Hi gents - I am new to the board and have a technical question. I have the opportunity to buy an MG-1 for $200.00. The person says cosmetically it is in great shape and works great except for “what happens is the octave shifts from time to time with tone source 2”. Is this a real problem, or something that can be easily fixed? The seller thinks that the problem is with the source modulator.
Thanks in advance for you input
Tom
depends on if you are very good with tech work or not. Repairs on these aren’t cheap for the most part. Before I worked on my own, I would take them to places and get charged an arm and a leg for any minor work.
Thanks for the reply - I am pretty good with a soldering iron and can figure just about anything out with the proper instruction. I am wondering though if anyone can guess what the problem might be form the description that I gave, and how hard would it be to fix.
Thanks again - Tom
I am not certain what the problem would be without looking at the board and hearing exactly what it is doing. However I would say it is a safe buy, because even if you can’t fix it they are going broke on ebay for more than 200$. As long as you don’t screw it up when working on it I would say it is a safe investment. If you don’t want to buy it then I’m surely interested for that price.
for $200, i’d go for it. it could even be something like an intermittent octave switch on osc 2. chipsforbrains sells new switch/slider kits on ebay for pretty cheap.
and see the thread where i posted the MG-1 Service Manual/Schematics for DIY help.
weve restored and sold many mg1s over the years and i can tell you from experience that any MG1 requiring repair is probably going to need a good internal cleanup first. the foam inside the MG1 that separates the front panel from the pcb melts over time and turns into a tar like substance. just be sure to wear gloves and something to protect your clothing, as well as covering the surrounding area. its not a lot of fun.
good luck
mini
ditto. 
The MG-1 I recently bought just arrived, and I’ve been playing with it for awhile.
I can’t believe how underrated this synth is! They made a lot of bizarre choices with it, but I think all of them paid off.
This synthesizer is definitely worth the average price it goes for on eBay.
Oh, I just want to BITE everyone for their bizarre comments like “the polyphony is not really polyphony,” etc. After all these years of listening to people unfairly complain about the MG-1, no one EVER stated that the polyphonic section ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE FILTER!!! That’s AWESOME! It’s your own tiny little string synth! Sure, we’d all like it if polyphonic synths had VCA/VCF/ENV per key, but on a tiny inexpensive monosynth, everyone should be jumping for JOY that they have a tiny little polyphonic section that gets to go through a Moog filter!
Plus, the timbral diversity generated by the sync/ringmod/two osc setup… absolutely stellar… especially since you have such mixing control.
Sample and Hold, even!
The keyboard isn’t as cheap as I thought it would be, either.
Ohhh, you can expect a video about this guy. : )
My only complaint is that this thing has those same wretched sliders as the OPUS 3 had, and my LFO to FILTER balance slider has the same issue as my LFO slider had on the opus 3… only half of it works, and its intermittent at best… not to mention LOOSE. Several of the sliders seem loose. I’m going to open it up and see what I can do about it. That plus these sliders always feel like you’re dragging a chunk of metal through broken glass. Ugh. I might buy the new ones from Chips For Brains, in hope that they feel better.
Overall, though… it’s VERY worth the money!
i think its a much better value than the rogue. the polyphonic section does have its limitations. you will see in time, my son. in time…
While I have not personally played or personally heard a Rogue (heard samples, but apparently they don’t count), it would seem to me that the functionality exceeds the Rogue.
The MG-1 I have isn’t quite as warm-rich-thick as the Micromoog, so it may not be as fat as the Rogue.
As for polyphony… let’s see… I’ve been playing polyphonic analog synthesizers since about 1985. I have and have had a number of analog polyphonics, including at one time or another, nearly every major string synth. I have a Korg PS-3100, which is divide-down and features a full synthesizer for every key, down to a Korg Monopoly, which, like string synths, forces all four notes through a single ENV/VCA/VCF.
If I say I am satisfied with the MG-1’s polyphony, it is because I am objective about what it is- a tiny cheap analog monosynth. Any polyphony at ALL on such a thing is GREAT POLYPHONY!
