instrument.
Such thoughts are afloat when you’re playing the COTK Model 15. It’s alive. It doesn’t just sound good, it doesn’t just come out of some loudspeakers somewhere … no, it’s alive. It has depth and dynamic potential that we had almost forgotten about in our years of concentration on modern (digital and analog) synthesizers. Every now and then these pure sounds just shine through. As with the Vermona Perfourmer MKII, where the reduction to a minimum results in a definite sonic plus. Or with the Minimoog. Nothing, absolutely nothing can compete with the sound of the Model 15.
http://greatsynthesizers.com/en/test/cotk-model-15-a-tool-for-elegant-sound/ (http://greatsynthesizers.com/en/test/cotk-model-15-a-tool-for-elegant-sound/)
-
The additional issue is instrument size. Where does one find these days a self-contained three-oscillator semi-modular analog synthesizer with a four-octave keyboard? That's always been one of my main interests. Tacking together an instrument from various modules and a MIDI controller just isn't the same. Hence, the appeal of the 2600.
For me, matters of old or new, past or present, vintage or modern, are irrelevant. I'm simply looking for the instrument that meets my needs.
-
The additional issue is instrument size. Where does one find these days a self-contained three-oscillator semi-modular analog synthesizer with a four-octave keyboard? That's always been one of my main interests. Tacking together an instrument from various modules and a MIDI controller just isn't the same. Hence, the appeal of the 2600.
That's pretty rare though. Well, there are the 61 keys for the Moog modular, but it's usually 37 to 44 keys.
-
The next "synth shootout' that begs to be made is a side-by-side comparison between the new Minimoog and the Prophet-6 in mono mode. I would enjoy listening to that.
I would love to hear that as well. My visceral love of the MiniMoog doesn't mean that I will be saving up for one. I am currently delighted with the monophonic sounds that I'm getting with my Prophet '08/Module pair. Unfortunately, the unison stacking modes always seem to be ruined by the dreaded clicking noise. But the single voice setting, especially when layered and played with the module pair, seems like it would be difficult to beat with a single Moog. If I did get one, would I then want a pair for stereo doubling?!? Yikes. The horror.
-
The inescapable answer is: Yes, definitely. But more realistically, you could always pair the Minimoog with a module like an Oberheim SEM Pro. You see, I've already got all this worked out. :)
I never use the Prophet '08's Stacked unison modes, but always the one voice. I think it sounds excellent. If you didn't have a keyboard paired with a module, you could still get the stereo depth just as well using the Output B and then panning the two identical layers A and B at the mixer. I used this arrangement most of the time for my upper P'08, and it sounds excellent. Those handy little jacks on the back are one feature that seldom gets even a mention on the forums. I suppose they're inconvenient to use, but they make one fine option.
Truth be told, if I get a Prophet-6, an OB-6, or even a Prophet 12, it will certainly be with the intention of later getting the module version. There's no turning back now from this method. Once you hear these synthesizers in stereo, you can't forget it.
By the way, Jason, do you have the latest OS for the P'08? I believe the updates improved the "clicking" problem.
-
My visceral love of the MiniMoog doesn't mean that I will be saving up for one. I am currently delighted with the monophonic sounds that I'm getting with my Prophet '08/Module pair. Unfortunately, the unison stacking modes always seem to be ruined by the dreaded clicking noise. But the single voice setting, especially when layered and played with the module pair, seems like it would be difficult to beat with a single Moog.
It depends on what sound you're after. The Minimoog's oscillators certainly sound way more raw than those of the Prophet-6 and even more than those of the Prophet '08. It's a completely different mono sound in terms of harmonics and overall behaviour. So, for the player it's a matter of preferences and priorities.
-
With regard to those reissues - and I would only take those into account that are associated with a premium sound, i.e. synths that usually don't sell below three grand, starting with the COTK Model 15 over to the Two Voice Pro, and finally up to the System 55 -, the discussion seems to follow the dichotomy between basic sound quality and features. What mostly characterizes the target audience for those instruments - despite having a well-filled wallet -, or rather their sincere musical longing (as pure collector-ism doesn't count) may be defined by the phrase, "they don't make them like they used to anymore." So you end up with the implicit question, of whether modern features (of current instruments) get in the way of a really outstanding sound. From there, basically two paths/attitudes arise:
1. A stunning basic sound is more important than any bells and whistles. The pure tone of a synth is just as fundamental as a good sounding resonant body or the general build quality of classical instruments, like the violin, the piano, etc. and their most prestigious manufacturers.
2. Advanced features are just another means of shaping the sound. They can't be artificially separated from the pure tone the oscillators create for example, and they're far more inherent in the pioneering mindset that led to the development of synthesizers as transforming sound sources in the first place.
The first take on this puts the synthesizer in one line with traditional instruments and proposes that the general development of synthesizers can indeed reach a zenith. In this case, the subractive synthesis tool of the 1960s and 1970s would be regarded as the pinnacle. That, which comes closest to a Stradivari or a Boesendorfer, because it produced the best possible pure basic sound, which on the other hand means that it came closest to the idea of an electric sound. One also often encounters the latter in statements like, "this square wave really sounds like the prototypical square wave. If there was a synthesizer lab, this wave should be in it as the most representative and purest one."
The second take would not be concerned too much about any idea(l) of an electric sound, but rather focus one the synthesizer as an overall electrical endeavour. Each part of its architecture would be regarded as essential to the sound as the source material in the form of different wave shapes. A resulting attempt wouldn't be so much about purity or the perfection of certain characteristics, but rather about the constant reshaping of what the synthesizer produces. In a way, this approach would not only be less idealistic, but also less aesthetically concerned, but rather technically (if one can manage to tear those two apart to a certain degree).
In my view, the current discussion about retro synths or reissues seems to span between those two extremes. Interestingly, it's also connected to some of the questions Sacred Synthesis asked in the thread "Could There Ever Be a Solo Synthesizer Repertoire?"
What it comes down to in practical terms may result in the questions of whether one invests into a synth that's supposed to last for a lifetime (just like a premium solo instrument), or whether one is constantly refining his or her setup to keep things evolving architecturally and sound-wise.
-
I would add another nuance to the differences - that concerning the final product. There is one view that considers the latest most advanced technology as key in the whole project, such that the material produced (music, sound, or noise, performed or recorded) must display the heights and feats of modern synthesis whenever possible. Such persons gain great satisfaction at hearing the complexities of new instruments used to their utmost, and this becomes an end in itself. They often lack musical training, are content to trigger notes by various means, and consider the tweaking of parameters to be fundamental to a performance.
The other view considers a musical ideal to be first and foremost, such that technology is only a means to serving this end, and one that can easily get in its way. The simpler instruments - whether old or new - are appreciated as more direct and immediate means of remaining musically focused, rather than technologically distracted. Hence, synthesizers are viewed as musical instruments properly attached to a keyboard, and synthesists are considered only one more breed of keyboardists. Such persons often come from trained musical backgrounds and are capable in music theory and in reading and scoring music.
Of course, there are all degrees of crossover in our descriptions of these two views or camps, but there also seems to be some amount of consistency.
-
It's funny, because a chiasm of those extremes is extremely common as well. Especially when it comes to oldschool instruments, there's an emphasis on their controllers being played. So in a way, the notion of the crafty pianist, organist, or soloist (especially with regard to the mono synth) turns into that of a crafty synthesizer player at this point. Here you find the appreciation for traditional musical skills applied to rather purist synthesizer models with "purist" meaning distinguishable in sound quality and simple in terms of functionality. The Minimoog is a good example in this case. It's fairly limited in terms of parameter choices, but its basic sound has a strong identity. Even if someone wouldn't wanna miss patch memory anymore, it's hard to make a case against those who argue that the Model D is so simple and easy to grasp that a proper player should be able to switch from A to B pretty quickly. It even implies another traditional aspect if one can characterize it this way: that of the unrepeatable live situation. Playing a sound that sounds slightly different in each performance will only emphasize this. And the parameter changes can even be embedded in the performance, i.e. switching from one sound to another can in itself become a musical practice if one considers timbre changes to be musical within themselves. The latter definitely needs training and is a playing skill in itself, just like the timely performed register adjustment or the coordination between hands and feet on a classical organ.
-
Good points. I would add that this sort of synthesist who works without programmable instruments learns how to program sounds that are fairly distinctive and yet can be quickly changed from one to the next, even in a live setting. I started to pick up this skill when I had my Voyager Old School, and it is a handy ability to acquire. Your sounds tend to be simpler and very musical, and they're meant also to allow for quick changes - a click here and a turn there - that produce a different sound in only a matter of seconds. Obviously, this doesn't allow for very in-depth and precise programming - nothing elaborate is really possible. But it's a very different sort of sound designing from what is done when you have the luxury of programmability. It's actually fun and a challenge to see how quickly you can make substantial changes in your sound in only a matter of seconds, and while you're still playing another instrument with the other hand (and feet).
-
I guess it depends on the use. If you're busy playing the keyboard at the same time, parameter changes will be rather economical. If you're operating a sequencer, pretty much anything goes. Either way, it requires you to handle the instrument blindly.
Sacred Synthesis, what's your take on Bloderer's opinion about the musicality of a synthesizer's sound (beyond the Model 15)?
I'm referring to this paragraph:
"The enormous increase in features and expressive potential has been paid for with a drastic loss in sound quality. Sound – the crux of the matter. The vibrant sound that makes a musical instrument a musical instrument.
Such thoughts are afloat when you’re playing the COTK Model 15. It’s alive. It doesn’t just sound good, it doesn’t just come out of some loudspeakers somewhere … no, it’s alive. It has depth and dynamic potential that we had almost forgotten about in our years of concentration on modern (digital and analog) synthesizers. Every now and then these pure sounds just shine through. As with the Vermona Perfourmer MKII, where the reduction to a minimum results in a definite sonic plus. Or with the Minimoog. Nothing, absolutely nothing can compete with the sound of the Model 15."
-
I've never played a Moog 15 or even the Vermona Perfourmer Mk II, so I can only respond in a general way. I think you know I would agree that, in modern synthesizers, complexity has become the main objective and quality and character of tone have become secondary. I think this is manifest in the annoying fact that I can seldom find in online synthesizer recordings the simple sorts of sounds that I like and use. This is one of the reasons it's difficult for me to judge whether or not I would like a particular new synthesizer - I simply don't hear the sorts of sounds I would like to hear and am forced to listen to sometimes hours of irritating synthesizer demos, in the hope that I might catch a tiny snippet of sound that is useful. How often can one find one or two sawtooths with a delayed vibrato playing a nice melody, or a pulse or two without filter modulation giving out a memorable tune, so that you can really hear the distinct voice of the instrument? It's the rarest thing. I find the typical synthesizer programs more often to be demonstrations of the instrument's and the synthesist's ability to pile on the maximum amounts of effects and modulation, as if the sound itself were the end of it all, and whatever music was made with it was incidental.
Again, I can't respond to whatever the author had in mind, but personally, it's the simpler more mellifluous sounds that shine for me, whereas the complex, busy, and caustic ones tend to effect me like a dentist's drill on a nerve or a jackhammer on a city street. And I think it goes without saying that most modern instruments are designed to serve and satisfy this infatuation with busy complexity.
Over the last few years, there has obviously been a slight change is this, though, with some instruments appearing that serve the interests of synthesists who share these views. BUT, this change has unfortunately included the appearance of the mini keyboard and the generally shrunken synthesizer. Arturia and Korg come to mind. The appearance of the Minimoog Model D, however, is a different matter, and it signifies something more meaningful than traditionalists being tossed the usual little mouthful of red meat that is, say, a Minibrute or a baby Odyssey. It's hard not to feel that some one has finally heard the more traditional musician who happens to play synthesizer. Hence, the discussions about "old" versus "new" technology and "looking back" versus "moving forward" miss the larger point that the pure musician/synthesist has been heard. Not that a brand new instrument couldn't serve his or her needs if it were designed with the proper objectives in mind, but where does one see such full-sized instruments?
Traditional musicians tend to have an inherent appreciation for the past and not look to it with the embarrassment of the modernist. There's comfort with the familiar, with the tried and true, with that which has withstood the test of time. Like it or not, the Model D has superlatively withstood the test of time. And besides, some of us don't want to waste too much of our precious practice and composition time mastering yet another control panel and its annoying menus. Hence, it's good to return to something familiar.
I've not answered the question you asked me to, Paul. There's just too much that calls for reflection on the topic. But in response to the article and its author, I would say a genuine high-quality analog tone shines for me - whether the instrument is old or new - and especially if the particular sound has the virtue of simplicity. I'm entirely open to new instruments and designs if they serve the proper ends, but such new instruments are few and far between; or else, they look like they've been created for children or midgets. I think I could thoroughly enjoy playing an immaculate Model D, and I would say, yes, it would sound alive to me in a new way. I'm totally sympathetic to the author's viewpoint. And even though I don't foresee myself buying a new Model D, I'm all for the symbolism of an exact recreation.
