Too bad its so big and UGLY >
>
jd990, not so big only ugly 
There’s no question that Moog Music’s first polyphonic synth, the Polymoog was based on divide down technology as were some Korgs. Certainly the Moog name received much publicity though of course Tom Oberheim had his synths at roughly the same time. One can note that Roland chose not to call their divide-down technology “polyphonic”, rather “paraphonic”. On the other hand, besides Oberheim and Yamaha you had modular builders Emu and (ex-Moog staff)Polyfusion (note the “poly” in their name) also implementing voice allocated technology in the mid 70s. Emu’s technology eventually found it’s way into the Sequential Prophet 5.
As for the GX-1, the actual number is still in the double digits but at least 40 were built and it was shown outside Japan in 1975. By 1977 the CS-80 was available retail. The CS-50 came out at the same time.
Malcolm Cecil presented his polyphonic scanned keyboard technology at AES in 1971. It output individual channels of CV/Gate. The practical area that he was seeking funds or licensees to develop was mainly the cost to build per unit. His prototype cost a huge amount of money to construct. Then the next issue was clearly was what would it drive if you didn’t own TONTO. In hindsight it was Tom Oberheim who had both answers a few years later. Cecil and Margouleff eventually bought a bunch SEM modules to augment TONTO’s polyphony though they also had a number of identical custom built complete voice modules before that. TONTO has a 10 channel CV/gate bus system installed and accessible in every cabinet. His keyboard has mono touch and velocity though I don’t know if the initial version had those features. Cecil later worked on patch storage but did not implement it.
While Tom Oberheim’s technology was independently developed Malcolm Cecil felt Yamaha took unfair advantage of his development group’s efforts. He says they presented themselves as wanting to license his patented technology but then after studying it in depth apparently their legal department decided they could do something similar without licensing his patent and they did just that.
Hello,
The keyboard used by Oberheim for the SEM-based n/Voice and the
Prophet 5’s board was licensed from E-mu. In addition, both instruments had several developmental influences.
Tom Oberheim at one point worked directly or indirectly for Arp.
Arp developed the 4023 filter in it’s Odyssey Mk1 from the 1047 Multimode
in the 2500 series synths. The filter in the SEMs (and later OBX) was developed from the Arp’s 4023.
Dave Rossum at E-mu provided a great deal of impetus for the P5, including the SSM filter chip (2040).
An interview with him can be found here:
http://www.siliconbreakdown.com/rossum_interview.htm
Regards,
-Lawrence
My primary point was that divide-down polyphony preceeded CV polyphony… specifically for the purpose of pointing out that the response to divide-down as some sort of “fake synthesizer polyphony” is silly.
Any idea when either first began working on polyphony? I can’t remember in the case of Moog (although I know the Apollo is older than the Polymoog) and I have no idea in the case of Oberheim.
Certainly to their credit. The paraphonic model is the model that caused all of this anti-divide-down unrest. : )
If those who are resentful towards Omnis and String Synths, etc. had had their first analog polyphonic experience on a (working) Polymoog, or especially a Korg in the PS series, (or even the Soina or early Roland string synths which featured VCA per note) things might not be so anti.
I had no idea there were so many! I’ll be the first to dismiss the readily-accessible websites as sources of valid information, but someone on Synthmuseum.com suggested over 7 were built. With the keyboard being in the many-tens-of-thousands range, I would be really shocked if they made so many. Not saying they didn’t, just saying. : )
I have read conflicting information on this. It was my understanding the CS-50 came out in 1976… and the CS-80 came out later in 1976. Obviously, they were both from the GX-1 technology, and developed simultaneously… as they are basically different versions of the same synthesizer.
Was it an analog scanning? Do you know how it worked? I’m very curious about this. Despite my lack of technical electronics knowledge, I’ve always felt that it MUST be possible to create an analog polyphonic keyboard that could output more than two notes.
While Tom Oberheim’s technology was independently developed Malcolm Cecil felt Yamaha took unfair advantage of his development group’s efforts. He says they presented themselves as wanting to license his patented technology but then after studying it in depth apparently their legal department decided they could do something similar without licensing his patent and they did just that.
The Yamaha polyphony is wonderful in the CS-50. It’s horrible that they acquired it in that way, though. The interesting thing (that I would be surprised about if it existed in Cecil’s technology) is the fact that the CS-50 cycles through oscillators. If you press a note four times in a row, you’ll get a different oscillator each time. It makes for a greatly more varied sound… but would be irritating in a modular context. Or, even in a keyboard context… like the Korg Mono/Poly… in which it can be a really cool effect if you have the different oscillators set to different wave forms.
In fact, let me just say that the Mono Poly might just be one of the greatest polyphonics in ONE sense, which is to say unlike MOST polyphonics (Oberheim, of course, excluded) (CV OR Divide Down), it allows individual control over the waveform and pitch of each oscillator. Sadly, Korg went the paraphonic route. If they had gone the route of their earlier polyphonics and gave each of the four oscillators its own filter/VCA/ENV, it would have been ASTOUNDING.[/quote]
In typical implementation it does create a major barrier in creating a voltage controlled system. (as you mention later with lack of pitch modulation of each osc) While people today are still interested in vintage string-synth family units with divide down technology it’s telling how few actually build anything using it. And I might add that much of the attaction really lies in the often excellent ensemble fx these units use to improve the sound.
I don’t know the start dates though LWG has a good point. I think both Malcolm and I connected the dots wrong and assumed since Tom Oberheim did the duophonic keyboard for the 2600 that he also did the keyboard for the X-Voice when it was Dave Rossum.
I sort of think a different scenerio happened. People heard the late 70s heard the more expensive Yamahas, Oberheims and Sequentials and those met both the sonic and performance standards people expected when they lusted after a polysynth.
Well Forrest lists quite a number of names that used one. Some might have used the same unit (John Paul Jones sold Emerson his and then I think Zimmer bought it?) but there are quite a number of name artists in different countries who recorded on one. And the main market was concert halls needing a state of the art organ. UK Sound on Sound columnist quite notoriously bought his in the 1990s from an classified ad from Australia. I beleive it belonged to some rich guy who just wanted a really deluxe instrument to fool around with. Yamaha Australia said about 20 were shipped out of Japan.
The 76 date for the CS-50 was found in a CS-50 service manual. Keyboard Magazine Japan lists 4/77 as the street date for all 3 in Japan. They showed all 3 at NAMM in 6/77. So while they might have quite logically gotten the 50 working first, the 50, 60 and 80 were actually presented and released at the same time
It was a scanned keyboard. If I’m lucky I have it in a taped interview with him, though I’m not sure if that’s when we discussed it. I don’t understand the nuances of his implementation. It put out multiple standard CVs and gates they could patch into their modular. He explained what Oberheim and Rossum did was method he explored but couldn’t build a functional prototype of. What came across is he felt that while Yamaha managed not to infringe his patent they couldn’t have gotten a working system without understanding how his system worked.
Yamaha did some interesting work with note priorities. They might very well have wholly come up with those particulars.
FWIW Korg’s divide down synths came out years before the Mono/poly. It’s kind of interesting that it and the Polysix were released at the same time. So it was like the Monopoly was a new twist on quasi-polyphony (note the tentative “mono” in the name) and the Polysix was their stripped down Prophet 5 answer.
Listen to this instead (and on topic too!)
Polymoog Keyboard through an mxr flanger pedal
Apologies for the excessive reverb 
Thanks for all of the info, Nick!
I sort of think a different scenerio happened. People heard the late 70s heard the more expensive Yamahas, Oberheims and Sequentials and those met both the sonic and performance standards people expected when they lusted after a polysynth.
Certainly, most string synths are crap, and the Yamaha/Oberheim/Sequential polyphonics are much more powerful, and definitely more expressive. As the string synths were much more prevalent than the quality divide-down synths, I could see how a prejudice could form.
However, comparing a RS-101 to a… I don’t know… CS-80 or even Omni (shudders) isn’t exactly fair as a demonstration of the capabilities of Divide-down implemented the way it should have been. It is not the process of divide-down that limits expressiveness, but rather the fact that usually companies used divide-down to save a buck. If divide down had more-often been implemented in a Korg PS series sort of way than a Moog Opus 3 sort of way, I think opinons would have been different.
Admittedly, when I got a CS-50, I was drawn to the EASE of creating great sounds as compared to using my PS-3100. But, when the novelty wore off, the PS-3100 is capable of a GREAT deal more control and unique sound. I would never part with either.
FWIW Korg’s divide down synths came out years before the Mono/poly. It’s kind of interesting that it and the Polysix were released at the same time. So it was like the Monopoly was a new twist on quasi-polyphony (note the tentative “mono” in the name) and the Polysix was their stripped down Prophet 5 answer.
Yes, the PS-3100 came out in 1977… which is unfortunate. There is nothing particularly technological about its design… none of its components required the developments that occurred in 1977. Korg just didn’t get on it until the market was moving towards CV. The playing field might have been different if they had come out with the PS series at the same time as the Polymoog… as the PS is far FAR more stable and powerful than the Polymoog. (of course it doesn’t have presets… which appealed to the lazy rock musicians… lol) Also, the price was quite high… being as that each key acted as its own synthesizer… a VCF, ENV and VCA per key.
Despite never actually having heard one (but basing my opinion on the fact that it is comprised of PS-3100s, which I hear nearly every day), its my opinion that the PS-3300 is the most perfect analog polyphonic ever built. Three layers of oscillators , semi modular, and everything that’s great about the PS-3100… times three. Monstrously wonderful… and, of course, prohibitively expensive and rare.
I also have a Korg Mono/Poly, which came out in 1981. It just seemed like such a weird throwback compared to the Prophet trend. I’m glad they did it, though. If only they had put 24 dB/ oct filters in the PS series!!!
You know, that is a GREAT analog string sound!
You’re not helping me escape my reckless desire for a Polymoog. : )
I purchased both an ARP Omni-2 and a Crumar Peformer at roughly the same time. I must say that the Omni is well worth the money if you can find one with its capacitors replaced. While I’ve tried many ARP Omni samples, none of them seemed to capture the sound of the original. Roland Jupiter 8’s, Oberheim OB-8’s or any other early 80’s polysynth will do a tremendous job, but may cost too much money. This is where the late 80’s DCO synths come in. Try looking for a Korg EX-8000, Oberheim Matrix 1000 or even the Roland JX3P or JX10/MKS50. To bring things to life always use effects pedals like vintage or reissue MXRs or BOSS’s.
I have had two different Roland Jx-3ps, both with the PG-200 controller. It is a HUGELY underrated synthesizer. It really does have a great sound, and is capable of a great deal of diversity. It also features the convenience of presets (that can be altered with the PG-200), if you’re playing live.
I wouldn’t readily lump it in as a “DCO” synth… as the oscillators are actually analog oscillators with a digital aspect constantly keeping them in tune. They are DCOs in the truest sense of the acronym… many later DCOs were actually just DOs… digital oscillators.
If you want one of the last few stabs at analog sound before digital and MIDI (although the Jx-3p was Roland’s first MIDI keyboard), grab one of these while they’re still relatively cheap!
And don’t worry if you don’t have the PG-200… it’s still programmable… just not as fun to program. : )
Why don’t yall stop arguing and learn to play strings, then you could get to gether and form an orchestra. Then you whould have no need for sting synths and you could just chill. (P.S. I like string synthesizers)
Pokemon!
I never use string synths for strings! I’d love to play actual strings. Can you imagine how many Moogs you could buy with the amount you would pay for one string recording session? ; )
I always have to settle for string samples, but I always score and record them instrument by instrument for authenticity. A lame sort of authenticity, but certainly more authentic than saw waves. : )
That being said, I love string synths because they’re very sweet and downtrodden. ; )
String synths are not supposed to be strings. Wake up.
Ezzo - if you’re looking for the sound from LWTUA and Atmosphere, definitely pick up an Arp Omni 2 - http://members.aol.com/lwtua/eqpt.htm
I just took delivery of my Omni 2 two days ago, and it’s phenomenal! Definitely is the sound, though I have yet to run it through an amp, and I imagine running it through my EH Small Clone and Small Stone into an amp will nail the sound.
As far as string synths overall - I now have the Omni 2, a Roland RS09, and a Crumar Orchestrator. By far the omni is the best of the 3, but the Roland chorus is AMAZING and it has hardwired stereo outs which sound absolutely luscious. The RS09 also has an external input, which lets you run other gear through the chorus effect - the board is worth picking up simply for that! If the RS ever breaks I’ll probably try and fit the chorus circuit into a standalone module 
Michael
Has anyone else tried this combination. with a little external effects and the ensemble effect you can really get some good thick creamy string synth sounds. there are diagrams in the roland catalogs of the time on how to connect. of course it will work with other synths and string machines as well as long as one has an external gate jack. Roland however clearly intended it as an early polysynth approximation. I use mine with a Moog phaser, Systech Flanger and MAM RS-3 Resonator for all sorts of modulation.
I’m not sure this claim even merits response, but I’ll bite.
String synths were intended to simulate strings… um.. hence the name?
I utterly despise analog synthesizers being used to simulate acoustic instruments, but string synths were very much designed to be low-cost alternative to actual strings previous to the introduction of samplers and digital synthesizers.
If you’re unaware of the desire for string simulation in the entirety of the 1970s resulting in a big market for string-simulating synthesizers… um, maybe it’s not everyone ELSE in this thread who should “wake up.” ; )
Got me an Omni 2 also and I have to say I F-ing LOVE it! It does that string sound so well. My fave is the cello, it just sounds so sad and depressing I feel like I should be scoring a funeral scene in a movie with it. The only issues mine has is that the key contacts are little dirty but I’m going to have them cleaned as soon as I find someone I trust enough to touch it.
Have you managed to come up with any good patches for the synth section yet? I made a pretty good brass sound but a decent electric piano or keyboard sound still eludes me. I’m not too fusses though because the strings are what I wanted it for and they do not disappoint!
The only thing I’m concerned about is that does have all the original power supply stuff and I heard these go south on Omnis pretty often. Its working fine now, I’m just going to hope it stays that way.
I have a ARP quartet that I’m looking to get rid of. It has nice string sound. I originally bought it for the organ but have since given up on my dreams. It also has brass and piano which makes it a QUARTET!! yay!
I’m in the Bay area, CA
lemmie know
brent@brokeneck.com
We love our Quartet for its near-Solina weedy Italianate sound!
It has become a Sundae Staple Sound along with the 'Tron!
What are Quartets fetching these days then?
SCx
I haven’t really toyed with the synth section all that much - just adding it under the strings for some wider sounds
My keys feel good - no real issues with them. There’s some serious grime in the sliders that I need to clean up, in the next few months I’ll either clean it myself time permitting or hunt down a tech to work it over.
It’s funny - this is really the only synth I’ve bought strictly because a band I loved used it - I love Closer more than any other album in so many ways, and the haunting sounds from the Omni really bring me there. It’s such a sad sound, but rejuvanating in that strange way that keeps you smiling when you play it
Also - I’ve been running it through a Small Stone and Small Clone, and through a spring reverb: wow! That really takes it to a whole new dimension. I’m going to be trying it out through a Fender Twin reverb this weekend for a bit too… should be gorgeous!
/michael