Minimoog Model D

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #100 on: May 25, 2016, 08:18:46 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 08:22:50 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #101 on: May 25, 2016, 08:26:44 AM »
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.

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #102 on: May 25, 2016, 08:36:19 AM »
I found a nice parallel to our wider discussion here in Theo Bloderer's article on the ARP 2600, which ends like this:

Quote
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/

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):

Quote
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/
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 08:46:22 AM by Paul Dither »

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #103 on: May 25, 2016, 08:56:35 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 09:01:29 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #104 on: May 25, 2016, 09:01:03 AM »
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.

Jason

  • **
  • 214
    • Bandmix
Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #105 on: May 25, 2016, 11:23:55 AM »
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.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #106 on: May 25, 2016, 12:06:11 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 12:25:40 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #107 on: May 25, 2016, 02:34:48 PM »
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.

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #108 on: May 25, 2016, 03:20:51 PM »
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.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #109 on: May 25, 2016, 04:34:29 PM »
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. 
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 08:18:03 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #110 on: May 25, 2016, 07:28:12 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 07:31:05 PM by Paul Dither »

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #111 on: May 25, 2016, 08:29:35 PM »
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).
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 04:01:13 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #112 on: May 25, 2016, 09:05:08 PM »
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."

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #113 on: May 26, 2016, 04:54:34 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 06:16:04 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Jason

  • **
  • 214
    • Bandmix
Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #114 on: May 26, 2016, 10:46:22 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 11:19:40 AM by Jason »

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #115 on: May 26, 2016, 11:16:07 AM »
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.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #116 on: May 26, 2016, 11:19:32 AM »
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!
« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 11:25:14 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #117 on: May 26, 2016, 12:00:05 PM »
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.

Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #118 on: May 26, 2016, 12:23:18 PM »
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.

Jason

  • **
  • 214
    • Bandmix
Re: Minimoog Model D
« Reply #119 on: May 27, 2016, 04:42:04 AM »
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.