-
It depends on what sound you're after. The Minimoog's oscillators certainly sound way more raw than those of the Prophet-6 and even more than those of the Prophet '08. It's a completely different mono sound in terms of harmonics and overall behaviour. So, for the player it's a matter of preferences and priorities.
When I say: “seems like it would be difficult to beat with a single Moog”, I’m talking about what I consider to be objectively better sound. Many people may say that musical aesthetics are purely subjective, and perhaps they are. However, if we are talking about specific types of monophonic sounds, I think 9 out of 10 will agree with which has the better tone. For example, I was rehearsing with some people last night, and I gave a demonstration of the comparison between using one Prophet ‘08 with the same sounds on the Prophet ‘08/module pair. I don’t think anyone would disagree about which was better, even though there is always the rare individual who may disagree for inexplicable reasons. I have done the same comparisons with classic sounds that are on my Yamaha and that I’ve then reprogrammed onto my ’08, and the difference is obvious to (nearly) anyone in the room. Many keyboards are very good at producing patches that sound like a classic sound, but the quality of the sounds is a bit lacking. For my purposes of playing covers, especially live, I would rather have really great quality sounds, even if they are not exactly like the originals. Of course, most audiences won’t care; they seem to be happy to hear samples all night.
I find your comparisons very interesting. Would you put “rawness” and “smoothness” on a continuum with the MiniMoog being the most raw, the Prophet 6 the most smooth and the ’08 and OB-6 somewhere in the middle? Maybe there’s a better word than Smooth: Refined?
Sacred Synthesis, it's a good question about my operating software. I bought it new from a dealer in October, and so I assumed that it was current. I will have to double check. I asked the seller of the Module, and he gave the correct current numbers. But I should double check that as well.
Regarding your observations about the Output B option, I think that would work very well in a studio, and I'm not sure why it isn't discuss more among those would mainly do recording. For myself, I'm always focused on being able to do everything live with minimal time in between songs. So the pair setup is going to work really well.
-
Sacred Synthesis, it's a good question about my operating software. I bought it new from a dealer in October, and so I assumed that it was current. I will have to double check. I asked the seller of the Module, and he gave the correct current numbers. But I should double check that as well.
Don't presume a recent purchase comes with the most recent updates. I've even bought directly from DSI and found the OS was old. If you want the latest OS, you have to ask for it. I do know that Sweetwater and DSI will do the update for a small fee.
-
Regarding your observations about the Output B option, I think that would work very well in a studio, and I'm not sure why it isn't discuss more among those would mainly do recording. For myself, I'm always focused on being able to do everything live with minimal time in between songs. So the pair setup is going to work really well.
I understand that. Since I have two Prophet '08 Keyboards, I have the luxury of using one primarily for monophonic playing, and it's this one that I use the B Output option for, either for stereo depth or even stereo bi-timbrality. Another interesting arrangement using the Split setting is to have one patch come one side and the other patch from the other side.
In so many ways, I find the P'08 to make an ideal monophonic synthesizer. And if it's lacking in something, simply add a module. Wouldn't it be nice if Moog made a Model D Module!
-
When I say: “seems like it would be difficult to beat with a single Moog”, I’m talking about what I consider to be objectively better sound. Many people may say that musical aesthetics are purely subjective, and perhaps they are. However, if we are talking about specific types of monophonic sounds, I think 9 out of 10 will agree with which has the better tone. For example, I was rehearsing with some people last night, and I gave a demonstration of the comparison between using one Prophet ‘08 with the same sounds on the Prophet ‘08/module pair. I don’t think anyone would disagree about which was better, even though there is always the rare individual who may disagree for inexplicable reasons.
Are you talking about the stereo option of using a Prophet '08/module pair?
I find your comparisons very interesting. Would you put “rawness” and “smoothness” on a continuum with the MiniMoog being the most raw, the Prophet 6 the most smooth and the ’08 and OB-6 somewhere in the middle? Maybe there’s a better word than Smooth: Refined?
Rawness was admittably a bad attribute. No, I didn't mean to place these synths in a continuum from raw to refined, although that could work too if one talks in rather mathematical terms. I was referring to what attracts most people to VCOs. Although the terms are certainly hard to strip free of any subjectivity, attributes like animated due to slight imperfections, and a general fullness of the sound come to my mind. Or slightly esoterical: When you actually get the impression of moving voltages, a movement that goes beyond just a sound source of any kind like for example a sample or a wavetable. When people play a something like a Minimoog or a SEM module for the first time, they usually go, "wow, this sounds huge." So I would guess there is a perceivable difference between these particular sound generators and others. And I'm not necessarily talking about things like oscillator drift alone, but a general musicality to the tone that is inherent without any form of modulation being utilized.
-
I've never played a Moog 15 or even the Vermona Perfourmer Mk II, so I can only respond in a general way.
Yeah, I meant it in a general way, not necessarily with regard to those particular instruments.
How often can one find one or two sawtooths with a delayed vibrato playing a nice melody, or a pulse or two without filter modulation giving out a memorable tune, so that you can really hear the distinct voice of the instrument? It's the rarest thing.
I guess this is one of the reasons why Marc Doty's presentations are appreciated, since he will always let you hear the pure oscillator tone for a while and then move on step by step.
The appearance of the Minimoog Model D, however, is a different matter, and it signifies something more meaningful than traditionalists being tossed the usual little mouthful of red meat that is, say, a Minibrute or a baby Odyssey. It's hard not to feel that some one has finally heard the more traditional musician who happens to play synthesizer. Hence, the discussions about "old" versus "new" technology and "looking back" versus "moving forward" miss the larger point that the pure musician/synthesist has been heard. Not that a brand new instrument couldn't serve his or her needs if it were designed with the proper objectives in mind, but where does one see such full-sized instruments?
I guess this is kind of the discourse I was heading towards with the main question being, what this more meaningful element is that goes beyond the dichotomy of old vs new. The precondition for such an investigation would of course be to step out of what has been determined by historical contexts and circumstances, the sort of non-timelessness that makes us associate certain electronic instruments with a particular style of music or genre. And this might be one approach:
Like it or not, the Model D has superlatively withstood the test of time. And besides, some of us don't want to waste too much of our precious practice and composition time mastering yet another control panel and its annoying menus.
That's true. DSI and Sequential are perfect examples of that. From the Prophet-5 to the Prophet 12, and obviously the Prophet-6 and OB-6, the Minimoog control panel served as a sort of blueprint. When the Prophet-5 was introduced in 1978, it was even called a 5-voice Minimoog.
[…] in response to the article and its author, I would say a genuine high-quality analog tone shines for me - whether the instrument is old or new - and especially if the particular sound has the virtue of simplicity. […] I think I could thoroughly enjoy playing an immaculate Model D, and I would say, yes, it would sound alive to me in a new way.
I guess the notions of "high-quality analog tone" and "sounding alive" are what I was trying to investigate further.
-
Are you talking about the stereo option of using a Prophet '08/module pair?
I was referring to what attracts most people to VCOs. Although the terms are certainly hard to strip free of any subjectivity, attributes like animated due to slight imperfections, and a general fullness of the sound come to my mind. Or slightly esoterical: When you actually get the impression of moving voltages, a movement that goes beyond just a sound source of any kind like for example a sample or a wavetable. When people play a something like a Minimoog or a SEM module for the first time, they usually go, "wow, this sounds huge." So I would guess there is a perceivable difference between these particular sound generators and others. And I'm not necessarily talking about things like oscillator drift alone, but a general musicality to the tone that is inherent without any form of modulation being utilized.
...This is exactly what I'm referring to. I'm not referring to the stereo pairing of instruments, as that could theoretically be done with most instruments. (Although, I suspect that this works better with analog sounds compared to digital samples, I haven't tested this.) Having said that, the stereo pairing does get me much closer to what I consider to be the ideal sound. Even when listening to only one channel of a stereo pair setup, the patches sound better, and when in stereo, they sound like they are coming from a different synthesizer... a better synthesizer.
Like S.S., I've definitely been wondering if Moog will release a module version of the MiniMoog. I also wonder about pairing it with something like the Crowminius. I am extremely interested in how the Crowminius compares to a vintage MiniMoog D vs. a new MiniMoog D. I don't care if they sound exactly the same. I'm curious which sounds thicker, deeper, and better.
-
I am extremely interested in how the Crowminius compares to a vintage MiniMoog D vs. a new MiniMoog D. I don't care if they sound exactly the same. I'm curious which sounds thicker, deeper, and better.
In Moog's introduction video, Nick Montoya said that they studied a bunch of different Model Ds to develop the reissue's sound. I thought that was really interesting, that there's such wide variation in the "Minimoog sound" that they had to basically average them out. There will be a lot more consistency in new Minimoogs, due to modern manufacturing methods (even if Moog builds the instruments with 1970 techniques, the components will still be fabricated in modern factories).
The point being that a one-to-one comparison of an original against the reissue will be interesting but not terribly informative.
-
In Moog's introduction video, Nick Montoya said that they studied a bunch of different Model Ds to develop the reissue's sound. I thought that was really interesting, that there's such wide variation in the "Minimoog sound" that they had to basically average them out. There will be a lot more consistency in new Minimoogs, due to modern manufacturing methods (even if Moog builds the instruments with 1970 techniques, the components will still be fabricated in modern factories).
The point being that a one-to-one comparison of an original against the reissue will be interesting but not terribly informative.
Well again, for me personally, I don't care if a given synthesizer is an exact match with anything else. What matters most to me is which sounds the best... and again, by that I mean, which has the thickest, deepest, and widest sound when comparing a similar patch. Although it has been said by many that all MiniMoogs sound different, it is my understanding that there were basically three versions of the Model D. Some consider the earliest to be the best sounding but the least stable for tuning. The AJH modular attempt at recreating the MiniMoog sound in the MiniMod was an attempt to capture that earlier sound, so comparing it to the new MiniMoog D would be interesting.
These comparisons remind me of the comparisons people make with Hammonds. Many people say that each sounds different, because there are so many components working together, especially when the Leslie is added. So the attempts to recreate the sound fail, in part, because we are always trying to recreate our particular Hammond, and everyone's Hammond sounds different. But again, when comparing a similar setting and amount of drive, I think 9 out of 10 will say that certain clones sound "objectively" better than others. Subjective descriptions like warmth, fullness, and thickness all equal something that is cumulatively more "objective."
Regarding the Moog 15, I haven't seen the comparisons, but I would bet that it is objectively better sounding than the new MiniMoog D. It's like comparing Keith Emerson's Modular Moog with one of his MiniMoogs. One was clearly better sounding. (Emerson mostly used his MiniMoogs for bass sounds, not leads.) There was an old Keyboard Magazine article about his Modular in which his old tech Will Alexander called it "The World's Most Dangerous Synth" and talked about how it sounded like a blanket was being taken off of a MiniMoog. They each use basically the same things: 3 oscillators, etc... But he said the Modular sounds thicker, wider, deeper (fill in the term used to try to explain a sound...) Having heard it live a few times, I have to agree.
-
Following this discussion, the word "fickle" comes to mind. When those of us who belong to the purist analog-favoring traditional musician camp speak about our preferences in synthesizers, I think we're sometimes presumed to be fixated on a small number of instruments. As if we feel, "I've got to have a Minimoog Model D or I'll just go mad. I want those white wheels and the red and blue rocker switches. I must have the heavy wood frame and that little overload bulb. Oh yes, bring it all back!" Or, fill in some other vintage icon. We're not nearly so fickle or fixated. What we're after is quality character of tone, irrelevant of the instrument that offers it. Jason has rightly used the familiar words to describe this character: "thick," "deep", "warm," etc. Bulls-eye! That's all I'm after, and that's all that many of us are after. The quest is more musical than material; it's not to bring back the old days with the old instruments; it's not to re-live our younger days by having in our basements our old belongings. It's a quest for a musical virtue that is often undermined by modern standards. And there are many objective aspects to it that all but a few people can recognize.
So, as much as the title of this thread is "Minimoog Model D," regardless, there's something broader to the issue than merely one synthesizer. In a sense, the Minimoog is only a symbol. The broader issue is the type of synthesis that the Minimoog represents.
Personally, I don't care if I never play a Model D or a Moog anything for the rest of my life. I don't care if I never play an ARP Odyssey or a 2600. What I do care about is the musical character of a synthesizer, its sonic personality. I want much more than an impressive spec sheet. I want a musical instrument capable of charm and sweetness. The catch is, however, that many of us feel the older designs achieved this better than the newer ones, and that's where the misunderstandings begin. But it's ultimately not about the age or era of an instrument, but about its character.
-
Like S.S., I've definitely been wondering if Moog will release a module version of the MiniMoog.
