Moog Music Forum

Beyond the $2k price difference, what are some other reason to choose the 8 over the 16?

When you want that old school sound of voices cutting off when you exceed the number of voices.

MC wrote:When you want that old school sound of voices cutting off when you exceed the number of voices.

You can easily achieve this with the 16-voice just by reducing the amount of voices allocated to a Synth. I think the advantage of having an 8-voice is that you're forced to be creative with the limitation. Take that with a grain of salt because Moog One is the least limiting synthesizer I've ever played! Haha!

I purchased an 8-voice partly because it was cheaper, and partly because I like the idea of the unit possibly running quieter and cooler. I would need to compare the two side by side to confirm my assumption.

Well, I'm very much used to monophonic analog and, my experience with polyphony has always been digital (Kurzweil K2000, Korg Wavestation, DX-7, etc.), so a minimum of 8 voice, but oftentimes, much much more than that.

From my perspective as a 16-voice owner, here's my take on the advantages:

• POLY UNISON is much more usable with 16 voices. Even with 16 I find myself having to be careful with my playing style to work around the release envelopes so that voices are "free" when I'm ready to play the next chord
• (MONO UNISON would be fine with 8 voices)
• The 3 layers can be more flexibly deployed; for example some folks are using 3 copies of the same timbre with different PAN settings to achieve stereo spread. WIth an 8 voice, a three-note chord wouldn't be able to fully sound across all 3 layers.
• (Ideally there would be easier ways to achieve stereo spread and we wouldn't need to do this, but for now it's one of the best ways to control the stereo shape)

c0nsilience wrote:Beyond the $2k price difference, what are some other reason to choose the 8 over the 16?

Availability.

I cancelled my 16-voice order after waiting for many weeks to hear what was going on. I'm sure I'll be ordering at some point, but am waiting for the right time.

i guess for me it was knowing it had three synth engines, so that means my hands can play synth 1, a sequencer can play drums on synth 2 and an arpeggio can play on synth 3. that could easily get above 8 voices, especially with long sustain/releases.

it just seemed to me if i’m going to spend a fortune, i may as well go the whole way.

It's true that if you HAVE to splurge, you might as well get the best thing you can!

However, even if I'd be okay with spending more to get the best product with the 16-voice model, I'm still afraid to send my hard earned cash away and wait for a while with my empty hands before I finally have "my" 16-voice synth made and delivered...

kordos wrote:...some folks are using 3 copies of the same timbre with different PAN settings to achieve stereo spread. (Ideally there would be easier ways to achieve stereo spread and we wouldn't need to do this, but for now it's one of the best ways to control the stereo shape)

Hi kordos,

Here are some additional ways that are more voice efficient at creating a stereo spread:

Use a RANDOM LFO with (NOTE RESET = ON, and REPEATS = 1) in the MOD matrix with a DEPTH of 40%-ish that's modulating VCA/PAN.

Or, after updating to OS v1.0.3, you can use the new SPREAD parameter, available per SYNTH in the VCA MORE page.

The first method gives you a random panning, while the SPREAD parameter has a specific algorithm that assigns the spread offsets.

Just remember that you need to not use a SYNTH EFFECT on that SYNTH as your panning will otherwise get summed to monaural first.