if you had to make a choice
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:51 am
would you rather settle for an Opus 3 or a Source?
your answer and a reason why
your answer and a reason why
Moog Music Forum
Share Ideas and Pass the word
https://forum.moogmusic.com/
if you had to make a choice
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 11:24 am
Apples and oranges - Opus 3 is a TOS string machine, Source is a monophonic. Totally different machines.
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 6:24 pm
the source for me.
the opus 3 can't really sound like a source at all.
but with a multi-track recorder, you could get opus-esque pads out of the source.
the opus 3 can't really sound like a source at all.
but with a multi-track recorder, you could get opus-esque pads out of the source.
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 8:50 pm
Um, MC, would you rather have an apple or an orange?
A choice can include two different things... it's only a comparison that requires the two things to have similarity.
As for this choice... I would take a Source, despite its wretched single knob interface, over the monstrousity that is the Opus 3 ANY DAY.
A choice can include two different things... it's only a comparison that requires the two things to have similarity.
As for this choice... I would take a Source, despite its wretched single knob interface, over the monstrousity that is the Opus 3 ANY DAY.
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 2:33 pm
aw comon....an opus 3 isnt THAT big......
try dragging a real organ around with you...
hehe
try dragging a real organ around with you...
hehe
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 9:39 pm
Apple please, make mine empire.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:48 am
my opinion here is quite biased... as i own two opus 3's and i've never played a source before. but i will say that the opus is by far one of the most underatted moogs. if you're looking for thick scraping brass tones the opus is where it's at. add a couple effects pedals and you have a one man band.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:39 pm
I guess I should have said "wretched thing" instead of "monstrousity..." I didn't mean to suggest that it was big, but that it was horrible. : )
Yes, I know... Opus 3 owners unite against the fellow who has the guts to point out its inadequacies. ; )
Come on, you have to admit it was a slap-dash affair designed to get the Moog name into the String Synth market. If you come away from the Moog haze, it's a very limited synthesizer, a very limited organ emulator, and a performance synth that requires too much attention (compared to other string synths) to achieve immediacy on stage.
The reason it is underrated is because it is the lowest of the low regarding Moogs. I agree that you can get some great sounds out of it, though! It's just a cheaper (more cheaply designed and built) synth than the Source.
Yes, I know... Opus 3 owners unite against the fellow who has the guts to point out its inadequacies. ; )
Come on, you have to admit it was a slap-dash affair designed to get the Moog name into the String Synth market. If you come away from the Moog haze, it's a very limited synthesizer, a very limited organ emulator, and a performance synth that requires too much attention (compared to other string synths) to achieve immediacy on stage.
The reason it is underrated is because it is the lowest of the low regarding Moogs. I agree that you can get some great sounds out of it, though! It's just a cheaper (more cheaply designed and built) synth than the Source.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:46 am
Agreed Mr.Slave!
The Opus was a decidedly budget affair, and certainly not a patch (see what I've done there?) on the Polymoog Keyboard it was meant to 'replace'. As string machines go it wasn't too bad, and the moogy brass is a bonus. The organ's shite though. It's simply not a 'real' synthesizer. Save yourself loads of money and buy a cheap Italian string synth like a Siel or ARP Quartet.
Why does Larry have to choose between the two? If he's being offered a choice at the same price then there's no contest surely?
The Opus was a decidedly budget affair, and certainly not a patch (see what I've done there?) on the Polymoog Keyboard it was meant to 'replace'. As string machines go it wasn't too bad, and the moogy brass is a bonus. The organ's shite though. It's simply not a 'real' synthesizer. Save yourself loads of money and buy a cheap Italian string synth like a Siel or ARP Quartet.
Why does Larry have to choose between the two? If he's being offered a choice at the same price then there's no contest surely?
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 10:26 am
I wouldn't think Moog Music was thinking "lets make the Opus to replace the Polymoog" if for no other reason that the price was radically different, it was probably more a case of organ-like string synths seemed to still be selling because they were cheap so Moog Music added one to their lineup. Anyway I agree with the concensus that today there isn't too much there to get excited about though I'm sure many people if they got one at a good price could make use of one.
The Source clearly was motivated by patch memories in a lower cost lead synth. The compromise here is that they eliminated the complete set of knobs in favor of buttons and one knob. In a live context some people like the challenge of trying to make a new patch by changing things while they play or real quickly between songs - if you like that then you can't really do that with a Source. Though many musicians who just want cool synth sounds think it's very useful to store their sounds for instant recall and switch sounds with a button push live - you can't do that with a lot of monosynths because only a few monosynths ever had patch memory.
