The S-trig horror

[Mooger5]

The Rogue has one jack for input and output of S-Trig and V-Gate and another for CV in/out, both stereo jacks.
I´m waiting for an MC-202 and hope the 2-track sequencer will command both synths without major problems.
The noise generator in the Rogue is a loop. Not much noticeable when used for FX or percussion noises, but I can hear a very subtle pattern when it controls the sample and hold function. Sounds OK but not as random as the one in the SH-101.
I owned the SH-101 for some years and liked it a lot. It had a better keyboard than the Rogue. Better feel, single or multi trigger and last note priority.
I used to trigger the sequencer with the rimshot of the TR-909 since I didn´t have a MIDI converter back then. The coolest thing was that the LFO sample and hold also synced to it and you could control the ENV from the LFO as well.
All running with the Atari STE, it was the tightest sound I achieved to date. I really miss those times.

[eric coleridge]

The Rogue has one jack for input and output of S-Trig and V-Gate and another for CV in/out, both stereo jacks.

I guess I was mistaken about the Rogue having both S-trig and Gate "in" and "outs". It could only have 1 of each on a stereo jack. I stand corrected.

[eric coleridge]

The noise generator in the Rogue is a loop. Not much noticeable when used for FX or percussion noises, but I can hear a very subtle pattern when it controls the sample and hold function. Sounds OK but not as random as the one in the SH-101.

This is the digital circuit I was referring to on the Rogue. Do you know how the loop functions (or in other words, what about it makes it digital)? Just curious. Trying to re-inforce my realization that what I had previously considered "digital" is really more precicely FM or ESP-- and that "analog" and "digital" circuits are not as far apart as I was previously thinking.

For example, I've recently built a sub-oscillator circuit made from a schmitt-trigger and binary divider... outputs a square wave at lower octaves of the input... looks and sounds no different from any other "analog" circuits; but, apparently, is digital.

I would assume the same is true of the Noise circuit on the Rogue and the RM on the Solus.

These circuits don't sound anything like the cold, sterile sounds associated with digital FM or analog modelling synths.

[Kevin Lightner]

Noise generator chips are usually long shift register ICs with an internal clock.
They do exhibit a pulsing pattern, but the longer ones are less noticeable.
Do a search for MM5437 and MM5837 on Google if interested.

It's possible to replace the digital noise IC's with purely analog parts like a transistor or zener diode.
I've done this before and while not easy for a beginner, a pro shouldn't have any problem.
It should be noted that a sample and hold will become more random and less patternistic too.
Some people dig this, some don't.

[theglyph]

Kevin,

The Moog CP-251 and the Voyager use transistors for this. All Analog!! All inconsistent!! We replace/calibrate when we feel weakness. So is the way of the current Moog sound.

Good noise is a fundamental part of a synth geek's diet! We are here to supply for the feast.

BTW Kevin it's nice to see you in town! Your time here is priceless for us Moog geeks! I've always enjoyed your treasuretrove of knowledge and we do appreciate the time you give to us!

[museslave]

I am just telling you the truth about your Micromoog.
It uses a digital CMOS flip flop IC to divide down the VCO.
Please don't shoot the messenger.

I want to know the truth about my (past or future) Micromoog... yes, even if that means there is some digital element involved. My interest in synthesizers is not predicated upon a desire to generate a mythology where everything is how I wish it was.

I also think that there's a lot of misinformation and subsequent arguments out there about what's analog or digital in the first place.

In my opinion, the battle against misinformation is precisely what this and other forums relating to synthesizers is for. I do not want to possess or (especially) propogate misinformation. This is why your presence and input here is so important and valued.
I think we are all interested in learning that which we do not know about synthesizers. The digital/analog component issue is of great import to a lot of people.
This misinformation is not limited to electronic aspects; it is also rampant regarding history, functionality, and use. It is great that this resource exists to combat it.
Any messenger-shooting I might have considered was more about delivery than content.

I personally don't care as long as it sounds good.

I've heard some software synthesizers that sound great. If that's so, there seems to be little point in the effort and expense of analog. It can't JUST be about good sound with you... computers are fully capable of generating good or even great sound.

But facts are facts and when definitions get twisted so widely, we end up with people saying that everything's digital, everything's analog, etc.
A no win argument.
The fact that you might not have known the suboctaves were done this way may show that it doesn't really matter much to begin with.

Facts are facts, and I think everyone here is interested in hearing them... and even being corrected about them.
You may or may not be surprised to know that I am saddened by the inclusion of such technology in the Micromoog. While I knew that ICs were in wide use at that time, I did not know that some of them were digital in nature.
Do I think it affects the sound negatively? Well, no. I see your point and agree that it's not like all of a sudden the analog-sounding Micromoog sounded like a DX7.
What I don't like about the digital aspect is more esoteric than sound. I appreciate analog devices because that which they do is achieved without computers... which is amazing to me because there is no "aid" involved... there are just electrical components contributing to generate sound. And even more than that, there is this issue: if a synthesizer contains a single piece of digital technology, why not have it contain a lot of digital technology... or have it made of digital technology? Once the convenience and power of digital technology is introduced, there is really no point in the analog technology because, frankly, digital is FAR more powerful. While it may not have the same sound as analog (and a lot of software is close enough for most, these days), not all analog synths sound alike anyway. A person who doesn't care that there is digital involvement can be completely happy whether the synth is analog, digital, or whatever.
People like me like analog for MORE than just the analog sound, or the sound it makes, whether plainly analog or not. There is an aesthetic... a philosophy... and a visceral enjoyment regarding the simple KNOWLEDGE that the device is analog, as well as the appearance unique to analog devices, and especially the interactive functionality of analog devices.
Personally, I would wish that the analog devices I could afford were completely without ICs at all, and especially without digital aspect. I know that there are not many synthesizers overall that fit that description, and I am happy to use synthesizers with ICs (I'd better be, I don't think I have one without), and even with minor digital involvement (the CS-50, for example... one of my favourite synths... has digital key tracking, as I'm sure you know).

[eric coleridge]

You may or may not be surprised to know that I am saddened by the inclusion of such technology in the Micromoog. While I knew that ICs were in wide use at that time, I did not know that some of them were digital in nature.

I think you're making a very strange argument here Museslave-- and it may possibly be coming from a place of misunderstanding (if you'll allow me to presume so).
I've recently been trying to gain a little more insight into these instruments that I've been playing and enjoying for years... and it's forced me to re-think a number of assumptions that I previously held.
This digital vs analog debate is one area where I'm starting to see alot more ambiguity... where I had previously just thought it was a much more black and white kind of issue.

Integrated Circuits (IC), as you already know, are used all over most every synth ever made, analog or digital. Again--as you probably know--It's just a smaller, more tightly packed grouping of components... and saves space on a PCB.... and doesn't really make a circuit any less "analog" if it uses alot of ICs... I once belived this also-- but I don't think it's neccesarily true anymore.

Some ICs function in a "digital" way. Which I don't entirely claim to understand, but if I remember correctly from middle school computer classes, they use on/off fuctions to build up a kind of logic...

But they're still the same kind of parts, I believe, as any other "analog" ICs. They just do different things.

I see your point and agree that it's not like all of a sudden the analog-sounding Micromoog sounded like a DX7.
What I don't like about the digital aspect is more esoteric than sound. I appreciate analog devices because that which they do is achieved without computers... which is amazing to me because there is no "aid" involved... there are just electrical components contributing to generate sound.

There is no micro-processor or computer element in the "digital" ICs used on the MicroMoog, or other similar circuits on other otherwise analog synths. It's not the same kind of "digital" that is employed on a DX-7 or other FM or ESP synths.

These later synths, I believe, use a vast network of digital circuitry and can be thought of as, if not directly called, something more like a computer that processes complex equations and algorithms.

The "digital" IC on the Micro is nothing like the FM synthesis used on a DX-7. It's much closer to any other nominally described "analog" circuit.
It's not the same thing at all, and therefore they don't sound anything like one another.

So it's pointless, IMO, to compare them or group them together under one encompassing "digital" group-- as far as this topic is concerned. I beleive it's just a semantic misunderstanding that you're falling into.

I was under this impression also, but I now believe it was the wrong way of understanding these circuits.

I also think it's possible that if someone was to build a purely "analog" FM additive synth (which would require a ton of sine wave oscillators--to Frequency Modulate one another--and probably take up an entire wall at least) it might sound surprisingly similar to a DX-7.

My point is, both kinds of synths--analog and digital-- use similar kinds of parts and should probably be distinguished more by their functionality than the actual components that are in use...

am I somewhat correct about this? Kevin? anyone?

[museslave]

I think you're making a very strange argument here Museslave-- and it may possibly be coming from a place of misunderstanding (if you'll allow me to presume so).

I'm not making an argument in that statement. I'm merely stating that I didn't know that ICs in synthesizers of that vintage may have contained digital technology.
I am also very aware of the ambiguity afforded by some digital components and processes.

Integrated Circuits (IC), as you already know, are used all over most every synth ever made, analog or digital. Again--as you probably know--It's just a smaller, more tightly packed grouping of components... and saves space on a PCB.... and doesn't really make a circuit any less "analog" if it uses alot of ICs... I once belived this also-- but I don't think it's neccesarily true anymore.

It doesn't make the device less analog, but it can make the device SOUND less analog. When those components exist as a chain of those components as opposed to a grouping of them within an IC, the device has a more "pleasing" sound. (or some would say... I'm sure someone could contest it, just like plenty are willing to contest that analog sounds any different from modern digital)

Some ICs function in a "digital" way. Which I don't entirely claim to understand, but if I remember correctly from middle school computer classes, they use on/off fuctions to build up a kind of logic...

That is about the length of my understanding, as well.

There is no micro-processor or computer element in the "digital" ICs used on the MicroMoog, or other similar circuits on other otherwise analog synths. It's not the same kind of "digital" that is employed on a DX-7 or other FM or ESP synths.

I think you are starting to apply more of an ignorance to my statements than is actually present, Eric. I am well aware that simply because a logic IC exists within an analog device does not mean that it is going to alter that device, and its sound, into a completely different technology that came out 7 or so years later.
That is precisely what I was saying with that statement... I was not likening a Micromoog to a DX7. Were I to do that, I would urge everyone who has ever given me synthesizer credibility to withdraw it immediately.

These later synths, I believe, use a vast network of digital circuitry and can be thought of as, if not directly called, something more like a computer that processes complex equations and algorithms.

I'm a bit shocked that you would even consider, after reading that which I have posted previously, that I would possess a level of ignorance that would allow me to be unaware of these facts.

The "digital" IC on the Micro is nothing like the FM synthesis used on a DX-7. It's much closer to any other nominally described "analog" circuit.
It's not the same thing at all, and therefore they don't sound anything like one another.

Plainly.

So it's pointless, IMO, to compare them or group them together under one encompassing "digital" group-- as far as this topic is concerned. I beleive it's just a semantic misunderstanding that you're falling into.

I did not compare them, I assured Kevin that my discontent with its inclusion did not mean that I thought it made my Micromoog into a DX7... it was a hyperbolic joke. Reading back over it, I can't even see how you would think that I would be saying that I thought they were even remotely similar, or there was any comparison at all.

I also think it's possible that if someone was to build a purely "analog" FM additive synth (which would require a ton of sine wave oscillators--to Frequency Modulate one another--and probably take up an entire wall at least) it might sound surprisingly similar to a DX-7.

I have heard similar things. Frequency Modulation is not in anyway limited to digital technology.

My point is, both kinds of synths--analog and digital-- use similar kinds of parts and should probably be distinguished more by their functionality than the actual components that are in use...

Eric if you lack any need to discriminate between digital synthesizers and analog synthesizers, all the better for you. Likewise, if you don't care if your analog is brimming with digital, or your digital is brimming with analog, that's fine too. I'm sure you're a great musician and you use your tools effectively. The point of this thread is that I am a person who prefers, for whatever reason... crazy, ignorant, whatever, to minimize the digital involvement in my synthesizers... whether that digital involvement is comprised of logic circuits, microprocessors, etc. Granted, I will gladly admit my ignorance concerning the possibility of logic circuits existing in analog synthesizers... and that's something I'm going to have to cope with... but that doesn't mean I'm going to lose my love of and adherence to analog love and be equally content with an ESQ-1 as I am with a CS-50 or a PS-3100.

[OysterRock]

How can something that is completely analog not SOUND analog? If a synth is made with all analog ICs then wouldn't it, by definition, sound analog? It may not sound the same as as a discrete circuit. If that is better or worse is completely subjective, but a discrete circuit not more "analog" than an IC.

Anyway...

When you talk about logic ICs and square waves and other logic signals, you get into a very fuzzy area. Is a square wave analog or digital? Well.... it depends on its USE more than the actual signal its self. You can treat it as both, or one, or the other.

Sample-and-hold in a synth is the same concept as sample-and-hold used in A-to-D converters. Sample-and-hold is used to convert analog signals to digital. Is its use in a synth digital? I don't know, again it depends on how its used.
It was kind of funny when people started complaining of the digitally generated S&H on the Little Phatty. Well, S&H is a digital technique!

