Has anybody compared the Little Phatty with the DSI Mono Evolver Keyboard? Which has a richer sound, and which has greater capabilities? I would think the MEK would have the hands-on interface advantage.
I can’t imagine how people on a Moog forum will respond to such an inquiry.
Thanks, Nikola. That was perfect. I’d still like more opinions, though.
you are welcome 
actually i had to make the same decision two years ago..
and i bought LP, cous you cant get a decent filter sweep out of a MEK, and that is one of a a basic elements in electronic music.
also it seems to me that LP has more juice to a sound and more character..
MEK has more features, but i am not the “features” man, that is way i left behind PC a long time a go (PC as an instrument).
I like my less-features better-sounding LP:)
The LP is a true analog instrument, whereas DSI utilizes digitally controlled oscillators, and features Curtis filters, which IMO, are weak. The only chips in an LP are transistor arrays, from which the oscillators, filters, VCA, and envelopes are derived. This produces a much warmer, thicker sound. The LP also has sturdier knobs than the MEK. 
Yes. I agree with Voltor07. I had evolver desktop for the past 1.5 year. It sounds so thin comparing to the same case of Moog LP.
Once I tried to resemble a saw lead which I did with Evolver but I could not do that. However hard I try, Moog Lp CAN NOT sound so thin as Evolver does. 
Because Moog LP sounds much thicker and warm. It really does.
I think it’s due to the DCOs, I have the same thing with the Prophet '08. Even dual layered in unison it doesn’t sound as phat as the Little Phatty. The CEM filter does sound nice in a certain soundrange but it isn’t as versatile as the Moog filter in my opinion.
And hands-on control with encoders? I call that screen-on..
This is a short demo made with Evolver desktop.
http://vvs.x-y.net/images/evdm.mp3
Saw lead: Evolver
Bass seq. : Evolver
Drum : DR-55
That is the lead I mentioned above.
I have two Prophet 08’s, and I think they’re fabulous; their sound quality is beautiful to my ears. I also have a Voyager Old School. There’s no doubt in my mind, however, that the Moog is superior in tone. I’ve always preferred Moogs to all other synthesizers. But, because I may need another monophonic synthesizer, I was trying to compare the LP and the MEK. The one thing I don’t like about the LP, though, is the need to assign the rotary controls to a function. The MEK has the advantage here. Yet, in the above video, the MEK filter sweep was very digital sounding; it literally stepped through the sweep, whereas the LP sweep was smooth and rich. There was no comparison between the two instruments.
I do really like the DSI instruments, and their prices are reasonable. But in my book, Moog is numero uno. Beauty of tone is more important than a vast array of capabilities. Quality over quantity is an important musical principle.
One additional compliment towards Moog: they write excellent manuals. In the earlier days, synthesizer manuals (ARP, Korg, Roland) could be intersting and informative reads. You’d gain a general knowledge of synthesis, rather than just familiarity with one instrument. I find modern instrument manuals to be extremely dry, boring, and more computer technical than musical. You read them because you have to, not because you want to. Contrary to this, the Voyager manual is an interesting and enjoyable piece of synthesizer literature. I presume this is true also of the Little Phatty manual?
It’s technical when you need it to be, and yet, easy enough for someone without an engineering background to understand. Also, it gives hints and tips to improve your style. A very enjoyable read. 
I have not played the MEK, but out of 8 synths I own, the LP and DSI Mopho are the only two I care about anymore.
To quote a certain celebrity chef, those two instruments “are money”. They work and play very well together. Of course, the MoPho is a single Prophet '08 voice with a few extras thrown in, so the idea of an LP/Prophet '08 pairing ain’t too shabby either.
- G
I replaced an MEK with my LP. It was a very hard decision since both instruments have alot going for them. They can make alot of the same sounds (as can be seen in the side-by-side video) but then both stretch out very far in opposite directions.
I ultimately found the LP to sound warmer and I liked the seemingly greater control (with fewer knobs) that I had with the LP. At times I miss the MEK, mind you, but I really enjoy connecting with the LP. Even though I already had a Voyager I decided to go with the LP.
I had both. I miss the LP. I thought the MEK while better on paper just didn’t sound that great (in my opinion of course). The LP is a simpler instrument and the MEK can do crazy stuff the LP can’t but in the end I wanted a warmer vintage sound. It really depends on what your needs are though.
You should check out the Alesis Andromeda manual. It’s sort of writtten in the old school tradition with chapters on basic synthesis as well as the tech stuff that’s Andromeda specific.
Yes, I looked over the Andromeda manual on line. Very impressive, like the old manuals. If only I could afford the synthesizer itself!
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.
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…
It depends on what you’re looking for in a synth.
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.