One Man's Quest for the Perfect Mono Synth

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #20 on:** March 10, 2016, 05:18:17 PM »

Quote from: Paul Dither on March 10, 2016, 12:48:02 PM

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on March 10, 2016, 12:42:56 PM
Egads! Am I trying to re-invent the Evolver? It meets all of my requirements except the quality analog tone, which it meets about 75%.

Same for the Prophet '08?

To my ears, the P'08 is a bit better for analog mono sounds than the PEK.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2016, 05:20:48 PM »

Quote from: chysn on March 10, 2016, 02:03:33 PM

Doesn't the MatrixBrute tick off pretty much all the boxes? Except for the semi-optional "Module" part? But you're dismissing it because you expect it to be riddled with bugs? Maybe it won't be.

The difficult bottleneck to get beyond is the 3-oscillator requirement. That's an industry-wide Strange Thing. Like... Minimoog comes out in 1970 or whatever, and everyone loves it for how huge it sounds. So but then nobody replicates that salient feature for decades, including Moog. If the Minimoog appears in the #1 spot on every Top Synth List ever, why do we live in a world where two oscillators is the norm?

I'm not entirely negative on the Matrix Brute, just a bit skeptical about an all-new design.

If I can have a pair of modules, then I'd be content with two oscillators in each module.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2016, 06:53:20 AM »

Since the announcement of the OB-6, I've completely put aside the Prophet-6. Now I'm thinking, a combination of a P-6 Keyboard and a P-6 Module would make an exceptional mono and poly synth. The main shortcoming would be the single LFO. But with a monophonic PWM patch, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong, Paul) you could use one oscillator with a pulse wave, add vibrato with the LFO, modulate the pulse width with the other audio oscillator at a completely different amount and rate from the dedicated LFO, and then double the patch with the other unit. This would allow for a two-oscillator sound, together with the ability to pan the two units at the mixer.

Of course, I could also combine an OB-6 and a P-6 Module. Then at a later time, I could add a module, such as a SEM. Either combination seems like a very powerful and flexible solution to the mono synth dilemma, and it would double as an excellent poly synth as well. Plus, I much prefer the full four-octave keyboard. Does anybody see a problem with this arrangement that I've overlooked?

Paul Dither · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2016, 09:20:19 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on March 11, 2016, 06:53:20 AM

Since the announcement of the OB-6, I've completely put aside the Prophet-6. Now I'm thinking, a combination of a P-6 Keyboard and a P-6 Module would make an exceptional mono and poly synth. The main shortcoming would be the single LFO. But with a monophonic PWM patch, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong, Paul) you could use one oscillator with a pulse wave, add vibrato with the LFO, modulate the pulse width with the other audio oscillator at a completely different amount and rate from the dedicated LFO, and then double the patch with the other unit. This would allow for a two-oscillator sound, together with the ability to pan the two units at the mixer.

Nothing you overlooked here. That's definitely an option.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2016, 02:23:42 PM »

Excellent! That's one more option now. Thanks, Paul. I listened to one of your P-6 demos on Soundcloud today, and I heard one of the very patches that interests me - a simple bright brass patch with two sawtooths. Very nice, and it got me thinking.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2016, 03:25:31 PM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on March 11, 2016, 02:23:42 PM

Excellent! That's one more option now. Thanks, Paul. I listened to one of your P-6 demos on Soundcloud today, and I heard one of the very patches that interests me - a simple bright brass patch with two sawtooths. Very nice, and it got me thinking.

Cool, thank you! What you could also do on top of what you're aiming for is to modulate the pulse width of the 2nd Oscillator with the LFO too. And although oscillator 2's PWM would then be running at the same rate as the vibrato, it would interfere with oscillator 2's frequency as an LFO and hence create an interesting movement. You might say now that this would only work if oscillator 2 is set to a pulse, which wouldn't meet the requirements of it modulating oscillator 1's pulse width. But that is only half true, as you could select a waveform that's located somewhere between triangle and pulse for oscillator 2.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2016, 04:59:29 PM »

For this one patch, I need (by P'08 standards) a PWM rate of about 16 and a vibrato rate of about 70. So, there's quite a difference between the two. I could never get this sound out of one LFO.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2016, 05:18:43 PM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on March 11, 2016, 04:59:29 PM

For this one patch, I need (by P'08 standards) a PWM rate of about 16 and a vibrato rate of about 70. So, there's quite a difference between the two. I could never get this sound out of one LFO.

Oh, I get it. I was only saying that you could even expand the complexitiy. As for the numeric values of the PWAM and LFO rates: Of course you'll have to go by ear on the Prophet-6 for that, since no values are being displayed.

chysn · « **Reply #28 on:** March 12, 2016, 10:01:36 PM »

Is the keyboard length the only thing keeping you from buying a Sub37, or is it something else? That is, if the Sub37 was a Sub44, would you already own one?

