The Official Sequential/DSI Forum

Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...

chysn

  • ***
  • 1130
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2016, 01:42:42 AM »
Thanks for the discussion, all.

There's no doubt that I would love the Sub37. I've heard it, I've seen it, it's great.

But Sacred Synthesis is right. If I'm not discontent, then why go out of my way to foster discontent? That's not the Middle Way.

I'll wait a year or two and see what DSI does. In the mean time, I have the Evolver for the wild modulation, and it'll be fun to play with CV for a while. And who knows? DSI might demur on the single-voice Prophet, but finally flesh out a complete Eurorack synth, and I'll be well-positioned for that.
DSI: DSM03; previously: Mopho Keyboard, Desktop Mopho, Evolver, DSM01
Hardware: Eurorack, Arturia MicroBrute
Software: macOS, Ableton, MuseScore2
Modular Grid: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/354385
GitHub: https://github.com/chysn

Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2016, 09:41:35 AM »
I have to add though, after having almost finished my editor for the Sub37, I can certainly say that if you want MOOG sound, with much much better modulation, and do not want to shed out the horrible price for a Voyager, then the Sub37 is simply the device to get... there are a lot of modulation options that is not vissible to the eye at first glimpse... Amos REALLY put in a very flexible sort of modulation matrix, and you can integrate it really well with the onboard sequencer which also rocks with 64 steps and motion recording that can also be used in the mod matrix... and the destinations for the matrix are staggering, with even some destinations that you would have a hard time finding a use for (like modulating a modulation source parameter for instance).

I agree. There's much more going on than you perceive at the first look. Amos definitely made sure to get the most out of the available options.

chysn

  • ***
  • 1130
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2016, 10:42:25 AM »
I ordered the Little Phatty CV Outs kit today. When it arrives, and I get it installed, I'll come back and rant about it.
DSI: DSM03; previously: Mopho Keyboard, Desktop Mopho, Evolver, DSM01
Hardware: Eurorack, Arturia MicroBrute
Software: macOS, Ableton, MuseScore2
Modular Grid: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/354385
GitHub: https://github.com/chysn

Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2016, 10:47:26 AM »
I ordered the Little Phatty CV Outs kit today. When it arrives, and I get it installed, I'll come back and rant about it.

I'm sure there won't be much to rant about.  ;)

Another route you could go with this is adding something from the Moogerfooger range, like a Freqbox or a Ring Modulator.

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2156
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2016, 01:31:51 PM »
I have to add though, after having almost finished my editor for the Sub37, I can certainly say that if you want MOOG sound, with much much better modulation, and do not want to shed out the horrible price for a Voyager, then the Sub37 is simply the device to get... there are a lot of modulation options that is not vissible to the eye at first glimpse... Amos REALLY put in a very flexible sort of modulation matrix, and you can integrate it really well with the onboard sequencer which also rocks with 64 steps and motion recording that can also be used in the mod matrix... and the destinations for the matrix are staggering, with even some destinations that you would have a hard time finding a use for (like modulating a modulation source parameter for instance).

I agree. There's much more going on than you perceive at the first look. Amos definitely made sure to get the most out of the available options.

Yes... and the funny thing is, that I got the specs for the SysEx from Amos, and actualy an excell file where you can see his "brainstorm" of what he actualy would have wanted for the Sub37 when he set out to make the engine... some things has not been done, and some of them MAY be done he say, and some not because they are "expected for future products" now.

One feature that I see space for that have not made it in (yet?) is what had Sacret Synthesis hesitate... namely a delay parameter for the LFO's... other stuff is also missing, but I cannot remember what they were ... but Amos wrote to me, that he might include some of those features later on... no promises, but they just might end up "under the hood"...
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2016, 01:59:12 PM »
I have to add though, after having almost finished my editor for the Sub37, I can certainly say that if you want MOOG sound, with much much better modulation, and do not want to shed out the horrible price for a Voyager, then the Sub37 is simply the device to get... there are a lot of modulation options that is not vissible to the eye at first glimpse... Amos REALLY put in a very flexible sort of modulation matrix, and you can integrate it really well with the onboard sequencer which also rocks with 64 steps and motion recording that can also be used in the mod matrix... and the destinations for the matrix are staggering, with even some destinations that you would have a hard time finding a use for (like modulating a modulation source parameter for instance).