I think it's safe to say that this is going to be highly unlikely. I don't see this happening for the Sub 37 either. I think that the Eurorack option will largely replace the module version of any synth in the long run, at least when it comes to monophonic synths. Thinking in those market segments is also part of the single instrument's concept. For example, I know from Moog directly that the Sub 37 has been conceptualized to be a player's synth in the first place, not a synth for tech or modular nerds, which is at least how they "philosophically" justify the lack of CV outs.
As for a Minimoog module: That could not only be regarded as being an unfaithful recreation, but also somehow absurd, since everything that used to characterize a Minimoog is that it's a self-contained unit in the first place. And that sort of self-containment includes the keyboard. It's part of what made it the iconic instrument that opened up the world of synthesis to people that are players in the first place.
-
Although it has been said by many that all MiniMoogs sound different, it is my understanding that there were basically three versions of the Model D. Some consider the earliest to be the best sounding but the least stable for tuning. The AJH modular attempt at recreating the MiniMoog sound in the MiniMod was an attempt to capture that earlier sound, so comparing it to the new MiniMoog D would be interesting.
With regard to the circuit design, they went with rev. 2 for the reissue.
-
Like S.S., I've definitely been wondering if Moog will release a module version of the MiniMoog.
I don't think this is at all likely. Moog isn't DSI. I made reference to using the Minimoog to MIDI control the pitch of a module, such as an Oberheim SEM Pro.
-
The catch is, however, that many of us feel the older designs achieved this better than the newer ones, and that's were the misunderstandings begin. But it's ultimately not about the age or era of the instrument, but about the character.
I agree that it gets problematic as soon as nostalgia comes into play. Yet, there are many young folks that haven't even been around the first time those iconic instruments were out (so they can't really be nostalgic in a strict sense, as they've never really experienced this past at first hand), who would still differ between the instruments in question and most current (or more feature heavy) synths in terms of sonic weight. It's the sort of "lifting the curtain" effect Jason was referring to with regard to the Minimoog vs the huge modular system. It's something intangible at some level: You just hit a key and know, "wow this sounds really deep and musical."
-
There's another aspect though, which involves the player or tinkerer (in case of designing a sound). And this relates pretty well to traditional instruments as well, like the guitar, the piano, the violin, etc. One part of the sound quality is inherent to the build quality and the components being used, the overall design of an instrument. The other important part is in the fingers for example. I mean you can buy a Relic Fender Custom Shop David Gilmour Signature Series Stratocaster for $5760.00, but it won't make you sound like David Gilmour unless your fingers shape the tone in the same way. The same is applicable to a synthesizer although its sonic character seems to be more fixated by everything that goes on inside of the unit at first sight. There's still the challenge of how to make an inherent musicality shine.
And I guess that a certain aspect of audiophile-ness plays a role too.
-
More in-depth infos about the assembly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAi4aEePdkM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAi4aEePdkM)
-
The interesting bit (the main 4 pcb boards) seems to be missing, they are the bits I would like to have seen in detail.
-
The interesting bit (the main 4 pcb boards) seems to be missing, they are the bits I would like to have seen in detail.
Then this one is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-sAAtxuDQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-sAAtxuDQ)
-
It certainly is!
Thanks for the link.
-
https://vimeo.com/174990993 (https://vimeo.com/174990993)
-
Thanks for finding that, Paul. By the way, I thought the audio quality of the Tascam DR-40 was excellent - nice and clean and crisp.
-
Sweetwater demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EthWhoIK43c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EthWhoIK43c)
-
And also, the Model D is now in full production:
https://www.moogmusic.com/news/minimoog-model-d-returns-production
-
And also, the Model D is now in full production:
https://www.moogmusic.com/news/minimoog-model-d-returns-production
aka "slow production"
-
Why do I feel like a little boy in a candy store every time I come across a new Minimoog video?
-
. o O ( slowfood )
-
Why do I feel like a little boy in a candy store every time I come across a new Minimoog video?
Not sure. The Minimoog history video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh4Ok0ex2vU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh4Ok0ex2vU)) comes across pretty lousy and awkward though.
-
Why do I feel like a little boy in a candy store every time I come across a new Minimoog video?
I know, right? I look at the budgeted bottom line of my eurorack system and think, "...Or I could have bought a Model D." In real life, I'll enjoy myself a lot more, I know that. But there's something about it.
-
The Minimoog Model D I had many moons ago looked like it had gotten in a fight with a chain saw, and lost. I think the thought of having a brand spanking new one is tantalizing. And yikes, it sure does have "that sound."
-
I know, right? I look at the budgeted bottom line of my eurorack system and think, "...Or I could have bought a Model D." In real life, I'll enjoy myself a lot more, I know that. But there's something about it.
Aha! So all these years you've been a closet Model D admirer, Chysn.
-
From the videos I've seen so far, I can't really hear any advantage over the Sub 37.
-
From the videos I've seen so far, I can't really hear any advantage over the Sub 37.
Fewer modulation options.... (?)
-
From the videos I've seen so far, I can't really hear any advantage over the Sub 37.
Fewer modulation options.... (?)
Nah, not on the Sub 37. I assume I have to check one out in person to be really able to tell the difference. They're supposed to get one at Corner Music, but I'm not sure where they are on the list.
-
From the videos I've seen so far, I can't really hear any advantage over the Sub 37.
Fewer modulation options.... (?)
Nah, not on the Sub 37. I assume I have to check one out in person to be really able to tell the difference. They're supposed to get one at Corner Music, but I'm not sure where they are on the list.
I meant the Model D will have fewer modulation options than the Sub 37... Right?
-
I meant the Model D will have fewer modulation options than the Sub 37... Right?
Yes, that's correct. With the exception of cross-modulation (FM) and the additional oscillator of course, the Minimoog offers way less modulation options. But I was also talking about the sound in general. It's not that I was blown away by the recent demos. It's rather like "a Moog is a Moog is a Moog is a Moog" to me. So I get that there are different shades of Moog, but a Minimoog would still have to convince me, which might only work when I check one out in person. So far, it sounds like most other current Moog offerings to me, minus PWM and oscillator sync. The only thing that seemed to me even more pronounced in the recent videos was the low frequency loss at high resonance settings.
-
Aha! So all these years you've been a closet Model D admirer, Chysn.
Closet Model D admirer? Sir, I'll refer you back to the very beginning of this thread. There's never been anything closet about it.
But, yeah, there's that whole aforementioned thing about its austere feature-to-megabuck ratio. I do covet its Velocity CV Out, but I'm still happy with the Little Phatty, and later this year I'll have a 904-A clone, at which point I will have achieved Peak Moog.
-
But, yeah, there's that whole aforementioned thing about its austere feature-to-megabuck ratio.
Ha! That made me laugh out loud!
Cheers!
-
austere feature-to-megabuck ratio
;D ;D ;D
-
Hey, sparse control panels are hard to find. You have to pay extra to get one. Moog is trying to simplify our lives. ;D
-
Hey, sparse control panels are hard to find. You have to pay extra to get one. Moog is trying to simplify our lives. ;D
I'll sell this one for 10 grand.
-
Wait, I'm confused. Pressing the switch to the right turns something on. But what on earth does pressing it to the left do? It doesn't say. Could I get a manual for this?
-
Hey, sparse control panels are hard to find. You have to pay extra to get one. Moog is trying to simplify our lives. ;D
I'll sell this one for 10 grand.
Remove the pitch and mod wheels and make it $20k....
-
Hey, sparse control panels are hard to find. You have to pay extra to get one. Moog is trying to simplify our lives. ;D
I'll sell this one for 10 grand.
Remove the pitch and mod wheels and make it $20k....
Damn, now you've spoiled the next step. ;)
-
Wait, I'm confused. Pressing the switch to the right turns something on. But what on earth does pressing it to the left do? It doesn't say. Could I get a manual for this?
ON = The perfect sound for your music.
Left Side = The sound of silence.
-
Same thing. :D
-
Hey, sparse control panels are hard to find. You have to pay extra to get one. Moog is trying to simplify our lives. ;D
I'll sell this one for 10 grand.
Remove the pitch and mod wheels and make it $20k....
Damn, now you've spoiled the next step. ;)
I'm an innovator!
-
Gordon Reid's review in Sound On Sound has been released today in the August issue (amongst an OB-6 review): http://www.soundonsound.com/magazine/2016-08 (http://www.soundonsound.com/magazine/2016-08)
Some quotes:
p r o s
• It looks like Minimoog...
• It sounds like a Minimoog...
• It IS a Minimoog...
• ...with extras!
c o n s
• Second‑hand Minimoogs just became
less valuable. (No, you’re right, that’s not a ‘con’.)
• The MIDI implementation is not as comprehensive as you might wish.
• Don’t lose the PSU — it’s not a common AC/DC converter.
s u m m a r y
It’s a Minimoog... a Minimoog with extras. Don’t be a numpty and claim that you tried one and it sounds nothing like the real thing. You might think you’ll sound knowledgeable, but you won’t, and you’ll be wrong. It’s a Minimoog with extras. What’s not to love?
There will be the doubters, of course. There will also be those who, for whatever reason, think that it sounds clever to say that they ‘played a real Minimoog in a shop once, and the new one sounds nothing like it’. Ignore them, and remember the ducks. If it looks like a Minimoog, plays like a Minimoog and sounds like a Minimoog, it’s a Minimoog. Call me a Philistine if you wish but, were I given the choice between the new Minimoog with all of its extra facilities or a heavily used and potentially unreliable vintage instrument at the current hyper‑inflated prices, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in choosing the former.
-
As far as I'm concerned, the Model D is the most interesting thing Moog has produced for a good while. I had a Voyager Old School and was terribly disappointed with its sound, especially the sawtooth. The overall tuning continued to drift even after an hour warm-up. In only about a year, the octave switches needed to be tuned. And the modulation was just a pain, so that I had to buy a CP-251.
The Sub 37 has an excellent architecture and sound, but the keyboard is rather cheap and too short, and two oscillators are the bare minimum.
The Mother-32 has a nice classic sound and is fine for certain purposes, but its architecture is extremely limited. It could make a decent addition to another instrument.
That's my view of Moog's products. I'd like to get excited over them, but no. The Minimoog re-issue, in spite of its many limitations, strikes me as being by far the most musically satisfying product in the Moog line up. Having once owned a Model D, I know firsthand that you do feel as if you've got an immensely powerful instrument in your hands.
-
As far as I'm concerned, the Model D is the most interesting thing Moog has produced for a good while. I had a Voyager Old School and was terribly disappointed with its sound, especially the sawtooth. The overall tuning continued to drift even after an hour warm-up. In only about a year, the octave switches needed to be tuned. And the modulation was just a pain, so that I had to buy a CP-251.
The Sub 37 has an excellent architecture and sound, but the keyboard is rather cheap and too short, and two oscillators are the bare minimum.
The Mother-32 has a nice classic sound and is fine for certain purposes, but its architecture is extremely limited. It could make a decent addition to another instrument.
That's my view of Moog's products. I'd like to get excited over them, but no. The Minimoog re-issue, in spite of its many limitations, strikes me as being by far the most musically satisfying product in the Moog line up. Having once owned a Model D, I know firsthand that you do feel as if you've got an immensely powerful instrument in your hands.
So when are you going to get one and how many? ;D
-
If it weren't for the recent demise of my car - the one assaulted by a deer that didn't look both ways before crossing - then I might be able to give an affirmative answer! >:(
But seriously, I don't think I could sink $3,500 into one monophonic instrument. If the Minimoog was $2,000, then I might save up for it, but the current price puts it out of my league. I'm best off sticking with full-featured full-sized polyphonics.
-
I think this instrument has so much character. Even in a YouTube video, you can hear it. It has what I found was lacking in the Voyager Old School. The Model D sounds so good to my ears, it makes me hungry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W698RWbEtcg
-
I think this instrument has so much character. Even in a YouTube video, you can hear it. It has what I found was lacking in the Voyager Old School. The Model D sounds so good to my ears, it makes me hungry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W698RWbEtcg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W698RWbEtcg)
No Doubt!
-
So yesterday I had the chance to finally check out the Model D. The short version is that I stand corrected.
The sound per se wasn’t a huge enlightenment to me, as it's too well-known to offer any surprise - at least in my case. But since a Sub 37 was placed right next to it, I took the time to compare the pure oscillator tone of both. The Minimoog’s oscillators have far more bottom end, overtones, and overall weight and I also recognized that the filter seems to open up more than it does on the Sub 37. At times one can get the Sub 37 to sound closer to the Minimoog if one turns the filter drive up, which of course doesn’t work equally well in all registers and adds more than just harmonics. I found that interesting nevertheless.
So what can I say? By comparison, the Sub 37 sounded pretty lifeless and as if someone put a thick blanket over it. This doesn't make me hate my Sub 37, but there is a very obvious difference in tone. Yet, the absence of sync and PWM remain a bummer.
