MG-1 Should I buy it?

[minime123]

to expand upon what i said "i wouldnt consider it a true polysynth because of this (no envelope release) and other limitations", ok, its truly polyphonic, yes, but theres no way the mg1s polyphonic section can touch the range of sounds a prophet 5 or almost any other poly synth can make. so, while its a cool added feature, if someone asked me for advice on which poly synth to get, the mg1 would be very, very low down on the list if i even put it on the list because when i think of the mg1, i think "cool monosynth with lots of features in an affordable package". i dont think "polysynth" because its too limited in that department.
mini

[MC]

True polyphony = each voice has its own VCO/VCF/VCA/EG architecture

Full polyphony = every key has its own voice

Multitimbral = multiple timbre from the same system (IE one note plays a string timbre, another plays a horn)

The Polymoog is a full polyphonic, but not a true polyphonic. Every key has its own voice but a master VCF. Full polyphonics are usually a TOS divide down system and have limited timbres. The MG-1 TOS is the simplest, which generates a square wave only. Not much variety there.

True polyphonics aren't full polyphonic - it would cost a fortune to build a full true polyphonic in a 61 note keyboard system. So they use a voice assignment system with (X) voices. The big advantage of true polyphonics over TOS systems is that you can get independent voice modulation - there's no way you can modulate individual pitches or waveshape in a TOS system.

Very few true polyphonics are multitimbral - the Andromeda and Oberheims are two examples. While the Polymoog has a split feature and is multitimbral, there still isn't much variety.

[minime123]

when i said the MG1 is truly polyphonic, i meant it truly does play polyphonically - that is multiple notes at a time, not that it fits MC's description of true polyphony.

[museslave]

but theres no way the mg1s polyphonic section can touch the range of sounds a prophet 5 or almost any other poly synth can make.

My point is that divide-down polyphonics and string synths, while possibly limited, are not NOT actual synthesizers, polyphonic or otherwise, simply due to them lacking desired features. Many analog polysynths would suffer in comparison to the Prophet 5! I'm trying to say that while certain polysynths lack features others have, it shouldn't disqualify them as being polyphonic synthesizers... for the same reason a Rogue isn't not considered a "true" monosynth because it lacks independent octave control.
The Prophet 5 lacks many features of later synthesizers, but is not retroactively demoded for the fact.

the mg1 would be very, very low down on the list if i even put it on the list because when i think of the mg1, i think "cool monosynth with lots of features in an affordable package". i dont think "polysynth" because its too limited in that department.

I totally agree.
I would never call the MG-1 a polysynth! I would, however, say that it has a polyphonic section. : )
I don't want to sound like I am equating this tiny little cute poly section with a full-on polyphonic synthesizer. My response comes from all of the ridiculous analog synth websites which state that it is not actually polyphonic! AND which fail to mention that it does go through the filter and ENV sections (at least to some degree).

[museslave]

True polyphony = each voice has its own VCO/VCF/VCA/EG architecture

Full polyphony = every key has its own voice

Multitimbral = multiple timbre from the same system (IE one note plays a string timbre, another plays a horn)

I'm fully aware of these latter-day distinctions, what they mean, and why people use them... my point is that the word "true" is inaccurate.
My protestation comes from the increasing trend of dismissal of divide-down synths as synthesizers at all, as opposed to synthesizers that MAY lack some desired features.

The Polymoog is a full polyphonic, but not a true polyphonic. Every key has its own voice but a master VCF. Full polyphonics are usually a TOS divide down system and have limited timbres.

In this distinction, it isn't the divide-down aspect that is considered to be at fault, but rather the lack of VCF per key. Whether a tone has it's own VCF, or is directed through a main VCF, or whether that synth can play monophonically or polyphonically is NOT what defines it as an actual synthesizer, or how many notes it can play.

The MG-1 TOS is the simplest, which generates a square wave only. Not much variety there.