I agree. There's much more going on than you perceive at the first look. Amos definitely made sure to get the most out of the available options.

Yes... and the funny thing is, that I got the specs for the SysEx from Amos, and actualy an excell file where you can see his "brainstorm" of what he actualy would have wanted for the Sub37 when he set out to make the engine... some things has not been done, and some of them MAY be done he say, and some not because they are "expected for future products" now.

One feature that I see space for that have not made it in (yet?) is what had Sacret Synthesis hesitate... namely a delay parameter for the LFO's... other stuff is also missing, but I cannot remember what they were ... but Amos wrote to me, that he might include some of those features later on... no promises, but they just might end up "under the hood"...

Interesting. Yeah, I can remember Amos being quite frustrated at some point last year - especially when people were asking for the regular Sub 37 version and he was very vocal about moving on, leaving the impression that things move to slow for his taste at Moog. I always perceived Amos to be the most DSI kind of guy at Moog inasmuch as he seems to be closer to Dave's design philosophy than the Moog exploitation philosophy of his boss.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2016, 02:01:41 PM by Paul Dither »

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2016, 04:06:36 PM »
I always perceived Amos to be the most DSI kind of guy at Moog inasmuch as he seems to be closer to Dave's design philosophy than the Moog exploitation philosophy of his boss.

In many ways probably so and especially when looking at the voice architecture side of things. But let me guess that things would work out quite differently when having multiple maintenance demanding past products and a packed development schedule for future products.

Judging from the looks in the Moog presidents eyes when he was looking at the OB-6 at NAMM I would not be too surprised if a polyphonic instrument that is up next from Moog. Will be interesting to see what the price will be of such a beastie!
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2016, 04:16:02 PM »
In many ways probably so and especially when looking at the voice architecture side of things. But let me guess that things would work out quite differently when having multiple maintenance demanding past products and a packed development schedule for future products.

There is already multiple maintenance Amos has to take care of: All the editors that are out there and firmware issues. That covers the Sub 37, the Sub Phatty, the Minitaur, and the Voyager (the XL is at least still in production).

Judging from the looks in the Moog presidents eyes when he was looking at the OB-6 at NAMM I would not be too surprised if a polyphonic instrument that is up next from Moog. Will be interesting to see what the price will be of such a beastie!

I don't think that would be a wise choice economically - at least if it would cost an estimated Moog price. Even if they could develop one for up to $3,000 it would have to offer something special that models like the Prophet-6, the OB-6, or the 008 do not have. They'd have to come up with quite something if they'd like to offer a competitive modern analog poly synth. (Since Amos always spoke highly of the Prophet 12 and the Pro 2, I could only see him being truly satisfied with creating something rather modern or rather sophisticated.)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 04:21:29 PM by Paul Dither »

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2016, 05:25:07 PM »
I think it's time we start an Evolver support group to help us lead normal lives again.  Evolvers Anonymous.

Yeah, the Spoiled By Evolver (TM) crowd are fortunately quite large. And its easy to understand why its so: stereo signal path, analog and digital oscillators, great modulations/sequencer, and expressive digital features giving the instrument a wide timbral span while permitting the digital features to rest on a solid analog foundation. That combination is hard to beat and makes the case for complex voices!

Would be so nice if a similar type of design happened again given how much new voice architecture candy DSI have made since then including better oscillators and filters. Would prefer layers to Evolver style fixed stack mode as that is more flexible. And so on! Essentially an evolved Evolver.

#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

chysn

  • ***
  • 1130
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2016, 05:55:49 PM »
Another route you could go with this is adding something from the Moogerfooger range, like a Freqbox or a Ring Modulator.

Perhaps. I generally don't feel like there's much value to the Moogerfooger effects, measured in capability per dollar. The CP-251 is probably the exception, and it's likely that will be next, unless I start buying Eurorack modules.

For example, I'm pricing an oscillator-less Eurorack system, maybe consisting of an LFO, two sequencers, a variable-state filter, and the DSI character module.
DSI: DSM03; previously: Mopho Keyboard, Desktop Mopho, Evolver, DSM01
Hardware: Eurorack, Arturia MicroBrute
Software: macOS, Ableton, MuseScore2
Modular Grid: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/354385
GitHub: https://github.com/chysn

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2016, 06:04:02 PM »
There is already multiple maintenance Amos has to take care of: All the editors that are out there and firmware issues. That covers the Sub 37, the Sub Phatty, the Minitaur, and the Voyager (the XL is at least still in production).