And although it was pretty clear quite quickly that the Model D's tone has indeed that impressive authority to it, I wasn’t as blown away by the overall sound as I was when I checked out the TVS Pro for the first time. So in that sense, I could at least come to the personal conclusion that I would always put Oberheim ahead of Moog in the analog mono synth charts.
-
A humble admission, Paul. One either loves or hates the Model D, for all that it can or cannot do. But there's little doubt where your preference lies. Keep your Pro 2 and Prophet 6, but sell your Sub 37 and put the money towards either a Two-Voice Pro or the forthcoming Oberheim module. It seems so clear that it's the Oberheim sound that grabs you.
-
put the money towards either a Two-Voice Pro or the forthcoming Oberheim module. It seems so clear that it's the Oberheim sound that grabs you.
Which module are you referring to? DSI OB-6? (now cross-listed on the Tom Oberheim site as well, BTW)
Or something else (e.g., the Eurorack SEM Plus, or....)?
-
put the money towards either a Two-Voice Pro or the forthcoming Oberheim module. It seems so clear that it's the Oberheim sound that grabs you.
Which module are you referring to? DSI OB-6? (now cross-listed on the Tom Oberheim site as well, BTW)
Or something else (e.g., the Eurorack SEM Plus, or....)?
The latter. I'm sure you've seen Tom's glimpses of it at NAMM. I think it's very impressive, too, and I especially like that he's added four-stage envelopes. It seems like a good choice if one doesn't want to pay the full price of the Two-Voice Pro. Just combine two Eurorack SEMs, and you've got one superb stereo mono synth.
-
A humble admission, Paul. One either loves or hates the Model D, for all that it can or cannot do. But there's little doubt where your preference lies. Keep your Pro 2 and Prophet 6, but sell your Sub 37 and put the money towards either a Two-Voice Pro or the forthcoming Oberheim module. It seems so clear that it's the Oberheim sound that grabs you.
I should make clear, though, that I didn't hate the Model D sound - neither on its own nor by comparison to the TVS Pro. It's just like "yeah, it sounds like a Minimoog" for me, and that's that. Don't get me wrong, the oscillators sound absolutely nice and musical, and despite the absence of hard sync and PWM, it's a really nice instrument.
What shapes my personal impression, though, is that the sound of the Model D appears to be more worn than almost anything else I can think of in the monosynth realm. If it was 1970 that would be different of course. So, it's mostly the kind of over-representation of the Model D that makes it sound more redundant to me than let's say a less prominently featured instrument like the TVS. It's like with songs that have been over-played.
-
Yeah, I understand. It's not that you hate the Minimoog, it's just that you're definitely tired of it. Too much of a good thing, perhaps.
Of course, the Oberheim sound has been around nearly as long, and for those of us who listened way back to groups that prominently used Oberheims (Styx, etc.), there's a bit of the same sonic redundancy, only on the other side. Personally, I'd be happy with either instrument, since the sort of music I make is disassociated from such groups, and the lines I play will never resemble their lines. I do think that's an issue. My point is, if one pursues a different type of music than these instruments were most often used for, I think one can still breath new life into them. And this applies even to Carlos' work, since it used Moog modulars in a still fairly progressive manner, at least regarding the choices of sounds. That's what I disliked about the "Switched-On Bach" stuff - the sounds. I must have listened to those recordings a hundred times, even though I didn't like the sounds used!
If one is going to play progressive rock on a Minimoog or an Oberheim, then I'd say he or she will fall into a rut and have a difficult time sounding original. But I suppose these instruments will be very popular among the cover bands who actually are striving to sound other than original.
So, where do you stand regarding Oberheim synthesizers, Paul? Have you decided on an instrument or a module yet?
-
Yeah, I understand. It's not that you hate the Minimoog, it's just that you're definitely tired of it. Too much of a good thing, perhaps.
Rather that, yes. But also not really tired because the sound is great, no question. Just less of a wow-factor for me personally.
Of course, the Oberheim sound has been around nearly as long, and for those of us who listened way back to groups that prominently used Oberheims (Styx, etc.), there's a bit of the same, only on the other side. Personally, I'd be happy with either instrument, since the sort of music I make is disassociated from such groups, and the lines I play will never resemble their lines. I do think that's an issue. My point is, if one pursues a different type of music than these instruments were most often used for, I think one can still breath new life into them. And this applies even to Carlos' work, since it used Moog modulars in a still fairly progressive manner, at least regarding the choices of sounds. That's what I disliked about the "Switched-On Bach" stuff - the sounds. I must have listened to those recordings a hundred times, even though I didn't like the sounds used!
Yeah, that describes my problem pretty well: Basically, that it would be much more of a challange for me to get different things out of the Minimoog than those I'm so used to.
So, where do you stand regarding Oberheim synthesizers? Have you decided on an instrument or module yet?
As of now, synths are not my main concern. I'm about to fly back to Germany tomorrow while all of my stuff is being shipped across the Atlantic. Then I'm going to defend my dissertation in Berlin this fall, then comes more job seeking, and after having been successful, it might be practical to think about next synths again. ;)
-
You mean there's more to life than Moogs and Oberheims? I couldn't agree more. I hope things work out well for you.
-
You mean there's more to life than Moogs and Oberheims? I couldn't agree more. I hope things work out well for you.
Haha, yes! And thanks for your wishes!
To answer your original question more precisely though, I'd rather go with a TVS Pro, as I quite like it as a whole package. Nevertheless, at about 4,000 Euros it's quite expensive in Europe.
-
What is the dissertation about Paul?
-
What is the dissertation about Paul?
You really wanna know? ;D
The English title is going to be "Land Surveys: Rolf Dieter Brinkmann's and Einar Schleef's Mise en Place on the Stage of the 20th Century." Rolf Dieter Brinkmann and Einar Schleef are two German authors - one from the West, the other one from the East. Brinkmann was amongst the first, who translated American beat literature into German, he made text collages, wrote poems, novels, and also did audio-visual collages. Schleef was a painter, stage designer, director, writer, and photographer. What both have in common is a unique approach in dealing with questions related to places - questions that literally haunt their works.
How is that specifically related to land surveying? - Well, in the German tradition (I'm talking about early narratives, i.e. the aural history of sages), the land surveyor is a character that always appears as a ghost. It used to be a person that measured wrongly in his lifetime - either on purpose or by accident - and subsequently ends up being cursed to reappear as a ghost that will have to return to the landmark he put into the wrong place as long as a living being puts it into the right place. So this fellow - the haunting and haunted land surveyor - is kind of the mascot of my dissertation.
On a wider scale, my dissertation is a modular writing project about why measuring (in the widest conceptual sense, but also in the sense of land surveying) makes uncanny (in the Freudian sense of not-at-homeness) and how the question of dwelling is related to hauntology (yes, again spooky things). The inquiry arises from the question of how the works of the above-mentioned artists can be read as mutations of the perception of those spatial shifts that occured over the course of the 20th century, which in turn have been affected by the first total mobilization (the introduction of the Man Machine in WW I) and the birth of Fordism (both coincidently happens in 1914), up until the total dissolution of boundaries that arose due to late capitalism and never ending wars (the main assumption here is that space is always already produced and that the war of 1914 basically never ended until today with regard to the phenotypes it introduced). So the theoretical background is quite wide and covers History, Sociology, Philosophy, and Economy to name a few POVs. Hence it's going to be a big book.
-
And that's the short version!
-
And that's the short version!
Well, I can also share the abstract that I submitted for grants in the past. The whole thing will be mainly in German though, which made most sense, as the works of the two artists haven't been translated to a larger degree. But I'll be happy to share the roughly 500 pages with you in case you wanna pimp your knowledge of German. ;)
-
In German? Umm, I don't think so. I only know a handful of German words - all religious. But you could always send it to me in Ecclesiastical Latin. Then I could give you my version of it, chanted to a Psalm Tone. Who knows - we might have a hit!
-
In German? Umm, I don't think so. I only know a handful of German words - all religious. But you could always send it to me in Ecclesiastical Latin. Then I could give you my version of it, chanted to a Psalm Tone. Who knows - we might have a hit!
Word! ;)
-
What is the dissertation about Paul?
You really wanna know? ;D
The English title is going to be "Land Surveys: Rolf Dieter Brinkmann's and Einar Schleef's Mise en Place on the Stage of the 20th Century." Rolf Dieter Brinkmann and Einar Schleef are two German authors - one from the West, the other one from the East. Brinkmann was amongst the first, who translated American beat literature into German, he made text collages, wrote poems, novels, and also did audio-visual collages. Schleef was a painter, stage designer, director, writer, and photographer. What both have in common is a unique approach in dealing with questions related to places - questions that literally haunt their works.
How is that specifically related to land surveying? - Well, in the German tradition (I'm talking about early narratives, i.e. the aural history of sages), the land surveyor is a character that always appears as a ghost. It used to be a person that measured wrongly in his lifetime - either on purpose or by accident - and subsequently ends up being cursed to reappear as a ghost that will have to return to the landmark he put into the wrong place as long as a living being puts it into the right place. So this fellow - the haunting and haunted land surveyor - is kind of the mascot of my dissertation.
On a wider scale, my dissertation is a modular writing project about why measuring (in the widest conceptual sense, but also in the sense of land surveying) makes uncanny (in the Freudian sense of not-at-homeness) and how the question of dwelling is related to hauntology (yes, again spooky things). The inquiry arises from the question of how the works of the above-mentioned artists can be read as mutations of the perception of those spatial shifts that occured over the course of the 20th century, which in turn have been affected by the first total mobilization (the introduction of the Man Machine in WW I) and the birth of Fordism (both coincidently happens in 1914), up until the total dissolution of boundaries that arose due to late capitalism and never ending wars (the main assumption here is that space is always already produced and that the war of 1914 basically never ended until today with regard to the phenotypes it introduced). So the theoretical background is quite wide and covers History, Sociology, Philosophy, and Economy to name a few POVs. Hence it's going to be a big book.
I had to read that a couple of times!
It sounds very interesting, how long have you been working on it?
-
Sounds like a Sein und Raum exercise!
-
https://youtu.be/sS0zii8yUKo
-
It sounds very interesting, how long have you been working on it?
Technically, the last five years. But the personal reasons to work about this go back much further.
-
Sounds like a Sein und Raum exercise!
Yay and nay. I'm certainly talking about ontological consequences, but I'm not so much interested in the concept of "space," which is basically only the outcome of metaphysics and idealism. I'm only interested in place and concrete sites. Spatiality is only interesting to me in a rather materialistic and phenomenological sense, not as an abstract or mathematical category, which is too limiting. After all, the whole project is more or less going to be about displacement, and how we are always already displaced, or that every territory is always already a product of a re- and deterritorialization, meaning that there's neither an origin nor any innocent place, and always an unavoidable accident involved in measuring.
-
how we are always already displaced, or that every territory is always already a product of a re- and deterritorialization, meaning that there's neither an origin nor any innocent place, and always an unavoidable accident involved in measuring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efmti4Hya4k&t=1m12s
-
New video for players: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY)
-
New video for players: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY)
From the same author:
If you were on the fence about buying one of these because you hadn't heard any actual musical sounds being created on it, maybe this will help!
-
New video for players: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY)
From the same author:
If you were on the fence about buying one of these because you hadn't heard any actual musical sounds being created on it, maybe this will help!
I guess the only thing people are on the fence about is the price. After all, many synth enthusiasts ususally have a pretty good idea about what the Minimoog sounds like.
-
New video for players: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfq1C76OXY)
I'd rather have his talent than his Minimoog!
-
I'd much rather have his Minimoog!
-
I'd much rather have his Minimoog!
I saw that coming. ;)
-
I'd much rather have his Minimoog!
I saw that coming. ;)
Alas, it's difficult being so predictable.
-
Anyone care to share their thoughts on a comparison between the Model D and an Oberheim Two Voice? As always, curious to hear your thoughts.
.... should I start a new thread for this?
-
Anyone care to share their thoughts on a comparison between the Model D and an Oberheim Two Voice? As always, curious to hear your thoughts.
.... should I start a new thread for this?
I didn't compare them side by side, which would be pointless anyway. Personally, the TVS Pro blew me away a bit more. But I also give the fact credit that this is simply because it is or has been less ubiquitous.
I compared the Model D to the Sub 37 though and it was immediately clear that the Minimoog's sound is just so much richer in many regards. That doesn't make the Sub 37 a bad synth. It's just that you recognize immediately that the Model D is in a completely different league - not feature-wise, but sonically. And I'd say that the TVS Pro is in that league as well.
So, if someone has the cash for the ultimate classic mono (duo) synth couple, it's imperative to get both.
They are perfect complementary synths, so the decision for just one of them is simply dependent on what characteristics you prefer. You can't use one as a supplement for the other.
