Synth Strings

The Moog Forum Moog Music General Topics Forum
21

Hmm, Well, if anyone gives one to you send it my way, I could use a spare.

I would call the sounds quite more than useable. I really like what I can get out of it. There is a learning curve though, and one can make an awful sound if one is not careful. But, I think the good sounds are worth the effort.

Anyway, take a listen and see if you think this hammond impersonation sounds bad…I made it with my unmodified Opus 3. No external effects were used. [EDIT: realized I had unplugged the reverb to plug my computer into the EFX send loop to record, so no verb on this one.]

http://wombat.umsl.edu/audio/opusorgan.mp3

Like you said the Brass section can be entertaining. One thing I like is when I get all 3 parts layering together and fade different things right & left. The sounds can be quite complex especially if you use certain sliders as performance tools.

I agree that it is limited in range, but for an extremely lightweight transistor organ it is more flexible synthlike and versatile than any other ever made as far as I know.

take care,

Jester[/url]

22

That organ sounds pretty sweet to me. I’m really looking for string sounds though…you don’t hapen to have any sound clips of those do you :slight_smile:

I had another question about Polyphony…

Some synths seem to have “Full Polyphony” such as the Crumar Performer, but some seem to have a more limited polyphony. I am also a little confused on how the number of voices relates to its polyphony.
For example the ARP Omni 2 has four voices and I belive only four notes can be played at one time…is this just a coincidence that the number voices is the same as the number of notes?
Also how many notes can be played on the OPUS 3 at one time?

23

The Omni 2 is fully polyphonic. The “four voices” is their term for strings, violin, viola, cello, brass. That was before industry convention established by the proper polyphonic Oberheim Four Voice.

I believe the Opus 3 is also fully polyphonic.

24

Ok that helps, but what exactly does full polyphony mean? Someone recently told me that only 4 notes could be played at one time on their omni 2. And some of the reviews on harmony central say that it has “4 note Polyphony”. Is this incorrect or am i totally misunderstanding what full polyphony means.

25

Full polyphony: you can hit every single key on the board at the same time and a note will come out.

X voice polyphony: you can hit X number of keys at the same time and notes will come out. After that every extra key will only move voices around., you will never get x+1 sounds to come out.

Full poly is rare on an analog synth but common on a transistor organ. To understand why one has to understand the difference between a synth and an organ. (i didn’t until I bought this and saw the guts.)

basically a synth traditionaly has the same number of polyphony as oscillators. some, like the minimoog, use multiple oscillators per voice. So, what you end up with in an analog synth is the same number of complete mini-synth sound generation and shaping circuits as you have voices. A jupiter 8 had 4 boards, each with 2 synthesizers, for 8 voice polyphony.

A transistor organ takes a single oscillator and through the magic of transistors, IC’s chips and capacitors divides that out into all the notes on the keyboard.

So, opus3=organ with moog filters
jupiter 8= 8 synths in one box controlled by the same keyboard. Each finger gets a “mini synth.”

As to the voices thing, that term can be misused. Think of a voice on an organ as the same thing as a patch on a synth. On a synth people tend to use “voice” as a shorthand for mini synth typey thing that makes a noise when you hit a single key. Ergo two notes simultaneously requires two “voices.”

There are a whole lot more variations than this, but that is the very basic idea in a nutshell.

I am still learning all the ins and outs of the Opus 3, and am actually working on a string patch. Organ is the best by far though, as you can set it up so the organ goes to the output jacks raw, chorused, and VCO’d all together. Strings get chorus and that is it, no raw, no VCO, so it is a bit trickier. Makes a decent sound, but not like the organ and brass.

Mainly I posted the clip so others could decide for themselves if the opus had not a single good sound in it. I think it has the potential for many good ones, but with the caveat that it is not a synth, it is an organ with extras…

take care,

Jester

26

Got one of those. It’s not a true polysynth, it’s “paraphonic” a term Roland coined. It’s got some organ/string synth technology that’s polyphonic and some synth tech that’s mono (actually split, though with a 4 octave keyboard and fixed split it’s kind of limiting)

You don’t see them too often, but they don’t cost a fortune either. I don’t really like the stings all that much (supposedly identical to the VP-330 strings), but there are enough weird features I want to record some before I sell it. I guess I was hoping to get a Dimension D chorus with some sounds for less than a Dimension D. But it’s not the same chorus though it does go much heavier and crazier in terms of stereo image. A bit noisy though.

I guess if you like Joy Division then maybe you want to get what they used (I don’t know but surely someone does)

Might be cool for some people but I’ve got a feeling you are missing the point. 1970s era string synthesizers don’t sound at all like real strings.

27

Might be cool for some people but I’ve got a feeling you are missing the point. 1970s era string synthesizers don’t sound at all like real strings.

Maybe not, but they’re still a good alternative. I actually like them better! :smiley:

28

Precisely why they work in some genres. The Cars’ “Let The Good Time Roll” wouldn’t sound the same with real strings.

29

I have written many blog diatribes about this subject.