Good point! What I was implicitly reflecting on was Amos working at DSI. I think we would be better of with him working at Moog! ;-)

I don't think that would be a wise choice economically - at least if it would cost an estimated Moog price.

So will people pay The Moog Price (TM)? I think so but lets wait and see what happens.
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2016, 06:07:50 PM »
(Since Amos always spoke highly of the Prophet 12 and the Pro 2, I could only see him being truly satisfied with creating something rather modern or rather sophisticated.)

Would be cool to see Moog move towards DSI style modulations features. Now add a state variable multi-mode Moog filter to a very interesting new Moog monophonic instrument.
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2016, 06:24:23 PM »
Good point! What I was implicitly reflecting on was Amos working at DSI. I think we would be better of with him working at Moog! ;-)

Ha, I wasn't indicating that. I consider that to be unlikely.

So will people pay The Moog Price (TM)? I think so but lets wait and see what happens.

I mean people can't really say that about the Sub 37 or the Sub Phatty, but if you look at the ridiculously overpriced modular reissues for example, you can't deny the Moog Price (TM). And I totally get why people say let's go with the COTK version instead. Feature-wise at least, you can also call into question the price of a synth like the Voyager. I know that there's more about it like the overall built quality and certain components, but at the end of the day it is what it is for roughly $3,000. Arturia is currently showing what can be done instead if you don't make it too fancy. As long as the MatrixBrute won't fall apart, it's going to be serious competition for Moog, which I still regard to be a mono synth company.

chysn

  • ***
  • 1130
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2016, 07:57:50 PM »
Would be cool to see Moog move towards DSI style modulations features.

Maybe the Mother-32 signals Moog's coming approach to modulation.
DSI: DSM03; previously: Mopho Keyboard, Desktop Mopho, Evolver, DSM01
Hardware: Eurorack, Arturia MicroBrute
Software: macOS, Ableton, MuseScore2
Modular Grid: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/354385
GitHub: https://github.com/chysn

Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2016, 08:26:18 PM »
I used to be in favor of Moog producing a polyphonic instrument, but no longer.  I think DSI has that market covered in such a way that Moog could contribute to it very little in the way of originality or inventiveness.  All the more with Modal Electronics now covering the high end.  There's simply no room in all this for Moog. They should stick with monophonic keyboard and pedalboard synthesizers, and they should always offer some form of a 44-key Minimoog.  Their reputation stands on that instrument, in spite of the great modulars, and they should maintain that reputation even as they invent new instruments.  There should always be a Minimoog, as long as there is a company called Moog.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 08:45:49 PM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

chysn

  • ***
  • 1130
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2016, 09:29:46 PM »
and they should always offer some form of a 44-key Minimoog.  Their reputation stands on that instrument, in spite of the great modulars, and they should maintain that reputation even as they invent new instruments.  There should always be a Minimoog, as long as there is a company called Moog.

Indeed. I think that the Voyager is currently only "technically" discontinued. It would be foolish to announce a replacement while dealers still have new stock. Perhaps the Bob A. Moog involvement will prevent dealers from getting stuck with them, but it's still a good practice to avoid the Osborne Effect.
DSI: DSM03; previously: Mopho Keyboard, Desktop Mopho, Evolver, DSM01
Hardware: Eurorack, Arturia MicroBrute
Software: macOS, Ableton, MuseScore2
Modular Grid: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/354385
GitHub: https://github.com/chysn

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2156
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2016, 01:39:27 AM »
I don't think MOOG should stay away from the poly market... surely they can make a product that will be able to sell, and you see people from all over, talking about "will it be a poly?" whenever something is about to pop out of the MOOG pipeline, so the interest is there.

MOOG is as capable of competing in this field as both Modal or DSI... they have the knowledge to do it, the only problem MOOG will have, is to try and put their name hype beside them while doing it, because the only thing that will fail such a poly synth, is it's pricetag... so in the end it's a decision more than a problem, being able to compete. MOOG will have to cut on the build quality, and knobs-haven to get the price down, and forget about their Ladder filter being so good, that it needs to earn them ekstra profits... sure it sounds good, but in the end, pricing is what WILL determine it's success, ESPECIALY if they let Amos have free reign on the engine specs.

