Hi gang…
Speculation on the next moog product is now at fever point - now when they announced a Taurus MK3, I was pretty disappointed, used to own the MK1 - stunning futuristic design, sounded good - but limited (actually half of the circuit board was never used) definately an early interface system.
So was’nt interested in buying one, promo videos depicted users using their hands to play it!? good synth - but primary trigger source…your feet? No No..Now I’ve never figured out why they did’nt make a replica MK1 Minimoog, with separate LFO - nothing else! (OK, they had to make the voyager) missed opportunity?..
Considered buying one of the Welsh minis in the mid 90s, great review in the magazines - but failed (identity crisis) they used click switches instead of the rocker type - which really did’nt look too great,
I’ve 2 Voyagers, brilliant synths - but i missed the wee top wood strut of the original - so I made one, looks absolutely fantastic now! I used to repair/restore synths,last one was a E&MM Spectrum, 2 osc,stereo pan outs. completely wrecked,made a copy Mini chassis,encased it in black walnut,new drilled alloy top panel, DSI pitch/Mod box, worked out the panel graphics on Adobe Illustrator (commercial printer output) Mini knobs,custom joystick, done all the major synths, last one I’ll ever do! if moog made something like this,would you buy one? here’s a pic http://www.myspace.com/596234900/music
…
Regarding the T1 pedals…
“actually half of the circuit board was never used”
I’m curious what you mean by this.
It’s sort of true (“half” is a stretch)… There are a bunch of TTL logic onboard to support a remote controller, sort of a duplicate of the control panel that would mount high so you could manipulate the sound while standing - like the Taurus II did. That’s why the big plug cap was on the rear panel of T1s. Neither Roger Luther or Mike Bucki saw one, but there are pics online of a set of T1s owned (abused?) by Genesis, and you can see the big plug on the rear panel and the remote panel sitting on top of the unit. I have these pics on my webpage.
Matter of fact, there were plans to interface the Polymoog with the T1s but they never got around to it - too busy with warranty returns (the early Polymoogs were horribly unreliable).
Thanks MC, though as you’re probably aware, I know all of that. 
I just didn’t get the “half” reference.
It might be 10% of the board.
When I think of “half a board unused”, I think more of things like the JP6.
Roland used two four voice boards, but only populated 1/2 of one.
Edit: image of JP6 insides deleted because Angelfire doesn’t allow external linking.
Memory fades as we get older (In my case very true!) The last Taurus I worked on must be 15 - 16 years ago, I replaced a TO package 3080 with a DIL footprint (fiddly, but cheaper than sourcing a TO 3080!
looking at the board + schematics, seemed to me of a helluva waste of circuit board - if so much R&D went into the interface system,why wasnt it implemented? I also remanufactured the control panel window/ housing (which was missing - bit of head scratching on that one, but all turned out good in the end!
There’s always the manufacturers “for future expansion” explanations, but dont ever remember any from Moog! my apologies if my recollections caused a bit of a “stooshie” (Scots for an argument) Talking of the JP6 Kevin,I was surprised to find they used CEM 3340’s? absolute pain to replace - soldered straight to the bottom board, no sockets!
Of course I knew that. I was also addressing the OP and the rest of the forum
I can see where having a socket for a CEM could make things easier, especially if one isn’t sure their replacement CEM is any good.
But eliminating hundreds of friction-only connections (sockets) increases reliability and lowers costs.
Roland also believed in troubleshooting down to the component level, not doing chip swaps to find a problem and liberal usage of vacuum desoldering machines, so it’s natural they went this method.
I don’t mind ICs (even CEMs) being soldered directly to a board.
Removing them is fairly easy given a good desoldering machine or otherwise good wick technique.
If you’re sure the CEM is bad, they can also be clipped out, the leads removed with tweezers and holes cleaned up with wick.
They’re not easy chips to remove if using a plunger or bulb/nylon tip desolderer, but in my opinion, any tech that uses those shouldn’t be working on such an instrument in the first place.
If a board has a dip pattern, but a round chip installed that’s bad, replacing with a dip is probably a good idea.
It allows possible upgrades to better devices too (3080A, LM301A, etc.)
But the instruments I’ve received with round pads and a replacement DIP with bent leads attempting to fit, I’ll usually replace with an original round IC.
I do admit that round ICs aren’t easy to find any longer, but some are out there.
As for the T1, I’m more perplexed that while they didn’t populate certain sections of the board, they did provide the internal expansion connectors.
Why? Initial testing?