I know this is a Moog forum but...

[stiiiiiiive]

Well the tradition is superior in the case of Moog, not just because of the products, but because of the times they were developed. Sequential capitalized on the need for polyphony, and developed products as such, and I think has been kind of tethered to the poly route. But nowadays, Moog's tradition still (and will always IMO) makes sense, but DSI's is outdated.

Again, not to pull a leg, but why is DSI's tradition outdated with respect to Moog's? I met many people over here badly wanting a polyphonic Moog, i.e. a Moog instrument meeting the DSI's tradition, or even a Moog instrument not meeting the original intentions (see below). And in the meantime, as someone said before, when the Voayger came out, and nowadays also, some people said "c'mon, it's the Y2K'ies, a monohponic synth???".

I'm really confused.

Moog is stuck in mono and, in my opinion, could consider making something kind of like Oberheim's 2 voice (or maybe a 3-voice). I love my Moogs, but how about making something somewhat different????

You know, I saw that documentary about Bob Moog and his works, and read some interview. I understand why Moog instruments are traditionnaly monophonic. It's been intended since the very beginning. I understood that, at a point, the keyboard interface had musicians associating the possibility of pressing multiple keys with the possibility of producing multiple notes.
Anyway, this is another topic...

Ok, so I watched Amos' video. Everything makes more sense when Amos says it, as opposed to reading spec sheets and marketing copy. I like the Sub Phatty now.

ISN'T IT???

[Portamental]

I heard at least two demo of the P12. The sound doesn't appeal to me. The DSI products never had a good enough filter for my taste, too anemic.

I did not hear the P12, but I had a P8 some time ago. I had decided I wanted it about the time I bought my first Moog, and I bought it (the P8) a couple of years later based on the earlier decision. I kept it about two weeks and sold it. Still have a Mopho to ditch but no takers.

[GovernorSilver]

I heard at least two demo of the P12. The sound doesn't appeal to me. The DSI products never had a good enough filter for my taste, too anemic.

DSI needs to find an Amos of their own to demo the P12 and really show us how the filter sounds. I respect Dave Smith, but he's not that guy. Otherwise, this thing could languish in obscurity for a few years until a genius programmer posts an awesome demo.

BTW, the word from someone who visited the DSI booth at NAMM reports the oscillators are modelled on SHARC chips, which also handle the effects. Interesting combo - modelling oscillators and analog filters, VCAs, etc.

[EMwhite]

SHARC are used by Strymon and also by Universal Audio (in their UAD II line of products).

[GovernorSilver]

Yeah, Strymon has done an amazing job with SHARCs on their various pedals. El Capistan is on my list...

[unfiltered37]

Again, not to pull a leg, but why is DSI's tradition outdated with respect to Moog's? I met many people over here badly wanting a polyphonic Moog, i.e. a Moog instrument meeting the DSI's tradition, or even a Moog instrument not meeting the original intentions (see below). And in the meantime, as someone said before, when the Voayger came out, and nowadays also, some people said "c'mon, it's the Y2K'ies, a monohponic synth???".

I'm really confused.

I thought I explained it, DSI has its roots in the Prophet 5, which was a synth that was designed to meet the need for a synth with polyphony. Nowadays, polyphony is something that anyone with a DAW or a cheap toy synth has. But DSI has still kinda been forced into the niche of polyphonic analogs, either because of the tradition, the marketing holes left by Moog, or both. But while the demand for poly analogs is still strong, I am not sure why anyone would rather pay 3k for a p12, when they could get a real VCO poly like a Sequential or memorymoog, or jupiter.

Is the answer because it has 4 osc per voice, or 12 voices? I doubt it. Probably the answer is simply because its new.

In short, to answer your question, I think Moog's legacy has stood the test of time, for many reasons, not the least of which is that mono synths tend to force a type of playing that is more enjoyable. Poly's allow or force a harmonic style of playing that can easily become overindulgent, and become more about traditional western music rather than sound exploration. Of course these are just generalizations, but I find that they are pretty much accurate.

[thealien666]

...BTW, the word from someone who visited the DSI booth at NAMM reports the oscillators are modelled on SHARC chips, which also handle the effects. Interesting combo - modelling oscillators and analog filters, VCAs, etc.

Korg did something similar, many years ago, with their DW models. Digital oscillators, but analog filters and VCAs, combined with digital delay, and the results sounds extremely good. I have the DW8000.

[GovernorSilver]

Funny thing was, when I first heard of the Monotribe, I thought it would be an Electribe (VA oscillators, sequencing, effects) combined with the analog filter and LFO of the Monotron (which itself borrowed from the original MS-20).

Maybe they'll still do something like that in the future. Their latest VA synth (King Korg) has a CV gate output, which is a step in that direction.

[Mr Arkadin]

SHARC are used by Strymon and also by Universal Audio (in their UAD II line of products).

They're also used for Minimax (both Sonic Core Scope and ASB).

[SSquirrel]

Yeah, Strymon has done an amazing job with SHARCs on their various pedals. El Capistan is on my list...

I want the Bluesky if for no other reason that that wonderfully ridiculous Plate Shimmer.

[thealien666]

Electro-Harmonix also uses Analog Devices DSP in some of their effects. Like the Cathedral Reverb with its amazing infinite reverb feature, using the faster and somewhat more powerful Blackfin processor... And all EHX products are still made in New York, USA almost exclusively.

BTW, Bob Moog and Mike Matthews were good friends. Here they are together at NAMM 2005:



We miss you Bob.

[Kenneth]

...BTW, the word from someone who visited the DSI booth at NAMM reports the oscillators are modelled on SHARC chips, which also handle the effects. Interesting combo - modelling oscillators and analog filters, VCAs, etc.

Korg did something similar, many years ago, with their DW models. Digital oscillators, but analog filters and VCAs, combined with digital delay, and the results sounds extremely good. I have the DW8000.

Alain, I'm glad you brought this up. I too, have a DW8000, and when I watched Dave demo the P12, I couldn't help but hear the similarities between the two instruments. Granted, the P12 has 4 osc per voice, and the DW only 2, but other than that, the synths have a lot in common. I am a bit shocked at the price tag on the P12, and I would be among the first to recommend the DW before considering one of Dave's new babies. I am more satisfied with the DW8000 than I have been with any other polyphonic synth I have owned, which says a lot because there have been a fair few.

[GovernorSilver]

The Prophet 12 has more in common, imo, with the PolyEvolver Keyboard than the Prophet 08. So if you compare the P12 to the PEK instead of the P08, you're looking at a price difference only $300 for 3x the polyphony plus a host of other new features like the 2 position and pressure sensitive strips next to the two wheels.

[thealien666]

Oh and then there is this, of course:



From what I've read, the build quality is a little flimsy, but the cut throat price might be its strongest selling point. Close to half the price of a Sub Phatty, but without the Moog sound, of course !

So far this year, NAMM was very interesting synthesizer wise. Moog Sub Phatty, Korg MS20 Mini, DSI Prophet12.

Will we have a Roland Jupiter8 Mini, or Oberheim 8 voice Mini, or the resurrection of ARP Music with an ARP 2600 Mini next year ? One can always dream...

Anyway, I'm glad to see big corporations slowly realizing that there is a big pool of potential young new customers, out there, that never had the chance to play on such classic analog synths, and discover the joys of sound experimentation and the hands-on experience gratification. The MS20 Mini is a faithful replica, down to the circuits used, but in SMT format, and made in China, hence the low price. But the original sound is there. Will Roland wake up and follow the lead ?

All this, is probably the result of Animoog and iMS20 hugely successful apps, combined with Moog's Minitaur, and Arturia's Minibrute success of last year.

[synthaxe]

Electro-Harmonix also uses Analog Devices DSP in some of their effects. Like the Cathedral Reverb with its amazing infinite reverb feature, using the faster and somewhat more powerful Blackfin processor... And all EHX products are still made in New York, USA almost exclusively.

BTW, Bob Moog and Mike Matthews were good friends. Here they are together at NAMM 2005:



We miss you Bob.

Two wonderful guys right there!