I agree the Curtis Filters are weak in comparison to Moog.Voltor07 wrote:The LP is a true analog instrument, whereas DSI utilizes digitally controlled oscillators, and features Curtis filters, which IMO, are weak.
LP Vs. MEK
-
anoteoftruth
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:34 am
- Location: Edmonton, AB
- Contact:
Moog Voyager RME / Moog LP SE 2 / Nord Rack 1 / Microkorg / Korg ER-1 / Triggerfinger / Rocktron Banshee talk box / Ableton live / Guru / Lots of non-electric musical instruments.
-
The Analog Organist
Got Moog? -
In spite of the complexity of the MEK, would you say it has a quality tone? Strip it down to two oscillators using a sawtooth waveform, a medium VCF setting, a little vibrato, and a moderate amount of reverb. Would you describe such a sound on the MEK as being of a high musical quality? Comparable to a Moog quality sound?
In spite of the complexity of the MEK, would you say it has a quality tone? Strip it down to two oscillators using a sawtooth waveform, a medium VCF setting, a little vibrato, and a moderate amount of reverb. Would you describe such a sound on the MEK as being of a high musical quality? Comparable to a Moog quality sound?
The Analog Organist-
To my ears yes, I would say the MEK is very capable of generating tones that are of high musical quality, and while it is not the "Moog" sound it has its own character. Not better, not worse, just different but also bringing it's own style and presence to the table. It certainly is capable of bringing emotion and musicality as part of that character.
To my ears yes, I would say the MEK is very capable of generating tones that are of high musical quality, and while it is not the "Moog" sound it has its own character. Not better, not worse, just different but also bringing it's own style and presence to the table. It certainly is capable of bringing emotion and musicality as part of that character.
Moog Grandmother, Mother 32 (x3), DFAM, Arp Odyssey (Korg)
-
The Analog Organist
Got Moog? -
A very good answer. Now we're at the heart of true music - beauty. It's refreshing to "hear" such language in a forum that is too often content to discuss the super-sophisticated capabilities of modern synthsizers, as if they weren't - first and foremost - musical instruments.
A very good answer. Now we're at the heart of true music - beauty. It's refreshing to "hear" such language in a forum that is too often content to discuss the super-sophisticated capabilities of modern synthsizers, as if they weren't - first and foremost - musical instruments.
Last edited by The Analog Organist on Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
anoteoftruth
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:34 am
- Location: Edmonton, AB
- Contact:
Amen brotha.The Analog Organist wrote:Got Moog? -
A very good answer. Now we're at the heart of true music. It's refreshing to "hear" such language in a forum that is too often content to discuss the super-sophisticated capabilities of modern synthsizers, as if they weren't - first and foremost - musical instruments.
Moog Voyager RME / Moog LP SE 2 / Nord Rack 1 / Microkorg / Korg ER-1 / Triggerfinger / Rocktron Banshee talk box / Ableton live / Guru / Lots of non-electric musical instruments.
-
The Analog Organist
I did finally buy a Mono Evolver Keyboard. I have to say that it's quite a bit better than I had expected. No regrets whatsoever. The general tone is by no means thin, but fairly warm and musical on the analog side. It has tremendous potential for creating a wide palette of sound and looks as sharp as can be. I'm thrilled I picked this instrument. And it's so small and lightweight that I laugh every time I look at it! The MEK is a pion compared to a Voyager.
I don't own a LP, i own a voyager. I also have an MEK, and I love it. I don't think it sounds weak; it is all a matter of what you are going for. If you want the classic sound of the moog filter then go for the LP. If you want something that sounds a bit different than everything else out there (including Sequential circuits synths), then go for the MEK.
The question you should ask yourself is: what type of a sound am i going for?
Then, go from there. I'd also suggest taking an afternoon and visiting your local Guitar Center.
I call the MEK my "Mean Bastard Synth"; cause it's sonic qualities can be mean, piercing, and quite strange. (I love it.)
The sequencer is a ton of fun too
(BTW … this is MHO, i am still a newbie to tweaking)
The question you should ask yourself is: what type of a sound am i going for?
Then, go from there. I'd also suggest taking an afternoon and visiting your local Guitar Center.
I call the MEK my "Mean Bastard Synth"; cause it's sonic qualities can be mean, piercing, and quite strange. (I love it.)
The sequencer is a ton of fun too
(BTW … this is MHO, i am still a newbie to tweaking)
-
The Analog Organist
I believe Dave Smith is going to re-examine each of his instruments and offer potentiometer editions. One day, the Mono Evolver Keyboard's time will come, and those funny little nobs will be replaced with the higher quality ones from the new editions.
The MEK is a fine and versatile instrument. It's not a Moog, but so what. It's a remarkable synthesizer with a beauty all its own, and I'm very happy to have one - encoders and all.
I do think there's been too much whining about those encoders. I gave mine the deoxit treatment, and they're working fine again. Although they do require a little extra turning, they're wonderful for smoothness and precision. Whereas, with the Potentiometer Edition, it's very easy to miss your parameter mark, so that you have to go back and forth before you can hit the exact digit that you want. As a result, I find myself using the +/Yes/-/No Param buttons much more than I ever did with the Encoder Edition.
