So THAT'S why I spent three hundred dollars for six SSM2040's. Thanks for that story! I like reading about the rise and fall of companies. Still, I wonder why Curtis didn't buy them out if their designs were far superior to Curtis'.
Voyager OS Innyrds
Minitaur, CP-251, EHX #1 Echo, EHX Space Drums/Crash Pads, QSC GX-3, Pyramid stereo power amp, Miracle Pianos, Walking Stick ribbon controller, Synthutron.com, 1983 Hammond organ, dot com modular.
From a technical point of view, Curtis' designs were superior to SSMs... Stable VCOs, etc.Voltor07 wrote:I wonder why Curtis didn't buy them out if their designs were far superior to Curtis'.
- CM
Akai Miniak, Moog Sub 37 on pre-order, Roland Jupiter-4, Roland SH-101, Sequential Circuits Prophet-600, iPad, NI Komplete
But from a synthesist's point of view, they were inferior. Like the stable digital pipe organs for example. They accomplished what organ builders tried to do for hundreds of years...but organ purists will say they sound nothing like a pipe organ. Or the inconsistencies of a Hammond tone wheel organ as opposed to a digital representation of what a Hammond "should" sound like.Carey M wrote: From a technical point of view, Curtis' designs were superior to SSMs... Stable VCOs, etc.
- CM
By a technical standpoint, the CEM chips may have been superior, but SSM chips sounded better. My opinion.
Minitaur, CP-251, EHX #1 Echo, EHX Space Drums/Crash Pads, QSC GX-3, Pyramid stereo power amp, Miracle Pianos, Walking Stick ribbon controller, Synthutron.com, 1983 Hammond organ, dot com modular.
I haven't got enough experience with SSM synths to form such an opinionVoltor07 wrote:By a technical standpoint, the CEM chips may have been superior, but SSM chips sounded better. My opinion.
I did have a Korg Polysix once, with SSM2044s filters, and it did sound different from any CEM synths I know of. Can't recall ever playing anything with SSM2040 nor anything with SSM VCOs 
- CM
Akai Miniak, Moog Sub 37 on pre-order, Roland Jupiter-4, Roland SH-101, Sequential Circuits Prophet-600, iPad, NI Komplete
Although we are totally off Moog topic:
the SSM filter sounds more transparent. Nice overtone emphasis on high res settings. But generally not as bold sounding as a CEM filter.
If you know the sound of the SSm filters and the Curtis ones, imagine the Memory Moog with SSM filters. It would never sound like it does. It would not match the Moog sound at all.
Besides many Moog filters here in my synths, I have Curtis and SSM filters here. Actually I bought a Kawai SX-210 just for the SSm filter (at the price lower then 8 chips would cost). And I like its sound. But not for real strong bass and lead sounds like we all know from our Moogs. I like the SSM filter for its nice silver pad filter sweep sounds most.
But besides the filter chip used, you can change the sound of a filter chip very much if you don't use it like in the chip's demo application. The very same filter chip of a Waldorf WAVE sounds wery different from a microWave from the revision using the very same filter and the very same oscillators. And the differ on the surrounding analog parts needed for those filter chips: capacitors, resistors and others.
the SSM filter sounds more transparent. Nice overtone emphasis on high res settings. But generally not as bold sounding as a CEM filter.
If you know the sound of the SSm filters and the Curtis ones, imagine the Memory Moog with SSM filters. It would never sound like it does. It would not match the Moog sound at all.
Besides many Moog filters here in my synths, I have Curtis and SSM filters here. Actually I bought a Kawai SX-210 just for the SSm filter (at the price lower then 8 chips would cost). And I like its sound. But not for real strong bass and lead sounds like we all know from our Moogs. I like the SSM filter for its nice silver pad filter sweep sounds most.
But besides the filter chip used, you can change the sound of a filter chip very much if you don't use it like in the chip's demo application. The very same filter chip of a Waldorf WAVE sounds wery different from a microWave from the revision using the very same filter and the very same oscillators. And the differ on the surrounding analog parts needed for those filter chips: capacitors, resistors and others.
keep on turning these Moog knobs
Prodigy * minimoog '79 * Voyager * MF102 * MF103 * MF104z * MP201 * Taurus 3 * Minitaur * Sub Phatty * MF105 * Minimoog 2017+ MUSE * One 16 (sold)
Prodigy * minimoog '79 * Voyager * MF102 * MF103 * MF104z * MP201 * Taurus 3 * Minitaur * Sub Phatty * MF105 * Minimoog 2017+ MUSE * One 16 (sold)
But from a synthesist's point of view, they were inferior. Like the stable digital pipe organs for example. They accomplished what organ builders tried to do for hundreds of years...but organ purists will say they sound nothing like a pipe organ. Or the inconsistencies of a Hammond tone wheel organ as opposed to a digital representation of what a Hammond "should" sound like.
