Moog Music Forum

Please do keep us updated on the forum. Some of us never want to interact with Facebook, for personal reasons.

Amen! It is extremely galling to me that Moog ignores this forum, yet happily chats with people on Facebook. I don’t get it. It’s like an alternative reality where Compuserve and AOL ...

could you please explain why a trs to xlr cable is better?

This probably means that the audio interface is not designed to accept balanced audio on a TRS connection. Who knows what is in those “combi-jacks”? By using TRS to XLR, the interface can accept the balanced signal properly.

Good news ...

I’m sure there is no built-in calibration for this. You would need to alter the summing resistors in the circuit so that the external patch points were matched with the internal pitch CV path.

Some quick info:

1) Moog does not participate in this forum. They did in the distant past. I have no idea why this changed.

2) Left hand controller electronics in the ‘22 reissues are very different from the ‘16 reissues. The mod wheel Implementation is completely redesigned to enable MIDI ...

Sure, there is a difference when two oscillators are in action on the Multi. But the persistent rumor is that even when the Multi mixer is turned to one extreme, it does not drive the filter as hard as the Micro. In the schematics, however, the gain is the same. There should be no substantial ...

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement. I think I favor a higher degree of normalization in a modular than most. In this case, I would definitely normalize two envelopes and a trigger delay together. (Actually part of my plan for the MOS-Lab cabinet I recently purchased.) and I like the integration ...

I think one of the claims that the Micro drives the filter hotter is actually in the Moog service manual. That is why it puzzles me. The schematics in the same manual don’t agree with this.

I do have two MultiMoogs , so maybe I’ll get the opportunity to compare them all in the future.

Good point to check whether the Q158 is DC coupled, though I don’t know why you would expect that it isn’t. Even the primitive Moog 902 is DC coupled.

But supposing it is DC capable, it covers the two VCAs plus mixer part of your description of a ‘morpher’. And it also has handy knobs to condition ...

Not impressed that they don’t even bother to post information here in their own forum. What are they thinking?

It was once claimed and often repeated that the Micro drives the filter harder than the Multi. However, I do not see that the circuit in the schematics supports this result. I remain skeptical until I find evidence via a direct shootout of the two, or some demonstration that the circuits actually ...

Rarecomponentadsr wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 10:43 am I wonder if there’s any module that enables morphing on a Moog ? Maybe ?

I’ve been considering the dotcom Q158 module for this type of patching. Looks great on paper at least.

This is *much* better in firmware 1.3. It's like a new instrument.

That’s great to hear. The question though, is how in the hell does firmware with lousy latency or responsiveness get past Beta testing?! That is a fundamental showstopper for an instrument.

And frankly, any company could provide ...

(Accidentally posted that last reply without logging-in…)

Not a fan of modern “support culture” that only seems to respond to official support “tickets”. That just tends to hoard knowledge, when many common problems could be discussed openly.


100 % this !!!


I mean I went through the trouble to methodically submit descriptive tickets for the ...

I haven’t seen any meaningful participation by Moog in this forum for years. It’s really pretty appalling. There is not enough traffic that they can claim it would take too much time. I can only conclude by all appearances that they don’t really care much about support.

Not a fan of modern “support ...