I agree. I’d rather a rack expansion than a whole new synth.
I like the vco expansion idea. I’d probably, no, I would purchase it for my Voyager. However, as Beluhan has pointed out, the price range on this whole idea can tend to be prohibitive for most buyers.
In this day and age of computers and Reason (the program), it can be difficult to justify spending even $1500.00 to $2000.00 for a synth period.
I love my voyager – and my Prophet 5 & Juno106 & sh101, & DX7’s, & tr909, & tb303 etc… The $10000.00 (or so) I’ve spent on traditional synths most certainly could have been much better spent simply buying computer programs and plug-ins though.
Minus the computer (which I would have owned anyway) I probably could have saved about $9000.00! Reason alone costs only $300.00 or so. And that program includes samplers, synths, distortion units, reverb units, drum machines, mixers, etc. including lot’s of room for expansion. It is a virtual studio that is so much more versatile than any group of hard synths and other hardware ever will be (for the price). Even non-musicians can essentially begin composing music – right out of the box!
I certainly can’t announce the obituary just yet for hard synths along with all of the accompanying hardware, but it does appear, to me, that the future of the hard synth is paralleling that of the wagon wheel, unfortunately…
I expect that it is going to be increasingly difficult for Moog to make Synths and accessories for profit in this ever rapidly evolving musical environment.
My humble suggestion for Moog is that, in addition to manufacturing and selling hardware, they should – and NOW – begin developing MOOG software in order to maintain company viability for the future. I think even the Sequential Pro-One is available via softsynth now.
A ‘soft’ Voyager would easily include everything that most anyone would desire in a Voyager and more (limitless patch storage, limitless polyphony, no more maintence, limitless expandability, dead-on stability, etc, etc) for a mere fraction of the cost of a new or used Voyager. To some this may sound blasphemous, but I think it’s the new reality of today…
(Sorry, didn’t mean to write a book about the subject! 
)
One more thing. A ‘soft’ Voyager would be the perfect expansion accessory for those of us who already own the hardware version. We would then be able to utilize the real Voyager as a midi controller to the suped-up ‘soft’ Voyager . Furthermore, ideally the vx-351 and other hard accessories would also be made available as soft accessories as well, in the form of purchasable plug-ins.
Rough estimate: soft Voyager $250.00 - $500.00 or less, VX-351 (and other plug-ins) $25-$50 each or so. A complete duel poly/mono soft Voyager system with plug-in accessories should be much less than $1000.00 and yet not be limited by any hardware – only the capability of one’s computer.
I’ve used the software Pro-One, although polyphonic, I prefer having the real thing in front of me! I wouldn’t like to have a soft synth, primarily because I don’t want to have a computer with me on stage.
Which is understandable.
However, not everyone plays on stage, nor does everyone have the thousands of $'s required to buy what you and I own.
I also compose music in my home, not in an expensive professional studio. If it weren’t for computers, I wouldn’t be able to accomplish what I’m currently able to accomplish – which was simply impossible just a few short years ago.
As I mentioned above, the ‘soft’ version of the Voyager could even be used, and thought of, as an accessory to compliment your ‘real’ Voyager, not necessarily as a replacement…
I think both can co-exist. I started out using soft synths and an oxygen 8 controller. But honestly it just doesn’t feel the same as having the real deal in front of you. I like the knobbage factor on hardware gear. The soft synth stuff is great if you’re travelling and can’t haul all your gear around or you want to conserve studio space. But it sucks when the crap isn’t stable or you have to wait for upgrades/compatibility issues, etc. And then there’s this huge issue of piracy. Yes, it is an issue otherwise manufactures wouldn’t issue dongles with their software or require a TC PowerCore to run certain plugs and other registration requirements.
And although the soft synth craze has made it more affordable to the masses, it has it’s pitfalls. Now any joe blow can go purchase a softsynth with no experience and start putting out crap. Don’t get me wrong there are two sides here, this being in the hands of the right creative people who are serious about their hobby.
I’d rather have a real Korg MS-20 in front of me as opposed to a mock up controller (which is soon to be released).
Bottom line, I would rather see Bob and company continue the forefront of analog hardware equipment design.
Just my .02
Hey, I understand monads – I also think that both can co-exist.
I’m not sure where you’re coming from though when you mention stability and update issues though with soft synths (especially Reason). Seems to me that computers are what have made synths stable! I certainly have no trouble with the soft synths that I currently use.