-
I compared the Model D to the Sub 37 though and it was immediately clear that the Minimoog's sound is just so much richer in many regards. That doesn't make the Sub 37 a bad synth. It's just that you recognize immediately that the Model D is in a completely different league - not feature-wise, but sonically. And I'd say that the TVS Pro is in that league as well.
What other monos do you think are in that league or close to it, but maybe closer to the $2k price on the used market?
-
I compared the Model D to the Sub 37 though and it was immediately clear that the Minimoog's sound is just so much richer in many regards. That doesn't make the Sub 37 a bad synth. It's just that you recognize immediately that the Model D is in a completely different league - not feature-wise, but sonically. And I'd say that the TVS Pro is in that league as well.
What other monos do you think are in that league or close to it, but maybe closer to the $2k price on the used market?
One could probably put together a two-SEM unit with an inexpensive MIDI keyboard controller for around $2K new, if sourced wisely: buy two MIDI-to-CV units for less than $1K each, set one for high-note and one for low-note priority, connecting MIDI THRU on the first unit to MIDI IN on the second. Done!
-
What other monos do you think are in that league or close to it, but maybe closer to the $2k price on the used market?
Apart from the alternative mentioned by DavidDever, I'd say: none.
The Dreadbox Murmux V2 is the only contender that I can think of in the price range you have in mind, but it was only limited to 50 units so that's that.
-
Is there a Eurorack module that could serve to add an arpeggiator to the Oberheim TVP?
Thanks,
-
Is there a Eurorack module that could serve to add an arpeggiator to the Oberheim TVP?
As you might imagine, there are lots of ways to go about it, depending on your needs.
(1) You could buy a dedicated arpeggiator module. Blue Lantern makes an inexpensive one, and there's an arpeggiator built into Pittsburgh Modular's current MIDI interface. Or you could spend a lot for a Flame Arpeggiator, but they're hard to get in the U.S.
(2) Or you could take a more modular approach and combine an LFO and attenuator with a good quantizer, like the Intellijel µScale II, which lets you make custom scales.
(3) Or you could get a sequencer with a built-in quantizer (see the Qu-Bit Octone, which I used to have and can vouch for its awesomeness), dial up arpeggios, and use a unity mixer to transpose the pattern.
(4) Or you could combine a non-quantized sequencer with a separate quantizer. René would be a great choice here, but there are zillions of less expensive choices. This is similar to (2), but allows you to get by with a cheaper quantizer. As with (3), you can transpose with a unity mixer.
(5) MiniBrute!
-
https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue- (https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue-)
So who's getting one?
I got a Minimoog Model D about a month ago. It sounds fantastic, and really sounds great alongside my beloved prophet 6 and OB6. My daughter loves it too (see the pic I attached - all three synths are in it).
-
I compared the Model D to the Sub 37 though and it was immediately clear that the Minimoog's sound is just so much richer in many regards. That doesn't make the Sub 37 a bad synth. It's just that you recognize immediately that the Model D is in a completely different league - not feature-wise, but sonically. And I'd say that the TVS Pro is in that league as well.
What other monos do you think are in that league or close to it, but maybe closer to the $2k price on the used market?
The only other worthy synthesizer I can think of is the MFB Dominion 1. Unfortunately, it's not available in the US.
-
The only other worthy synthesizer I can think of is the MFB Dominion 1. Unfortunately, it's not available in the US.
There are no official retailers, yes. But it can be ordered directly from MFB. One just has to get in touch with them: m.f.b@t-online.de
-
Hey, sparse control panels are hard to find. You have to pay extra to get one. Moog is trying to simplify our lives. ;D
This is soooo true! And it's surprising how much variety you can get with just a few parameters. That's a huge plus with the Minimoog, and also with the Prophet 6 and OB6. However, I am also a fan of complicated digital software synths...I frequently use Bazille, Crusher-x and other digital 'monsters'. But I tend to get started on pieces with analog outboard stuff and find inspiration by tweaking knobs on uncluttered interfaces...
-
My daughter loves it too (see the pic I attached - all three synths are in it).
;) . o O ( cute )
-
My daughter loves it too (see the pic I attached - all three synths are in it).
;) . o O ( cute )
Thank you!
-
https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue- (https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue-)
So who's getting one?
I got a Minimoog Model D about a month ago. It sounds fantastic, and really sounds great alongside my beloved prophet 6 and OB6. My daughter loves it too (see the pic I attached - all three synths are in it).
Teaching them early is always a good thing! ;)
-
https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue- (https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue-)
So who's getting one?
I got a Minimoog Model D about a month ago. It sounds fantastic, and really sounds great alongside my beloved prophet 6 and OB6. My daughter loves it too (see the pic I attached - all three synths are in it).
Teaching them early is always a good thing! ;)
Indeed! I try to take my little ones to my studio as often as I can...they love it. The Moog and DSI synths are great because they can twist the knobs and hear the changes immediately.
-
https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue- (https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue-)
So who's getting one?
I got a Minimoog Model D about a month ago. It sounds fantastic, and really sounds great alongside my beloved prophet 6 and OB6. My daughter loves it too (see the pic I attached - all three synths are in it).
Teaching them early is always a good thing! ;)
Just make sure she does her scales and arpeggios and lots of music theory.
-
https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue- (https://ask.audio/articles/moog-music-about-to-announce-minimoog-model-d-reissue-)
So who's getting one?
I got a Minimoog Model D about a month ago. It sounds fantastic, and really sounds great alongside my beloved prophet 6 and OB6. My daughter loves it too (see the pic I attached - all three synths are in it).
Teaching them early is always a good thing! ;)
Just make sure she does her scales and arpeggios and lots of music theory.
For sure!
-
The Minimoog Model D is now in stock at the Tel Aviv dealer, and I got one. Here are my observations so far (in random order).
I tried using VST versions of the Minimoog with all kind of different MIDI controllers but failed to get the workflow right. There is something magical about these super solid switches and knobs.
The instrument encourages to play solo lines and play around with pitch and mod wheels. Yes of course that is what you do on a monophonic synth, but there is something more. The feel of the keyboard, don't know.
The naked Moog oscillators and filters have a lot more "grit" than the DSI ones (Obviously a full DSI patch sounds great). It is really a synth with a radically different character to my P6 (part of the reason I got it). It is very easy to make patches for outrageous bass lines, but my real interest is in creating the less obvious lead sounds.
Spoiled by digital effects, the synth can sound a bit "dry" on its own, so I often find myself cheating and adding a bit of my Eventide H9 reverb or delay or chorus to the signal in the same way that I use P6 effects to round off patches
Somehow, the Moog does not sound that great on headphones. Running the synth through a basic HiFi amp, and then in headphones gives a much better, warmer sound.
The added features are great: running MIDI patterns through it, after touch, velocity sensitivity, LFO.
This is not your synth #1, anyone reading this forum and wondering what their first entry into analogy synthesis should be should go for a polyphonic instrument with proper presets etc. etc.
But as synth #2, a great instrument, it plays well, and looks beautiful in a boxy way.
-
Congratulations, Jan! And a very well-put overview.
I agree on the raw sound of the oscillators. Retrospectively, it's a bit of a joke that Moog called their Sub Phatty/Sub 37 the most gritty instruments in their line-up. The Minimoog laughs about that grittiness.
-
Spoiled by digital effects, the synth can sound a bit "dry" on its own, so I often find myself cheating and adding a bit of my Eventide H9 reverb or delay or chorus to the signal in the same way that I use P6 effects to round off patches
Congratulations on the new Minimoog. I found your observation to be the case with the Voyager as well. It was difficult to make it blend into a mix. I don't know if this is simply a characteristic of every old school analog instrument. I found the Dave Smith instruments to blend in very easily and very well. That's one reason I so enjoy working with them. But my Voyager Old School would stick out like a sore thumb.
-
My Japanese hero sets the bar for where I should take this thing to:
#1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsHN3NTyk0
#2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5d0O8Sr_Vw
-
My Japanese hero sets the bar for where I should take this thing to:
#1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsHN3NTyk0
#2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5d0O8Sr_Vw
He always does my favourite Synth demos on the whole of the net. Very tasteful player too.
-
While I would never pay that much for a Monosynth with practically no features or memory I do appreciate Moog bringing it back. I just wish they could just try something a bit different...perhaps more polyphony? perhaps a mini modular system which buyers can customize (much like Synthesizers.com).
I dunno my Sub 37 is more than enough Moog for me...especially in the Mono/Duophonic department...I would just like to see a bit more variety from Moog is all.
-
I love my reissue. I think it plays well with the P6. I've heard some folks complain that it can take over a mix. I only find that it seems to find its place on its own with very little help required. ;D
It just kind of steps out and says "Hi, I'm a minimoog" and leaves you with goosebumps!
https://soundcloud.com/prophet08/clouds-of-earth
-
I love my reissue. I think it plays well with the P6. I've heard some folks complain that it can take over a mix. I only find that it seems to find its place on its own with very little help required. ;D
It just kind of steps out and says "Hi, I'm a minimoog" and leaves you with goosebumps!
https://soundcloud.com/prophet08/clouds-of-earth
Nice one! I would be quite curious to check out the interplay between a Minimoog and a Prophet-6 too. How much do you have to restrict the Minimoog when it plays with others?
-
Oh, and here's one more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWb6nRx6cU
-
Oh, and here's one more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWb6nRx6cU
With some help of an Eventide box :-)
-
If I didn't already own a voyager and little phatty I would definitely get one!
My next Moog purchase will be Taurus.
-
I compared the Model D to the Sub 37 though and it was immediately clear that the Minimoog's sound is just so much richer in many regards. That doesn't make the Sub 37 a bad synth. It's just that you recognize immediately that the Model D is in a completely different league - not feature-wise, but sonically. And I'd say that the TVS Pro is in that league as well.
What other monos do you think are in that league or close to it, but maybe closer to the $2k price on the used market?
One could probably put together a two-SEM unit with an inexpensive MIDI keyboard controller for around $2K new, if sourced wisely: buy two MIDI-to-CV units for less than $1K each, set one for high-note and one for low-note priority, connecting MIDI THRU on the first unit to MIDI IN on the second. Done!
I'm assuming this would be for a TVS Pro clone? What about for a Model D equivalent for under $2k?
-
I'm assuming this would be for a TVS Pro clone? What about for a Model D equivalent for under $2k?
The Model D (and its reissue) just doesn't get me excited, no matter how good it sounds doing the things it does best. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't play one, or that I couldn't coax something decent out of it, but it just doesn't speak to me in the same way as an SEM.
-
I played one today at Just Music. Of course I loved it - it's been a few years since I've been around a Minimoog, and the reissue is the real deal. But I'm *happy* to report I didn't find myself selling any spare kidneys to buy one. An epic sounding machine, as we all know, but maybe I'm in the midst of some bizarre "Perhaps I have enough synths for now" moment. Still, I'm grateful this thing has been reissued.
-
This was a rather short affair: https://www.moogmusic.com/news/final-countdown-minimoog-model-d-production-ending
-
This was a rather short affair: https://www.moogmusic.com/news/final-countdown-minimoog-model-d-production-ending (https://www.moogmusic.com/news/final-countdown-minimoog-model-d-production-ending)
Huh? Ending? They just got started!
-
This was a rather short affair: https://www.moogmusic.com/news/final-countdown-minimoog-model-d-production-ending (https://www.moogmusic.com/news/final-countdown-minimoog-model-d-production-ending)
Huh? Ending? They just got started!
Apparently they ran out of parts. They've scratched that itch, though. Nobody can ever again say that Moog didn't or can't make the Model D, because they did. 2010 me is genuinely surprised that 2016 me didn't buy one, but such are the twists and turns of life and desires.
-
2010 me is genuinely surprised that 2016 me didn't buy one...
I can certainly relate to that!
-
That's really annoying. Excessively limited production runs are good only for those with plenty of disposable income, and they only torment those of us who have to plan long-term before buying an expensive instrument. I was disposed to buy a Model D in the future, but certainly not right now. Very disappointing.
Doesn't this beg the old question? No Voyager, no XL, no Model D? This opens up a huge gap in the Moog line. What will be the main full-sized Moog synthesizer - a modular?!
-
One thing I have learned over time is that its seldom that these short term offers are really so attractive in the future. Usually something new and better shows up within a few years or even sooner than that. Model D is pretty cool. I do get that. A very nice machine. But to me it sounds like Moog are up to something new one of these next trade shows. So I would not worry all that much. Moog have quite likely learned a lot from their recent rebuilds that their engineering department are busy exploring. When they are ready they will tell us.
-
I was disposed to buy a Model D in the future, but certainly not right now.
You should have plenty of time to get a new one before the run is completely finished. You might have to do it a little faster than you planned, but new ones will be around for a while.
-
Moog needs a good idea. They seem to be stumbling around in the dark with a bit of this and a bit of that. They need a great big new idea.
