I own a Voyager. It is the finest synthesizer I have ever owned (and I have owned many) - a masterpiece of machinery.
Where will Moog go now? The Sub 37 Tribute looks like a good instrument, but also something like an entry synth.
It’s time Moog balls up, and lives up to their name. I want to see a kick ass polysynth to rival DSI, or even the Schmidt. Serious. Just F-ing do it. Hire some people with Masters in electrical engineering and build it!
And here’s one for the masses - why not a polyphonic modular synthesizer?
Moog should offer a line of modular units for a polyphonic modular synthesizer. Modular synths are all the rage now (imagine that) - so why not profit from this and take it to the next level?
What made Moog great was innovation. Innovation and quality.
Bob may be gone now, but those who run his company are caretakers of his legacy. It’s time to step up to the plate and give musicians what they want.
I want a polyphonic normalized Moog.
I also want a polyphonic modular system (which would be an earth-shattering innovation).
IMHO polyphonic and analog do not really work well together… so why got to all the bother and massive cost when a digital instrument would sound so much better at a fraction of the cost ?
No it wouldn’t be an “earth-shattering innovation”, you can build one whenever you want. Do you really understand what a modular synthesiser is ?
I beg to differ, polyphonic analogs can actually work quite well.
so why got to all the bother and massive cost when a digital instrument would sound so much better at a fraction of the cost ?
Whether digital sounds so much better is highly subjective and is not an all-encompassing conclusion. Just because it costs less does not make it better.
Sure, that’s why I added “IMHO” (In my humble opinion).
Though I would not be surprised if 90% of the people who so badly “want” a polyphonic Moog would not buy one if it were available.
Of course it’s subjective !! Most of the discussions here are subjective… there wouldn’t be much point otherwise. And btw, that subjectivity works both ways
There should be a separate section in this forum for these periodic threads. There must be a hundred of them calling for a poly or a modular. Obviously there are so many options for both already available, so the only real market is for the people who are just collectors or just perpetually waiting for the next new thing.
I doubt there is any significant number of people who don’t own an analog synth and are just waiting for a Moog poly or modular to be built to buy their first analog. And if you can’t get wonderful and amazing sounds out of a mono Moog, I doubt seriously a poly will somehow be the holy grail.
If you have the hardware fetish, get a huge modular, even a poly modular, but putting pressure on Moog to build something that could be detrimental or draining to the company just to fill an even smaller niche is kinda silly.
As much as I would love a modern 21st century memorymoog, the reality is it won’t sell big numbers like the Voyager or Phatty or MF pedals. One can dream big but as an engineer I also have to be practical.
What you’ve written here could be a product of my own brain for 100 %.
Yes, when I’m comparing steadily my CHROMA with my Prophet 08 there are not worlds, but universes apart as for their basic sounds, although they’re both analog. So a new analog will NEVER represent an old one. Please note this.
I’ve weekly contact to my tech who is busy with the old ones every day heavily.
Just recently I’ve asked him about how expensive a new Polymoog with VCOs would come and he said FAR ABOVE 4 or 5ks. And I mean Euros. You can consider this as absolutely reliable.
Note also what I’ve written here recently. We havn’t that masses of audience who like to listen to their sounds as common man can’t differ between a digital or an analog. And we don’t have those famous artists like John Lord or Rick Wakeman any more to whom young musicians might look up and consider them as their idols and as music styles have changed as well through the decades.
That’s why it’s very difficult and dangerous for a company to take a risk in developing and releasing a new poly.
Our “synth-group” is too small. BUT LET US HOPE THAT I’M WRONG…
I’m going to play the 9 voice Little Phatty on Thursday or Friday of this week.
Will let you know if it’s all that it’s cracked up to be.
I’ve always wanted three Slims to add to my Little, but it wasn’t to be; Little Phatty now gone; had to consolidate studio space and essentially trade it plus my Old School for a Voyager select and a 5 Octave Modular controller.
I am still waiting through… for Moog to release whatever comes after the Sub37 in module form, to allow chaining, and there… you’ll have what you want and Moog can sell all of these wonderful synths individually also.
Until then maybe take out a home equity loan and just get it over with and buy a Schmidt.
I had a 5 voice phatty for over a year. Meh. I mean I liked it, but wasnt as good as a 5 voice “x patch” as it was as a sweet way to layer sounds in unison, or sequenced badassery.
Now the voayger, I love the chords I have been making with it. I only have three voices right now, but I do like it much better than I did the phat-tron.
Not to dis OP, but it’s fairly easy to get everything he stated. just has to be in pieces, which isnt a problem for me.
3 voice Voyager? You have a Voyager + 2 RMEs and they work well together (using an old poly chain algorithm I suppose?).
CZ did something like that I think and then there was some guy in Japan or China that beat the hell out of his Voyager on YouTube in a 2 voice mode. Is running a 4 voice Poly Voyager actually feasible? (cost aside) Where did the Phatty setup shine/fall down as compared to the Voyager?
I’ve never been a big fan of the Dave Smith stuff but the synth in a chip, and the thinness of it likely plays well into a Polyphonic Analog. The OBX was the ultimate monster in my opinion but obviously, it was early days as far as features were concerned.
I could honestly die happily (hopefully quite awhile from now) without ever seeing a polyphonic moog, or a modular… infact.. especially a modular.. what got moog famous was switch from a big modular system into a small, punchy, thoughtfully layed out, portable performers tool wasn’t it?
here’s my old lady listen to my crap as i jam out. This was taken as I racked up #3 the day I got it(about two weeks ago).