Furthermore, I own a $3500.00 SigE Moog Voyager and guess what? I have to update it continuously even though it is a hardware synth! (I’m not complaining though – this is a bonus. As with the Voyager, soft synths tend to offer free upgrades, which, allows the unit to evolve over time; a major plus. On the other hand, in the past with hardware, one was generally stuck with the limitations of the technology as sold at the time. To upgrade meant to buy a new synth!)
Anyway, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but, I think my point is that the future is computers whether one appreciates this fact or not. Also, there currently is a place for both hardware and software – and I love my Voyager!
However, if I had the choice of buying a $7500.00, 5 voice polyphonic Moog Voyager w/128 available patch memory, bag, lamp, special glow-in-the-dark mod wheels et. al., OR purchasing a $150.00 software version complete with limitless polyphony, limitless patch storage, along with other specs that could be easily implemented not available via hardware version – I’d purchase the software version hands down. Oh, and throw in a package deal of moogerfooger plug-ins, including a vx-351 plug-in as well for an extra $100.00 as well.
I woudn’t sell my Voyager though, I’d simply use it as a controller for the software version.
I do, however, feel that hardware is becoming less and less needed today in this computer age. Yet, it seems MoogMusic is narrowly focused on hardware instead. Heck, it even took several years before my top-of-the-line Voyager synth was able to send midi CC data! Unbelievable! And it’s still just monophonic…
I hear what you’re saying. I guess good analog equipment isn’t cheap enough to market a polyphonic instrument. Otherwise I’m sure it would’ve been made. Put that aside and look at the demand for the Voyager though. People are gobbling them up. They were gobbling them up even before the OS/midi spec was complete! I do wish that with any new hardware gear, it not be released until the OS is near close to complete.
It just seems like so many companies are making soft synths these days. When I was talking about issues/updates, I was referring to Native Instruments (my bad for focusing on one company but they’re a big player with their product lineup). For example, FM7 and Battery were originally released on OS9, when OSX updates became available they charged existing users a fee! What’s to stop others from doing the same? Or what happens when some of these companies fold? That would suck if I spent a couple of years w/my favorite soft synth sound designing and now I have to figure out another way to preserve my sounds using an old OS or whatever.
One thing interesting is it appears to be in vogue right now as the old school vintage hardware synths coming back. Arps, Pro-One, MS-20, etc.
I too love my voyager but agree with courtney 214 and if I remember correctly Bob Moog does too I think I read an interview where he admitted that software was getting closer and closer to the sound of analog all the time. But he also said something which I think was pretty smart in that he thought that the real innovation in electronic equipment today was in the user interface and making the instruments more intuitive and expressive to play. I think I heard him say that on sonicstate somewhere.
This is why I think the g2 rocks because it uses a computer to make it extremely flexible and user friendly to edit but is also portable and extremely flexible and playable live. Now a g2 like Moog with evolver tendencies analog osc.'s and filters as well with an extremely flexible and user friendly digital architecture with a wide array of digital synthesis as well, all editable on a modularesque computer interface. Touchpad included. That would be amazing. But expensive.
But anyways I think it would be beneficial for Moog to expand the digital creative side of there company. I mean they have the analog side down there circuits sound amazing or else I wouldn’t own a Voyager. But the But the innovation is in the digital domain.
Well, market conditions will dictate where things end up. Only reason Voyager saw the light of day was user demand. The Nord G2 is cool. But the editor for OSX was not available at launch. There was a beta versioin floating around at the time, but no one and not even Clavia would say if support was forthcoming for Mac. Can you tell I’m a Mac user? 
I must admit that if all synthisizing was done on computer, I wouldn’t be interested. I’d stick to guitar! But this new Korg MS20 soft synth with the mock up MS20 controler seems interesting.
This thread seems somewhat to be heading towards a “division”. Hardware versus Software.
How many times has this been ‘argued out’ over the years ?
“Sympathetic” software emulation of analogue circuitry will always yield just an approximation, unless all analogue component tolerences, capacitances between PCB tracks, etc, and the real-time interactions of such, are accurately catered for within the software model. And I don’t believe that any current soft synths are designed at that level.
As with the original Minimoog, I would suggest that no two hardware Voyagers sound exactly the same. They may be closer than the original Minimoogs in terms of audible differences between units though.
Moog aren’t a software design company. However, they appear to be willing to selectively sanction software produced by third parties that meets their stringent ‘quality’ criteria.
