MG-1 Should I buy it?

2tone · Post by **2tone** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:24 pm

Hi gents - I am new to the board and have a technical question. I have the opportunity to buy an MG-1 for $200.00. The person says cosmetically it is in great shape and works great except for "what happens is the octave shifts from time to time with tone source 2". Is this a real problem, or something that can be easily fixed? The seller thinks that the problem is with the source modulator.

Thanks in advance for you input

Tom

joshbdork · Post by **joshbdork** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:57 pm

depends on if you are very good with tech work or not. Repairs on these aren't cheap for the most part. Before I worked on my own, I would take them to places and get charged an arm and a leg for any minor work.

2tone · Post by **2tone** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:21 pm

Thanks for the reply - I am pretty good with a soldering iron and can figure just about anything out with the proper instruction. I am wondering though if anyone can guess what the problem might be form the description that I gave, and how hard would it be to fix.

Thanks again - Tom

joshbdork · Post by **joshbdork** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:28 pm

I am not certain what the problem would be without looking at the board and hearing exactly what it is doing. However I would say it is a safe buy, because even if you can't fix it they are going broke on ebay for more than 200$. As long as you don't screw it up when working on it I would say it is a safe investment. If you don't want to buy it then I'm surely interested for that price.

writeroxie · Post by **writeroxie** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:33 pm

for $200, i'd go for it. it could even be something like an intermittent octave switch on osc 2. chipsforbrains sells new switch/slider kits on ebay for pretty cheap.

and see the thread where i posted the MG-1 Service Manual/Schematics for DIY help.

minime123 · Post by **minime123** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:36 pm

weve restored and sold many mg1s over the years and i can tell you from experience that any MG1 requiring repair is probably going to need a good internal cleanup first. the foam inside the MG1 that separates the front panel from the pcb melts over time and turns into a tar like substance. just be sure to wear gloves and something to protect your clothing, as well as covering the surrounding area. its not a lot of fun.
good luck
mini

MC · Post by MC » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:20 pm

minime123 · Post by **minime123** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:35 pm

ditto.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:07 pm

The MG-1 I recently bought just arrived, and I've been playing with it for awhile.
I can't believe how underrated this synth is! They made a lot of bizarre choices with it, but I think all of them paid off.
This synthesizer is definitely worth the average price it goes for on eBay.
Oh, I just want to BITE everyone for their bizarre comments like "the polyphony is not really polyphony," etc. After all these years of listening to people unfairly complain about the MG-1, no one EVER stated that the polyphonic section ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE FILTER!!! That's AWESOME! It's your own tiny little string synth! Sure, we'd all like it if polyphonic synths had VCA/VCF/ENV per key, but on a tiny inexpensive monosynth, everyone should be jumping for JOY that they have a tiny little polyphonic section that gets to go through a Moog filter!
Plus, the timbral diversity generated by the sync/ringmod/two osc setup... absolutely stellar... especially since you have such mixing control.
Sample and Hold, even!
The keyboard isn't as cheap as I thought it would be, either.
Ohhh, you can expect a video about this guy. : )
My only complaint is that this thing has those same wretched sliders as the OPUS 3 had, and my LFO to FILTER balance slider has the same issue as my LFO slider had on the opus 3... only half of it works, and its intermittent at best... not to mention LOOSE. Several of the sliders seem loose. I'm going to open it up and see what I can do about it. That plus these sliders always feel like you're dragging a chunk of metal through broken glass. Ugh. I might buy the new ones from Chips For Brains, in hope that they feel better.
Overall, though... it's VERY worth the money!

minime123 · Post by **minime123** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:52 pm

i think its a much better value than the rogue. the polyphonic section does have its limitations. you will see in time, my son. in time...

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:09 pm

While I have not personally played or personally heard a Rogue (heard samples, but apparently they don't count), it would seem to me that the functionality exceeds the Rogue.
The MG-1 I have isn't quite as warm-rich-thick as the Micromoog, so it may not be as fat as the Rogue.

As for polyphony... let's see... I've been playing polyphonic analog synthesizers since about 1985. I have and have had a number of analog polyphonics, including at one time or another, nearly every major string synth. I have a Korg PS-3100, which is divide-down and features a full synthesizer for every key, down to a Korg Monopoly, which, like string synths, forces all four notes through a single ENV/VCA/VCF.
If I say I am satisfied with the MG-1's polyphony, it is because I am objective about what it is- a tiny cheap analog monosynth. Any polyphony at ALL on such a thing is GREAT POLYPHONY!
It drives me nuts that everyone thinks that all analog polysynths have to have piano action, piano-like sound production (in that each note has individual ENV/VCA/VCF), and multiple oscillators layered upon each note. Synthesizers are not pianos, and although we all like synthesizers to have more features, a synthesizer is not worthless when it lacks the top-of-the-line features.
An artful synth player is not limited by the limitations of a less-expensive synth... for often, those synths have features that make them useful, if not endearing.