It drives me nuts that everyone thinks that all analog polysynths have to have piano action, piano-like sound production (in that each note has individual ENV/VCA/VCF), and multiple oscillators layered upon each note. Synthesizers are not pianos, and although we all like synthesizers to have more features, a synthesizer is not worthless when it lacks the top-of-the-line features.
An artful synth player is not limited by the limitations of a less-expensive synth… for often, those synths have features that make them useful, if not endearing.
If I have to ride the filter cutoff slider while I play chords, so be it… the little damned thing sounds GREAT to my ears, despite merely being a divide-down square wave! I don’t need it to be a CS-80… I have a CS-50 to fake THAT. ; )
If this means I don’t have to tote my Pianet to my next gig in England (oh, my GOD Homeland Security is suspicious about pianets), then it’s the best polyphony I can imagine. ; )
like i said… "you will see in time, my son. in time… "
let us know when you figure out its biggest limitation.
Well, the only limitation that I’ve discovered thus far is the polyphonic sections dubious relationship with the ENV/VCA. There really is no true release with the polyphonic section, it’s on or off, and the only way you get the ENV to make the VCA sound like there is is if you hold the chord until the ENV has done its thing.
See, again… this is not a limitation to me… it really would only be a limitation if you had expectations for it. Nowhere on this device does it suggest that it is a piano or a CS-80, so I cannot complain about this very limited VCA relationship. I can only complain about there not being a release if I seek a sound for this device that it is not capable of and frown in disappointment when what I want isn’t represented in something that can’t do whatever I imagine. ; )
I’m more about working within the boundaries of the machine. I like to discover what all it can do, and what can be done with what it can do, as opposed to comparing it to other keyboards, especially those that easily exceed it.
Again… it’s the only monosynth with a polyphonic function!
I think most of the complaining comes from people who expect this very tiny, very cheap synth to fulfill the dreams they have of more expensive synthesizers. You can’t buy a Festiva and complain when it’s not a BMW.
Anyway… the only limitation I am frustrated by is the fact that these sliders are absolute shite. Someone please tell me the new sliders are smooth and effective!
And… uh… then tell me how to install them. ; )
looks like you discovered most peoples biggest complaint about the poly section. for an organ type of volume contour, its fine, but if you want anything with a release, forget about it.
youre right to take it for what it is, dont be unhappy about what it isnt - its a cool little synth and IMO a very good value in a monosynth. the polyphonic section is a bonus, but i wouldnt consider it a true polysynth because of this and other limitations
have fun with it
mini
Everyone is probably sick of this rant from me. : )
What the hell is “true polyphony?”
Well, the word just means “multiple sounds.” Any keyboard is polyphonic that plays multiple sounds.
However, somewhat bizarrely, “true polyphony” to most these days seems to mean to most: “variable-pitch oscs with a VCF/VCA/ENV per note.”
While this is a great set up for a synthesizer, I don’t know why it is a requirement for a synthesizer to be “truly polyphonic.” Especially because analog synthesizers with that arrangement are almost never “truly polyphonic” in that you can only play a limited amount of notes.
It’s understandable that people would decide to sacrifice the amount of notes for a VCF/VCA/ENV per note arrangement… but that decision does not in any way affect the reality of the other manner, or its validity.
It makes sense to prefer one arrangement, but is utterly ridiculous to decry the other for the choice.
This is particularly bizarre to me due to the fact that the “polyphony” that everyone seems to think is “true” polyphony came AFTER that which is now, for some reason, called “not true polyphony.”
The first marketed polyphonic device to embody the spirit of the synthesizer was the Hammond Novachord. It was a device designed to musically implement new electronic technology and appeal to those who wanted to create sounds never heard.
“The Novachord should not be considered a substitute for the piano or any of the other musical instruments it can resemble. It is a new instrument producing a profusion of beautiful tones, some familiar, some of them new.”
“The electrical principle whic it employs is also new and involves many inventions with promise to be very important ot the future of music.”
These are quotes from a Novachord pamphlet.