Differences so far as I noticed.
\
slim seems to “bright” even when the filter is mostly closed.
Also sounds a bit 8 bit-ish to me if that makes sense. makes it difficult to get sounds that I like(obvious subjective based reference).
voyager sounds “fuller” to me. I like that. makes its easier to do high and low notes. the metallicness of the res can fuck up your combo patches though. It could be just my recent habbit of filter pole setting/spacing/res.
Voyager can easily sound soft and warm, makes it easy to do combo patch chords. Also, makes its easy to do filter tracking chords. I did not like it on the phat-tron.
bad side of voyager ness: the low end is massive. FAQ. can be difficult at times. Gotta give me some leeway as I am still getting used to it. Normally when I had only two, it was two different patches, that complimented each other.
I completely agree. Chords/chord changes are completely overrated as a form, especially in electronic music. It depends on the music and the players, but monos tend not be overindulged like polys, the latter being overused a lot to the point of being cheesy and leaving no space.
There’s no reason why Moog would bankrupt themselves today just by making a polysynth. I’ll bet you that Moog’s previous failure had just as much to do with Norlin’s mismanagement than it did with Dave Luce’s convoluted designs in the face of the dx7.
Just think, surely SOMEONE surely purchased the glam voyager. People paid 5k for an XL when the same features could be had for much cheaper, minus a ribbon controller, a few extra keys and a second LFO. People did pay 6k for their guitar. There are people who regularly drop exorbitant amounts of money on Buchla modules/systems, and many other devices in niche markets.
For some reason Moog just hasn’t done it yet. Some members on this forum are resigned that they never will. Perhaps one obstacle is that everyone who advocates in favor of it has a different idea in mind about how to implement it and Moog can’t please everyone.
What if they did it and used digital oscillators? How many of you would curse their name?
I think the main reason they designed the current units the way they are is to give people the option to go for polyphony, if they wanted it, without wasting the time to design an expensive item that only a few would buy. I think what theyve done is already good enough.
+1, that this thread and others like it should be relegated to a new sub forum…
In the past year, I’ve whittled my analog polysynths down to an Xpander, an OB-8 and and a CS-60. Sold my Memorymoog and Jupiter-8, felt I had done everything with them that I was likely to, they’ve both gone on to happy homes and I made some cool new friends in the process:) In terms of format for a possible new Moog polysynth…I and others have pitched the idea of a module, either rack mountable or larger desktop format, a la Xpander, with the polyphony of say four Voyagers and very minimal controls, addressable by either computer editor or a Voyager keyboard or rack. Use it as 4 monos, 2x2, a 4-voice or kick/snare/hat/etc., again a la Xpander. I don’t have a sense of the engineering challenges with regard to implementing something like this, but it doesn’t seem in the realm of fantasy? I’m not talking PolyEvolver Rack, I get that there’s more circuitry & guts & heat to contend with on the Voyager’s part. It seems as if the parts are already there and the possibility already exists? I’d love a 5-octave Moog dedicated controller - lit wheels, ribbon, aftertouch (not expecting poly, just repurpose the XL’s keyboard?). If the 4 voice unit I described came in at $3K, (x2 for an 8-voice system) and the controller at @1500., you’d have a pretty nice rig. for my part, I don’t think this hypothetical 21st century Moog poly has to be an all in one instrument like the Schmidt, or a modern Memorymoog.
And if these things aren’t for everyone…then what about a Moog custom shop? If you’ve got it to spend and Moog is willing to build it…
The only polysynth Moog could benefit from would be something unique, unlike anything else on the market, and not just a multiple voice phatty or voyager. And as much as I am indifferent about a new Moog poly, I would be super excited if they built a modern version of the PolyMoog, the best and most unique sounding polysynth ever made IMO.
How difficult do you think it would it be to redesign?
If we have learned anything from the current Moog Music, it is they tend to use boilerplate peices to stay competitive. Like using the same sides on the Moogerfoogers or the Phatty/Sub line tooling. Why redesign something or make new parts if you do not really need to? Moog could conceivably make a four-voice Sub49 or six-voice Sub61 without spending too much in R&D. Those analog SMT Sub37 boards look pretty small and probably do not cost anything near a Voyager analog board. So adding four or six boards inside one enclosure would be not be that difficult. The digital board would be the main difference. Would you redesign a 4 or 6 voice digital board or simply add 4 or 6 boards?. This would be where all the R&D would be. From what I have gathered, the digital Sub boards contain the digital generated envelopes and probably some other digital CV’s.(LFO’s, ARP, Sequencer?) These would need to be designed to handle 4 or 6 voices. It is not as simple as just writing software and a bigger CPU as all these digital outputs have many associated SMT components. Then again, I have not seen the insides of one of these Sub37’s and it could have a totally seperate CPU from the digital board. If that is the case Moog would only need to redesign a CPU board to handle 4/6 analog boards and 4/6 digital boards.
Moog has some of the parts now to pull it off. Big questions remain like, would it sell, would it sound good, would there be a better way to spend R&D money with a better return?
I do not see Moog or any company going back to single or dual oscillators with divide down to give full polyphony. And I don’t see Moog using Digital generated oscillators to acheive this either. Moog’s last poly that never made the light of day was the SL-8. Sounded interesting, with a “Variable Harmonic Multiplier”. But as we know, the DX-7 and other technology of that time left many of these designs in the dust.
A little info on that SL-8 from the Moog Archives site: Preliminary Specifications of the Moog SL-8
If you’ve got it to spend and Moog is willing to build it…
