The most reliable analog polysynth

ozy · Post by **ozy** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:59 am

I didn't say those synths "are NOT vintage"

I said they are not worth a "vintage PREMIUM" on their price.

They are all vintage, in the sense that they are old.

But they are not ALL vintage-quality [which is something really concrete: less integrated circuits and digitally scanned pots, more discrete components, more metal less plastic, more hand-assembled partes, tighter screws, keyboards made for duration because the synth was expensive and wouldn't have sold othetwise, etc].

Come on, let's be honest:

the stupid years of knob-less synths created legends out of mediocre machines, together with real legend-worth instruments.

In 2002 you bought a prophet 600 just because it had KNOBS, and contemporary synths hadn't, not because it really sounded better than a more recent control-less synth.

On the contrary you buy a prophet 5 rev 3+++ because it sounds darn good.

Once knobs have started being available everywhere,

sound and building quality make a difference between a Minimoog D and a Prodigy.

Some vintage synths chew a Clavia (Virus, Radias, etc, not to mention soft synths) and spit its bones out, and still are hungry,

and some DON'T.

Some are worth 500 or 1000 euro more for "vintage premium", some don't.

I bought the synthex because of knobs, and sold it because DSI prophet 08 sounds FAR better than a Synthex.

FINALLY: this thread is about "RELIABILITY": pls take me my monthly-crashing P-5 and give me a contemporary poly analog any time. For 500 eur less.

The "vintage premium" must be calculated NET of maintenance cost.

ikazlar · Post by **ikazlar** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:29 pm

ozy wrote:I didn't say those synths "are NOT vintage"

I said they are not worth a "vintage PREMIUM" on their price.

They are all vintage, in the sense that they are old.

But they are not ALL vintage-quality [which is something really concrete: less integrated circuits and digitally scanned pots, more discrete components, more metal less plastic, more hand-assembled partes, tighter screws, keyboards made for duration because the synth was expensive and wouldn't have sold othetwise, etc].

Come on, let's be honest:

the stupid years of knob-less synths created legends out of mediocre machines, together with real legend-worth instruments.

In 2002 you bought a prophet 600 just because it had KNOBS, and contemporary synths hadn't, not because it really sounded better than a more recent control-less synth.

On the contrary you buy a prophet 5 rev 3+++ because it sounds darn good.

Once knobs have started being available everywhere,

sound and building quality make a difference between a Minimoog D and a Prodigy.

Some vintage synths chew a Clavia (Virus, Radias, etc, not to mention soft synths) and spit its bones out, and still are hungry,

and some DON'T.

Some are worth 500 or 1000 euro more for "vintage premium", some don't.

I bought the synthex because of knobs, and sold it because DSI prophet 08 sounds FAR better than a Synthex.

FINALLY: this thread is about "RELIABILITY": pls take me my monthly-crashing P-5 and give me a contemporary poly analog any time. For 500 eur less.

The "vintage premium" must be calculated NET of maintenance cost.

I don't see why a synthesizer which has less discreet components than a Minimoog is any less vintage. My Massive Passive has a lot of discreet components, does that make it vintage? No need to define what vintage is, for some people if certain old synthesizers don't work they are just crap, but if they do they are vintage.

Anyway, I agree that lots of old analog synths don't deserve the huge prices that some people ask for. No arguing about that, and I guess it's an effect of supply and demand (as always). Around 1989 you could have a Mini for maybe something like 400 euros and a TB-303 for 100 euros. Today you can't touch a Mini for less than 2000 euros and a TB-303 is something like 1300 euros? I missed that boat completely, but I guess many other people did. It's not that I want a vintage synth because it has knobs, or because it has wooden panels or because you are not cool unless you own vintage stuff. I love its sound, it's as simple as that.

It strikes me as odd that you find the Synthex thin and weak and that a Prophet 08 is a better synth. I have yet to hear any synth that makes strings and pads like the Synthex (maybe an Eminent 310 can). You obviously didn't like it and sold it, I happen to hate the P08's shitty encoders and wonder how dare Dave Smith charged what he charged for this. Sound wise it's ok, maybe the resonance is a bit uninteresting.... but I happen to like the Synthex far more. You like the P08 more, I am cool with that, after all it's all a matter of preferences.

So given the fact that this thread is actually about vintage synths being reliable, can you please tell me if you had any problems with your Synthex?

EricK · Post by **EricK** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:10 pm

How about a knob that points to a setting called vintage?

