Tell us about your rig

moogpower · Post by **moogpower** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:33 pm

SYNTHS
Moog Prodigy
ARP 2600
Oberheim OB-X
Korg MS-20
Sequential Circuits Pro~One
Oberheim Matrix-1000
Roland TB-303 Base Line
Roland MKS-50
CASIO CZ-1000
Syntecno Tee Bee
Novation Bass Station Keyboard
Ensoniq EPS 16+

MIXER/EFFECTS
Ensoniq DP2
Mackie 1402 VLZ Mixer
Behringer Composer
Behringer Ultrafex

COMPUTER/SOFTWARE
SONY VAIO VGN-A397XP w. Cubase SX3
EMU 1616 Soundcard

analogbass · Post by **analogbass** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:37 pm

-Prophet-5 w/midi
-Source w/ midi
-Minimoog rack
-Super Jupiter
-Waldorf Pulse
-Waldorf XT
-Roland D-550
-Prophet 600
-CZ-101

-Modified Linn 9000 sequencer/drum sampler
-Mutron Bi-Phase
-Bose SE-70 F/X

MC · Post by MC » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:11 pm

Huh, I never did get a pic in here

This is just the Moog stuff - lots more not pictured

OysterRock · Post by **OysterRock** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:35 pm

Wow, MC. That's Moogtastic. But, uh.. where do you sit?

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:33 pm

I am painfully reminded that I have still never had a Polymoog... the first Moog I ever wanted.

OysterRock · Post by **OysterRock** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:21 pm

museslave wrote:I am painfully reminded that I have still never had a Polymoog... the first Moog I ever wanted.

I hear they make good coffee tables.

MC · Post by MC » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:17 pm

Look closely at my pic and you'll see that the Polymoog *IS* a coffee table.

electrical_engineer_gEEk · Post by **electrical_engineer_gEEk** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:50 pm

yeah seriously....i don't even see the appeal in having a poly.....way too complicated, even I wouldn't wanna repair/own one. seems way too flaky

MC · Post by MC » Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:53 pm

I cut my teeth on keeping my Polymoog running, but after I got the Memorymoog it got neglected. There's not a lot a Polymoog will do compared to a proper polysynth.

analogbass · Post by **analogbass** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:09 pm

Polymoog's best used as a coffee table, it represented the dark ages before good polyphonics.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:17 pm

:::rolls eyes:::
DISCLAIMER: I'm well aware that the Polymoog was a very complicated and ultimately poor design. I know they fail easily and frequently. I know they are big, and heavy and fragile.

It's astounding that people are so passionate about defending the objectively modest Rogue but so willing to jump all over a synthesizer that revolutionized the market.

I suppose what comes next is the ultimately tiresome and narrow-picture view that the Polymoog was somehow less legitimate because it was a divide-down synth, or that its impact is less important because cheaper, smaller, more reliable synths came later, etc. etc. etc.
To which I respond:
Divide-down polyphonics were the first polyphonics. The fact that combo and cheap organs used the same technology is irrelevant. Variable-pitch oscillator polyphonics are nice, I have a few, but they are more limited than proper divide-down synthesizers.
The Polymoog was, for the purposes of the rock musicians who screamed for it, the first widely marketed modern polyphonic synthesizer. It served the purpose it was intended. It had a cool and unique sound. It also had a cool and unique look. It was used in a lot of recordings, and had a very signature sound... as well as the Moog filter. Actually, a LOT of Moog filters.
It is a complicated task to generate polyphony without using computers. I think it is a cool thing to attempt, and I think the synthesizers that did it are desireable for it.
As I have said a thousand times... all you get with variable-pitch oscillator polyphonic synths that you DON'T get with proper (and by proper, I mean divide-down synths with VCF, ENV, and VCA per key) divide-down synths is independent multi-note portamento. Is that so worth vehemently defending? If you think divide down synths that force all the notes through a single filter are crap, then I'm right there with you... but that's not exactly what we're talking about with the Polymoog.
If you don't like the timbre of single-pitch oscillators, that's fine too... but it's a preferential thing, not a qualitative thing. Not every synth needs to be a Memorymoog, boys and girls.

I know the Polymoog was essentially a lemon from the standpoint of design and maintenance, but that is not the same thing as dismissing it as worthless, or indicating that its sound was worthless.

All of that being said, the Japanese got it right with the 1977 release of the PS-3100 and PS-3300... too bad it was too late to win everyone over. ; )

Everyone who would like to toss out their "worthless" coffee-table of a synth, the Polymoog are welcome to contact me. I'll gladly come pick it up, or pay for shipping.

OysterRock · Post by **OysterRock** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:13 pm

I didn't say the Polymoog was worthless! Look at the picture! $820. That's an expensive coffee table.

It's astounding that people are so passionate about defending the objectively modest Rogue but so willing to jump all over a synthesizer that revolutionized the market.

Yes, we all know our Polymoog history and it is an excellent sounding synth. But the fact remains that it is a maintenance nightmare (and I'm not defending the Rouge).

Besides, its a joke. Lighten up man!

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:17 pm

OysterRock wrote:I didn't say the Polymoog was worthless! Look at the picture! $820. That's an expensive coffee table.Yes, we all know our Polymoog history and it is an excellent sounding synth. But the fact remains that it is a maintenance nightmare (and I'm not defending the Rouge).

Besides, its a joke. Lighten up man!

OysterRock! No, I thought the picture was hilarious! There is no arguing the truth and humour in it! Well done!
My somewhat-vitriolic response was in regard to those posts that seemed to suggest that my desire for a Polymoog lacked perspective... or information.
Just as it is popular to pointlessly hail certain Moogs, it is popular to unfairly decry certain Moogs. : )

I'm light usually!! Really!! I'm light!!

atkbg · Post by **atkbg** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:44 am

I hear the same response when I tell people that I like sting machines. The Omni is one of my favorites. People bark about divide-down as one trick, get bored quickly keyboards.
They were the work-horse of many for many years through and I think they still sound good.

Nice post by the way museslave.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:05 am

atkbg wrote:I hear the same response when I tell people that I like sting machines. The Omni is one of my favorites. People bark about divide-down as one trick, get bored quickly keyboards.
They were the work-horse of many for many years through and I think they still sound good.

Nice post by the way museslave.

Hey, thanks! I have often been a defender of string synths. They are often wonderful and inexpensive opportunities for polyphonic sound.
For example... while it is easier to play a synthesizer in the same fashion as a piano when it has a VCF, ENV, and VCA per note... what's the big deal if it doesn't? A synthesizer is NOT a piano, and never has been. (I also feel this way about weighted keys on a synth... again, a synth is NOT a piano) I have been able to make decent recordings of excellent synth sounds when all the notes are going through a single filter or envelope. Just because it doesn't act like a piano, or it requires some unique technique, does NOT mean it is not useful as a musical instrument.
Sure, I would PREFER to have VCF, ENV, and VCA per note, but still.
My favorite string synth is the Korg Lambda, which at least has VCA and ENV per note. It is really quite versatile, and has a GREAT sound and interesting functionality.
I have never played an Omni, but I hope to!
Keep up the string-machine faith. : )