Moog's Next Polysynth?

[MoogMusicFan81]

I do tire of the Polymoog bashing. It's not like the Memorymoog was problem free when it was released, either... it was a massively hurried job.

The SL-8 had DCOs. You want a DCO polysynth? Your problems are solved.

And I don't like Memorymoog bashing, either. That was the best they ever did.

~Ben

[unfiltered37]

Yes, I thought my comments were obviously absurd enough that everyone would get that these are topics that have been debated to death. The memorymoog is not worth it at all. Polyphonic and moog don't mix. I think that's why they have stayed away, except for chaining phatties. Moog has always been about exploration of sound, and that doesn't mix too well with chords. The patches, for them not to be muddy, have to be static to some degree and can't be tweaked like monophonics and still stay coherent. Having multiple monophonic synths is cool, but in the context of sequencing and not performance. And if you're recording, it's so easy to overdub and stack, a polyphonic is just not practical. Moog would have to bet the farm on a massively but necessarily overpriced beast, and its just not worth it when there are so many other practical options, like the slim phatty. If anything, they should build a wide range keyboard housing that fits multiple phatties, with no little phatty keyboard necessary, but maybe a controller module.

[ColorForm2113]

well there is this lovely polysynth for a mere $35,000
http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2011/04/ ... midt-poly/

my guess is that would be around the same price as a moog knob-per-function-polysynth

[MoogMusicFan81]

I think this is looking like that Moog, back in the day, was big enough already; they didn't have to stretch out into ARP's (and Yamaha's) territory (when it comes to polyphonic synthesizers), correct?

In your humble opinions, when it comes to polyphonic synths (like the Polymoog and Memorymoog), Moog just can't do that; that can't be what Moog becomes. That can't be Moog. That isn't Moog.

~Ben

[MC]

Yes, I thought my comments were obviously absurd enough that everyone would get that these are topics that have been debated to death. The memorymoog is not worth it at all. Polyphonic and moog don't mix. I think that's why they have stayed away, except for chaining phatties. Moog has always been about exploration of sound, and that doesn't mix too well with chords. The patches, for them not to be muddy, have to be static to some degree and can't be tweaked like monophonics and still stay coherent. Having multiple monophonic synths is cool, but in the context of sequencing and not performance. And if you're recording, it's so easy to overdub and stack, a polyphonic is just not practical. Moog would have to bet the farm on a massively but necessarily overpriced beast, and its just not worth it when there are so many other practical options, like the slim phatty. If anything, they should build a wide range keyboard housing that fits multiple phatties, with no little phatty keyboard necessary, but maybe a controller module.

I learned this early on - the secret is to back off the mixer levels. If you run them topped out, you're clipping the mixer like a minimoog. Back them down in the 30-40 area and they sound a lot better.

[LaxSlash1993]

I do tire of the Polymoog bashing. It's not like the Memorymoog was problem free when it was released, either... it was a massively hurried job.

The SL-8 had DCOs. You want a DCO polysynth? Your problems are solved.

Don't mock those vintage DCO synths. I got an Alpha JUNO 2, and the thing has never had a problem with it that I'm aware of, even after having been in storage for a while. And everyone did want a DCO synth at the time. They were getting tired of all of the reliability and tuning issues of the VCOs.

[museslave]

I do tire of the Polymoog bashing. It's not like the Memorymoog was problem free when it was released, either... it was a massively hurried job.

The SL-8 had DCOs. You want a DCO polysynth? Your problems are solved.

Don't mock those vintage DCO synths. I got an Alpha JUNO 2, and the thing has never had a problem with it that I'm aware of, even after having been in storage for a while. And everyone did want a DCO synth at the time. They were getting tired of all of the reliability and tuning issues of the VCOs.

Well, first of all, they aren't "vintage" to me.
Second of all, you can enjoy DCOs all you want.
Third of all, DCOs are not in any way associated with Moog products.
Fourth of all, I don't know what repair has to do with this conversation. The name "Juno 106" does come to mind, though.
Fifth of all, there aren't reliability and tuning issues with VCOs. There is simply a challenge when it comes to having a lot of VCOs in a polysynth and having some reliable/convenient way to tune them. DCOs were a manufacturing solution more than they were a user solution.
Sixth of all, people weren't clambering for synths because they were DCO synths, they were just buying the next great thing... and the early DCO synths (Alpha Junos excluded, as they came long after DCOs and analog had fallen out of favor) were simply new, functional, nice-sounding, and comparatively inexpensive. That's not to say it wasn't immediately evident that they were "cold" compared to previous polysynths, though.