Is this from your point of view or synthesist’s in general ? If yours fine. If in general a lot of them were using CEM based synths, MemoryMoog, Jupiter 6, Chroma, Chroma Polaris, OB8, OBxa…and didn’t seem to mind . The CEM,SSM are all nice sounding analog chips. In all the above synths they are under microprocessor control but theier sound generation is analog .
As for pipe organs, the digital technology ( not really sure why this is has come a long way and is close enough in most situation. When done properly(installation and regulation) it can be very hard to tell the difference. We’ve discussed this before Allen and Rodgers have some very nice digital organs now, particularly the Allen Quantum. With regulation you can tweak in a lot of the “quirks” of real pipes. For churches that have an old ailing pipe organs that needs replacement, they can replace he console with a digital one then incorporate a few ranks of pipe or all of the pipes ifd the Chests are in good shape with the digital and have the best of both worlds.
Is this from your point of view or synthesist’s in general ? If yours fine. If in general a lot of them were using CEM based synths, MemoryMoog, Jupiter 6, Chroma, Chroma Polaris, OB8, OBxa…and didn’t seem to mind . The CEM,SSM are all nice sounding analog chips. In all the above synths they are under microprocessor control but theier sound generation is analog . As for pipe organs, the digital technology ( not really sure why this is has come a long way and is close enough in most situation. When done properly(installation and regulation) it can be very hard to tell the difference. We’ve discussed this before Allen and Rodgers have some very nice digital organs now, particularly the Allen Quantum. With regulation you can tweak in a lot of the “quirks” of real pipes. For churches that have an old ailing pipe organs that needs replacement, they can replace he console with a digital one then incorporate a few ranks of pipe or all of the pipes ifd the Chests are in good shape with the digital and have the best of both worlds.
Pipe Organs use what...Additive Synthesis?
I have been around a real pipe organ and when I play in the contemporary service, they have a digital pipe organ....connected sirectly to speakers. The sounds just don't compare to me, but it very well may be the organist and the presets that he uses.
I have been around a real pipe organ and when I play in the contemporary service, they have a digital pipe organ....connected sirectly to speakers. The sounds just don't compare to me, but it very well may be the organist and the presets that he uses.
Support the Bob Moog Foundation:
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
https://moogfoundation.org/do-something-2/donate/
I think I hear the mothership coming.
EricK wrote:Pipe Organs use what...Additive Synthesis?
I have been around a real pipe organ and when I play in the contemporary service, they have a digital pipe organ....connected sirectly to speakers. The sounds just don't compare to me, but it very well may be the organist and the presets that he uses.
Your church has both a pipe organ and a digital ?
“Real" pipe organs ? With out going into a long explanation, If you don't know think of it as a "tube" that you send air through to generate sound. the longer the pipe the lower the pitch the shorter the pipe the higher the pitch (think 32', 16' 8'). Each rank of pipes is a "different" sound that covers the range of the manual (keyboard) or pedal wit there being one pipe per note.
There are good digital installs and there are bad. Depending on how the organ is regulated, how the speakers and amps are set up have a HUGE impact on how it sounds. It sad but a lot are just dropped in the church and not properly set up, sometime even when regulated they are not regulated the best then can be. Stop slection can and does play a big part, but if it is any one of the newer organs ( say past eight years for sure) they sound very nice. The digitals use either samples or modeling. I've been around pipe organs, electronic organs and digital ones mywhole life, I've heard very nice electronic, Digital and pipe... I've also heard my share of bad in all three.
I meant my POV. Sorry for not being more clear.Brian G wrote:
Didn't mean for this to go so far off topic, so I apologize for that as well. I prefer the sound of the SSM chips, especially for combo organ sounds. Curtis chips sound cold to me. I DO like the sound of the Voyager OS, and Moog filters in general, BETTER than an SSM filter, however. 
Minitaur, CP-251, EHX #1 Echo, EHX Space Drums/Crash Pads, QSC GX-3, Pyramid stereo power amp, Miracle Pianos, Walking Stick ribbon controller, Synthutron.com, 1983 Hammond organ, dot com modular.