Besides... the sound of a MOOG in my opinion IS better than the DSI sound... not that DSI sound bad, but the raw power of the oscillators and filters in a MOOG is huge and fat, and if it ever is possible to get a poly with that Sub37 character, I'll certainly think about getting one.... if the price is right that is.

I've got the Sub37 and most of the DSI products... while the DSI's can surely do bass sounds, when I have the MOOG (or even the Waldorf Pulse2), I'd never use the DSI's for this task... MOOG simply IS better at this, hands down in my opinion... but of course... that will never require a poly version, just to do basses.... still.. even other sounds just have so much more power than DSI synths does... it's hard to describe it, but that's just my opinion.

To me... where the DSI's shine is in the modulation department... Pads, Synths, Leads, Effects etc... they are so much more versatile than MOOGs... Waldorf lies somewhere in between the two.... in my world  :)
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2016, 06:16:05 AM »
A part of me would be thrilled to see a polyphonic synthesizer from Moog, because I've always been a fan of the Moog sound.  I loved the Polymoog.  I just don't think they could produce such a synthesizer that's reasonably priced by cutting back somewhat on quality, and still retain the Moog reputation that is such a part of their success.  I don't believe their clientele would be pleased with a "cheap" Moog.  Their forum would light up with offended fans.  You know what it's like over there.  Nor do I think they could easily enter the poly market, considering the competition on both the low and high ends.  Certainly, some folks will buy anything at all that Moog produces - in part, simply to have the prestigious Moog label.  But this would be a risky business move on their part.  Otherwise, I think they would have done it by now.  Instead, they've quite left the poly market to DSI and a few other companies.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 06:21:54 AM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #38 on: March 04, 2016, 01:45:03 PM »
MOOG is as capable of competing in this field as both Modal or DSI... they have the knowledge to do it

Interestingly the primary challenge in making a polyphonic synthesizer is said to be to make the voices sound as identical as possible which boils down to calibration of the hardware. Dave have mentioned that in past interviews and so have Paul Maddox of Modal Electronics. I would call that the primary competence of DSI. While Moog have done this in the past my guess is there may be stuff to be relearned before it will work out well.

As for the Moog price tag syndrome I am sure they will find a good solution to that. Using the Sub37 voice is probably a good starting point. In fact I would feel really tempted if they did a one or two voice module based on Sub37. The two voice module would be a perfect expander for the Sub37 and a good way to build a Moog poly in more affordable steps.

. o O ( same old duo rant )
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2156
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Chysn's Gear Rant Thread...
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2016, 03:08:06 AM »
MOOG is as capable of competing in this field as both Modal or DSI... they have the knowledge to do it

Interestingly the primary challenge in making a polyphonic synthesizer is said to be to make the voices sound as identical as possible which boils down to calibration of the hardware. Dave have mentioned that in past interviews and so have Paul Maddox of Modal Electronics. I would call that the primary competence of DSI. While Moog have done this in the past my guess is there may be stuff to be relearned before it will work out well.

As for the Moog price tag syndrome I am sure they will find a good solution to that. Using the Sub37 voice is probably a good starting point. In fact I would feel really tempted if they did a one or two voice module based on Sub37. The two voice module would be a perfect expander for the Sub37 and a good way to build a Moog poly in more affordable steps.

. o O ( same old duo rant )

I'd be happy, if they did a simple module version of the Sub37 at some point... I really don't need the keys on my Sub37, and they are not feeling good to play in my opinion... this is the thing that they obviously cut corners with on the Sub37, because the rest is top notch hardware... also it takes up more space in my studio than I'd like really... but the sound and the engine is amazing, and that's the most important to me. I'd sell mine to buy a module any time.

Regarding the tuning... I really do not see why MOOG should have any problem with that... they may have to "upp" it a bit, if more than one voice is to be in tune, but it seems to work fine enough when polychaining Slim Phatty's, so what is the problem? ... I'm still econvinced that the greatest problem will be the pricing, especialy if they want to keep the extremely good build quality... If they just lowered that a bit, in tandem with pricing, I'm sure it would sell anyway...
If you need me, follow the shadows...