Analog step sequencers use digital logic.
So do divide-down circuits.

Ring modulation is simply multiplication of a signal and a carrier. This is amplitude modulation used in communications.

My point is people are sometimes very unnessicarily afraid of the word "digital" and I think this stems from a misunderstanding of what digital acutally means and does.

[museslave]

My point is people are sometimes very unnessicarily afraid of the word "digital" and I think this stems from a misunderstanding of what digital acutally means and does.

I believe that's Eric's AND Kevin's point, too.

As for analog sounding less analog:
If initial analog synthesizers were all discrete, as I am let to believe they were... and discrete electronics have a different (and some would say more pleasing) sound than those featuring ICs, then by sequential definition (a definition where the origin of the device defines the characteristics of the device) synthesizers with ICs sound "less analog" than the synthesizers that preceeded them.
In general, what I was apparently very poorly trying to express was that the IC sound is different than the discrete sound. The inclusion of the word "analog" was misleading and a poor choice.

[eric coleridge]

Eric if you lack any need to discriminate between digital synthesizers and analog synthesizers, all the better for you. Likewise, if you don't care if your analog is brimming with digital, or your digital is brimming with analog, that's fine too. I'm sure you're a great musician and you use your tools effectively. The point of this thread is that I am a person who prefers, for whatever reason... crazy, ignorant, whatever, to minimize the digital involvement in my synthesizers... whether that digital involvement is comprised of logic circuits, microprocessors, etc. Granted, I will gladly admit my ignorance concerning the possibility of logic circuits existing in analog synthesizers... and that's something I'm going to have to cope with... but that doesn't mean I'm going to lose my love of and adherence to analog love and be equally content with an ESQ-1 as I am with a CS-50 or a PS-3100.

I thought I was being sensitive to your argument and making enough allowances that you probably already knew most of what I just posted--- but maybe I should have emphasised that allowance even more... I didn't want to suggest you're ignorant in any way...

But what your saying doesn't make any sense at all-- and I don't know why I care... but like you've said before... this is just a forum where people discuss synths... and I'm just discussing synths with you because you know alot about them and I like talking to you about them... not trying to offend you...

But it doesn't make sense and you pretty much are clearly stateing that you're aware of that but you'd just prefer out of habit to continue thinking that way...

I'm not asking you to give DX-7s a chance, or compelling you to take up a ESQ-1...why would I do such a thing?
I just thought it was bizarre that you thought your MicroMoog was somehow compromised because you've now learned there is a evil digital IC lurking under it's otherwise pure Moogy exterior.

So, I thought perhaps you had some reason for thinking this... that you thought somehow that it subtly changed the integrity of the Micro's sound or something...

So I wanted to point out that it's not really any different than any other "analog" IC, and the only reason I could come up with that you might beleive this is if you were under the impression that it was similar to the digital technology that is present in the "digital" synths that we all hate.

Now I realize that you already knew this. Fine. But why have any issue with it then?

If it's clearly not the same as the "bad" digital, then what's the difference? It's just superstitous to believe that it somehow compromises the Micro, or Rogue, or one of the other many analog synths with "digital" ICs.

Furthermore, I don't believe that it's neccesarily true that all "discrete" components sound better, or more "analog" than circuits that use ICs. I doubt if anyone could even distiguish between the two in any quantifiable way. Not the only reason, but one reason I belive this is because I know of no "analog" synths that actually don't use any ICs.

I think this is a common belief-- it's certainly one that I always thought-- but since I started looking at schematics and working on circuits, I've yet to encounter a synth that doesn't use ICs... all the way back to the Moog Modular...

IMO, it's largely superstition. Which is fine. I don't have a problem religiosity. But, again, this is a forum where people talk about synths... and I think it's fair for me to post what I beleive is true in response to your comments. I say this with no animosity or insult whatsoever. As I absolutely find your comments on this forum often informed and interesting, and have much respect....

[/i]

[museslave]

But it doesn't make sense and you pretty much are clearly stateing that you're aware of that but you'd just prefer out of habit to continue thinking that way...

My father gave me an antique roll-top desk. It's an immense thing; not particularly ornate, but it is filled with drawers and cubbies and the like. I'm pretty sure it was built between 1910 and 1919.

I love that desk. I love the way it looks... stained so dark after years of staining... all of the sharp edges worn smooth. I love knowing that it has been a desk and used as a desk for nearly 100 years... I love the history of such a thing. I take a certain pride in its age and history. I love how well it works as a desk. It has a wide desktop and is very stable. It's excellent for doing work upon. It has extra table-sides that pull out, upon which I can stack stuff. It has pen holders and drawers and cubbies and is VERY useful as a desk.

I could have a modern desk. Modern desks would be a lot more convenient, actually. A computer won't fit on this desk, so I can't use it with my computer. I can't successfully use a laptop on it either, or the cords will always be in the way. I've used a lot of modern desks, and while they get the job done, they are not aesthetically pleasing. They are more convenient, but they do not provide all of the glorious extras that my old desk provide. They're not as gorgeous. They provide for modern needs that I don't have. They are built out of pressboard which while functional is not pleasant.

Suppose my father contacted me (which would be quite a feat and probably make me forget about the desk altogether) and told me that while the shell of that desk was authentic 1910 antique, the internal shelves and drawers had been replaced in the 1970s with a wood-like plastic.

I had never noticed that the internal parts weren't wood.

So... is the desk unchanged? Is it better? Is it worse? I don't know.

For me, that would be a blow. The CONCEPT of it not being complete... not being authentic... not being an antique... would displease me. Sure, it would still work the same. Perhaps better, in the minds of some. To me, it would no longer be what it was because part of what I valued it for was its age, it's history, its aesthetics (whether visual or conceptual).

So, what if instead I had discovered that the internal parts were made of a sort of early pressboard or plywood... or that it looked like a beautiful sort of wood, but was actually pine with a veneer? Sure, it would be authentic, and it would still look nice... but it would even bother me at least a little that what I thought was... I don't know oak or cherry or whatever... was not. If some part of my love for that desk was invested in the notion that it was cherry wood, then that would be gone.

It doesn't mean I would stop using the desk, or stop loving it, or anything... it's just that in some respects, perhaps even miniscule, its value would be diminished because it no longer fit the entire perception I had of it.

Some may call me an idiot, as it would still be a perfectly functional and beautiful desk... and I suppose that's fair... but those would be people who wouldn't care what the internal structure of the desk was, or wouldn't care that as long as the veneer was intact, it was pine. (some might even rip out the original internal structure and put in shelves more suited to what they wanted... hee hee)

Largely, it's a matter of perception, association, and any given desired thing being a sum of perceptions and associations.

All of that being said, I still may very well buy the Micromoog. I'm really not deterred at all. Having to make a gate cable is FAR more deterring than the doubling effect being logic-based. : )

[dr_floyd]

it's just that in some respects, perhaps even miniscule, its value would be diminished because it no longer fit the entire perception I had of it.

Beliefs are incredibly interesting things!

I wonder if anyone here was disappointed when they first found out that not only did Bob Moog not design the Minimoog, it was sort of produced behind his back when he was out of the office.

[eric coleridge]

I'm so sorry to say this Museslave----I wouldn't ordinairily post this much in one day, but my last job ended on Friday, and I have little more to do today then sit here on the computer, read e-mails, post on forums, etc, until I start work again or get back to my projects---- but that story doesn't have any relation whatsoever to what were talking about. It was a beautiful story and I feel for the sentiment... but there's nothing unoriginal, unauthentic or particularly less valuable or second rate about the sub osc in the Micro. That's just the way sub-oscillator circuits are made-- with digital flip-flops; and as OysterRock pointed out, the digital nature of the IC(and indeed many things "digital") is rather ambiguos/problematic to begin with.

So, it's much more like someone has just told you that the desk is in fact mahogany, even though you thought all these years that it was oak. Even though you've always loved and cherished the desk, thought it was beutiful, was a gift from your father, etc, you think now that theres something wrong with it, and that it's not the best, because you must maintain at all costs that oak is the only good wood for desks.

What you're failing to realize/accept is that oak really isn't your favorite, mahagony is. You shouldn't change your mind about the desk, just change your mind about mahogany.

It's a bitter pill, I know.

[museslave]

Beliefs are incredibly interesting things!

Yes, they are, aren't they. What's more, they're really all we have.

I wonder if anyone here was disappointed when they first found out that not only did Bob Moog not design the Minimoog, it was sort of produced behind his back when he was out of the office.

I knew that before I got my Minimoog. : )
After hearing it, I wouldn't care if it was designed by Alan R. Pearlman. ; )