Friends,
I’m not pretending to be a keyboard player by any means but I thought I’d test the two beastly phasers out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt7g7hAUjS0&feature=youtu.be
Eric
Okay, I gotta ask, what’s up with the gloves? It’s an eerie visual effect.
Interesting.
I myself have a Subdecay Quasar DLX, good little analog phaser with plenty of digital control options, in a tiny, lovely mauve metal case 
I’d be interesed in comparing it to some EHX or Moog… I’ll think about that.
That was my 2nd favorite gloved video of all time (not counting everything that Michael Jackson did).
My first favorite was, and still is…: this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4exE71wbF4
Smurfette insisted that I give her a backrub and I guess I got a little overzealous.
EricK,
Nice comparison. I have the exact same EHX phaser that you do (I believe is was the 2nd issue, called the issue “J.”) Anyhow, it’s an absolutely lush, no holds-barred phaser…love it, and never heard anything like it! However, I much prefer my 103 because I find that it’s a whole hell of lot more versatile. The 103’s sound quality is lightyears beyond any other phaser I’ve tried. I really love how Moog pays attention to detail…they do a great job of making sure the signal paths of their Foogers are clean as can be. That being said, I still rock my orange/vintage Small Stone all the time…great for Pink Floyd. I had my Small Stone modded. So I could adjust the depth. Instead of a depth switch, I had my luthier/tech take that out and install a potentiometer…makes it a bit more versatile.
That would be a great mod. It doesn’t have much headroom though…which I guess is to be expected. The pot date is 1977, the EIA number on the Wurlitzer I believe is a 1977, and the MicroMoog tag reads 1977. I know that doesn’t mean the latter two were 1977 but it’s close enough.
I really love the way they sound together…it’s like instant classic sound right at your fingertips. I need to invest in some leisure suits.
The 103 though, has a lot of heardoom and just has many features. Sometimes, it is too creamy that it ends up overshadowing whatever instrument you are running through it. I wish there was a mix knob on it. The Murf does great phasing, in a very cool way also.
Now the Cluster Flux is almost too noisy for me. I have one on loan right now and I’m not really digging it that much.
When the Rhodes gets out of the shop, Im desperate to run this test again with that…cause I’m having an effects loop installed. and some other stuff done.
Eric
Yea I agree, the Small Stone doesn’t have much headroom (especially compared to a 103.)…hahaha leisure suits, it looks like '77 is your year my friend! I also agree with the 103 being too creamy sometime…I much prefer it with guitar (on a clean channel) than anything else because it basically just allows the phaser to do it’s thing..completely, which is beautiful. But yea, it can get super thick (just a smidge of LFO will do ya on the 103.)
Ya know, I have a Murf as well and I think there’s something wrong with it (mine that is.) I have the first version, not midi. I know how it’s supposed to sound, but it’s inconsistant and just jangly/muffled…need to send it to Moog and have them service/calibrate it, but yea it does do a great phaser sound as well, although I much prefer the 103 or Small Stone. The Murf has such a wide pallet of sounds.
See, I’m a HUGE chorus/flange guy and have been drooling over the 108 for a while. It’s interesting to hear about your noise issue! I’m going to have to look into this more deeply before I drop 500 bones on it. I haven’t even had a chance to try a Clusterflux yet.
OOOOHHH, an effects loop installed in your Rhodes? Very interesting man! That should be really cool and useful. Holler at me when you get it back, I’d love to hear how it sounds with that effects loop.