Right now Moog are on the verge of shipping the Taurus 3 pedals.
There’s been a lot of talk about hoping for a new Moog polysynth to compete with the Andromeda A6 and the DSI Prophet '08. I would love to see Memorymoog Voyager - or see them do with the Memorymoog what they did with the Taurus. But the general opinion is that something like that would be cost prohibitive and a huge gamble for a small company that can’t afford to release products that don’t sell.
So instead of a polysynth, what if Moog did a Liberation reissue?
I’m normally quite opposed to these kind of synths, but most of them have looked plasticky and cheap for the last 20 years. There are some nicer looking examples of ones made with wood elsewhere on the forum.
Here’s my shopping list:
Wood craftmanship that would look aesthetically similar to ‘classic’ guitars and basses. Possibly a plain version, like the theremins, that you can finish yourself and save some $$
Modern amenities like presets and excellent midi control. Like the difference between a Taurus 1 and a T3.
Relatively light weight.
I only played the Liberation once, but from what I recall, the monosynth sounded really good, and there was a basic polysynth section using divide-down circuitry. I wonder what could be done with divide-down circuitry in a modern context…
Also, I could see something like this looking really good with either a floor or rack full of Moogerfoogers.
I think “keytars” are only good as controllers. A modern Moog would be too costly and nicely made to just strap on and run around the stage with. I do not think anyone would buy a Moog just as a midi controller to control another synth offstage.
To be honest it would only make sense as a rackmount. Then you may as well just get a Voyager RME and use any MIDI keytar (stick a Moog sticker on if you like).
However i was always interested in the Liberation - is it much different from the MG-1? i’d like to see something a bit quirkier like a Multimoog (without the global warming-inducing circuits!).
I used to own a Liberation, it was the weakest moog synth in my arsenal (the filter has no balls). The Rogue or MG-1 was a better lead synth. The Lib only got used for the solo in Frankenstein in my weekend band. I tried to find other uses but it has a really wimpy filter. It couldn’t even put out a decent bass. When the Voyager came along, I sold it.
If it could be retrofitted as a MIDI controller, I would’ve kept it. It had great LH control features and aftertouch, a shame it couldn’t be MIDI’d.
It would be hard to top the new Roland Axe Synth as a keytar-style MIDI controller. The Axe has great performance controls, a really nice built-in poly synth engine, and you can play your existing Moogs from it without breaking the bank. As MC stated, I doubt there would be much of a market for a Liberation.
Sooner or later, Moog needs to tackle the poly synth. How about making an expandable poly? Users could purchase the keyboard & chassis as a 4-voice or even a mono, and expand it by installing additional voice & modulation boards as their budgets allow. Zero presets or a thousand, 1 LFO simpleness or 8 LFO insanity, 4, 6, 8 or 16 voices, all defined by the user.
I say that everyone who wants a polysynth from Moog, take the Taurus 3 as a lesson, and start saving for it NOW. Its probably going to be very expensive and you might as well start putting back your pre order nest egg for the future when and if they decide to say
“Okay were going to make only 1000 polysynths and we need a 2000 dollar deopsit and we need at least 750 orders before the project is a go” or something like that.
I certianly wouldn’t want to be caught broke the day they announce that…first the constellation system, then the world.
I’d like to see a sequencer and drum machine combo. An analog drum synth with a dedicated sequencer along with a sequencer that could control 4 external devices each with CV outs and MIDI. It sticks a lot closer to the monosynth niche Moog has currently been on. It could integrate any of the moog synths, foogers, and control processors.
Minus the MIDI to CV, what you’ve described is basically the JoMoX XBase999 (/888).
A good little drum machine with often overpowering bass, but the UI is a little lacking.
As far as the OP goes, I don’t think “wood craftmanship” and “relatively light weight” go too well together. How about Starlabs, even though the designs are a bit '80s:
Only $5895 for the last one, MoogGuitar instead, anyone?
It would be very nice, but if it is anything like the Fender Custom shop, just mentioning the word custom would be like adding a few thousand…and guess what…they would probably startmaking modules again.
No offence intended, but I am so NOT feeling those Starlabs controllers. Yeck!!
There were some nice examples of controllers made from wood somewhere on the site… it might have been in reference to ribbon controllers or something… I’ll try to find the link and post it when I can.
Anyway, I didn’t think they looked too bad.
I can’t get onboard the new Roland AX-synth either.. again, cheap and plasticky.
