museslave wrote:
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.