I’ve already read that there is not much space to add or edit features to the Phatty OS. I think this engineer named Amos said so. However, there are two things that really bother me and I don’t know why they have been implemented. The only reasonable explaination I could think of is that Moog Music wants people to buy the Voyager instead of the Phatty.
The first thing is VCA modulation. Would it have been that difficult to add this feature? Yes, I know that the arpeggiator in combination with the envelope generator can do something similar, but ring modulation [edit: I know - to some extend; would be better before the filter] could have been possible with VCO2 being turned down in the mix and modulating the VCA (i.e. only the output of VCO1).
Secondly, why is there VCO2 both as a mod source and its separate pitch as a destination? This doesn’t make any sense to me. The Phatty could have easily offered a simple FM option.
Can anyone explain to me why this is? The hardware should be capable of doing this, right? And there is no reason to not add these things to the operating system. I don’t need an arpeggiation in the Slim Phatty. It doesn’t even make sense, as most master keyboards have them built-in as well. I demand FM and RingMod instead!
The reason I write this is because I am thinking about selling my DSI MEK and getting a brand new SP instead. I do not need many of the features the MEK offers, like an umptillion mod routing possibilities. However, the two things mentioned above tend to make a difference when it comes to flexibility of sound design. Don’t get me wrong, I am falling in love with these instruments just by watching all these neat Youtube videos, but this could be a deal breaker for me.
Hold on, how can I modulate only VCO1 ? Doesn’t the manual say that you can only modulate VCO1 and VCO2 or only VCO2? I want to only modulate VCO1 and not change the waveform of the actual modulator.
Btw. I understand that you need VCO2 as a mod destination to create some good sync sounds, but as a mod source?
I can’t answer the questions about how much room they have for more updates. But I can tell you how to do FM with the Phatty.
The LFO can run at audio rates. So, for example, if you select any of the LFO waveforms as a source, then PITCH as a destination and crank the LFO speed your getting FM. You can also frequency modulate the filter and OSC2.
Also, checkout the additional modulation sources and destination in MASTER MODE in the ADVANCED PRESET sub-menu. You can for example change Source for 5 from from Filter to sample and hold. You can also change Source 6 from OSC2 to Noise. You can also add a second destination of FILTER, PITCH, WAVE, OSC2. You can’t separately adjust depth, but you can say send the LFO to both Filter and Pitch at the same time. All these advanced params have MIDI cc’s so you can map to say a Remote SL 25 or Lemur for instant access
If you set OSC2 as source and output, then press and hold the “AMOUNT” button for a second, the MODULATION control knob can cause beating and phasing. Turn of the level for OSC1 and turn on 1-2 sync. Now turn MODULATION control knob.
First of all thanks for the post.
However, I was aware of these routing possibilities (have studied the manual thoroughly). The LFO only goes to 500 hz and you cannot modulate its frequency w/ the keyboard notes you are playing.
They really should take out the (imo rather useless) arpeggiator of the slim phatty (once again, even the cheapest master keyboards have one built-in) and add the option to change VCO2 as source to VCO1 in the advanced preset menu, just like you can change the source VCO2 to Noise. VCA modulation would be great, but VCO1 is far more important, if you ask me.
Why, just why isn’t this a feature of the Phatties?
And that is exactly the problem. People always pretend Moog’s doing them a favor with pricing their products as cheaply as possible. An analog delay for 700 USD??? That’s outrageous. It’s okay to pay for the brand, but one shouldn’t pretend the Phatties are synths for the common people when its rather prestigious.
I do not think that it’s the cost savings. Why would it have been more expensive to use VCO1 as a mod source instead of VCO2? Is there any reasonable explaination except, that Moog wants its customers to give them more money for things that could have been there in the first place? (i.e. for the Voyager/ CP-251 for VCA mod) Is there any hope that we might see these features in the future w/ newer OS versions?
And why does the Slim Phatty need an arpeggiator when the engineers are complaining about not enough memory for new features?
They could try to support different firmwares. But, remember the slim is missing the keyboard and LHC of the Little Phatty. Many phatty owners use the phatty keyboard.
I wouldnt expect those features to ever show up on the Slim/Little Phatties… If you want a Moog, buy the Moog… Everyone on here would recommend these instruments.
As you mentioned the CP-251 already, i will add that you can do VCA modulations if you have the CP-251 or other CV sources via the volume CV input..
Moog recognizes the fact that the Phatty is limited in it’s modulation capabilities… And I wouldnt say it is because “they want you to spend more money and buy a voyager”, I think its more about price points, and having a product family that is accessible to as many people as possible. They have many products for different price points, and to get a product within that price point, you have to sacrifice some features… I mean think about it…
With each increase in price point, you get more features and more synth… Its simply a “most bang for the buck” kind of conversation to keep within a certain price point… Yes, the Slim and Phatty have the same OS and features, but you spend 500 more and you get the LHC, a keyboard, and the option for CV outputs… It really boils down to what people are willing to spend, but I dont think its malicious on Moog’s part. Although I do think it would have been nice to have the 1-2 Sync switch toggle-able to be a 1-2 FM switch… But I’m not expecting to see that anytime soon.
As for hardware capabilities, who knows if they could make VCO1 as a mod source… That would really depend on the traces on the PCB.. I bet a digital oscillator would be possible as a source of modulation, but I dont know how much code that would take, and I think it goes against the design philosophy of the phatty…
Although I would highly recommend the voyager based purely on the modulation capabilities built in…
I guess this is pointless to go on with this discussion, but as long as I don’t get a reasonable explaination from Moog why they didn’t just use VCO1 as a mod source instead of VCO2, which would have only increased the possibilities of the Phatties, I need to assume they just don’t want to compete with their own product, the Voyager and intended to limit the capabilities of the Phatties more than necessary.
Though I think this forum is the wrong platform to objectively discuss Moog’s business practices as virtually everyone here is a “fan” of their products. And I don’t mean that in a bad way.
I want a Moog, too. At least, I think I do. I heard, there are some really severe problems with the SP’s tuning. The customer support themselves recognize that it can take up to two hours of warming up the hardware to attain a stable tuning. ( source: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6652956-post16.html ). Should this turn out to be true, then I’m out. But this all is OT.
If you look at hardwired Moogs over the years, complex modulations have never been a feature. Even the Voyager has only two mod slots (one for mod wheel, one for aftertouch).
I used to own an ARP Odyssey and it’s mod routings went so far beyond what the Mini offered it was ridiculous. But it didn’t sound like a Moog.
Huuh… of course they don’t want.
It’s a very common remark: the same goes about Nord Electro vs. Nord Stage. Each user would like “just” the missing little bit. If the company took it into account, there would not be any significant difference between one instrument and the one aboce in the catalog in terms of pricetag. Companies need to draw a line in order to have something relevant to offer to every wallet. Hence compromises.
Plus Moog already have listened to the Moggists’ wishes (ewample: the Taurus III birth story) and even have organized polls to choose amongst several functionalities to include in the next design. So… all in all…
Anyway, I think Moog chose to go oscillator 2 instead of oscillator 1 because this allows to set the frequency of the modulation more freely. Oscillator 1 frequency is fixed -except for octave.
More generally, I tend to think many musicians… huh no: many instruments users are too much focused on specifications and possibilities rather than spontaneous fun -including the old me (this guy is terribly smart and he’s still trying to convince the nowadays-me )
(I’m sorry, I’ve told this story like a million times but…) I remember me reading the news of the then-forthcoming Little Phatty and saying Ok this one has got too few knobs, obviously. Some years later I casually tried one in a shop, and boom I got my Phatty one year later. Why? I had fun playing it.