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #29 on:** March 13, 2016, 07:40:41 AM »

Yes, the Sub 37's killer shortcoming for me is the keyboard length. I also would like the ability to control an LFO with an envelope, for delayed vibrato. I believe there's some sort of work-around for this, but I'd like the envelope approach instead. Aftertouch is not the answer, since it' virtually impossible to use it perfectly and consistently. But I do like the Sub 37's sound, and had been hoping Moog would release a module version. Then I'd control it with a Prophet '08.

chysn · « **Reply #30 on:** March 13, 2016, 08:10:03 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on March 13, 2016, 07:40:41 AM

I also would like the ability to control an LFO with an envelope, for delayed vibrato. I believe there's some sort of work-around for this, but I'd like the envelope approach instead.

I was thinking that you could use a looping envelope, routed to pitch, in conjunction with the envelope delay, so I looked at the manual. Unfortunately, the delay stage also loops. That doesn't make much sense to me, but I guess Moog has been doing this way longer than I have.

Edit: Further review of the manual's section on Mod Controllers shows that both EGs can be used as a control source for the LFOs. So that should provide a pretty clear path to delayed vibrato.

I'm going to stop reading the Sub37 manual now before I decide I want one.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #31 on:** March 13, 2016, 08:31:46 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on March 13, 2016, 07:40:41 AM

I also would like the ability to control an LFO with an envelope, for delayed vibrato. I believe there's some sort of work-around for this, but I'd like the envelope approach instead. Aftertouch is not the answer, since it' virtually impossible to use it perfectly and consistently.

The only way around that would be to sacrifice one LFO. Set its source to filter envelope and choose the programmable modulation amount of the other LFO (that you use for the vibrato) as the programmable destination.

SpaceVoice · « **Reply #32 on:** March 14, 2016, 01:58:46 AM »

You may not find what you are looking for, however at least you have a lot of options to choose from.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #33 on:** March 14, 2016, 05:44:03 AM »

I agree. As usual, it will come down to "creating" an instrument from a combination of things. I'm fine with that.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #34 on:** March 17, 2016, 08:56:05 AM »

The Prophet-6 would be nearly the ideal basis for the instrument I have in mind. Make a monophonic version of it, but add a dedicated LFO vibrato, and you'd have what could be a very popular instrument. This would be the perfect beginning of my ideal mono synth.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #35 on:** March 20, 2016, 11:05:23 AM »

I was sooooo close to ordering an Analog Solutions Telemark Keyboard, with the intention of ordering later two Nyborg Modules. This wouldn't meet all my requirements for a mono synth, but it would certainly make a fine composite instrument. Besides, I guess nothing will perfectly suffice except a DSI synthesizer. Anyways, as I studied the control panel, I noticed one unexpected and painful omission: there's no glide, no portamento!

Does anybody have firsthand experience with the Telemark or Nyborg that can verify this? I find such an omission absurd. It forces me to turn to the Leipzig Keyboard and Module, which might not be a bad thing, but it's not what I had planned. Anybody?

Paul Dither · « **Reply #36 on:** March 20, 2016, 11:22:56 AM »

There's no glide, you're right. This has been a severe cause for criticism in some reviews.

chysn · « **Reply #37 on:** March 20, 2016, 11:34:50 AM »

For me, lack of glide would be quite a deal breaker.

But let's back up for a second... you're about to order a synth when we're expecting something new from DSI in like three weeks?

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #38 on:** March 20, 2016, 02:28:21 PM »

You're right in both cases, Chysn. The lack of glide is a deal-breaker for me, too. The Leipzig does, fortunately, have individual glide amounts for each oscillator, so that's the plan B. And I'm going to wait until DSI announces its new product; but at the same time, I'm ready and eager to make a move. For a day, I was going to go ahead, anyway - the Telemark-Nyborg combo so struck me.

chysn · « **Reply #39 on:** March 22, 2016, 03:58:09 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on March 20, 2016, 02:28:21 PM

And I'm going to wait until DSI announces its new product; but at the same time, I'm ready and eager to make a move.

I get that. I bought my Evolver a couple weeks before NAMM, but I was pretty sure there was no chance of DSI suddenly releasing an Evolver 2. This time around, though, there's a slight possibility of them announcing something that you might be interested in. I'm certainly holding off on getting a CP-251, or starting a modular system, until mid-April at least.

Okay, but let me ask you this: If you're willing to compromise on keyboard length for the Leipzig-SK, then why take the Sub 37 off the table? Seems like a better value, what with the patch memory, etc. Is it because of the module situation?

In terms of synthesis resources, the Leipzig looks very, very similar to the Little Phatty, except with a sequencer instead of an arpeggiator, and no patch memory. And you'll still be stuck with one LFO. It seems like the Sub 37 hits more of your marks.