I thought the Voyager was an instrument with a lot of potential. A Voyager Mk II would be a natural step to take now. Add an LFO or two and get rid of the touch pad, which would free up space for five or six new parameters/features. The Minimoog size is just so fitting for standard monophonic playing that it seems absurd not to have a instrument of that size and configuration.
-
I was disposed to buy a Model D in the future, but certainly not right now.
You should have plenty of time to get a new one before the run is completely finished. You might have to do it a little faster than you planned, but new ones will be around for a while.
Thanks for the encouragement. I'm determined to reconfigure my set up one of these days, if only the right instrument or two would appear. I'm sure at least one Rev2 will be included, but I've still got my eye out for that perfect mono synth and its building blocks.
-
Moog actually have a very wide range of products by now. There are lots of hardware synths in the lower and mid proce range including the Minitaur, the Sub Phatty, the Sub 37 that will be followed by the Subsequent 37 now, the Mother-32, which also covers Eurorack ground and might be followed by more in that direction. Then there's the Moogerfooger and the Minifooger series the latter of which are also attracting guitarists. There are the whole super expensive modular systems on the opposite end for those who can afford it. And there are apps like the Animoog and the Model 15, which have been state-of-the-art apps in terms of the utilized technology and thanks to the involvement of Geert Bevin. That covers quite a diverse audience with buyers from all over the place.
With the discontinuation of both the Voyager (XL) and the Minimoog, they do lack something in that line though. So there's indeed place for something new in that high end mono synth category.
I feel a bit sad too, as I certainly would have preferred the option to pick up a Model D in a year or two. I expected it to be produced for at least 3-5 years. They were selling really well though (as well as hot cakes sell in this price category). So I don't think the discontinuation has anything to do with Behringer or Roland.
-
Moog actually have a very wide range of products by now. There are lots of hardware synths in the lower and mid proce range including the Minitaur, the Sub Phatty, the Sub 37 that will be followed by the Subsequent 37 now, the Mother-32, which also covers Eurorack ground and might be followed by more in that direction. Then there's the Moogerfooger and the Minifooger series the latter of which are also attracting guitarists. There are the whole super expensive modular systems on the opposite end for those who can afford it. And there are apps like the Animoog and the Model 15, which have been state-of-the-art apps in terms of the utilized technology and thanks to the involvement of Geert Bevin. That covers quite a diverse audience with buyers from all over the place.
That's my point. From the little Sub/Subsequent 37 up to the giant modular is a gigantic leap. There's plenty on the lowest rung, a bit on the highest rung, and nothing in between. This may amount to a wide range of products, but it lacks a reasonably-priced professional-sized instrument; i.e. a Minimoog. This is the very range that I'm looking for in a mono synth.
-
They were selling really well though (as well as hot cakes sell in this price category). So I don't think the discontinuation has anything to do with Behringer or Roland.
I wonder if the Matrixbrute had anything to do with it.
-
I think no competitor's product had a particular influence. Everybody who always wanted a Minimoog had the chance to get one, and that's what happened - pretty successfully, as the Minimoog was high in the charts of retailers like Sweetwater or Thomann. It was a bestseller regardless of its price.
It's simply not the synth you buy by comparison with other products. It's a proven instrument in and by itself; features become secondary from that POV. That's why neither a Behringer clone nor a Roland clone of an "inspired by…" instrument could seriously do any harm to the Minimoog. Even if the latter two sounded identical, which they don't, they would still miss all the other aspects that make the Minimoog a complete instrument. After all, no-one bought the Minimoog for its sound engine alone - neither in the 1970s nor now. The MatrixBrute is just another different instrument that looks, sounds, and feels different altogether. It's rather like the all-analog cousin of the Pro 2, but not really closely related to the Minimoog.
-
The MatrixBrute is just another different instrument that looks, sounds, and feels different altogether. It's rather like the all-analog cousin of the Pro 2, but not really closely related to the Minimoog.
Although the appearances are somewhat deceiving in this case, I'd say you're otherwise right about that. The Matrixbrute has a completely different sound from the Model D, and not in a good way, in my opinion. But it's impossible to see the one and not think of the other.
After many years, I've still got a soft spot for that old Moog.
-
It's interesting to look back at the beginning of this thread. It seems that we were mostly skeptical based on features and price and the unfavorable ratio thereof. For me, lack of PWM was a "deal breaker," and a year later, I've spent pretty-much-exactly Model D money on a system without PWM and I've never missed it. And that damn guy who owed me money a year ago still hasn't paid me.
-
It's true, the lack of PWM on the Model D could be a deal-breaker. But if you've got other synthesizers that have PWM, it's not such a problem. Plus, the minor improvements made to this rendition of the Minimoog - especially the second LFO - made it even better than the original, which is saying a lot. It was a very attractive instrument.
These disappointments repeatedly make me wish DSI would solve the problem once and for all by creating an all-new VCO mono synth (And don't tell me it's unrealistic for this reason and that reason; I'm dreaming, okay?). No, not a Toraiz with a keyboard, nor a Prophet 6 in mono mode, but a new design, unrelated to the other DSI pieces, but still with classic DSI architecture and warm chunky voltage controlled oscillators. THE big mono synth of mono synths to clean the clocks of all others.
Otherwise, I vote for the Rev2 as the mono synth of the year. ;D
-
It's interesting to look back at the beginning of this thread. It seems that we were mostly skeptical based on features and price and the unfavorable ratio thereof…
I can relate to that. It simply took a hands-on experience with the new Minimoog to have my intial reservations totally annihilated. Feature-wise, it is a simple synth, yes. It's not exciting in terms of its mod matrix and all that. By now, it's even one of the most conservative (I use this term neutrally) synth designs out there, as it served as the blueprint for all hardwired synths that follow the scheme of subtractive synthesis.
But what was striking for me is that although everyone knows its sound and although certain cliché sounds have been played to death, it is still inviting because the core sound is so good that one can get lost in playing around with it immediately. In that sense it feels like any other classic instrument, like a piano, a guitar, a violin, drums, or even a tuba, which are still being played albeit they sound as they do.
And then there are all the factors which are often not considered, especially in the Behringer or Roland discussions. The Minimoog is not only its iconic sound. It's that and the spacious front panel, the chassis, 44 keys, mod and pitch wheels, and the fact that you can set up the panel at almost any angle you like. From today's perspective, it's a really massive synth in terms of physical proportions. But that's exactly what makes it a Minimoog too.
And finally there's the whole build quality aspect. Like one synth cave inhabitor said to me at Superbooth: "It just looks and feels like it's been build and assembled by people who really enjoy what they're doing."
-
The parts problem stems from the fact (I think) that Moog decided to create and exact 1-for-1 replica of the original, there must be one part somewhere that is a bottle neck and kills off the entire production run (like the bucket delay chips for the MF104.
I own a Minimoog re-issue and I am extremely happy with it. Simple lay out, fantastic build quality, and beautiful sound. Oscillators and filters sound just very pure and direct (better than DSI, sorry). But it is priced as a collector's item. Well worth it, and likely to increase in value over time. But if your budget is tight, this is not the best musical return per $.
-
But what was striking for me is that although everyone knows its sound and although certain cliché sounds have been played to death, it is still inviting because the core sound is so good that one can get lost in playing around with it immediately. In that sense it feels like any other classic instrument, like a piano, a guitar, a violin, drums, or even a tuba, which are still being played albeit they sound as they do.
And then there are all the factors which are often not considered, especially in the Behringer or Roland discussions. The Minimoog is not only its iconic sound. It's that and the spacious front panel, the chassis, 44 keys, mod and pitch wheels, and the fact that you can set up the panel at almost any angle you like. From today's perspective, it's a really massive synth in terms of physical proportions. But that's exactly what makes it a Minimoog too.
And finally there's the whole build quality aspect. Like one synth cave inhabitor said to me at Superbooth: "It just looks and feels like it's been build and assembled by people who really enjoy what they're doing."
That was a fine eulogy to the Model D, Paul. I'm glad you mentioned the adjustable panel, because it's one of my favorite features.
I think one of the indicators that the Minimoog is a classic - and that is such an understatement - is that a fair number of synthesists are able to play it all by itself and extract exceptional sounds and music, with only the help of reverb and delay. In other words, there are Minimoog "masters" who can tweak it's panel in brilliant ways and sometimes with lightening speed, even as they play the keyboard, all to brilliant effect. I love the watch this. Here are a few examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUZ4YPXTUQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOUkQyoFZz8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JN2dOM47F4
-
But it is priced as a collector's item. Well worth it, and likely to increase in value over time.
Yeah, definitely. Surprisingly, the price of used Voyagers on ebay has increased significantly (by $300 or so USD) over the past year, even with the Model D reissue. And I could sell my Little Phatty Stage II with CV Outs for a couple hundred more than I bought it for (on an admittedly absurd new price). And these aren't even the collector's items. So whatever you think of the stuff, you'll never lose your shirt on the investment. In contrast, you can pick up a Korg MS-20 Mini for a song.
-
But what was striking for me is that although everyone knows its sound and although certain cliché sounds have been played to death, it is still inviting because the core sound is so good that one can get lost in playing around with it immediately. In that sense it feels like any other classic instrument, like a piano, a guitar, a violin, drums, or even a tuba, which are still being played albeit they sound as they do.
And then there are all the factors which are often not considered, especially in the Behringer or Roland discussions. The Minimoog is not only its iconic sound. It's that and the spacious front panel, the chassis, 44 keys, mod and pitch wheels, and the fact that you can set up the panel at almost any angle you like. From today's perspective, it's a really massive synth in terms of physical proportions. But that's exactly what makes it a Minimoog too.
And finally there's the whole build quality aspect. Like one synth cave inhabitor said to me at Superbooth: "It just looks and feels like it's been build and assembled by people who really enjoy what they're doing."
That was a fine eulogy to the Model D, Paul. I'm glad you mentioned the adjustable panel, because it's one of my favorite features.
I think one of the indicators that the Minimoog is a classic - and that is such an understatement - is that a fair number of synthesists are able to play it all by itself and extract exceptional sounds and music, with only the help of reverb and delay. In other words, there are Minimoog "masters" who can tweak it's panel in brilliant ways and sometimes with lightening speed, even as they play the keyboard, all to brilliant effect. I love the watch this. Here are a few examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUZ4YPXTUQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOUkQyoFZz8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JN2dOM47F4
Amazing videos. 50% is Moog skill, but the other 50% is delay effect skill though :-)
-
Honestly, while it was nice for Moog to take a trip down memory lane...maybe it's time for them for them to move on and just bring out something new. Even if it's something as simple as an analog vocoder or as big as a 4 voice polyphonic phatty...it's time for Moog to step up their game.
Personally speaking, for the price of the Model D...it's lack of features is really off putting. At least it included midi....can you imagine if it didn't? The price is similar to the Oberheim Two Voice Pro....but even Tom realized he had to upgrade the old beast...and incorporated probably the best on board analog sequencer ever into the synth plus a plethora of patch points on top and you can save the sequences to flash memory....plus you get two synth engines on board.....the Model D has none of that (save for the patch points).
I think the Sub 37 has surpassed the Model D in terms of practicality, features and bang for the buck. Moog need to keep going down that path and not get sucked into nostalgia. Analog synthesis itself is nostalgic and old school, there's no need to keep taking steps backwards simply "because in the 70s".
-
Something new!
I think whenever they try that they get bitten in the arse. I have a Moog Guitar and an MP201 that prove that to me.
Actually the Murf pedal was pretty good, are they still in production?
-
Something new!
I think whenever they try that they get bitten in the arse. I have a Moog Guitar and an MP201 that prove that to me.
Actually the Murf pedal was pretty good, are they still in production?
I thought the Moog guitar was a neat idea. I mean they have to be smart about it but a Polyphonic Moog is going to sell much better than a Moog Guitar...I think even a Moog analog vocoder would as well.
-
I ageee that new tech paths are good. I'm also grateful that the maker-user complex revisits some solid old ways.
-
The Moog Subsequent 37 is itself a limited production-run instrument, so that's yet another instrument that will soon disappear from the Moog line-up. What then? Will the old Sub 37 (which I think is a superb synthesizer, but too small) be updated to include the new Subsequent's features? I hope Moog expands a bit on this excellent instrument.
-
The Moog Subsequent 37 is itself a limited production-run instrument, so that's yet another instrument that will soon disappear from the Moog line-up. What then? Will the old Sub 37 (which I think is a superb synthesizer, but too small) be updated to include the new Subsequent's features? I hope Moog expands a bit on this excellent instrument.
A seller told me that Moog is now going to ship the Subsequent 37 instead of the Sub 37. I have not yet heard an official statement on that, but that would mean that there would be no return to the Sub 37, which was supposed to be limited too. So it could very well be that all that'll be left of the "Phatty" line after the Subsequent production stops is the Sub Phatty. That would ultimately leave two open spots.