Thaddeus Cahill invented the telharmonium as an electronic musical instrument… its intent was to deliver music by telephone. It was intended to be a NEW musical instrument for a new age. As many of you might know, this device was the precursor of the Hammond organ… a device whose intent was merely to mimic acoustic organs for financial gain.
The Hammond organ… an “organ” was NOT an organ, but rather a sort of electro-mechanical VIRTUAL organ based on a proto-analog additive synthesizer.
The Hammond Novachord was designed by C. Williams and Laurens Hammond as NEW musical device… a device where the sound was created wholly electronically, and designed to invent new unheard sounds. (I have an original pamphlet, I can quote it…) The reason this is relevant is because the Hammond Novachord was the first device to implement the “divide-down” circuitry that was eventually transistorized and used in combo organs.
The divide-down technology had its start in proto-synthesizers before a transistorized organ had even been invented.
The transistorized organ implemented synthesizer technology… oscillators, divide-down circuitry, and filters, to simulate the Hammond Organ… basically, synthesizer technology being used to imitate emulative electromechanical technology. ; )
This whole notion of polyphony being PROPER polyphony if it is individual oscillators being directed by CV is somewhat silly… as the first big polyphonic synthesizers (oberheim excluded) implemented divide down technology. The polymoog, and especially the Korg PS series… were divide down synthesizers. This is not to say they were organs. In the case of the PS series, each KEY was an entire synthesizer unto itself… with individual oscillator (or divider), filter, ENV and VCA.
Having CV directed oscillators generate polyphony is a dodgy proposition… it requires a computer’s help to track the notes. The oscillators are limited, just like in divide down… they can’t have (excepting Oberheim) individual oscillator waves, etc. they are locked into all being the same. The only benefit to having CV polyphony is that you can have true portamento… but the limitation is that you have limited polyphony. That is a BIG limitation in comparison to the relatively minor limitation of not having individual portamento.
If you’re going to promote CV polyphony as PROPER polyphony, it needs to be modular in nature… you should be able to control the waves of the individual oscillators, or it’s not that much of a benefit over divide-down.
Divide down gets a bad name because so many manufacturers, trying to make a buck, started directing ALL of the notes through a SINGLE FILTER AND ENVELOPE… of course that’s not going to work… of course it’s going to sound like crap… and of course it’s going to be ineffectual in emulating non-synthesizer instruments. (which I’m against)
I need to read that SOS article on this subject again to address the CV-supporter front. ; )

30

Widely acknowledged that the Hammond Novachord was designed by John Hanert. Who the hell is C. Williams?

31

I wouldn’t say “widely,” as so few people even know what a Novachord is. However, I also have seen evidence that John Hanert was involved with its design. I have seen the Williams name in two places. I’m still looking for the first, as it is in a document from that time. The second is on obsolete.com:

“The Hammond Novachord was manufactured by the Hammond Organ Co in the USA from 1939 to 1942, designed by Laurens Hammond and C.N.Williams. A total of 1096 models were built.”

I would not stand by one quote that I had read on the internet… (especially since I have seen the model count at 1069 as well) I have read the name elsewhere, hand-written, in a Hammond related document.

With the paucity of information concerning the Novachord, I hardly think profanity was necessary. ; )

www.recondite-media.com/novachord

32

Mark Vail’s book has a chapter on the Novachord with a picture of Laurens Hammond and John Hanert with a Novachord. Hanert is playing the Novachord.

33

Yes! Vail… :::shakes head::: calls the Novachord a relative of the B3… and then goes on to say the Novachord “lacked a tone-wheel generator.” It didn’t LACK a tonewheel generator any more than it lacked string plucked by quills, pipes, humbucker pickups, the need for rosin, or a air bag to squeeze. But, in general, it’s a good article… especially because he talked to Mike Fulk.
Hanert is not only pictured, but frequently referenced in the text.

34

So the Yamaha GX-1 (1974) and the one-off T.O.N.T.O. (scanned keyboard with assigned Moog Modular voices in 1971) weren’t big polyphonic synthesizers?

35

I guess I should have been more specific… by “big” I meant “popular,” and “mass produced.” The relevant point is not when the first polyphonic synthesizer was ever invented (because it was far before the seventies) but rather that divide-down was favoured first.
Admittedly, I had forgotten that the GX-1 was of that vintage… but that’s only one year before the Polymoog hit production… and how many GX-1s were there? Like… two? Three? And TONTO… there was only ONE TONTO… and I’ve never heard that TONTO featured a scanning keyboard… in 1971? That’s pretty danged impressive for 1971. My understanding was that Oberheim was the first to implement a digital scanning keyboard for a polyphonic… but perhaps I’m wrong.
Any big modular could be considered polyphonic… it’s only the keyboard controller that really makes it so..
The point of the matter is that the polyphonic that made the biggest initial impact and the one that was the first to hit the market and be available to all was the Polymoog… which was divide down. The CS-50 (which came out before the CS-80, and was the next step after the GX-1) came out a year or so later. Even the Omni, which really doesn’t merit mention in my opinion, was divide down.
I remember seeing that the Eminent Solina, which was bought by ARP and released in 1974 or 1975 was actually built before that. Of course, it hardly counts as a synthesizer… but still. Again, divide down. : )

36

Nick D Kent,

THe Phantom X-8 isn’t a 70’s era synth. Or was that the point? lolol.

37

Including Moog with the Polymoog… Except they did it worse by putting a truly polyphonic instrument thru a single filter and envelope! It’s only polyphonic if you bypass the filter or select a preset.

38

::: plugs ears ::::

La la la I am not listeninggggg…

I still want to get a polymoog! : ) (well, provided that its local, in perfect condition, fully operational, and relatively inexpensive… which is a little like saying I would like one if it fell from heaven into my studio)

39

the jd800 has beautiful strings:

http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?name=Sounds&rop=showcontent&id=20

my favorites are pad1
http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?name=Sounds&rop=getfile&id=216
and padnew2
http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?name=Sounds&rop=getfile&id=205

a terrific site for much more synths and sounds :stuck_out_tongue:

40

I’ve always really liked the sound of the JD-800. Truly digital at its best.

Too bad its so big and UGLY :slight_smile: