Whats Next?

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:31 am

I'd like to see Moog release a full-functioned CV sequencer (although it would probably have to have MIDI also, unfortunately

) or Vocoder.

Both of these devices fall squarely within the Moog legacy, and would also fill gaps in the analog synth market right now.

Plus, a sequencer could be used to create drum machine rhythms in conjuction with other Moog products.

I like the idea of a new CP251 with ADSR and VCA, etc... but even with this product and the other Moogers, you'd only have a limited modular, you know? It's almost a little silly to try to use the MFs as a full modular when you can buy a real modular that's much more equipped for less money.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:29 am

eric coleridge wrote:I think maybe he's saying (if you'll allow me Kevin) that not only would it be difficult, but that it wouldn't work well enough to be useful..

If the MF-107 cannot be adequately controlled by keyboard via CV, then I would not describe it as being a "stand alone oscillator. (as differentiated from the oscillator effect... having a droning [or even linearly modulated] oscillator is hardly a professionally useful device)" Perhaps my previous enthusiasm about the product was unfounded...
However, I don't know about anyone else, but I have, on many an occasion, used the self-oscillation on the MF-101 as a sine-wave oscillator controlled by CV. Granted, in the higher octaves, the intonation suffers (range and scale would help a lot)... but the polyphony I would be interested in would not likely span more than 3 octaves... that's what pianos are for. ; )
When tuning the Low Pass resonance to an oscillator, it's no more frustrating than tuning a Moog Sonic Six or a Korg MonoPoly (and having polyphonic individually-controlled oscillators would be much like using the polyphony on a MonoPoly which is a very fun and unique sound).
So, if the FreqBox is AT LEAST as CV-useable and tuneable as the Low Pass, then it would suit the purposes I would imagine for it.

sir_dss · Post by **sir_dss** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:02 am

I just don't get everyones obsession with having a Moogerfooger oscillator??? You can find old Heathkit tube ones for less than $30. I got 13 for $40 years ago and did a 12 tone performance with them.

Is it for drone stuff or do people mean something that tracks with a guitar? That is... into your 102 into the 101 into the 104/105/107 etc... for a guitar synth thing.

Guitar synths are the worse of both worlds and do not serve the beauty of each instruments. It sounds hoaky...instant irony and irony is for people who give up!

eo ire itum · Post by **eo ire itum** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:56 am

I just don't get everyones obsession

That's just it. You are having trouble understanding how people can possibly enjoy something you don't.

The simple answer is, people have different tastes. I know it's a crazy idea. People who taste, feel, see, smell and hear differently. But it exists. A true enigma...

sir_dss · Post by **sir_dss** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:10 am

eo ire itum

Maybe I should of wrote what I was really thinking...

How stupid are all these people who think that a Moogerfooger oscillators would all that amazing on it's own.

Dude or dudette...I have a 6 VCO MOTM modular system as well as a Cyndustries Zeroscillator, 2 Blacet Dark Star Chaos modules several filters that will go into self oscillation. I know a thing or two about oscillators and drone. It's the modulation from one VCO to another that makes things interesting. This is what the MF-107 is about and why it's rad.

The MF-107 is amazing and it's more than just a Moogerfooger oscillator. So everyone gets their wish and more...

martin · Post by **martin** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:48 am

drones are a good thing. somehow the moogerfoogers remind me of clogs. are they shoes? are they sandals? are they leftovers from a lumberjack party? what are they?

with moogerfoogers, you kind of think: is it for drones? for guitars? or for synths?

i still don't really understand what this new freqbox does. maybe i'll add straps and manufacture a pair of oscillator clogs.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:43 am

sir_dss wrote:I just don't get everyones obsession with having a Moogerfooger oscillator??? You can find old Heathkit tube ones for less than $30.

Hi, sir_dss... I'll explain my obsession... as I'm the one seemingly most obsessed with it. : )

I'm really not obsessed with acquiring any oscillator... certainly oscillators could be acquired for a great deal less than the FreqBox. Heck, old military and technical oscillators can be had for $9.99 on eBay (I'm guessing that's what you were referencing with the Heathkit thing). (oh, how I wish they were CV controllable... one could have a BANK of oscillators!) My obsession is with having a Moog oscillator, which I believe would be more aurally pleasing than the oscillators in my dot com modular.

I am not interested in having it for a drone, I am interested in having it able to be controlled by a keyboard and played melodically. (or polyphonically, with multiple FreqBoxes and some sort of CV accessory to control them)

I am also delighted with the notion of having what would amount to a MoogerFooger modular in live performance... it would be a lot of fun, and would be visually stimulating to an audience. I have a band that is about to become a live band that revives the notion of Moogsploitation, and it would be nice if I was actually using a Moog product to do it. (sadly, I cannot afford a Moog modular, and wouldn't play live with it if I could!)