There is no dispute there... it is not a full-functioned polyphonic section at all... but I still would not deny that it is a polyphonic synthesizer. When I read what most people said about it, I assumed that the square wave divide down section did not go through the filter or envelope at all... which, to me, would justify it not being considered a synthesizer. It is the barest-bones polyphonic section I've ever seen, but because it is directed through the VCF, VCA, and ENV, I say it qualifies as a synthesizer. There are several string synths that are not much more than this.

True polyphonics aren't full polyphonic - it would cost a fortune to build a full true polyphonic in a 61 note keyboard system. So they use a voice assignment system with (X) voices.

The problem is, very few built a true divide-down fully polyphonic synthesizer. But, they were built... specifically the Korg PS series. The Korg Delta may not measure up to the PS series in any form at all due to lacking a lot of functionality, but as it is still an electronic device which uses the basic components of the synthesizer, it's still a synthesizer.
The Korg PS series features a full synthesizer per key and a number of "general" features that all keys go through. This was an expensive way to do it, but it resulted in the best of both worlds. A variable-pitch-oscillator system wouldn't be a whole lot different, except that it would require far more than 12 oscillators, would be a nightmare to tune, and would need a computer to track all the notes.
If I wanted to be snarky, I would promote these limitations as why a variable-pitch-osc system isn't "true," but I'm not snarky. : )

The big advantage of true polyphonics over TOS systems is that you can get independent voice modulation - there's no way you can modulate individual pitches or waveshape in a TOS system.

Excepting the Oberheims, most :::ahem::: "true" polyphonics... those that people would quote... do not have this ability! You can't choose a single oscillator on a Prophet 5 to modulate... can you? You can on a MonoPoly, but I think it would be disqualified (despite having variable-pitch-oscillators!) because it puts all notes through a single VCA/VCF/ENV. Also, the MonoPoly, much decried as NOT polyphonic, also has the ability to truly control individual waveshapes per oscillator! These are things that cannot be done on a Prophet 5, CS-80, or most other major polyphonics.
On the Korg PS, you have some control over pitch modulation... not individual notes, but you don't have control over individual notes on most polyphonics. You also have control over various waveshapes... the PS has all the major ones. But again, not individual oscillators.

Why do I keep coming back to the PS series when we're talking about the MG-1? Because I am making the case that most divide-downs are synthesizers without a lot of features, and that the divide-down process is, or would be, largely equal to the variable-pitch-osc system if you compare the best with the best, as opposed to the best of the VPOs to the worst of the DD.

Very few true polyphonics are multitimbral - the Andromeda and Oberheims are two examples. While the Polymoog has a split feature and is multitimbral, there still isn't much variety.

Well, because it lacks variety, does that make it less multitimbral?

There has to be a line drawn between what is desired and what is objective! The definition is the definition, whether the individual points are pleasing or desired or not! Most every polyphonic would become "less polyphonic" in comparision to modern analog synths like the Andromeda, and ESPECIALLY to software synths, etc. :::shudders:::

My point is that the distinction of "true" is dubious at best, and should cease as a descriptor. I do not deny that most VPO synths are better and more effective than most DD synths... but this insane notion that one is a synth and one is not and one is polyphonic and one is not is... well, insane. : )

[minime123]

i think youre thinking too much about it! dont worry about what other people are saying. you and i have our own opinions on the mg1. just enjoy it and make some good music with it!!
have fun
mini

[museslave]

i think youre thinking too much about it! dont worry about what other people are saying.

You're certainly right about that. : )

I just want to combat bizarre net inaccuracies and inaccurate concepts before they become "fact." : )
Not saying that either you or MC are inaccurate... I am, in these massive diatribes, merely trying to flesh out the concept! : )
The history of analog synths is fascinating to me, and analog synths are probably my favourite musical devices. I would hate for someone to miss out (like I probably wouls have, if I would have listened to everyone's derision of various synths) on a musical instrument through which they could be expressive... simply because people were specific enough to say "x isn't as good as y, but is good in its own right."