Sometimes Vintage means that it doesn't work at all, or sounds like crap if it does, or that plugging it in will fry the sucker like this old radio behind me.

Eric

ikazlar · Post by **ikazlar** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:13 pm

EricK wrote:How about a knob that points to a setting called vintage?

LOL, I would love that.

Now that you mentioned it, there was this synth that worked with batteries and when the batteries were about to die, it made some amazing textures. It had 2 maybe 3 knobs and one of them was labeled "MORE"

. Can't remember it's name...

Just Me · Post by **Just Me** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:37 pm

ikazlar wrote:
EricK wrote:How about a knob that points to a setting called vintage?
LOL, I would love that.

Now that you mentioned it, there was this synth that worked with batteries and when the batteries were about to die, it made some amazing textures. It had 2 maybe 3 knobs and one of them was labeled "MORE" . Can't remember it's name...

Stylophone?

CTRLSHFT · Post by **CTRLSHFT** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:18 am

EricK wrote:How about a knob that points to a setting called vintage?

Sometimes Vintage means that it doesn't work at all, or sounds like crap if it does, or that plugging it in will fry the sucker like this old radio behind me.

Eric

Crank up the "POT SCRATCHINESS" knob!

EricK · Post by **EricK** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:33 am

See, this is the purpose defeating technology.

Musak starts

(Announcer) "Kids, how about getting the newest in digital synthesis technology? Unlimited polyphony in the clearest, cleanest fidelity. The digital synth to last a lifetime. And, if you want that warm "analogue" feel, try our tuning instabillity generators. Our tuning instabillity generators simulate that classic temperature drift of the golden days. Why play in tune when you can drift? Turn the complimentary potentiometer to the "Vintage setting" and take this latest advancement in synthesis technology on a gig today. It might randomly not power up, simulating the rigors of the road's loose solder joints of yesteryear. Also, this instant classic with the vintage feel keyboard comes complete with key adjustments to deregulate the action, making each key at a different level and feel for the trip down memory lane of the keybeds of a long forgotten era. This Synthesizer has the best of both worlds with a scratch pot slider and switch simulator. Get that "used" feel right out of the box for the low low price of 2495.95 and be confident that you have a synth that will last a lifetime...or at least seem like it already has."

Eric

ozy · Post by **ozy** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:55 am

"I don't see why a synthesizer which has less discreet components than a Minimoog is any less vintage"

I'm afraid my English must be really, really bad.

This is it, for the last time, in formalized, foolproof version:

a) a vintage synth is always vintage

b) a contemporary synth is never vintage

c) a vintage synth is not always a good synth.

d) "good" is in part a subjective definition, but most of the time is a fact, which depends largely on design. In an electronic instrument, abundance of separate parts for separate functions increases clarity, "fatness", body, control, cross-control, warmth, name it.

--> Other things being equal, a discrete components synth is always better than a cut-the-corners, cram-functions-into-one-chip, jack-of-all-trades synth.

Just compare a trivial patch like "lucky man synth" when played on a modular moog, on a minimoog, on a prodigy and on a korg radias. Do it with your ears and stop quoting "sound on sound" reviews.

e) earlier vintage synths are more prone to being designed using discrete components.

f) some (a FEW) vintage synths are unspeakably good, not because they are old, but because they are hand-crafted withg superior and expensive components

g) a contemporary synth is sometimes a better synth, sometimes junk

h) a vintage synth is sometimes good, sometimes not

i) a vintage synth usually costs more than a contemporary synth, all things being equal, because of

e+f)
plus
j) something which I called "vintage premium". Let's call it "nostalgia tax" or "keyboard-magazine-addict completist tax".

The final algorytm is:

k) ---> "i" is not justified by a), it's only justified if and when "e+f" is true.

Based on k), a Elka synthex is not an exceptional synth worth 40% more than a prophet 08, it is a nostalgia surrogate for thsoe who can't find an OBX-A.

Rest my case.

ikazlar · Post by **ikazlar** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:33 am

ozy wrote:I'm afraid my English must be really, really bad.

This is it, for the last time, in formalized, foolproof version:

Your English is quite good, it's your attitude that kinda sucks.

ozy wrote: a) a vintage synth is always vintage

Really? As in 1 + 1 = 2?

ozy wrote: b) a contemporary synth is never vintage

Really? As in 2 + 2 = 4?

ozy wrote: c) a vintage synth is not always a good synth.