The Novachord was, for all intents and purposes, the first marketed polyphonic synthesizer. (actually, the Telharmonium was, but its design concept was not so much to create a new electronic instrument that could create new unique sounds through electronic manipulation… ditto the Hammond Organ, which was designed as the first electronic emulative instrument, and not an instrument to create new sounds) And, as the first polyphonic synthesizer, it featured a divide-down oscillators, and a very limited envelope generator… just like its direct progeny, the Polymoog, which was the first MODERN marketed polyphonic synth. Both of these devices were truly polyphonic in that all of their notes played, and at least in the case of the Novachord, each note had its own VCA/ENV.
If you think about it, variable-pitch osc polyphony is a bizarre marriage between the modular concept, which had no similarity whatsoever to the concept of an acoustic polyphonic device, and digital technology, which was the only technology that could easily and inexpensively direct key events to multiple oscillators. As such, it still isn’t “true polyphony,” if true polyphony uses the piano as a model.
I’m certainly not arguing that variable-osc polyphony is not true polyphony, merely pointing out that the distinctions are arbitrary and based on incongrent concepts. The synthesizer was designed to be something that created new and unique sounds using electronic methods. It was an attempt to use new technology to create NEW instruments. To hold the synthesizer to a standard such as the piano makes no sense. Synthesizers do what they do… there are a number of features, and each model has a different combination of these features. If a monophonic has one ENV for both the VCF and VCA, do we dismiss it as “not true monophony?” No, of course not… we either accept it and make the noises we want, or we get a synthesizer that possesses the features we require.
Do I think a Korg Delta is better than a Prophet 5? Well, I gotta say no… and for the reasons you might expect. I, too, love it when a synthesizer features a VCF/VCA/ENV per note… not because it’s what I expect, or because I can play it like a piano, or because it’s what I’m accustomed to a synth soundling like because I’ve grown up with the Korg Triton or something… because it gives me the ability to shape sounds and play sounds in the way that I desire. However, this does NOT mean that every synthesizer that doesn’t fit my criteria isn’t a synthesizer.
If you want to decry something, decry synth manufacturers who, in an attempt to appease synth buyers’ desire for something inexpensive, created divide-down synths with single VCF/VCA/ENV arrangements!
Anyway… as a skilled and experienced synth player, my live-performance requirements for a polyphonic synth sound are easily, happily, and conveniently fulfilled by the dorky and inexpensive MG-1. I’m a pop musician. I’m not Vangelis, I just need a polyphonic analog synth timbre here and there! : ) When I solo, that’s when the variable oscs will do what they do best. : )
to expand upon what i said “i wouldnt consider it a true polysynth because of this (no envelope release) and other limitations”, ok, its truly polyphonic, yes, but theres no way the mg1s polyphonic section can touch the range of sounds a prophet 5 or almost any other poly synth can make. so, while its a cool added feature, if someone asked me for advice on which poly synth to get, the mg1 would be very, very low down on the list if i even put it on the list because when i think of the mg1, i think “cool monosynth with lots of features in an affordable package”. i dont think “polysynth” because its too limited in that department.
mini
True polyphony = each voice has its own VCO/VCF/VCA/EG architecture
Full polyphony = every key has its own voice
Multitimbral = multiple timbre from the same system (IE one note plays a string timbre, another plays a horn)
The Polymoog is a full polyphonic, but not a true polyphonic. Every key has its own voice but a master VCF. Full polyphonics are usually a TOS divide down system and have limited timbres. The MG-1 TOS is the simplest, which generates a square wave only. Not much variety there.
True polyphonics aren’t full polyphonic - it would cost a fortune to build a full true polyphonic in a 61 note keyboard system. So they use a voice assignment system with (X) voices. The big advantage of true polyphonics over TOS systems is that you can get independent voice modulation - there’s no way you can modulate individual pitches or waveshape in a TOS system.
Very few true polyphonics are multitimbral - the Andromeda and Oberheims are two examples. While the Polymoog has a split feature and is multitimbral, there still isn’t much variety.
when i said the MG1 is truly polyphonic, i meant it truly does play polyphonically - that is multiple notes at a time, not that it fits MC’s description of true polyphony.