However, I think I agree with those that have stated that if it’s important enough, get a midi controller and control a LP or Voyager from that instead.
The Liberation seemed interesting to me, but a lot of time has passed since I first saw one. Of course, my memory of synths tends to be viewed through rose coloured glasses sometimes…
If they stuck a Little Phatty into a wood keytar and added divide down polyphony, I would be on that like a pig in you-know-what!
A Liberation reissue (meaning, exact replica) would be, as MC stated, not a good idea. But take the LP boards and put them into a Liberation-type enclosure complete with ribbon controller on the neck, hell yes that would be AMAZING!
I have to agree. In this day and age of cheap and reliable wireless MIDI transmitters/receivers
it would seem far more effective to have a strap on controller that’s lightweight and has lots of
real-time knobs/sliders that can control any/all of your analog gear that has MIDI.
That way, the analog synth doesn’t have to be compromised just so that it can be lightweight,
not cumbersome, resistant to stage abuse, battery powered, and yet reasonably priced. That’s
a tall order for something that not every keyboardist will buy.
Agreed. So it seems a small group of us have deemed the Liberation idea, in whatever form - unfeasable.
Here’s something else, of course in lieu of a true Memorymoog remake ( my true wish, BTW)…
I’ve seen some videos recently of a Moog Opus 3. It’s been years since someone did a divide-down synth - probably for good reasons, but still..
I have to say that the examples I’ve heard didn’t sound that organ like unless intended. I know what the triggering is like, because I have owned a string machine in the past. The youtube stuff I saw was actually pretty cool sounding.
Question: do we feel that this type of technology has something new to offer in a modern day context, or were divide down oscs the obsolete Neanderthal on the way to musical Homo Sapiens?
Ohh, the Opus 3…
It’s a highly desirable machine.
Great sound with the stunning string chorus f/x.
But still, ever since my beloved Jupiter 8 was stolen from a London studio, I’m on the lookout for one of the great original poly beasts. I’ll be among the first to place an order for a Memorymoog remake.
I agree that divide down technology hasn’t been explored enough. Is it limited? Yes. Archaic? Perhaps. Useful? For some sounds, absolutely. I am certain that with a little modern technology, a divide down synth would be a very nice thing to have…but I don’t feel like I’m in the majority when it comes down to actually wanting one. Of course, I’d want a modern version of almost every Moog and ARP ever built…so I’m probably just going to go back to my hole now.
No amount of modern technology is going to make TOS divide down technology sound better. It never got better than the Polymoog, and even that isn’t a decent synthesizer.
The major limitations of TOS is you can’t modulate independent notes at all (IE can’t use an LFO or EG to sweep the pitch of an independent key), you’d need an independent filter per key (61 filters gets expensive in a hurry), cannot use a glide processor, and it can’t be economically MIDIfied. That really limits the palette of sounds it can make.
The Polymoog was the peak of TOS design. They designed a custom IC for each key that gave it independent EGs, waveform shaper, waveform mixer, and a very limited non-resonant filter per key. It was a really expensive TOS system that didn’t do much more than strings, pads, vox humana, or organ. It had one single master VCF that sounded wheezy and couldn’t go into oscillation (the VCF is last in the audio chain). That hampered brass and other synth sounds. The TOS architecture is not at all suitable for FX patches.
Part of the vintage Moog charm is the non-linearity of its VCAs (read: mild distortion) that would warp laboratory sterile waveforms into ear-pleasing ‘warmth’. TOS synths like the Polymoog and Opus 3 don’t have VCAs to add their non-linear distortion, which led to their sterile sound.
Once the voice assignment stuff like the Oberheim SEM polysynths, Prophet-5, and CS-80 came along they pretty much mapped the way to proper synthesis. Sales of Polymoogs dropped off like a rock and the preset-only Polymoog Keyboard was released as a cost effective alternative but it wasn’t enough. The winds of change occurred with the release of the Memorymoog which got a lot more sounds.
MC,
So from an engineering standpoint, whats the solution?
I thought that running multiple Voyagers Midi’d together with 1 filter being the solution, or a Midi controllable dual VCO Fooger (1 per each available midi channel) run back into the Voyager’s ext input would have been the solution but thats not exactly true polyphony as Ive since learned.
Is a polyphonic synth really a bit out of the ballpark for Moog, as Bob professed or would there be another more feasible (from all avenues) approach?
How about Starlabs, even though the designs are a bit '80s:
.