Really? As in 3 + 3 = 6?

ozy wrote: d) "good" is in part a subjective definition, but most of the time is a fact, which depends largely on design. In an electronic instrument, abundance of separate parts for separate functions increases clarity, "fatness", body, control, cross-control, warmth, name it.

Pardon my French, but you got this f7cked up already if you think that abundance of separate parts is synonymous with good, warmth and so on. I can give you a super-abundance of scientific papers from Stanford, that I have used for my Master's degree, proving that this is not "always" the case. "Most of the time" kinda saves your argument but it seems to me that you confuse "technologically superior" with "good sounding".

ozy wrote: stop quoting "sound on sound" reviews.

Where did you see me quote anything from "sound on sound"?

ozy wrote: e) earlier vintage synths are more prone to being designed using discrete components.

Really? As in 4 + 4 = 8?

ozy wrote: f) some (a FEW) vintage synths are unspeakably good, not because they are old, but because they are hand-crafted withg superior and expensive components

Oh really? The Matrix 12 has shitty components all over, a crappy Panasonic keyboard, slowish envelopes and it still sounds fantastic. Or maybe the Matrix 12 is not vintage enough for you? Please spare me the BS.

ozy wrote: g) a contemporary synth is sometimes a better synth, sometimes junk

Damn, I didn't know that, thanks for enlightening me.

The problem that I saw with your previous post is that you seem to want to dictate your opinion on me analysing it in a "fool proof manner", insinuating that I am probably some weirdo who can't understand bleep and I have to quote SOS to make a statement (which I didn't), hence the tone of my answers. Your arguments are far too general and to the extent that an argument is general it can easily fall to pieces.

Thank you for your opinions, anyway.

ozy · Post by **ozy** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:40 am

ozy wrote:

"a) a vintage synth is always vintage

Really? As in 1 + 1 = 2? "

yes

as in A=A

it's a tautology. A synth built 30 years ago has been built 30 years ago.

A synth built in 2009 was not built 30 years ago, not even 5 years ago, so it can't be a vintage synth,

as certainly as A cannot be = B, is B is different from A.

Pardon me for not being a fresh graduate,

just a vintage graduate.

Look, this is becoming boring.

I just started by stating that it's not worth paying 2000 euros for a Elka Synthex.

You want one?

Go ahead, buy one.

Who cares?

ikazlar · Post by **ikazlar** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:45 am

ozy wrote: I just started by stating that it's not worth paying 2000 euros for a Elka Synthex.

You want one?

Go ahead, buy one.

Who cares?

Please, I am clever enough to get your point that a Synthex isn't worth 2000 and I already said that I didn't like the 4000 euros price tag either, but let me decide ok? This was a thread about "reliability".

ozy · Post by **ozy** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:01 am

ok, let's stipulate that you are clever,

since this was obviously the only purpose of your replies.

God, do I love forum pointless quarrels...

peterkadar · Post by **peterkadar** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:39 am

I certainly don't miss the reliability issues, that's for sure.

I've never checked out a Synthex, but would love to.

I have a DSI Prophet '08, and I understand the complaint about the encoders. I upgraded to the Pot Edition, and honestly, I think it feels and sounds great. I'm grateful that we live in a time where we can get new, reliable Moogs, Prophets, and even SEMs now that sound great and have MIDI. Now all we need is for someone to get Alan R. Pearlman onside to remake the Odyssey or 2600

In other news, I went into a vintage store today, and saw an SH 101 and a Pro One next to each other. As soon as I felt the keys of the Pro One, I was again glad for the new gear... Not to mention the prices these things were going for... Yikes!

Then I saw a Jupiter 6 in almost perfect shape, and my heart leapt... lol. Ah the temptation!!

EricK · Post by **EricK** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:39 am

I wish we had good vintage stores here in arkansas. About as close we can get to Vintage is "Country Junk and More".

Yee haw.

Electrong · Post by **Electrong** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:37 am

Ozy your comment about the Synthex purchaser buying one as a replacement for not being able to find an OB-Xa makes me wonder: What is your take on the OB-Xa? It seems to straddle the line in a few places regarding "vintage" definitions. For instance the OB-Xa doesn't have as many knobs as the Syntex does. There are probably more differences but I'm not a technician so I would only be relying on hearsay. I am a proud owner of a Mini D though and because of this I wonder about Vintage VS. New analogs, the perceived value versus the functional value of the Mini VS the Voyager, etc. I was in a music store a few months back and tried out a Voyager. I found the interface to be much less intuitive (Could be read: "complicated but more features") than my Mini was.