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:34 pm

museslave wrote:
eric coleridge wrote:I think maybe he's saying (if you'll allow me Kevin) that not only would it be difficult, but that it wouldn't work well enough to be useful..
If the MF-107 cannot be adequately controlled by keyboard via CV, then I would not describe it as being a "stand alone oscillator. (as differentiated from the oscillator effect... having a droning [or even linearly modulated] oscillator is hardly a professionally useful device)" Perhaps my previous enthusiasm about the product was unfounded...So, if the FreqBox is AT LEAST as CV-useable and tuneable as the Low Pass, then it would suit the purposes I would imagine for it.

I also think the MF107 will be useful as a stand-alone oscillator, and I agree that it should be at least as keyboard controllable as the other Moogers. However, what I was thinking--after Kevin pointed it out--is that to get 2 or more of these Moogers to track in unison tuning (or close) and range (over more than 1 octave, if that) will likely be very difficult, if at all possible, without dedicated trims for fine tuning, range, etc.

You may be able to get 2 of them (again, let alone 4 or 6) coordinated over a few notes, but then they'll quickly start to diverge as you play up or down the keyboard. This is because, as you probably know, there are several variables involved getting oscillators to track a keyboard-- which just multiply as you add discrete oscillators.

Maybe Moog has already provided for this situation by somehow calibrating them at the factory to track with one another over several octaves-- knowing people would want to use the 107 for this application... but I feel if they went to this much trouble, they'd probably be advertising this potential application for the 107. Who knows though...

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:42 pm

sir_dss wrote: Guitar synths are the worse of both worlds and do not serve the beauty of each instruments. It sounds hoaky...instant irony and irony is for people who give up!

I always thought guitar synths were synthesizers for people who prefer to use guitar, as oppossed to keyboard, as their synth controller.

sir_dss · Post by **sir_dss** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:47 pm

I get what you're saying museslave...

In spite of VCO's being just raw waveforms they do have different qualitys from one company to another. i would agree that .com VCO's do not sound as rich and full as my MOTM systems when run directly into a VCA.

I don't know why? I'm sure Kevin Lightner could explain.

It just seems like with all the incredible modular stuff going on right now it doesen't make sense for Moogmusic to get off track from what they ARE doing to do modular stuff.

You could convert Moogerfoogers to a modular format like some MOTM users have:

http://www.wiseguysynth.com/larry/panel/gif/MF-101.gif

That's a panel for a MOTM system by the way...

.com does make a cool mod system. It's a good and affordable place to start and make the most traditional Moog(ish) system. Maybe Moogmusic and Synthesizers.com could work together to make a really good modern modular system.

Also if you want to add CV control to ANYTHING that has a pot in it it's not that hard. You need a vactrol, a resistor and a pot. You may have to mess around with different resisitor values depending on if the signal is -5/+5 or 0 to +10. I've done it with those old tube VCO's. They look cool but they are just too big to lug around.

DeFrag · Post by **DeFrag** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:54 pm

I kinda thought the 107 sounded like that Butt Probe pedal from Metasonix. Although it sounded awesome at the Moog site before NAMM, I guess I didn't appreciate the NAMM demo video. It made for a noisy guitar. I hope to hear & appreciate the true versatility that it is capable of in the near future.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:03 pm

sir_dss wrote:In spite of VCO's being just raw waveforms they do have different qualitys from one company to another. i would agree that .com VCO's do not sound as rich and full as my MOTM systems when run directly into a VCA.

I plan to get two more oscillators to fill out the second tier of my modular... and, of course, the thought of warming it up with a Moog oscillator is appealing to me.
I also like envisioning some weird keyboard setup with the FreqBox as the osc source.

sir_dss wrote:I don't know why? I'm sure Kevin Lightner could explain.

He certainly did regarding Minimoog oscillators. I don't know what the difference is between the .com oscs and those that Moog is using, but there is an audible difference.

sir_dss wrote:It just seems like with all the incredible modular stuff going on right now it doesen't make sense for Moogmusic to get off track from what they ARE doing to do modular stuff.

Well, I don't want them to get off track... I want them to make a polyphonic keyboard that is more like a Korg MonoPoly or Oberheim [x]Voice than it is like the (other more)soulless consumer-aimed polysynths that came out from the early eighties on.
I have to say that I understand what you're saying, but I also want to point out that it looks like the MoogerFooger products have been heading towards a pseud0-modular state all along.

sir_dss wrote:You could convert Moogerfoogers to a modular format like some MOTM users have:

http://www.wiseguysynth.com/larry/panel/gif/MF-101.gif

That is very cool... I wish I had the mechanical/electronic skills to pull that off.