Lastly, my point was that if you want a modern DCO polysynth, there is a reasonably affordable one currently available.

And I don't like Memorymoog bashing, either. That was the best they ever did.

~Ben

Seriously?

[LaxSlash1993]

Well, first of all, they aren't "vintage" to me.

Merriam-Webster defines vintage as
"Of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality : classic" Of course, though, I do see how this could be relative, and differ from person to person.

Second of all, you can enjoy DCOs all you want.

Third of all, DCOs are not in any way associated with Moog products.

DCOs weren't associated with any synth company before they came out.

Fourth of all, I don't know what repair has to do with this conversation. The name "Juno 106" does come to mind, though.

There were a couple of posts I think that brought up the reliabillity issues with the MM.

Fifth of all, there aren't reliability and tuning issues with VCOs. There is simply a challenge when it comes to having a lot of VCOs in a polysynth and having some reliable/convenient way to tune them. DCOs were a manufacturing solution more than they were a user solution.

You contradicted yourself in that statement. With the DCO's, there was no challenge. You can say that it wasn't intended to be a user solution, but they did end up being one, after all.

Sixth of all, people weren't clambering for synths because they were DCO synths, they were just buying the next great thing... and the early DCO synths (Alpha Junos excluded, as they came long after DCOs and analog had fallen out of favor) were simply new, functional, nice-sounding, and comparatively inexpensive. That's not to say it wasn't immediately evident that they were "cold" compared to previous polysynths, though.

And they were buying the next greatest thing, because they were more reliable, and were easier to keep in tune.

[dougt]

And they were buying the next greatest thing, because they were more reliable, and were easier to keep in tune.

And lifeless. The reliability argument is nothing to do with VCO/DCO it is more about Japanese vs. struggling American companies in the early 80s. And the Juno-106 is the exception there. I've also got 2 Memorymoog+s and my friend has 2 others that are all generally reliable.

[Mr Arkadin]

Personally I think the SL-8 would have been great. But then I'm no VCO snob - if it makes a noise I'll use it.

The Juno 60 is lifeless? Really? And the 106 reliabilty is about a badly designed VCA chip (relatively easy to get clone replacements now), nothing to do with the oscillator.

And to suggest "DCOs just aren't Moog, man" - well they obviously were intending to use them on the SL-8, so Moog are whatever they want to be. They're also not a guitar or lap steel company but those products exist. Luckily Moog aren't as narrow-minded as some of its customers.

[MC]

Elka Synthex was a DCO based polysynth and that wasn't lifeless.

But I'll take VCOs any day. To my ears they sound better, especially when applying modulation. Not "everyone" wanted a DCO synth back then.

And you can add my Memorymoog to the list of reliable ones.

[thealien666]

...And you can add my Memorymoog to the list of reliable ones.

Consider yourself lucky. And don't talk too soon, you never know when these beasts decide to go flaky on ya... Keep that fan clean and running!

[LaxSlash1993]

Mine's actually pretty reliable too, as far as tuning goes. I actually didn't even have to use the Auto Tune too much, until I got the osc PITCH HI problem. Although a couple of the voices had very low VCA levels. And it'll be even better once I get all the small problems worked out (IE Bad LED, petentiometers only going up to a value of 096, bad tuning trim pot, VCA balances and preset problems).

[Pastoral]

What's interesting in all of this is that Moog has actually created a polyphonic option, and it's modular! Chaining together Slim Phattys provides us with a viable Moog poly that we can add or subtract to as we please. From a martketing perspective I find it curious that Moog didn't use the polyphonic feature to brand the SP, which leads me to believe that they still may be developing a dedicated poly. Nevertheless, I think the Slim Poly option is amazing, and gives you far more capabilities at your fingertips than if you buy a standard 8 voice poly. At the end of the day, we're simply talking about being able to play chords on a synth, which 3-4 SP's will allow you to do, as well as functioning as individual monosynths when they're not in poly mode. A four voice all analog Poly-Moog for around $2400 aint bad, imo.......

[MC]

...And you can add my Memorymoog to the list of reliable ones.

Consider yourself lucky. And don't talk too soon, you never know when these beasts decide to go flaky on ya... Keep that fan clean and running!

Standard practice since I bought it new in 1986