New product @ Musik Messe!!!

nicholas d. kent · Post by **nicholas d. kent** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:28 am

The Source keeps coming to mind as a template if they make something cheaper.

So lets see. First off it would have MIDI by default simply because you can't get a manufactured keyboard that does CV.

Other wise look at the corners cut. 2 VCOs. 1 filter.

I'm sure they'd have more than one or no knobs, but I'm guessing it will have a lot fewer knobs. Look at the Evolver, Pulse, Micron, etc. They have some knobs but nowhere near the number on a Voyager. If it indeed has fewer knobs it will have patch storage, I don't beleive anyone has made a reduced set of knobs without patch storage. Software envelopes and a soft lfo can be done when you have a CPU. Not that I like any of this, but they are things companies do to make a lower priced unit.

To me, probably an even easier product to develop would be a Voyager rack with no knobs. This would encourage the wealthy to buy a bunch to get a polysynth. You'd have one RME or keyboard Voyager as a master set of knobs. On the other hand it wouldn't encourage very many new buyers who mostly expect knobs on a Moog.

Or of course they could do the long rumored Taurus III which also could be sold in a rack version besides a pedalboard version.

theglyph · Post by **theglyph** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:27 am

Did Moog ever post the results of the Taurus pole they did a few years back? It's been a while. Certainly enough time for development!

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:34 am

I'm less inclined to purchase a modern Moog due to my appreciation for older technology. If Moog releases a monophonic based in ANY WAY upon the Source, it's a guarantee I won't buy it. I think, despite sound, the Source was a direction in which Moog went to appeal to those who appreciated NEW TECHNOLOGY over those who appreciated musical functionality.
The one-knob parameter control thing is really not effective to an analog synthesizer player... for recording, and ESPECIALLY for live performance. I had a Kawai SX-210 which operated under the same notion... "hey, it's the eary 80s... why would we spend all that money on pots when our customers will fall for the novelty of one knob that controls everything?" It's extremely frustrating when you want to control two parameters at once (you do have two hands, and most analog synths worth anything have the ability to hold a note), or when you want to switch between controlling one function and then another VERY quickly.
If you're a digital synthesizer player, or someone who uses digital synthesizers in recordings... I could see how this wouldn't matter as much. HOWEVER... Moog is not known for creating digital products... that's what everyone ELSE is known for... Moog is known for creating quality professional analog musical products.

KNOB PER FUNCTION!! KNOB PER FUNCTION!! : )

I'd say "AND LEAVE OFF THE MIDI, force people to start PLAYING REALTIME AGAIN" but I know everyone would beat me up for that one. ; )

thebedroom · Post by **thebedroom** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:57 pm

I disagree, I have the source and love it and that one knob is smooth and accurate as hell!!! Just to play devil's advocate, most of us are playing the keys so we actually only have one tweaking hand free (if that you might be playing two synths at once). That is not to say you don't have a point for those that are just tweaking and not playing the keys, but most monosynth players have one hand on the keys at all times.

I find the source to be an awesome instrument and I am obviously from my collection (besides my source and rhodes) a knobaholic! But to each his own, just thought I would defend it since I own it. (and it would kick total ass to have a synth where every knob felt as sex as that one source knob, I mean yowsers have you tried that knob!!)

thewaag · Post by **thewaag** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:13 pm

museslave wrote:KNOB PER FUNCTION!! KNOB PER FUNCTION!!

Oh God, yes! No multi-layered menus, please. PLEASE!!!!!!!

I love my Andromeda, but would rather have a Memorymoog (if only I didn't have to worry about keeping it running). My Andy is not very intuitive in its more complex functions. Menus, menus...... I HATE them. Granted I have not spent the time in the owners manual that I should have, but half of the time I can't change the sound to what I want (my fault for ignorance, not the instruments).

The Voyager already has the knobs per function criterea. Just grab pieces from the Voyager as is, and just stick them in a new, less complex unit, much as they did with the prototype Mini's in the 70's.

I'll bet that you can make a synth with almost the same features, without the touch-pad and the memory, and still sell it for $1,500. Mind you, I know nothing about building analog instruments. But manufacturing-wise, much of the cost of the Voyager probably had research and development in it. Those costs have been paid off now. In reality, they could probably sell the Voyager for a lot less now, but why do that and reduce the value of the ones that have been bought for full price (and piss off all of those customers)? It makes more sense to come out with a "lesser" version, at a cheaper price. It has to be "lesser" enough (or different enough), however, to keep people wanting to buy the Voyager.

The Source is a cool little synth (was wailing on mine last night), but that single knob to change the settings idea is a pain in the ass.

Seriously though, why come up with a Taurus III when you can just MIDI some foot pedals to a Voyager or the new model?

Only about a month to go to see what's up at MOOG!!

smut · Post by **smut** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:14 pm

KNOB PER FUNCTION!! KNOB PER FUNCTION!! : )

YES please!

If a multivoice-Expander for the voyager is planned (my wish!!!