That's a panel for a MOTM system by the way...

sir_dss wrote:.com does make a cool mod system. It's a good and affordable place to start and make the most traditional Moog(ish) system. Maybe Moogmusic and Synthesizers.com could work together to make a really good modern modular system.

I have to say I have enjoyed every aspect of my .com with the exception of wishing that the oscs were fatter and dirtier, and that the trans-ladder filter actually sounded more trans-laddery. But .com isn't responsible for sounding Moogy, it's responsible for sounding .comy... I can't blame them for it. : )

sir_dss wrote:Also if you want to add CV control to ANYTHING that has a pot in it it's not that hard. You need a vactrol, a resistor and a pot. You may have to mess around with different resisitor values depending on if the signal is -5/+5 or 0 to +10. I've done it with those old tube VCO's. They look cool but they are just too big to lug around.

Well, unlike many around here, I have absolutely no electronics experience... so, that's a little like telling me you play a flute by moving your fingers on and off of the holes. ; ) I really should learn, though. It would be a blast to use old dirty giant oscillators as tuneable sound sources.

electrical_engineer_gEEk · Post by **electrical_engineer_gEEk** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:28 am

it's funny that you guys say that about the dotcom system. I also have one and have never been 100% satisfied with the sound. I can't even explain to you how much i love the "modularness" of it though. Also, I believe 100% that Roger Arrick's Synthesizers.com company is the #1 company out there for service, general product awesomeness & affordableness . That being said I just really wish my synth sounded cooler.....
It's funny to talk about this here because on the dotcom message boards everyone is in LOVE with their synths...which is cool....but sometimes it seems like that message board is a little biased. Don't get me wrong though, i really do love my dotcom for so many reasons!

CTRLSHFT · Post by **CTRLSHFT** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:49 pm

eric coleridge wrote:
museslave wrote:
eric coleridge wrote:I think maybe he's saying (if you'll allow me Kevin) that not only would it be difficult, but that it wouldn't work well enough to be useful..
If the MF-107 cannot be adequately controlled by keyboard via CV, then I would not describe it as being a "stand alone oscillator. (as differentiated from the oscillator effect... having a droning [or even linearly modulated] oscillator is hardly a professionally useful device)" Perhaps my previous enthusiasm about the product was unfounded...So, if the FreqBox is AT LEAST as CV-useable and tuneable as the Low Pass, then it would suit the purposes I would imagine for it.
I also think the MF107 will be useful as a stand-alone oscillator, and I agree that it should be at least as keyboard controllable as the other Moogers. However, what I was thinking--after Kevin pointed it out--is that to get 2 or more of these Moogers to track in unison tuning (or close) and range (over more than 1 octave, if that) will likely be very difficult, if at all possible, without dedicated trims for fine tuning, range, etc.

You may be able to get 2 of them (again, let alone 4 or 6) coordinated over a few notes, but then they'll quickly start to diverge as you play up or down the keyboard. This is because, as you probably know, there are several variables involved getting oscillators to track a keyboard-- which just multiply as you add discrete oscillators.

Maybe Moog has already provided for this situation by somehow calibrating them at the factory to track with one another over several octaves-- knowing people would want to use the 107 for this application... but I feel if they went to this much trouble, they'd probably be advertising this potential application for the 107. Who knows though...

It sure would be more comforting if Moog would release some audio/video of someone playing a couple 107s in ~unison with a cv keyboard, huh?

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:54 pm

electrical_engineer_gEEk wrote:it's funny that you guys say that about the dotcom system. I also have one and have never been 100% satisfied with the sound. I can't even explain to you how much i love the "modularness" of it though. Also, I believe 100% that Roger Arrick's Synthesizers.com company is the #1 company out there for service, general product awesomeness & affordableness . That being said I just really wish my synth sounded cooler.....
It's funny to talk about this here because on the dotcom message boards everyone is in LOVE with their synths...which is cool....but sometimes it seems like that message board is a little biased. Don't get me wrong though, i really do love my dotcom for so many reasons!

That is exactly how I feel!
Not quite satisfied with the sound.
Completely satisfied with the functionality and quality.
Roger Arrick has personally addressed issues I had... in fact, badgered me about fixing them, and sent along components he didn't need to send just to make sure everything was working completely. GREAT guy.
Totally happy with price.
I love mine, too... despite previously talking about trading it for an ARP 2600. : )