The MEK is a fine and versatile instrument. It's not a Moog, but so what. It's a remarkable synthesizer with a beauty all its own, and I'm very happy to have one - encoders and all.
I do think there's been too much whining about those encoders. I gave mine the deoxit treatment, and they're working fine again. Although they do require a little extra turning, they're wonderful for smoothness and precision. Whereas, with the Potentiometer Edition, it's very easy to miss your parameter mark, so that you have to go back and forth before you can hit the exact digit that you want. As a result, I find myself using the +/Yes/-/No Param buttons much more than I ever did with the Encoder Edition.
Last edited by The Analog Organist on Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is an interesting point...one that I have been witness to with my LP. For a MIDI user, potentiometers just don't make sense. However, for analog purists, such as myself, encoders don't do the sound or functionality any justice. I certainly see where the encoders would be preferred over the potentiometers, but for my intents and purposes, it's what turned me away from DSI.The Analog Organist wrote:Whereas, with the Potentiometer Editions, it's very easy to miss your parameter mark, so that you have to go back and forth before you can hit the exact digit that you want.
Respectfully,
Voltor
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.
-
peterkadar
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:04 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I have a LPte, a Voyager RME, and a Prophet '08SE with the pot upgrade recently installed.
I was having problems with the encoders on my Prophet, but now that I have the pots installed, it feels much more like a vintage instrument. I do feel more connected to the sound. Also, I must disagree with The Analog Organist... I found I overshot parameters with the encoders, but now, the more I play it and tweak it, the closer I get to what I'm after by feel. Plus, the detented encoders are a great help for the specific numbers when needed.
I'd probably get a MEK when/if they come out with a pot edition. And a Tetra for when I don't want to bring the Prophet to gigs.
The prophet is awesome! It sounds great, and the oscillators can be stacked to high heaven and detuned. I'd put that up against my LP and Voyager any day. You'd never be wanting for more. Plus, it's a decent 5 octave velocity/aftertouch sensitive keyboard, and it's lightweight and easy to use. Almost perfect. And make no mistake, it can get REAL funky.
However, there is a certain mojo I get from the Moogs, not just in the interface, but in the sound as well. It still has a center to the sound - especially the Voyager - that no other gear can fully replicate. In terms of the interface... I just feel closer to my Moogs - all of them - from the get go.
The Prophet is an amazing value and sounds great. It can also be an amazing mono synth at the touch of a button.
The Moogs have a quality to them that makes me feel connected... a soul perhaps. I guess it'd be how a master violinist would feel playing a hand crafted stradivarius passed down through the generations, or the difference between sitting down at a really great Yamaha grand piano, and then playing on a hand made Bosendorfer or a Fazioli.
Plus, they sound funkier than Rick James eating a dead stripper.
Happy Holidays,
Peter
I was having problems with the encoders on my Prophet, but now that I have the pots installed, it feels much more like a vintage instrument. I do feel more connected to the sound. Also, I must disagree with The Analog Organist... I found I overshot parameters with the encoders, but now, the more I play it and tweak it, the closer I get to what I'm after by feel. Plus, the detented encoders are a great help for the specific numbers when needed.
I'd probably get a MEK when/if they come out with a pot edition. And a Tetra for when I don't want to bring the Prophet to gigs.
The prophet is awesome! It sounds great, and the oscillators can be stacked to high heaven and detuned. I'd put that up against my LP and Voyager any day. You'd never be wanting for more. Plus, it's a decent 5 octave velocity/aftertouch sensitive keyboard, and it's lightweight and easy to use. Almost perfect. And make no mistake, it can get REAL funky.
However, there is a certain mojo I get from the Moogs, not just in the interface, but in the sound as well. It still has a center to the sound - especially the Voyager - that no other gear can fully replicate. In terms of the interface... I just feel closer to my Moogs - all of them - from the get go.
The Prophet is an amazing value and sounds great. It can also be an amazing mono synth at the touch of a button.
The Moogs have a quality to them that makes me feel connected... a soul perhaps. I guess it'd be how a master violinist would feel playing a hand crafted stradivarius passed down through the generations, or the difference between sitting down at a really great Yamaha grand piano, and then playing on a hand made Bosendorfer or a Fazioli.
Plus, they sound funkier than Rick James eating a dead stripper.
Happy Holidays,
Peter
-
The Analog Organist
Unpopular Opinion
Now that I finally have a Prophet '08 Potentiometer Edition (in addition to the PEK PE), I want to re-state the unpopular opinion: I certainly like the PE instruments, but I don't find them overwhelmingly better than the Standard Editions with endless encoders. I must have had a rather recently produced Prophet SE that had nice firm nobs on the panel. My new Prophet PE has nobs that are only a little firmer. I haven't settled on which potentiometer mode I prefer, but several times now, while programming, I've actually missed the encoders.
