LP Vs. MEK

The Analog Organist · Post by **The Analog Organist** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:07 pm

Yes, I looked over the Andromeda manual on line. Very impressive, like the old manuals. If only I could afford the synthesizer itself!

CTRLSHFT · Post by **CTRLSHFT** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:38 am

MEK: More knobs per function.
LP: Less knobs per function.

MEK: CV Modulation options assignable.
LP: CV Mod options hardwired.

MEK: 4 LFOs.
LP: 1 LFO.

MEK: 4 Oscs. 2 DCOs, 2 Wavetable.
LP: 2 VCOs.

MEK: Digital delays, distortion, high pass filter, feedback, bit crushing.
LP: Analog Overdrive.

MEK: Curtis filter, 2 or 4 LPF.
LP: Moog filter, 1,2,3, or 4 pole LPF.

MEK: Not a 100% analog signal path.
LP: 100% analog signal path.

MEK: Stereo.
LP: Mono.

MEK: Standard rotary encoder type knobs.
LP: RAC knobs for true analog control of parameters.

MEK: Sequencer.
LP: Arpeggiator.

MEK: Patch editor/librarian via MIDI.
LP: Patch editor/librarian via USB or MIDI.

I've owned both, and they're both awesome, beautiful machines. LP is ballsy and big, MEK is more precise and metallic. Both sounds have their place.

IMO the keybed on the LP Stage IIs are better than the MEKs, and the knob quality is a zillion times better. MEKs are more about how much awesome can be crammed under the hood. Less about looking nice or being a real player's instrument.

lovedroid · Post by **lovedroid** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:44 am

I have both a LP and a MEK and I love them both!

But if I had to choose between them, the choice wouldn't be that difficult nonetheless.
-The MEK has something special that really fits our music like a glove. It screams and distorts like nothing else.

-The Phatty is an awesome instrument that I'd really miss if I had to sell it.
But I made similar music prior to getting the LP, whereas the Evolver really changed my way of composing/producing.

"Phat"/VCO/etc isn't everything imho...

Maskin · Post by **Maskin** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:00 am

lovedroid wrote:"Phat"/VCO/etc isn't everything imho...

It depends on what you're looking for in a synth.

peterkadar · Post by **peterkadar** » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:39 am

I agree with Maskin and lovedroid about the 'Phat' thing. But when I need it, I'm sure glad it's there

I spent a lot of time auditioning the LPTE with an MEK. I really liked both, but got the LP partially because it was the Tribute Edition, and I figured I could grab an MEK at a later date.

I still love the sound of the MEK too, but I'm really glad I got the LP first. I tend to agree with the others that describe the LP more as a "player's instrument". There's something either in the simplicity of the interface, or the quality of the knobs, and the raw sound that reminds me of the old Moogs I had and later sold when I was a teenager. I don't own a MEK yet, but I do have a Prophet '08 SE which I love dearly. Still, I don't feel the same connection to the sound with it as I do with the Moog. I think part of that is because I'm afraid that if I start to work the controls of the Prophet too hard, they might break!

I'm contemplating getting the Potentiometer Upgrade Kit for my P'08. I think having 'real' knobs would further enhance the analog experience.

kingfriday · Post by **kingfriday** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:16 pm

I have both and I totally agree that they are different beasts that compliment each other very well. I was going back and forth about selling the MEK, but I don't think I'm going to. I tend to think about it this way-

The MEK givesme sharp, metallic, weird and highly modulated sounds. It's kind of like a little modular. The oscillators panned hard left/ right gives it a wide (and very unique) character that I have yet to hear from another synth. Feedback assigned to aftertouch is just freakin destructive. I have to say I really dislike using rotary encoders to program though.

The LP is just a tone machine. It is warm, round and phat in every way. Great sounding pretty much no matter what you do with it. The filter moves and dives unlike anything you can get out of the MEK. I do wish the CV routing was more flexible, but I actually love the limitations and simplicity of it. I cannot go back to software bass sounds after using the LP.

So, all of that said, I would take the LP over the MEK (sorry Dave). It is simply a much nicer (quality wise) instrument. When I play the LP, I feel like I am definitely connected in a way that I can't seem to get out of new gear. It's just got the mojo

gtivr6fan · Post by **gtivr6fan** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:22 pm

I wonder how this post would read at the DSI forum?

CTRLSHFT · Post by **CTRLSHFT** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:33 pm

gtivr6fan wrote:I wonder how this post would read at the DSI forum?

"While the LP sounds super fat and warm, it lacks a lot of functionality which limits it's overall potential. The MEK on the other hand can also sound very warm, has a high pass filter, delays, more modulation options, more oscs, different kinds of oscs, etc. In the end it's just more versatile."

Something like that, probably.

The Analog Organist · Post by **The Analog Organist** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:57 pm

But is it true? If so, that would be a valuable bit of information. What I do know is that my Prophet 08 has a very good sound - not quite as good as my Voyager Old School, but certainly comparable.

The next logical question would be: How do the MEK and LP compare to the P08? I'm trying to get a sense of their quality of tone without having heard either.

Additional question: Are the MEK encoders commonly a problem? Do they erractically jump at a touch?

soundxplorer · Post by **soundxplorer** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:49 pm

The Analog Organist wrote:The next logical question would be: How do the MEK and LP compare to the P08?