), please without knob (except for Power)

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:49 pm

Think how cheap a Voyager could get if you removed all of that needless computer crap from it. ; )
I say... take out the MIDI... the computer... the presets... the touch pad... use metal instead of wood (but not plastic, please)... pow, immediate best seller...
well, to those of us who are analog obsessives who only play in realtime and are willing to make the preset sacrifice. ; ) (I know we're not in the majority... but we should be! heh heh)

OysterRock · Post by **OysterRock** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:10 pm

museslave wrote:Think how cheap a Voyager could get if you removed all of that needless computer crap from it. ; )
I say... take out the MIDI... the computer... the presets... the touch pad... use metal instead of wood (but not plastic, please)... pow, immediate best seller...
well, to those of us who are analog obsessives who only play in realtime and are willing to make the preset sacrifice. ; ) (I know we're not in the majority... but we should be! heh heh)

Some of us like that stuff. You know, you can still be an accomplished player and have modern technology on your synth. The are uncorrelated. You shouldn't feel so threatened by modern technology. At one time all that antique technology you like WAS modern technology.

...and its all about the wood, man.....the WOOD.

godzilla · Post by **godzilla** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:40 am

museslave wrote:Think how cheap a Voyager could get if you removed all of that needless computer crap from it. ; )
I say... take out the MIDI... the computer... the presets... the touch pad... use metal instead of wood (but not plastic, please)... pow, immediate best seller...
well, to those of us who are analog obsessives who only play in realtime and are willing to make the preset sacrifice. ; ) (I know we're not in the majority... but we should be! heh heh)

what he said

but with wood

yeah like i said before
the computer, the presets and the touch pad put the voyager $995 over the prototype

JSRockit · Post by **JSRockit** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:41 am

museslave wrote:Think how cheap a Voyager could get if you removed all of that needless computer crap from it. ; )
I say... take out the MIDI... the computer... the presets... the touch pad... use metal instead of wood (but not plastic, please)... pow, immediate best seller...

Midi and wood cannot be that expensive to implement. presets...barely any cost. Touch pad...yes, leave it out.

Boeing 737-400 · Post by **Boeing 737-400** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:46 pm

I still don't know that much technically about synths, but I don't think a bit of wood and a microprocessor can dramatically raise the cost of a synth.

I wouldn't mind a duophonic Moog, (like an Arp Odyssey) with or without MIDI and patch storage!

Why not do two models, one with extra features for those who can afford it, and a more simplified version for those who can't. I'll have a sequencer with ridiculously large memory on my Moog please, to give my hands a rest!

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:46 pm

OysterRock wrote:Some of us like that stuff. You know, you can still be an accomplished player and have modern technology on your synth. The are uncorrelated. You shouldn't feel so threatened by modern technology. At one time all that antique technology you like WAS modern technology.

...and its all about the wood, man.....the WOOD.

More than some of you like it. : )
You can still be an accomplished player with modern technology on your synth, but you can't be an accomplished player if you can't play a synth without the modern technology. ; ) That's the "correlation" I'm talking about. : )
MIDI, sequencers, digital synthesizers, etc. etc. etc. were all very exciting when they came out... until it became obvious to some of us (or maybe just me) that these, more than conveniences and aids to musicians, were ways to market to non-musicians as well as musicians. A Korg Triton can be used by accomplished composers as well as people who know very little about music... but there are a lot more people who know very little about music, and have money to spend.
When the "antique" technology I love was the modern technology, it originated as a technology to be used as a composer's tool... not as a random-song-generator so high school kids with money can seem like a rockstar on MySpace. ; )
Yes, admittedly, I know a lot of talented musicians who implement modern technology... but Moog is not about about computers, Moog is, or has been traditionally, about the antiquated stuff I like. ; )

And believe me, I'm all about the wood... but I would also like a modern Moog mono(or duo)synth under $1000. : )

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:52 pm

Boeing 737-400 wrote:I still don't know that much technically about synths, but I don't think a bit of wood and a microprocessor can dramatically raise the cost of a synth.

Wood is FARRRR more expensive than metal, or plastic.
The processor is one of the most expensive components in a computer.

Boeing 737-400 · Post by **Boeing 737-400** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:36 pm

My graphics card is the most expensive component in my computer!

I know it all depends on the wood used, but really, how much wood can you use on the casing of a synth unless its a modular?

OysterRock · Post by **OysterRock** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:47 pm

You are correct. You definitely could cut down on cost by getting rid of the wood. Wood costs a lot. The encasing is probably the most expensive single component of the Voyager.

But the processor in you computer is very different from a simple microprocessor needed for a synth. They can be had for very cheap, I mean like a few bucks.

For a handmade analog synth, the cost of the internal stuff (resistors, capacitors, ICs, etc) is really overshadowed by the cost of the externals (encasing, pots, keys, jacks, etc) and labor. Labor probably contributes most to the cost of the Voyager. It takes a lot of people a long time to assemble and test one. They could make a cheaper Moog if they used a plastic case, lower quality pots, less pots (less knobs!), less jacks, simple LED display, lower quality keyboard assembly and they would have to start paying their employees less!

That is why synths like Korgs and Rolands are so much cheaper. The are machine-assembled in China and they have horribly shoddy construction (at least the low end stuff is shoddy).