If I have to ride the filter cutoff slider while I play chords, so be it... the little damned thing sounds GREAT to my ears, despite merely being a divide-down square wave! I don't need it to be a CS-80... I have a CS-50 to fake THAT. ; )
If this means I don't have to tote my Pianet to my next gig in England (oh, my GOD Homeland Security is suspicious about pianets), then it's the best polyphony I can imagine. ; )

minime123 · Post by **minime123** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:49 pm

like i said... "you will see in time, my son. in time... "

let us know when you figure out its biggest limitation.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:12 am

Well, the only limitation that I've discovered thus far is the polyphonic sections dubious relationship with the ENV/VCA. There really is no true release with the polyphonic section, it's on or off, and the only way you get the ENV to make the VCA sound like there is is if you hold the chord until the ENV has done its thing.
See, again... this is not a limitation to me... it really would only be a limitation if you had expectations for it. Nowhere on this device does it suggest that it is a piano or a CS-80, so I cannot complain about this very limited VCA relationship. I can only complain about there not being a release if I seek a sound for this device that it is not capable of and frown in disappointment when what I want isn't represented in something that can't do whatever I imagine. ; )
I'm more about working within the boundaries of the machine. I like to discover what all it can do, and what can be done with what it can do, as opposed to comparing it to other keyboards, especially those that easily exceed it.
Again... it's the only monosynth with a polyphonic function!
I think most of the complaining comes from people who expect this very tiny, very cheap synth to fulfill the dreams they have of more expensive synthesizers. You can't buy a Festiva and complain when it's not a BMW.
Anyway... the only limitation I am frustrated by is the fact that these sliders are absolute shite. Someone please tell me the new sliders are smooth and effective!
And... uh... then tell me how to install them. ; )

minime123 · Post by **minime123** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 1:20 am

looks like you discovered most peoples biggest complaint about the poly section.

for an organ type of volume contour, its fine, but if you want anything with a release, forget about it.
youre right to take it for what it is, dont be unhappy about what it isnt - its a cool little synth and IMO a very good value in a monosynth. the polyphonic section is a bonus, but i wouldnt consider it a true polysynth because of this and other limitations
have fun with it
mini

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:52 am

Everyone is probably sick of this rant from me. : )

What the hell is "true polyphony?"
Well, the word just means "multiple sounds." Any keyboard is polyphonic that plays multiple sounds.
However, somewhat bizarrely, "true polyphony" to most these days seems to mean to most: "variable-pitch oscs with a VCF/VCA/ENV per note."
While this is a great set up for a synthesizer, I don't know why it is a requirement for a synthesizer to be "truly polyphonic." Especially because analog synthesizers with that arrangement are almost never "truly polyphonic" in that you can only play a limited amount of notes.
It's understandable that people would decide to sacrifice the amount of notes for a VCF/VCA/ENV per note arrangement... but that decision does not in any way affect the reality of the other manner, or its validity.
It makes sense to prefer one arrangement, but is utterly ridiculous to decry the other for the choice.
This is particularly bizarre to me due to the fact that the "polyphony" that everyone seems to think is "true" polyphony came AFTER that which is now, for some reason, called "not true polyphony."
The first marketed polyphonic device to embody the spirit of the synthesizer was the Hammond Novachord. It was a device designed to musically implement new electronic technology and appeal to those who wanted to create sounds never heard.
"The Novachord should not be considered a substitute for the piano or any of the other musical instruments it can resemble. It is a new instrument producing a profusion of beautiful tones, some familiar, some of them new."
"The electrical principle whic it employs is also new and involves many inventions with promise to be very important ot the future of music."
These are quotes from a Novachord pamphlet.
The Novachord was, for all intents and purposes, the first marketed polyphonic synthesizer. (actually, the Telharmonium was, but its design concept was not so much to create a new electronic instrument that could create new unique sounds through electronic manipulation... ditto the Hammond Organ, which was designed as the first electronic emulative instrument, and not an instrument to create new sounds) And, as the first polyphonic synthesizer, it featured a divide-down oscillators, and a very limited envelope generator... just like its direct progeny, the Polymoog, which was the first MODERN marketed polyphonic synth. Both of these devices were truly polyphonic in that all of their notes played, and at least in the case of the Novachord, each note had its own VCA/ENV.
If you think about it, variable-pitch osc polyphony is a bizarre marriage between the modular concept, which had no similarity whatsoever to the concept of an acoustic polyphonic device, and digital technology, which was the only technology that could easily and inexpensively direct key events to multiple oscillators. As such, it still isn't "true polyphony," if true polyphony uses the piano as a model.

I'm certainly not arguing that variable-osc polyphony is not true polyphony, merely pointing out that the distinctions are arbitrary and based on incongrent concepts. The synthesizer was designed to be something that created new and unique sounds using electronic methods. It was an attempt to use new technology to create NEW instruments. To hold the synthesizer to a standard such as the piano makes no sense. Synthesizers do what they do... there are a number of features, and each model has a different combination of these features. If a monophonic has one ENV for both the VCF and VCA, do we dismiss it as "not true monophony?" No, of course not... we either accept it and make the noises we want, or we get a synthesizer that possesses the features we require.

Do I think a Korg Delta is better than a Prophet 5? Well, I gotta say no... and for the reasons you might expect. I, too, love it when a synthesizer features a VCF/VCA/ENV per note... not because it's what I expect, or because I can play it like a piano, or because it's what I'm accustomed to a synth soundling like because I've grown up with the Korg Triton or something... because it gives me the ability to shape sounds and play sounds in the way that I desire. However, this does NOT mean that every synthesizer that doesn't fit my criteria isn't a synthesizer.
If you want to decry something, decry synth manufacturers who, in an attempt to appease synth buyers' desire for something inexpensive, created divide-down synths with single VCF/VCA/ENV arrangements!

Anyway... as a skilled and experienced synth player, my live-performance requirements for a polyphonic synth sound are easily, happily, and conveniently fulfilled by the dorky and inexpensive MG-1. I'm a pop musician. I'm not Vangelis, I just need a polyphonic analog synth timbre here and there! : ) When I solo, that's when the variable oscs will do what they do best. : )

Moog Music Forum

MG-1 Should I buy it?

MG-1 Should I buy it?

Another Polyphony Rant