Moog Music Forum

Any way you look at it, prepare to shell out lots of cash if it's a polyphonic synth.

Just as a reminder, here's a price list from Moog dated from 1979 (from Kevin Lightner's Synthfool site)

http://www.synthfool.com/pricelists/prices79.html

Notice the Polymoog (which wasn't exactly a huge success) at $5295, and remember this is from close to 33 years ago now!
This would translate into roughly $15K in today's money.

Although the Taurus III is close to the same price as the original Taurus I was and offers more features (but not exactly the same sound according to many), go figure...

I'll tell you what would be great:

A module which will help complete the MoogerFoogers as a single performance setup. I've played my 101, 102,104, 105B, and 107 live but the obvious missing component was a proper envelope generator and VCA! It was a very frustrating performance and I haven't tried it again as I've got a proper, albeit huge, modular to work with.

This certainly isn't the most appealing product for people using the Foogers in an effects chain and I understand the reluctance to release such a pedal/module. But, You can't deny that a MoogerFooger with 2 ENV generators and complementary VCAs would be the gravy in the MoogerFooger line!

We can dream!

Edit: now that I'm dreaming lets make the two envelops full ADSR with switchable polarity and cycling (looping) modes such as AD and ASR. The VCA's are also switchable between linear and exponential. Let's throw in a a couple of trigger buttons for good measure ! BTW, no MIDI but I could go for Roland DIN SYNC for the TB/TR users out there!

thealien666 wrote:/edit/

Although the Taurus III is close to the same price as the original Taurus I was and offers more features (but not exactly the same sound according to many), go figure...

Of course it won't have the same sound as a Taurus I. A Taurus I has components that have been discontinued. The Taurus III might have suitable replacement parts, but they are not the same as the original.

Is this the 'many' that all link to exactly the same badly produced Taurus 1 vs Taurus 3 YouTube fiasco by any chance?

Mr Arkadin wrote:Is this the 'many' that all link to exactly the same badly produced Taurus 1 vs Taurus 3 YouTube fiasco by any chance?

Personally, I'm referring to this Moog Music video on YouTube, in which you can clearly hear the difference between the two. Don't know if it's the one you're talking about ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuwlUK-XP7I

No, I'm talking about the retrosound one - I'm not going to dignify it with a link, just type Taurus 1 v Taurus3 into YouTube and it's the first hit.

Mr Arkadin wrote:No, I'm talking about the retrosound one - I'm not going to dignify it with a link, just type Taurus 1 v Taurus3 into YouTube and it's the first hit.

Oh yeah, I've seen that one too. No matter what video you watch, or if you're lucky enough to have both Taurus 1 and 3 in front of you to compare both, there's only one conclusion: no matter how hard Cyril Lance has tried to replicate the sound of the Taurus 1, the Taurus III sounds different. Certainly not bad, but different.
And for those who might doubt that the goal was to clone exactly the sound of the Taurus 1 and add functionality with the Taurus 3, here's again a Moog Music video of Cyril explaining his progress during the conception of the T3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdvdOwBDpr4

thealien666 wrote:Oh yeah, I've seen that one too. No matter what video you watch, or if you're lucky enough to have both Taurus 1 and 3 in front of you to compare both, there's only one conclusion: no matter how hard Cyril Lance has tried to replicate the sound of the Taurus 1, the Taurus III sounds different. Certainly not bad, but different.
And for those who might doubt that the goal was to clone exactly the sound of the Taurus 1 and add functionality with the Taurus 3, here's again a Moog Music video of Cyril explaining his progress during the conception of the T3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdvdOwBDpr4

Yes, but even the two T1s Moog had sounded different. I guess what I don't like is that in these 'versus' trials people equate different=bad. I realise you're not saying that. Even if they had exactly the same components available for the T3, unless they aged them all 30 years then it could never sound the same. What I didn't like in the retrosound video was that they made no effort to tweak the sounds to be as close as possible (their T1 might sound different to Moog's T1), the just used the presets as is. Even worse, the final sound isn't even a preset so how can you compare when the parameter settings don't correspond between devices?

All I know is, you're not going to feel the thunder of either instrument via a YouTube video.

Mr Arkadin wrote:...All I know is, you're not going to feel the thunder of either instrument via a YouTube video.

On that, we most certainly agree with each other ! Nothing can prepare you to the sound of a Taurus played on a 10k+ watts PA system...
Loosening of teeth fillings, and blurred vision guaranteed!

thealien666 wrote:

Mr Arkadin wrote:...All I know is, you're not going to feel the thunder of either instrument via a YouTube video.

On that, we most certainly agree with each other ! Nothing can prepare you to the sound of a Taurus played on a 10k+ watts PA system...
Loosening of teeth fillings, and blurred vision guaranteed!

Hell, 60 watts will do that!

theglyph wrote:the obvious missing component was a proper envelope generator and VCA!

Hi, theglyph

If you search the 'Fooger forum, you can find many old threads where people wish for the same thing. You'll even find some lovely Photoshop mockups in there that wishful thinkers have designed.

thealien666 wrote:if you're lucky enough to have both Taurus 1 and 3 in front of you to compare both, there's only one conclusion: no matter how hard Cyril Lance has tried to replicate the sound of the Taurus 1, the Taurus III sounds different. Certainly not bad, but different.

One conclusion? A fine specimen of a over-generalized blanket assessment if I ever saw one.

You can count on every unscientific casual A/B comparision to have been made against an UNCALIBRATED Taurus I and WILL therefore sound "different", unless there is a disclaimer that says otherwise.

Did Cyril replicate the sound of the Taurus I? I was invited to bring my T1 to Asheville because Cyril was MANIACAL about replicating the original. He arranged studio time for critical listening, and they seldom come more critical than me. I asked Cyril about components and circuit sections in the T3 that are crucial to the T1 sound and he confirmed that they are all there.

In the end, he achieved his goal: the T3 sounds like my T1. And I don't use that statement lightly, as before the T3 I could never 100% nail that sound. And I've got 30+ years in analog programming and enough analogs synths here.

I'm going to take a guess...
It will be an analog polyphonic keyboard and it will be called the Minitaur...

MC wrote:...In the end, he (Cyril Lance) achieved his goal: the T3 sounds like my T1. And I don't use that statement lightly, as before the T3 I could never 100% nail that sound. And I've got 30+ years in analog programming and enough analogs synths here.

Perhaps so... But for me personally the T3 didn't sound exactly like a T1, no more so than a Voyager sounds like my Minimoog model D. But I'll let other people be their own judge of that, for those lucky enough to be able to compare the two in front of them, and certainly NOT by watching YouTube videos as the sound is heavily compressed and distorted on there even when having been properly recorded originally.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread, nor start a big argument over this. After All, these fine instruments are all great. To each his or her own, I guess.

Happy holidays to you, and all on this forum, BTW...

MC,
Maybe it's time for one of those "An Interesting Taurus 1/3 Comparison" posts.