What makes the Taurus special?

[Kenneth]

This may seem like an ignorant question, but I'm really curious. I just listened to the new audio samples for the Taurus 3 pedals, and I couldn't help but wonder why the Taurus is so special. Obviously you play it with your feet, so you can use your hands to do something else, but the sounds that were coming out of that Taurus are so similar to bass patches I've written on my Little Phatty, that I just had to ask. So here it is: What exactly makes the Taurus' synth engine so different from the Little Phatty's? I know there has to be some technical difference, but honestly I kinda feel like the LP can be just as phat and bassy as the Taurus can.

[EricK]

What I understand about the Taurus, I don't necessarily know if it makes it any beefier than any other synth.

My initial question was basically "20 Hz is 20 Hz. What does one synth that goes down to 20 have against another that goes down to 20?" How can the Taurus be any more beefier than the Voyager, Phatty or any other synth that produces frequencies this low?

The only differences that I know of the Taurus is that it is a Hz/V rather than a volt per octave. The design of the Osc warranted no warmup time. The Taurus oscs also capable of phasing without cancellation. Then there is the specially overdriven filter unique to the Taurus.

Im not an electrician, so someone more qualified can come in ans answer your question. If Im wrong about something please correct me. This is the best of my knowledge and I can't explain exactly how that equates into some magic bass that other synths can't produce.

Eric

[tyrannosaurus mark]

I guess no one can tell until someone can go and compare the LP with the new Taurus. I'm guessing moog use a lot of the same parts in the Taurus as the LP, the demos of the Taurus were all of sounds I can do with my LP

[MC]

I'm guessing moog use a lot of the same parts in the Taurus as the LP

Bzzzzt wrong guess

the demos of the Taurus were all of sounds I can do with my LP

I own a set of T1s and have had flight time with the LP. The LP is incapable of putting out that gut-rearranging low end that the T1 does.

Once you've played them through a decent PA, you'll hear the difference.

[MC]

What separates the Taurus from the LP and most other monosynths is the feedback architecture of the filter. Like any tube guitar amp, the feedback architecture plays a large part in the "character" of the filter. This is why the Taurus sounds different from a minimoog from a rogue from a LP from a memorymoog from a voyager from a...

The Taurus filter has AC coupling between the VCF and VCA that happens to have an inherent bass boost. Due to the coupling being done at the feedback path, that creates some special interaction that gives the Taurus its voice. Boosting the bass EQ on your mixer does not get the same effect, it's sort of a dynamic bass boost.

Taurus also uses CA3080 OTAs which are NOT high fidelity components - they add some subtle distortion themselves, much like a tube. There's one in the filter feedback path and another used for the VCA. The Taurus is driven pretty hard in the filter. If you probe the output with a scope you can see the clipping of the ramp waveform.

I have many synths in my collection and have tried to duplicate the Taurus sound. It remains elusive. The Source comes the closest but is missing that bass OOMPH from the VCF/VCA AC coupling.

To be frank, most other moog synths sound polite compared to the Taurus - they don't sound as aggressive.

Moog has promised that the T3 would be faithful to the original circuits. Judging from the soundclips (and my years trying to emulate the T1), they're good to their promise.

[EricK]

So was I accurate in the info that I posted?

Being stable upon startup, etc.

[MC]

No correction needed.

[superd2112]

Well, in the case of the Taurus 3 prototype, one of the things that makes it special is that in the photos, it appears to be powered up without a power cable! What mysterious power source is fueling this fabled beast? Atomic power? Geo-thermic energy from deep in the earth? Some type of Tesla-type electricity, sent great distances with no wires? Inquiring minds want to know! BTW, are mine ready yet?

How 'bout now?

Huh?

Ready yet?

[Cole Gaskins]

I have the LP and T1. I can say the LP comes close but no cigar. The T1 makes the whole house shake. Serious pant flap! The Taurus just has the extra something you can't put into words.

Cole

[mayidunk]

Serious pant flap!

Sounds like what I experience after eating some good Mexican food!

[Klopfgeist]

So basically what makes the voyager sound different than a model d and the T3 from the little phatty is slight /distortion/clipping/harmonics created by the individual components, right?

[EricK]

I think it might be oversimplification to say that all synths would sound the same based on changing those 3 criteria alone.

Each respective synth's componants contribute a different sound, thats why they sound different, and none of them were meant to sound exactly the same. There is probably a technical answer for this that probably lies in both the circuit design and componant selection, as well as the physical waveshapes they produce. None of these synths have the exact same specs, so therefore they don't produce the exact same waveshapes with the exact same timbre.



Its just like two different instruments playing the exact same note. But then two exact same instruments, because of their wood, or like the Model D's Oscs from different periods, can even exhibit subtle variations in the timbre.

To sax players, it can be a ritual picking out the perfect reeds from a box of reeds, instead of just buying the whole box. This is probably similar to the organic flavor of analogue circuitry that makes it sound so good.

Threads have been born, forums filled, lives lost with Voyager vs Model D debates. Keep in mind the Voyager was never meant to exactly replicate the Model D. THe T3 IS supposed to replicate the T1.


Understand too that my knowledge of electronics is VERY limited. I don't want to spread misinformation, so If what I say isn't accurate then please correct me.


Eric

[Klopfgeist]

Well I mean that because of all the various components degrading the signal (in a good way), a model d doesn't put out a perfect sawtooth wave, which gives it it's unique sound. A sawtooth wave with a wide open filter coming from my microkorg sounds a lot different than the same settings on my voyager (i'm going to make a youtube video about this). A guitar is an imperfect instrument, and so are analog electronics, so because of the imperfections and the combination of imperfections unique timbers come out of different instruments.

[EricK]

Exactly.

Id like to see that video.


I bet that, but can only speculate, that if you had two identical Model D's, sounded absolutely identical and took one to the future 30 years and left the other to age 30 years, they would sound different too.


If you looked at some of these older threads in this Taurus forum, you will see Voltor and I speculate about what the T3 would sound like compared to a Taurus. I figured that they really woudln't sound the same, simply because the circuits were 30 years old. My MicroMoog produces a BETTER Osc sound than the Voyager (on 1 osc only). Its just different.
I don't remember which one of us owes the other a drink over that discussion, but Im shocked at how close Moog came.

Im beginning to think that the difference in the way the initial audio file sounds was due to the programming differences, rather than the Osc difference.

Amos can make the same test again and then see if our ears can pick them out.



Eric

Eric

[Klopfgeist]

Yeah, age definitely has a factor (just try playing one of the new "aged" Fenders!). If only all this recording and sampling technology was around when the Minimoog first came out, then everyone with one could have built super complex 5 terabyte Kontakt instruments from the sounds and compared it to how it sounds in 2010.