From some of the posts on this thread it appears that there is something of a lack of appreciation for the amount of effort that would be involved in creating software that would emulate “your hardware baby” to the extent that you couldn’t tell the difference.
From the software side - I don’t think you’ll ever get it from Moog.
KB
i agree that this topic is a difficult one, but i will say hands down that i prefer hardware to software.sure, some of the software synths sound great in their own right but compare any software with the equivalent hardware and i have yet to be convinced. theres some way to go until i would consider using my powerbook and a controller as a replacement for any of my hardware synths both on stage and in the studio. theres no way that my computer would have survived my last 3 years on tour, but my synths never failed me once. software comes second place on all levels for me in terms of sound,playability,reliabilty,simplicity,looks. i think anyone who is on this list has a duty to support hardware. hardware is definitely like having a rolls royce. software is like a driving simulator! 
Running a soft synth might be a very cheap option, bearing in mind that decent desktops/laptops cost more than a secondhand synth. I agree with whoever said that some people should not have easy access to cheap programs, because of the crap they would churn out, but that’s the same as me with my Voyager and Pro-One. 
My friend demonstrated Reason to me, it all looked so very confusing, similar to several huge modulators, and he got the program free. Soft synths will not become a collectors item, and probably wont get much when sold on. I also find analogue synthesizers very attractive too.
Just buy a Studio Electronics Omega 8. You could control it from the Voyager and you would be set. Unfortunately, they cost $4500…But they are the bomb.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment just think of the amount of work that would go into a convincing simulation of driving a ‘roller’. There’d almost be as much hardware involved as the real thing - the feel of the “clump” of the door closure, the experience of effect of the pressure differential created in the cabin on your ear drums, the tactile feedback of seats and controls, the smell.
A purely software simulation couldn’t be created that was convincing. Just like a ‘flight simulator’, there is no feeling without hardware.
You would need quite a bit of hardware to recreate the simplicity of using an actual synth. By then you would have been better off buying a hardware synth than a soft synth. The main problem with soft synths is eye fatigue!
A purely software simulation couldn’t be created that was convincing. Just like a ‘flight simulator’, there is no feeling without hardware.
You could buy a joystick, pedals even extra screens so you can see all round you. Like getting a keyboard controller to control your soft synth program. It still wouldn’t feel right.
Maybe some people would prefer a soft synth, especially if they lack room to keep a real synth, or don’t have the money for one. its all about personal preference.
there is a big difference in comparing flight simulators/airplanes and synths/soft synths. flight sims don’t actually fly. softsynths do, in fact, create sound.
i trully believe that we are only time away from softsyths that are sonically indistinguishable from hardware. it is only a matter of enough processor power, ram, and programming craft.
what is going to matter is how we as performers and composers interact with these instruments. with creative synthesis, the key is control. the biggest shortcoming in most softsynths that one is require to control them with a mouse or alpha/numeric keyboard. things are getting better with more manufacturers making midi fader controllers and such. imagine, though, something like this: a program like arturia’s modular V a few generations from now combined with a customized controller. with a physical control (high bit depth, no stepping) for every physical control. with a central touchscreen lcd display for patching (or some other clever solution for patching). would this be expensive? yes. as expensive as a comparable hardware modular? not even close.
having said that, i still think we are a long way from physical synths becoming obsolete. after all, we still use violins and flutes and other ancient instruments, don’t we? but that doesn’t stop new and exciting instruments from being created and refined.
i can’t wait to see where we’re going to go in the next fifty years.
Buy a Moog because it sounds like a Moog (powerful or sweet).
What about the loss in dynamics an overtones during the D/A Coversion?
And what about aliaising on digitals and Software-Synths. Is it gone meanwhile?
Buy a Moog because it sounds like a Moog (powerful or sweet).
I aggree completely. If it suits your needs and if it is within your means.
What about the loss in dynamics an overtones during the D/A Coversion?
And what about aliaising on digitals and Software-Synths. Is it gone meanwhile?
These are temporary issues. Sample rates and bit-depths will continue to increase. Already the Arturia Modular has vastly improved upon aliasing problems.
Eek - are ‘aliasing’ issues still a problem ? They were certainly something I had to consider in the early 80’s (in the days when Nyquist was a necessary consideration) - but surely nowadays the progression of A/D & D/A hardware development has met the challenge as far as audio signal processing, and the human ear, is concerned.
It’s been quite a long time for me - I know I haven’t “moved” that quickly - maybe technology hasn’t either.