-
It's my sense that at some point the current Moog will make a polyphonic. But, that's because I'm poly-centric. ... It surely is a tight-rope to find a reasonably feasible approach.
__
I'll take this moment to thank you guys for fostering a no-frills, healthy discussion atmosphere. There's good substance here. And I appreciate what's not here.
-
I'll take this moment to thank you guys for fostering a no-frills, healthy discussion atmosphere. There's good substance here. And I appreciate what's not here.
Ditto. This is an excellent forum for all sorts of reasons.
-
A seller told me that Moog is now going to ship the Subsequent 37 instead of the Sub 37. I have not yet heard an official statement on that, but that would mean that there would be no return to the Sub 37, which was supposed to be limited too. So it could very well be that all that'll be left of the "Phatty" line after the Subsequent production stops is the Sub Phatty. That would ultimately leave two open spots.
So if you order a Sub 37, a Subsequent 37 arrives instead? Surely there will be an announcement first. It does make sense to move on to the improved instrument, rather than return to the inferior one. But if the Subsequent is itself only a limited-edition, then what? Is it only a stepping stone to yet another instrument? Strange.
The other question is, Will Moog offer another 44-key 3-oscillator synthesizer, or not? Is the Voyager gone forever, or will it appear in another form? Something has to fill that all-important spot.
-
A seller told me that Moog is now going to ship the Subsequent 37 instead of the Sub 37.
So if you order a Sub 37, a Subsequent 37 arrives instead?
I took this to mean that the Subsequent 37 replaces the Sub 37 in the lineup, once Sub 37s are sold through. If you order a Sub 37, I'm sure that's what you'll get, since Subsequent 37s are a bit pricier.
It does make sense to move on to the improved instrument, rather than return to the inferior one. But if the Subsequent is itself only a limited-edition, then what? Is it only a stepping stone to yet another instrument? Strange.
I think it's just a standard Moog marketing thing now. Everything's a Limited Edition. The 50th Anniversary Voyager, the white Little Phatty, the Model 15, the Sub 37 Tribute Edition. Moog recognizes that musicians tend to over-estimate the size of the market, so they can create an aura of exclusivity and scarcity. In reality, everyone who puts up the money can have one*, and the Subsequent 37 is no more "limited" than, say, the Prophet 6.
* For example, only 150 Model 15s were made. But if I had $10,000 to spend on a synth, and Buchla wasn't around, I could totally buy one right now.
-
A seller told me that Moog is now going to ship the Subsequent 37 instead of the Sub 37.
So if you order a Sub 37, a Subsequent 37 arrives instead?
I took this to mean that the Subsequent 37 replaces the Sub 37 in the lineup, once Sub 37s are sold through. If you order a Sub 37, I'm sure that's what you'll get, since Subsequent 37s are a bit pricier.
Right. I presumed the same. I was being a bit ridiculous because I'm scratching my head over Moog in general. I don't get their strategy. Your explanation could be the case, but it seems like an unnecessarily hectic approach to selling synthesizers. So many announcements. It's an odd way to generate interest because it makes them look erratic, almost capricious. And it certainly discourages those of us who have to plan and finance new instrument purchase long-term.
-
A seller told me that Moog is now going to ship the Subsequent 37 instead of the Sub 37. I have not yet heard an official statement on that, but that would mean that there would be no return to the Sub 37, which was supposed to be limited too. So it could very well be that all that'll be left of the "Phatty" line after the Subsequent production stops is the Sub Phatty. That would ultimately leave two open spots.
So if you order a Sub 37, a Subsequent 37 arrives instead? Surely there will be an announcement first. It does make sense to move on to the improved instrument, rather than return to the inferior one. But if the Subsequent is itself only a limited-edition, then what? Is it only a stepping stone to yet another instrument? Strange.
Haha, no. If a Sub 37 is still in stock you'll get it. It is my understanding, though, that the name "Subsequent" is meant quite literally in that the Subsequent 37 is meant to replace the Sub 37. So the info was for the retailers. Kind of like: If you're planning on ordering more Sub 37s for your stock, keep in mind that we will replace it with the Subsequent 37 from now on. And yes, the Subsequent 37 was introduced as being limited as well. But as roughly 10,000 Sub 37s have been produced, the word "limited" might be stretched as well in this case, depending on the actual demand. (I think Moog didn't expect the Sub 37 to be as successful as it turned out to be, just as they didn't predict the Minimoog to sell this quickly.)
From a resource side it makes sense to keep certain instruments limited though. With that many Sub 37s being built and Minimoogs flying off the shelves, my guess would be that a large portion of Moog's manufacturing resources were tied to the production of these two instruments for a while, particularly over the past 12 months, where they produced two bestsellers in parallel.
In that sense, Moog would arrive at a clean slate after the production of the Subsequent 37 ends at some point in the future in conjunction with the now stopped production of the Minimoog. It would just free lots of resources for whatever they plan to do next. I still highly doubt that it would be a poly synth. I can even recall Amos saying "never" at some point. So my guess would be another mono flagship synth (inspired by the Voyager and Minimoog legacy, but based on parts that will be available in the foreseeable future) and maybe a couple of rather unexpected things that could also happen in the digital/app domain. And there also seems to be some demand for a drum machine by Moog.
-
Oh, yeah, a drum machine would be interesting.
I'm sure that there are also those who'd love to see them do individual VCF, VCO, VCA modules in eurorack. Moog might be too big for eurorack, but a complete euro voice would excite at least and many people as it bores.
-
The Moog Subsequent 37 is itself a limited production-run instrument, so that's yet another instrument that will soon disappear from the Moog line-up. What then? Will the old Sub 37 (which I think is a superb synthesizer, but too small) be updated to include the new Subsequent's features? I hope Moog expands a bit on this excellent instrument.
I could be wrong, but I don't see a lot of excitement for the Sub37 after the Subsequent 37 is removed from the market... because from here here on out, everyone will look at the Sub37 and think "I just wish it had....."
-
The Moog Subsequent 37 is itself a limited production-run instrument, so that's yet another instrument that will soon disappear from the Moog line-up. What then? Will the old Sub 37 (which I think is a superb synthesizer, but too small) be updated to include the new Subsequent's features? I hope Moog expands a bit on this excellent instrument.
I could be wrong, but I don't see a lot of excitement for the Sub37 after the Subsequent 37 is removed from the market... because from here here on out, everyone will look at the Sub37 and think "I just wish it had....."
That always depends on the use case. Not everybody needs CV outs. Moog knew this and had a huge success with it. There are still plenty of players who just wanna use an analog synth and don't care about the interaction with modular equipment or other voltage controllable equipment. That's exactly the audience Moog had in mind: players, not tinkerers or geeks.
And from what I've heard so far, the sonic differences between the Sub 37 and the Subsequent 37 seem to be marginal, existing mostly in the paraphonic mode due to more headroom on the later model.
In general, there can always be a newer, somehow improved, or whatever version of a particular instrument which doesn't necessarily mean that the older version becomes not desired anymore or that it will start to ruin people's life. Following that logic, most people would have to swap their whole gear collection with newer stuff every 2 or 3 years, which is not really something the average user can afford or anything that makes the most practical sense. And I doubt, for example, that most people started to despise their Prophet '08 when the REV2 was announced.
Being one of the global monosynth bestsellers of the past 3 years, the Sub 37 proved to be a highly successful project, which is already regarded as a modern classic. So Moog obviously didn't do too much wrong here. That doesn't mean that it's for everyone, but I highly doubt that roughly 10,000 people started to cry when the Subsequent 37 was announced. If people were able to use it to their advantage until today, they will still be able to do so in the upcoming years.
-
Something new!
I think whenever they try that they get bitten in the arse. I have a Moog Guitar and an MP201 that prove that to me.
Actually the Murf pedal was pretty good, are they still in production?
I think that always said more about the rather conservative consumer expectation - particularly towards Moog. One can't say they didn't try to explore different areas. At least amongst some, the MP-201 became a sort of cult classic.
The MIDI Murf is unfortunately not in production anymore, but it was a pretty nifty device.
-
The Moog guitar is the only polyphonic Moog I ever expect to see.
-
The Animoog and Model 15 apps can be played polyphonically.
-
You know what I mean - tangible, tactile, physical, real musical instrument.
-
Well, particularly the iPad with its multi touch technology is all of those things by now, which makes it the preferred choice for performers who use purely software-based synths or other control apps like the Eventide H9 software for example. And one can still connect a keyboard to it or control the app with MIDI via Bluetooth if it's desired.
-
Makes sense. Securing a long-term minimoog successor seems most logical.
... I believe a $3500 zone "low cost", 4-6 voice poly made from their least expensive approaches is an eventual good following step. ... And as a wild thought, years later, I could see an $8000 higher end, 6-8 voice poly for the elite & monks.
But that's baseless, and whimsical. The most likely future view is one with developments in line with existing niches. DSI in its stronghold, Moog in its, others in theirs. It's almost analogous to the car industry history.
-
I just don't see how Moog can keep bringing out Mono synths when they are no longer the game in town and people are bringing their own monos out at a fraction of Moog's cost. Can anyone really justify a $4000-$6000 mono synth anymore? What exactly is the selling point of that? Naw, it's time for Moog to stop loving off of it's name and show what they can bring to the table.
-
The Moog guitar is the only polyphonic Moog I ever expect to see.
Only one filter though, does that make it paraphonic ;)
-
I just don't see how Moog can keep bringing out Mono synths when they are no longer the game in town and people are bringing their own monos out at a fraction of Moog's cost. Can anyone really justify a $4000-$6000 mono synth anymore? What exactly is the selling point of that? Naw, it's time for Moog to stop loving off of it's name and show what they can bring to the table.
There are people that want at least one polyphonic analog synth in their setup, there are people that only use digital synths for polyphonic duties, there are people that would choose a Rompler as their only synth, there are people that are of the opinion you don't hear any difference in a mix anyway and that you can do everything with plug-ins, and there are people that prefer analog mono synths for sonic as well as haptic reasons and because it fits their musical needs and the way they arrange their music in which each synth represents one voice, just like in an orchestra or choir. So there's a market for everyone.
The Minimoog isn't cheap, but there were obviously enough buyers for it, despite all those mono synths that cost a fraction. So based on empirical facts and the actual demand, there is no reason to question the price policy. Moog didn't stop the production of the Minimoog because it didn't sell or people thought it was too expensive, but because it sold too quickly so they ran out of parts much quicker than projected. In Europe for example, the Minimoog costs about 3,899 Euros (tax included), which currently is the equivalent of $4,454. According to Thomann, it still sold well enough to make it up the seller charts next to the MS-20 mini, the Sub 37, and the DeepMind 12. And I would predict that it could have stayed there for a while, even with the Behringer D or the SE-02 on the market, as those two are simply no Minimoogs. Not for object fetish reasons, but because they don't quite sound the same and don't provide the same haptic experience that defines what makes the Minimoog a complete instrument all by itself. The Behringers and Roland boutiques are designed based on a consumerist approach, while instruments like the Minimoog have been designed with aspects in mind that make sense with regard to musicality and performability.
Plus: Choosing an instrument is not only guided by purely rational principles. No-one can fully objectify what makes a certain instrument "speak" to them. It either works or doesn't. Tech specs on a sheet alone or the question about what could technically be possible with another synth are not really aspects that say anything about whether one would find a particular instrument pleasing in terms of playability and sonic quality.
-
...Choosing an instrument is not only guided by purely rational principles. No-one can fully objectify what makes a certain instrument "speak" to them. It either works or doesn't. Tech specs on a sheet alone or the question about what could technically be possible with another synth are not really aspects that say anything about whether one would find a particular instrument pleasing in terms of playability and sonic quality.
Very true. And sometimes it's just a company that to "speaks" consumers. Moog has surely been one of those companies. DSI another. Put it this way, DSI could introduce their new X1 synth tomorrow, and I would spend hours reading and watching YouTube videos to see if it fits into my set-up. All on the strength of one piece of information: DSI released a new synth. They make quality gear. And they often innovate in some way or another. That would be enough for me to invest time into considering whatever it happens to be. #Just-no-more-of-that-DJ-crap-please. :)
-
The Moog guitar is the only polyphonic Moog I ever expect to see.
Moog's history with polyphony is dubious at best–the MemoryMoog range is largely a Curtis-chip monument (no Moog oscillators there); the PolyMoog was a disaster from a reliablity / serviceability perspective, and let's not bother with the Opus / MG-1 polyphony sections or their failed "White Elephant" organ attempt.
By comparison: Arp farmed out their string machine design to Eminent and SIEL (as did Sequential) and failed miserably on the Chroma; the Quadra remains an odd duck, to say the least. In the 70s, that basically left you with Oberheim 2-/4-/8-voice instruments, the Prophet-5/-10, Korg to a certain extent, and maybe Roland's Jupiter-4.