As for the lines on the PE parameter nobs, there's something of a fantasy about them. To state the very obvious, they only reflect a parameter position in the program you're using IF you've just used that parameter. In no way can they reflect the parameters on other programs, but only work as a guide for the time being on the program you're adjusting. For this reason, I consider them to be only slightly better than the endless encoders.
The primary potentiometers that I find to be substantial improvements are the detented ones. But there are only two of these - Param 1 and Param 2! I would have preferred many more. It seems to me this would not have caused digital stepping on sensitive parameters, such as the low pass filter frequency, and would have avoided the problem of passing the digit you're looking for. Again, this happens to me often, so that I resort to the Param buttons for single stepping.
The main gripe about the encoders obviously concerned the erratic jumpimg. That truly was a flaw. But I gave the deoxit treatment to my old SE, and now it works almost flawlessly. And yet, on my new PE I've already noticed a little digit jumping of its own!
Let me be clear: I'm absolutely thrilled with the Prophet '08 synthesizer in general. Whichever edition, I think it sounds beautiful and is a pleasure to play and program. I also think the mono/unison mode has not been sufficiently appreciated (with the exception of the above "peterkadar"). I'm quite happy to use two Prophet '08's simultaneously - one as a poly, the other as a mono. But I thought I'd put in a few kind words for the older SE model which, if not perfect, is still superb, even compared with the newer PE model.
Regardles, in my opinion the ideal design is always going to be the Minimoog. After all, I still prefer the somewhat crude and simple in synthesizers, whether it's a Model D or a Voyager Old School. Windows, LED's, menus, editors - you can keep 'em. Give me a panel full of large lined dials that can all be turned and function SIMULTANEOUSLY, without the need for a little window to register them. I only wish Moog produced a three-oscillator eight-voice synthesizer that reflected the Old School design. Oh well...I guess that's why we have the Prophet '08.
A BLESSED CHRISTMAS to everyone!
As for the lines on the PE parameter nobs, there's something of a fantasy about them. To state the very obvious, they only reflect a parameter position in the program you're using IF you've just used that parameter. In no way can they reflect the parameters on other programs, but only work as a guide for the time being on the program you're adjusting. For this reason, I consider them to be only slightly better than the endless encoders.
The primary potentiometers that I find to be substantial improvements are the detented ones. But there are only two of these - Param 1 and Param 2! I would have preferred many more. It seems to me this would not have caused digital stepping on sensitive parameters, such as the low pass filter frequency, and would have avoided the problem of passing the digit you're looking for. Again, this happens to me often, so that I resort to the Param buttons for single stepping.
The main gripe about the encoders obviously concerned the erratic jumpimg. That truly was a flaw. But I gave the deoxit treatment to my old SE, and now it works almost flawlessly. And yet, on my new PE I've already noticed a little digit jumping of its own!
Let me be clear: I'm absolutely thrilled with the Prophet '08 synthesizer in general. Whichever edition, I think it sounds beautiful and is a pleasure to play and program. I also think the mono/unison mode has not been sufficiently appreciated (with the exception of the above "peterkadar"). I'm quite happy to use two Prophet '08's simultaneously - one as a poly, the other as a mono. But I thought I'd put in a few kind words for the older SE model which, if not perfect, is still superb, even compared with the newer PE model.
Regardles, in my opinion the ideal design is always going to be the Minimoog. After all, I still prefer the somewhat crude and simple in synthesizers, whether it's a Model D or a Voyager Old School. Windows, LED's, menus, editors - you can keep 'em. Give me a panel full of large lined dials that can all be turned and function SIMULTANEOUSLY, without the need for a little window to register them. I only wish Moog produced a three-oscillator eight-voice synthesizer that reflected the Old School design. Oh well...I guess that's why we have the Prophet '08.
A BLESSED CHRISTMAS to everyone!
-
peterkadar
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:04 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I agree with much of what The Analog Organist mentioned 2 posts back.
I had the Pot Upgrade installed on my SE Prophet, but what I failed to mention - and what The Analog Organist reminded me of - is the usefulness of the detented encoders. There were several spots like the modulation matrix and LFO waveform selection where I thought they would be better than the smooth ones. So when I ordered my upgrade, I ordered 8 additional detented encoders and had them installed in place of some of the rotary encoders. It worked great and makes selection of individual values a cinch. Now I have the best of both worlds; pots where I want sweeps, and detented encoders just about everywhere else.
I should clarify: the detented encoders work only where they were still rotary encoders AFTER the upgrade. I didn't try replacing any of the pots with detented encoders.
I had the Pot Upgrade installed on my SE Prophet, but what I failed to mention - and what The Analog Organist reminded me of - is the usefulness of the detented encoders. There were several spots like the modulation matrix and LFO waveform selection where I thought they would be better than the smooth ones. So when I ordered my upgrade, I ordered 8 additional detented encoders and had them installed in place of some of the rotary encoders. It worked great and makes selection of individual values a cinch. Now I have the best of both worlds; pots where I want sweeps, and detented encoders just about everywhere else.
I should clarify: the detented encoders work only where they were still rotary encoders AFTER the upgrade. I didn't try replacing any of the pots with detented encoders.