My point is that divide-down polyphonics and string synths, while possibly limited, are not NOT actual synthesizers, polyphonic or otherwise, simply due to them lacking desired features. Many analog polysynths would suffer in comparison to the Prophet 5! I’m trying to say that while certain polysynths lack features others have, it shouldn’t disqualify them as being polyphonic synthesizers… for the same reason a Rogue isn’t not considered a “true” monosynth because it lacks independent octave control.
The Prophet 5 lacks many features of later synthesizers, but is not retroactively demoded for the fact.
I totally agree.
I would never call the MG-1 a polysynth! I would, however, say that it has a polyphonic section. : )
I don’t want to sound like I am equating this tiny little cute poly section with a full-on polyphonic synthesizer. My response comes from all of the ridiculous analog synth websites which state that it is not actually polyphonic! AND which fail to mention that it does go through the filter and ENV sections (at least to some degree).
I’m fully aware of these latter-day distinctions, what they mean, and why people use them… my point is that the word “true” is inaccurate.
My protestation comes from the increasing trend of dismissal of divide-down synths as synthesizers at all, as opposed to synthesizers that MAY lack some desired features.
In this distinction, it isn’t the divide-down aspect that is considered to be at fault, but rather the lack of VCF per key. Whether a tone has it’s own VCF, or is directed through a main VCF, or whether that synth can play monophonically or polyphonically is NOT what defines it as an actual synthesizer, or how many notes it can play.
There is no dispute there… it is not a full-functioned polyphonic section at all… but I still would not deny that it is a polyphonic synthesizer. When I read what most people said about it, I assumed that the square wave divide down section did not go through the filter or envelope at all… which, to me, would justify it not being considered a synthesizer. It is the barest-bones polyphonic section I’ve ever seen, but because it is directed through the VCF, VCA, and ENV, I say it qualifies as a synthesizer. There are several string synths that are not much more than this.
The problem is, very few built a true divide-down fully polyphonic synthesizer. But, they were built… specifically the Korg PS series. The Korg Delta may not measure up to the PS series in any form at all due to lacking a lot of functionality, but as it is still an electronic device which uses the basic components of the synthesizer, it’s still a synthesizer.
The Korg PS series features a full synthesizer per key and a number of “general” features that all keys go through. This was an expensive way to do it, but it resulted in the best of both worlds. A variable-pitch-oscillator system wouldn’t be a whole lot different, except that it would require far more than 12 oscillators, would be a nightmare to tune, and would need a computer to track all the notes.
If I wanted to be snarky, I would promote these limitations as why a variable-pitch-osc system isn’t “true,” but I’m not snarky. : )
Excepting the Oberheims, most :::ahem::: “true” polyphonics… those that people would quote… do not have this ability! You can’t choose a single oscillator on a Prophet 5 to modulate… can you? You can on a MonoPoly, but I think it would be disqualified (despite having variable-pitch-oscillators!) because it puts all notes through a single VCA/VCF/ENV. Also, the MonoPoly, much decried as NOT polyphonic, also has the ability to truly control individual waveshapes per oscillator! These are things that cannot be done on a Prophet 5, CS-80, or most other major polyphonics.
On the Korg PS, you have some control over pitch modulation… not individual notes, but you don’t have control over individual notes on most polyphonics. You also have control over various waveshapes… the PS has all the major ones. But again, not individual oscillators.
Why do I keep coming back to the PS series when we’re talking about the MG-1? Because I am making the case that most divide-downs are synthesizers without a lot of features, and that the divide-down process is, or would be, largely equal to the variable-pitch-osc system if you compare the best with the best, as opposed to the best of the VPOs to the worst of the DD.
Well, because it lacks variety, does that make it less multitimbral?
There has to be a line drawn between what is desired and what is objective! The definition is the definition, whether the individual points are pleasing or desired or not! Most every polyphonic would become “less polyphonic” in comparision to modern analog synths like the Andromeda, and ESPECIALLY to software synths, etc. :::shudders:::
My point is that the distinction of “true” is dubious at best, and should cease as a descriptor. I do not deny that most VPO synths are better and more effective than most DD synths… but this insane notion that one is a synth and one is not and one is polyphonic and one is not is… well, insane. : )