Notice that the Source and Little Phatty share the concept of having a limited set of shared knobs, patch storage and a lower price than a Minimoog.
The Source clearly was motivated by patch memories in a lower cost lead synth. The compromise here is that they eliminated the complete set of knobs in favor of buttons and one knob. In a live context some people like the challenge of trying to make a new patch by changing things while they play or real quickly between songs - if you like that then you can't really do that with a Source. Though many musicians who just want cool synth sounds think it's very useful to store their sounds for instant recall and switch sounds with a button push live - you can't do that with a lot of monosynths because only a few monosynths ever had patch memory.
Notice that the Source and Little Phatty share the concept of having a limited set of shared knobs, patch storage and a lower price than a Minimoog.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 10:34 am
i guess i should be grateful no one likes the opus, -i'll never have to worry about demand driving the price up. 
all i know is, at the end of the day, compared to my other moogs, the opus is hands down the most useful in terms of composing and performing live.
all i know is, at the end of the day, compared to my other moogs, the opus is hands down the most useful in terms of composing and performing live.
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:14 am
Thanks, Sundaeclubber!
Nicholas, I agree with you!
I often ponder the slippery slope that existed (and exists) in designing synthesizers to be "more convenient." The sad thing about synthesizers is that the synthesizer culture has so often pandered to those who sought "more convenient." While I have appreciated patch memory and simplicity at times, I also know that the only thing between wishing, say, a Minimoog was quicker to use on stage, and being able to use a Minimoog quickly on stage is a LOT of practice. Synthesizer players have become sort of lame due to their desire for immediacy. The problem with complicated analog synthesizers is the same with guitar, violin, etc... we have to learn to THINK in that instrument... and once we do, parameter changing, patch preparation, etc. (while still a little more time consuming) becomes second nature. It's an extra layer of knowledge/skill/gift that I think a lot of musicians don't want to bother with. And, of course, I have often agreed.
Synthesizers like the Source set the groundwork for synthesizers that were the ULTIMATE in stage convenience and immediacy... the kind where you just select the sound that some engineer designed, and pow. That's why the DX7 was the ULTIMATE in organs... it hearkened the end of the synthesist as sound designer, and made the synthesist into a preset player. Granted, it was all very immediate and convenient, and required no learning beyond knowing how to play keys and press buttons. ; )
I noticed (and complained about) the similarity in knob economy with the Source and Phatty. While I appreciate the fact that there is MORE than one knob on the Phatty, and those knobs have that direct-analog dealie, I still wish "knob economy" hadn't been a design model. : )
Nicholas, I agree with you!
I often ponder the slippery slope that existed (and exists) in designing synthesizers to be "more convenient." The sad thing about synthesizers is that the synthesizer culture has so often pandered to those who sought "more convenient." While I have appreciated patch memory and simplicity at times, I also know that the only thing between wishing, say, a Minimoog was quicker to use on stage, and being able to use a Minimoog quickly on stage is a LOT of practice. Synthesizer players have become sort of lame due to their desire for immediacy. The problem with complicated analog synthesizers is the same with guitar, violin, etc... we have to learn to THINK in that instrument... and once we do, parameter changing, patch preparation, etc. (while still a little more time consuming) becomes second nature. It's an extra layer of knowledge/skill/gift that I think a lot of musicians don't want to bother with. And, of course, I have often agreed.
Synthesizers like the Source set the groundwork for synthesizers that were the ULTIMATE in stage convenience and immediacy... the kind where you just select the sound that some engineer designed, and pow. That's why the DX7 was the ULTIMATE in organs... it hearkened the end of the synthesist as sound designer, and made the synthesist into a preset player. Granted, it was all very immediate and convenient, and required no learning beyond knowing how to play keys and press buttons. ; )
I noticed (and complained about) the similarity in knob economy with the Source and Phatty. While I appreciate the fact that there is MORE than one knob on the Phatty, and those knobs have that direct-analog dealie, I still wish "knob economy" hadn't been a design model. : )
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:43 am
Not really. If the price was driven up by demand, you could flog yours and buy something decent.Keith collins wrote:i guess i should be grateful no one likes the opus, -i'll never have to worry about demand driving the price up.
Posted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:24 pm
It's amazing how much forum space the Opus3 takes up!
It might not be the most featured of moogs but a lot of people are interested in it given that there are some units that no one talks about (Liberation, Taurus IIs, Satalite etc).
Mal
It might not be the most featured of moogs but a lot of people are interested in it given that there are some units that no one talks about (Liberation, Taurus IIs, Satalite etc).
Mal