Additional question: Are the MEK encoders commonly a problem? Do they erractically jump at a touch?

All endless encoders exhibit problems eventually after a certain amount of use, no matter what manufacturer. Same problem with the Alesis Micron data knob, or the Yamaha DX-200 data knob, or _____ fill-in-the-blank.

The MEK's analog section should sound very close to, if not exactly like the P08. It just adds the digital stuff (or rather, the P08 takes away the digital section). No other changes to it that affect the sound greatly.

I think MOOGs and DSI synths sound VERY different from one another and they can't really be compared. Not saying either one is better, just different. Maybe better for a certain person playing a certain style, like for myself, I would never trade my Moog LP for a MEK. But if I had enough money, I'd buy an MEK in addition to the LP.

CTRLSHFT · Post by **CTRLSHFT** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:57 pm

The Analog Organist wrote:But is it true? If so, that would be a valuable bit of information. What I do know is that my Prophet 08 has a very good sound - not quite as good as my Voyager Old School, but certainly comparable.

The next logical question would be: How do the MEK and LP compare to the P08? I'm trying to get a sense of their quality of tone without having heard either.

Additional question: Are the MEK encoders commonly a problem? Do they erractically jump at a touch?

Bias has no truth, only more bias. The MEK does in fact offer far more features, however you have to decide if the LP sound is worth the trade-off.

A Roland V-Synth has alot more features than a LP too, for example.

MEK and P08 sound identical to me if you just use the analog stuff. The filter on the P08 supposedly sounds ''warmer'' and ''rounder'', but I haven't really noticed all that big of a difference.

On the encoder front: I used a Evolver desktop version for like 7 years for live and studio use, not once did I have a problem. Pots are more reliable though. I don't know that my Evo would have lasted say 30 years.

The Analog Organist · Post by **The Analog Organist** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:28 am

The MEK has been around for a few years now, and I've come across a considerable number of complaints about the encoders. I wonder if it gets that bad. I can tolerate a limited amount of jumping around.

I've found very few complaints about the LP.

Personally, I prefer the Moog sound. But only one LFO? That eliminates the possibility of some of my favorite sounds. I suppose you could add one more LFO with the CP-251, but that's still two short of the MEK and a lot more money.

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:30 am

The Analog Organist wrote:The MEK has been around for a few years now, and I've come across only a few complaints about the encoders. I wonder if it gets all that bad. I can tolerate the usual jumping around to a degree. Besides, there are also the buttons for single increments, which - as far as I know - don't have this problem.

I've found very few complaints about the LP.

Personally, I prefer the Moog sound. But only one LFO? That eliminates the possibility of some of my favorite sounds. I suppose you could add one more LFO with the CP-251, but that's still two short of the MEK and a lot more money.

How can anyone buy just ONE Mooger Fooger?

I bought the 251, MF-102 AND 103. Eventually, I know I'll buy several of each. Moog is addictive like that. Perhaps that's just me, but I'd rather have the Moog sound than a weaker sound that can be modulated again and again.

The Analog Organist · Post by **The Analog Organist** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:57 pm

The fattest thickest richest and most useful musical sound I've ever produced on a synthesizer is from my Voyager Old School, aided by the CP-251. It's a sound I use and need constantly. Only with the help of the module could I have three oscillators, vibrato, and pulse width modulation all at the same time. This means that the Voyager, by itself, doesn't quite suffice for me. So, modulation is VERY important. I don't use it as a means of disguising, or compensating for, a weak basic sound, but for adding to an already excellent sound.

The same is true for Dave Smith's instruments. The DSI synthesizers are not "weak," they're just not quite as monstrous as the Moog sound. Yet, if you begin on a DSI with two stacked sounds and add PWM, what you end up with is a sound so fat, thick, and rich as to impress even a Moog fan.

I dare say that the sophistication of the DSI instruments means that they come - so to speak - with their Moogerfoogers built in. But if I could have it my way, we'd have in one instrument the Moog sound and the DSI capabilities. Oh well.

Got Moog? · Post by **Got Moog?** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:51 pm

While I don't currently have a Little Phatty (but yes I am thinking about getting one now) I do have a MEK. It's an amazing synth with a step sequencer and an arp, and a boatload of options but for some reason I haven't bonded with it like I have my Moog Old School, even though I have had the MEK longer. There is something about the Moog line that I have however bonded with and feel drawn to. Perhaps it is because my first synth was a Moog Prodigy that I bought new (I am old). I spent hours upon hours multi-tracking that Prodigy with two Akai Reel to Reel tape recorders, and while it was "limited" in what might be considered the latest feature set, it was a great synth for me to learn with and the sound was sooo Moog. When I hear the Little Phatty today it reminds me of the Prodigy I used to have, and it just seemed so logical and simple. With the MEK I tend to get lost with all the options and the encoders lose me. I like being able to look at the machine and see the settings. Now I admit that is probably a failing on my part, but the truth is a Moog like the OS just seems so much more intuitive to me, and from what I have seen of the Phatty I think it would be also. Purely subjective on my part, I like the sound of the MEK, I just can't seem to tame it long enough to get close to it.

Moog Music Forum

LP Vs. MEK

here's a hard comparison of two: