As I’m not aware of the entire list of synths I can’t comment on their reliability. But I bet that if they were designed well, any of them would be reliable if they were gone through with a tech and ready to go. 4000 euros seems like a lot of money but I wouldn’t be surprised if any of these items holds their value and/or increases in value over time, unless you paid too much for it when you first purchase it.
All great points, Electrong. Good luck shopping everyone!!
4000 eur?
phewww…
You’d get a mint conditions prophet t8 + spare parts for that!
Then you’d stop worrying about anything related with poly sounds, and focus on your minimoog.
a synthex goes for 2000, a ob8 for 1200/1300…
Holy macaroni! Can you find me a Synthex in near-mint condition for 2000? I will come to Milan and buy you a grand pizza. 
Mine is gone, sorry. 1800.
But I recently checked for prices before selling an OB-8, and used the synthex for reference, well…
couldn’t fetch more that 1800/2000
I mean: 1800/2000 cash by professionals.
Of course you could be asked 3000 by a completist reluctant seller, or you could even be BID 3000 by the usual cash-strapped loser offering to trade in his “collection of slightly used power-supply chords and a mint condition vintage Bontempi hammond replica with real cardboard keybed”…
Was yours in mint condition? Also, where did you look for prices? Any specific place?
Mint conditions, manual.
I checked through the “grapevine”: fellow musicians, usual web sites, technical repair guys, and my usual hardware providers.
You must maybe understand that I am very sceptic of the “vintage” factor:
a synth is worth some “vintage” premium IF and only IF its age implies more discrete components, or more man-hours spent in manufacturing, which is the legacy of top-notch synths which were expensive when they were sold first, and rightfully remain expensive.
A Davolisynth was junk and will always remain junk, a prophet 600 is not worth a vintage premium, a prodigy will never be WORTH the prices you see on websites (and maybe really SPENT by some less than competent knob-twisting teenager), the first version of prophet 5 is just a pain in the back and I got rid of 2 of them before going crazy,
on the other hand, a prophet t8 will always be more expensive and more worth than any shitty 88 keys fatar-powered sample-based sequencer-toting workstation, a minimoog was rightfully worth any price until the voyager was available.
IMHO, the synthex is a cheaper, thinner, colder OB-8.
Ozy makes sense. Ozy, what is your opinion on the Mini D now that the Voyager is available? Obviously they were a more labor intensive synth by far than the new Voyagers.
Everybody has their preferences, but I don’t think that any of these 4 synths I listed is not worth the term “vintage”.
I didn’t say those synths “are NOT vintage”
I said they are not worth a “vintage PREMIUM” on their price.
They are all vintage, in the sense that they are old.
But they are not ALL vintage-quality [which is something really concrete: less integrated circuits and digitally scanned pots, more discrete components, more metal less plastic, more hand-assembled partes, tighter screws, keyboards made for duration because the synth was expensive and wouldn’t have sold othetwise, etc].
Come on, let’s be honest:
the stupid years of knob-less synths created legends out of mediocre machines, together with real legend-worth instruments.
In 2002 you bought a prophet 600 just because it had KNOBS, and contemporary synths hadn’t, not because it really sounded better than a more recent control-less synth.
On the contrary you buy a prophet 5 rev 3+++ because it sounds darn good.
Once knobs have started being available everywhere,
sound and building quality make a difference between a Minimoog D and a Prodigy.
Some vintage synths chew a Clavia (Virus, Radias, etc, not to mention soft synths) and spit its bones out, and still are hungry,
and some DON’T.
Some are worth 500 or 1000 euro more for “vintage premium”, some don’t.
I bought the synthex because of knobs, and sold it because DSI prophet 08 sounds FAR better than a Synthex.
FINALLY: this thread is about “RELIABILITY”: pls take me my monthly-crashing P-5 and give me a contemporary poly analog any time. For 500 eur less.
The “vintage premium” must be calculated NET of maintenance cost.
I don’t see why a synthesizer which has less discreet components than a Minimoog is any less vintage. My Massive Passive has a lot of discreet components, does that make it vintage? No need to define what vintage is, for some people if certain old synthesizers don’t work they are just crap, but if they do they are vintage.
Anyway, I agree that lots of old analog synths don’t deserve the huge prices that some people ask for. No arguing about that, and I guess it’s an effect of supply and demand (as always). Around 1989 you could have a Mini for maybe something like 400 euros and a TB-303 for 100 euros. Today you can’t touch a Mini for less than 2000 euros and a TB-303 is something like 1300 euros? I missed that boat completely, but I guess many other people did. It’s not that I want a vintage synth because it has knobs, or because it has wooden panels or because you are not cool unless you own vintage stuff. I love its sound, it’s as simple as that.
It strikes me as odd that you find the Synthex thin and weak and that a Prophet 08 is a better synth. I have yet to hear any synth that makes strings and pads like the Synthex (maybe an Eminent 310 can). You obviously didn’t like it and sold it, I happen to hate the P08’s shitty encoders and wonder how dare Dave Smith charged what he charged for this. Sound wise it’s ok, maybe the resonance is a bit uninteresting… but I happen to like the Synthex far more. You like the P08 more, I am cool with that, after all it’s all a matter of preferences.
So given the fact that this thread is actually about vintage synths being reliable, can you please tell me if you had any problems with your Synthex?
How about a knob that points to a setting called vintage?
Sometimes Vintage means that it doesn’t work at all, or sounds like crap if it does, or that plugging it in will fry the sucker like this old radio behind me.
Eric
LOL, I would love that.
Now that you mentioned it, there was this synth that worked with batteries and when the batteries were about to die, it made some amazing textures. It had 2 maybe 3 knobs and one of them was labeled “MORE” . Can’t remember it’s name… 
Stylophone?
Crank up the “POT SCRATCHINESS” knob!
See, this is the purpose defeating technology.
Musak starts
(Announcer) “Kids, how about getting the newest in digital synthesis technology? Unlimited polyphony in the clearest, cleanest fidelity. The digital synth to last a lifetime. And, if you want that warm “analogue” feel, try our tuning instabillity generators. Our tuning instabillity generators simulate that classic temperature drift of the golden days. Why play in tune when you can drift? Turn the complimentary potentiometer to the “Vintage setting” and take this latest advancement in synthesis technology on a gig today. It might randomly not power up, simulating the rigors of the road’s loose solder joints of yesteryear. Also, this instant classic with the vintage feel keyboard comes complete with key adjustments to deregulate the action, making each key at a different level and feel for the trip down memory lane of the keybeds of a long forgotten era. This Synthesizer has the best of both worlds with a scratch pot slider and switch simulator. Get that “used” feel right out of the box for the low low price of 2495.95 and be confident that you have a synth that will last a lifetime…or at least seem like it already has.”
Eric
“I don’t see why a synthesizer which has less discreet components than a Minimoog is any less vintage”
I’m afraid my English must be really, really bad.
This is it, for the last time, in formalized, foolproof version:
a) a vintage synth is always vintage
b) a contemporary synth is never vintage
c) a vintage synth is not always a good synth.
d) “good” is in part a subjective definition, but most of the time is a fact, which depends largely on design. In an electronic instrument, abundance of separate parts for separate functions increases clarity, “fatness”, body, control, cross-control, warmth, name it.
→ Other things being equal, a discrete components synth is always better than a cut-the-corners, cram-functions-into-one-chip, jack-of-all-trades synth.
Just compare a trivial patch like “lucky man synth” when played on a modular moog, on a minimoog, on a prodigy and on a korg radias. Do it with your ears and stop quoting “sound on sound” reviews.
e) earlier vintage synths are more prone to being designed using discrete components.
f) some (a FEW) vintage synths are unspeakably good, not because they are old, but because they are hand-crafted withg superior and expensive components
g) a contemporary synth is sometimes a better synth, sometimes junk
h) a vintage synth is sometimes good, sometimes not
i) a vintage synth usually costs more than a contemporary synth, all things being equal, because of
e+f)
plus
j) something which I called “vintage premium”. Let’s call it “nostalgia tax” or “keyboard-magazine-addict completist tax”.
The final algorytm is:
k) —> “i” is not justified by a), it’s only justified if and when “e+f” is true.
Based on k), a Elka synthex is not an exceptional synth worth 40% more than a prophet 08, it is a nostalgia surrogate for thsoe who can’t find an OBX-A.
Rest my case.
Your English is quite good, it’s your attitude that kinda sucks.
Really? As in 1 + 1 = 2?
Really? As in 2 + 2 = 4?
Really? As in 3 + 3 = 6?
Pardon my French, but you got this f7cked up already if you think that abundance of separate parts is synonymous with good, warmth and so on. I can give you a super-abundance of scientific papers from Stanford, that I have used for my Master’s degree, proving that this is not “always” the case. “Most of the time” kinda saves your argument but it seems to me that you confuse “technologically superior” with “good sounding”.
Where did you see me quote anything from “sound on sound”?
Really? As in 4 + 4 = 8?
Oh really? The Matrix 12 has shitty components all over, a crappy Panasonic keyboard, slowish envelopes and it still sounds fantastic. Or maybe the Matrix 12 is not vintage enough for you? Please spare me the BS.
Damn, I didn’t know that, thanks for enlightening me.
The problem that I saw with your previous post is that you seem to want to dictate your opinion on me analysing it in a “fool proof manner”, insinuating that I am probably some weirdo who can’t understand shit and I have to quote SOS to make a statement (which I didn’t), hence the tone of my answers. Your arguments are far too general and to the extent that an argument is general it can easily fall to pieces.
Thank you for your opinions, anyway.
ozy wrote:
"a) a vintage synth is always vintage
Really? As in 1 + 1 = 2? "
yes
as in A=A
it’s a tautology. A synth built 30 years ago has been built 30 years ago.
A synth built in 2009 was not built 30 years ago, not even 5 years ago, so it can’t be a vintage synth,
as certainly as A cannot be = B, is B is different from A.
Pardon me for not being a fresh graduate,
just a vintage graduate.
Look, this is becoming boring.
I just started by stating that it’s not worth paying 2000 euros for a Elka Synthex.
You want one?
Go ahead, buy one.
Who cares?