-
The Moog guitar is the only polyphonic Moog I ever expect to see.
Only one filter though, does that make it paraphonic ;)
No, since each string has it's own envelope. ;)
-
The Moog guitar is the only polyphonic Moog I ever expect to see.
Moog's history with polyphony is dubious at best–the MemoryMoog range is largely a Curtis-chip monument (no Moog oscillators there); the PolyMoog was a disaster from a reliablity / serviceability perspective, and let's not bother with the Opus / MG-1 polyphony sections or their failed "White Elephant" organ attempt.
By comparison: Arp farmed out their string machine design to Eminent and SIEL (as did Sequential) and failed miserably on the Chroma; the Quadra remains an odd duck, to say the least. In the 70s, that basically left you with Oberheim 2-/4-/8-voice instruments, the Prophet-5/-10, Korg to a certain extent, and maybe Roland's Jupiter-4.
That being said I would still like to see more analog polys on the market...including a Chroma or Quadra.
-
That being said I would still like to see more analog polys on the market...including a Chroma or Quadra.
Oooohhhh... a new Quadra! Now that would SELL!
-
That being said I would still like to see more analog polys on the market...including a Chroma or Quadra.
Oooohhhh... a new Quadra! Now that would SELL!
An analog synth with the ability to have 4 patches going at once? Darn tootin it would sell!
-
Well, we know at least three Korg Quadras would sell!
-
Well, we know at least three Korg Quadra's would sell!
I can't imagine someone doesn't already have this on the drawing board somewhere....
-
Well, we know at least three Korg Quadra's would sell!
I can't imagine someone doesn't already have this on the drawing board somewhere....
Ready for pickup with mini keys.
-
Well, we know at least three Korg Quadra's would sell!
I can't imagine someone doesn't already have this on the drawing board somewhere....
Ready for pickup with mini keys.
-
Well, we know at least three Korg Quadra's would sell!
I can't imagine someone doesn't already have this on the drawing board somewhere....
Ready for pickup with mini keys.
Now that hurt.
-
Well, we know at least three Korg Quadra's would sell!
I can't imagine someone doesn't already have this on the drawing board somewhere....
Ready for pickup with mini keys.
Now that hurt.
Like an Ice Pick to the forehead....
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S94ohyErSw
-
Is this mini enough for you?
https://picclick.com/ARP-Quadra-Synthesizer-Refrigerator-Magnet-272628965557.html
-
Well, I don't need mini. But I wouldn't mind sticking this one on my fridge.
-
The Moog guitar is the only polyphonic Moog I ever expect to see.
Only one filter though, does that make it paraphonic ;)
No, since each string has it's own envelope. ;)
I'm must admit I'm not sure thats true, unless mine is bust!
To me the envelope follower seems to be run from the mixed signal of all the strings.
-
What's next for Moog, in light of the discontinuation of the Model D? Will nothing fill the vacuum between the Subsequent and the giant Voyager XL? How about a regular-sized Voyager Mk II?
-
What's next for Moog, in light of the discontinuation of the Model D? Will nothing fill the vacuum between the Subsequent and the giant Voyager XL? How about a regular-sized Voyager Mk II?
Probably what we already speculated about in another thread: http://www.matrixsynth.com/2017/11/new-moog-synth-geert-bevin-amos-gaynes.html
No-one knows what it's going to be, whether it'll be a true hybrid synth or just digitally controlled with a new big screen in the middle and multi-functional knobs (only the latter is pretty much a given according to the presentation).
I'm sure it'll be announced at Moogfest in May.
-
Certainly a different creature, and not what I was hoping for.
-
What's next for Moog, in light of the discontinuation of the Model D? Will nothing fill the vacuum between the Subsequent and the giant Voyager XL? How about a regular-sized Voyager Mk II?
Actually the "vacuum" now is between the Subsequent 37 and their ultra expensive Modular rigs... there are no Voyagers currently in production, and the Model D is coming to a close so... that's a huge vacuum... like space itself.
-
Isn't the Voyager XL still in production? Perhaps I'm just seeing the leftovers on the websites.
-
Isn't the Voyager XL still in production? Perhaps I'm just seeing the leftovers on the websites.
Nope... Just leftover units that have yet to sell (Of which I snagged one). :)
https://www.moogmusic.com/products/minimoog-voyagers/minimoog-voyager-xl (https://www.moogmusic.com/products/minimoog-voyagers/minimoog-voyager-xl)
-
Well, nothing can be said yet, except for it probably having a different front panel look. Voyager XLs and Minimoogs won't sell out so quickly, as they're quite expensive, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are still some available in a year or so.
-
Well, nothing can be said yet, except for it probably having a different front panel look. Voyager XLs and Minimoogs won't sell out so quickly, as they're quite expensive, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are still some available in a year or so.
No Doubt. It isn't an impulse buy for most people, that is for certain.
-
Well, nothing can be said yet, except for it probably having a different front panel look. Voyager XLs and Minimoogs won't sell out so quickly, as they're quite expensive, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are still some available in a year or so.
No Doubt. It isn't an impulse buy for most people, that is for certain.
Also, don't forget that these synths are nowhere as "cheap" as in the US. As a comparison: The Minimoog Reissue costs the equivalent of $4,840, and the Two Voice Pro the equivalent of $5,459 (all based on today's exchange rate).
-
Also, don't forget that these synths are nowhere as "cheap" as in the US. As a comparison: The Minimoog Reissue costs the equivalent of $4,840, and the Two Voice Pro the equivalent of $5,459 (all based on today's exchange rate).
zurück in Deutschland?
-
Also, don't forget that these synths are nowhere as "cheap" as in the US. As a comparison: The Minimoog Reissue costs the equivalent of $4,840, and the Two Voice Pro the equivalent of $5,459 (all based on today's exchange rate).
zurück in Deutschland?
Jawohl. ;)
-
Well, nothing can be said yet, except for it probably having a different front panel look. Voyager XLs and Minimoogs won't sell out so quickly, as they're quite expensive, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are still some available in a year or so.
Yeah. I bought a new, unopened, Little Phatty over a year after the Little Phatty was discontinued in mid-2013, and it was still possible to buy a new one at least into 2015. At this point, prices were drastically discounted (I got mine for $700 USD), probably because the Sub 37 Tribute was available. I imagine (but have no first-hand knowledge) that dealers would be annoyed at having their stock suddenly become unprofitable, which might partially explain why Moog isn't rushing out a Voyager/Model D replacement. Not only are these things still available, but they haven't been discounted like the LP was.
-
Also, don't forget that these synths are nowhere as "cheap" as in the US. As a comparison: The Minimoog Reissue costs the equivalent of $4,840, and the Two Voice Pro the equivalent of $5,459 (all based on today's exchange rate).
zurück in Deutschland?
Jawohl. ;)
Maybe you can get the new Waldorf cheaper! :)
-
Maybe you can get the new Waldorf cheaper! :)
The Quantum won't be cheap on any side of the Atlantic. Maybe in 5-10 years. But I will definitely play it again at Superbooth in the beginning of May.
-
Isn't the Voyager XL still in production? Perhaps I'm just seeing the leftovers on the websites.
Nope... Just leftover units that have yet to sell (Of which I snagged one). :)
https://www.moogmusic.com/products/minimoog-voyagers/minimoog-voyager-xl (https://www.moogmusic.com/products/minimoog-voyagers/minimoog-voyager-xl)
Wow. You have an XL? I'm impressed. I couldn't even dream that big!
-
Isn't the Voyager XL still in production? Perhaps I'm just seeing the leftovers on the websites.
Nope... Just leftover units that have yet to sell (Of which I snagged one). :)
https://www.moogmusic.com/products/minimoog-voyagers/minimoog-voyager-xl (https://www.moogmusic.com/products/minimoog-voyagers/minimoog-voyager-xl)
Wow. You have an XL? I'm impressed. I couldn't even dream that big!
Someone on Reverb was selling them new at a $1000 discount. And I had been saving for one for a while.
https://reverb.com/item/4758603-moog-minimoog-voyager-xl (https://reverb.com/item/4758603-moog-minimoog-voyager-xl)
It was these guys... they’ve raised the price back up, but if you’re looking to snag one, you know what they are capable of doing.
-
I just want to see Moog do something different than a Mono synth. Yes they specialized in it for years but I just find they are sort of falling behind. Arturia is pretty much eating their lunch with their analog stuff.
-
It's not as if there isn't precedent for polyphonic instruments in their past. Moog seems fastened to their own tradition, but that tradition includes such instruments. So, I don't think it's impossible, even though it may seem unlikely.
-
Neither Moog nor Arturia (at least with regard to a statement that circulated before NAMM) are keen on developing a poly synth.
-
Neither Moog nor Arturia (at least with regard to a statement that circulated before NAMM) are keen on developing a poly synth.
That's a shame.
-
I don't know about that. At least the combining of Slim Phatties showed some interest in polyphony. Again, I agree it's unlikely, but I don't think it's impossible.
-
Well, it's not like we live in a time without analog poly synth options. From DSI there's the Mopho x4, the Rev2, the Prophet-6, and the OB-6. Then there are Korg's Volca Keys, Minilogue and Polylogue, Elektron's Analog Four, Behringer's DeepMind 6 and 12, Modal Electronic's 008, Black Corporation's Deckard's Dream and at some point their PolyKobol replica, and maybe within a year or so Behringer's UB-Xa and Shear Electronics' Relic-6 (though now planned as an 8-voice version). Beyond that, people are free to polychain Sub(sequent) 37s or second-hand Slim Phatty modules or SEMs.
Roland won't do it because they have ACB and no-one left anymore who knows anything about analog circuits, and Yamaha won't care either because they sell more motorbikes in a year than all of the above-mentioned manufacturers sell polyphonic analog synths in more than 10 years.
-
Oh, I'm not at all arguing for a polyphonic synthesizer from Moog. It doesn't even interest me. Remember? I'm the guy who's always posting about mono synths these days. And that's all I want from Moog - an analog monophonic synthesizer bigger than the Subsequent, but smaller than the Voyager XL. And as for poly synths, I'm full of them!
-
I think Arturia will probably come out with a Poly next year. I know they are saying "no" now but things change.
-
Oh, I'm not at all arguing for a polyphonic synthesizer from Moog. It doesn't even interest me. Remember? I'm the guy who's always posting about mono synths these days. And that's all I want from Moog - an analog monophonic synthesizer bigger than the Subsequent, but smaller than the Voyager XL. And as for poly synths, I'm full of them!
Oh, my remark wasn't addressed at you in particular. Sorry if that came across the wrong way. I just wanted to point out that there are already some choices out there, that's all. Maybe they don't all represent what some are hoping for, but there are probably way more options out there than anybody would have thought of back in the early 2000s.
I also don't think that the analog poly synth market is really that huge. Most young musicians would have trouble to afford one, let alone one in the price region that starts at $2,000. Most live performing musicians with mostly pragmatic concerns might add exactly one for that specific purpose. Most non-professionals don't need more than one or two either, if they have the money and the time to spend. That basically only leaves studio owners (actual studios, not bedroom studios) as the majority of prospective buyers of more than 2 or 3 analog poly synths in addition to some collected vintage units.
With mono synths, things are conceptionally different. They are commonly treated as single voices with individual timbres each, just like in classical orchestral music. They also provide the opportunity to use many different colors without cluttering the whole mix as long as things are carefully arranged. And particularly these days, they've become really affordable, which makes it easier to put together a diverse sonic pallet (different sounding oscillators and filter types for example). Taken both into account, it makes more sense to own a selection of mono synths as opposed to an equally sized selection of poly synths.
-
Comparison to the Behringer clone https://youtu.be/pYxc8R_Qys0
-
Comparison to the Behringer clone https://youtu.be/pYxc8R_Qys0
Sounds pretty close to me, I love some of the comments saying they sound different. Some people must have magic ears.
I would still rather have the Moog though.
-
Comparison to the Behringer clone https://youtu.be/pYxc8R_Qys0
I’ve seen this when it first went online. The results are actually surprisingly close,if not identical.
I understand the appeal of something like the Boog Model D, instead of the real Moog Model D. Many, like me, are just enthusiasts, and many of us can’t actually afford all there is or even a single expensive synth. The Behringer recreation of the original is really very good, and I’d say no one can actually distinguish both, not only on a YouTube video, but even side by side.
The Behringer is certainly an accessible way of nailing THAT sound, maybe a tiny bit different on overdrive alone, and for the sound I’d surely recommend it, even though I haven’t messed with it yet.
The Moog reissue on the other hand, is a different thing when it comes to hardware. It has one the highest quality builds, with amazingly good keys, all the right materials in the right places, and seems to endure a lifetime. This is one I actually played and if I could, I’d leave the shop with both, it is really a marvelous feeling instrument - and it looks killer!