little phatty stage II vs minimoog v

[JWaltman]

You should really try to arrange a session with an LP. But I have to note 1 thing. It is recommended you have some knowledge (preferably a lot) of substrative synthesis. Although you could just go knob turning/pushing like a maniac of course , but this would diminish the overall experience. On the other hand there's the complete opposite of this, it's a superb synth to learn how to use substrative synthesis!

But as I mentioned above, try to borrow one for a day and use it to replace synth sounds in a song you made. I used to be all digital but this synth is so far above this I can't understand why Moog decided to license their name to arturia. Arturia sure makes nice plugins, but it's far from the real thing.

I do have to say one more thing, I do think it's true power can't be appreciated by someone without a trained ear. This does sound strange, but when trained you'll hear the difference, instead of only thinking it sounds great. For me the difference between analog and virtual wasn't big so I sold all my synths, only to find out years later that is does sound totally different. I think I can be fooled in a va vs analog test (sound to sound) but not when playing one. A LP is an experience, a plugin is useful.

[bigcatrik]

The way I see it, a soft-synth is a tone generator and a Little Phatty is an instrument. I don't even have the same type of fun with my other analog *hardware* synths that I have with the LP. Sure, one knob per function would be fantastic, but the LP is still head and shoulders over my DSI Evolver desktop or Matrix-6R, which not only do not sound Moog-ish but are not fun to tweak. I'm lucky enough to have seen LPs on display at several different stores and standing in front of one of them gave me more playing satisfaction than 5 years of the Evolver or 10 years of softsynths.

Rik

[Johnny_Cradle]

You can do a lot more with a Mini V, but what the phatty can do, it does it so much better. The Phatty always stands out in a mix, it's got a sound that just cannot be touched by software or VA.

I think if someone asks: "what do you mean by making a sound stand out in a mix?" the reply should always be: "Create a song in your computer and record a synth line with your LP and listen" 1st thing I noticed when I got my LP.

I used to use the minimoog v a lot for putting down ideas then re-track the stuff with the LP. The best way to hear the difference is when you re-create a sound of the minimoog v with the LP, it becomes so obvious, except for the polyphony of course.

[nikola]

hey folks, newbie to Moog here.

i've been using my korg microkorg xl to control minimoog v, (vst) through cubase, i just bought the minimoog v vst & i am impressed with the sounds though i'm told they will not compare to the real thing.
i was wondering if the little phatty sage II will have similar sounds to the minimoog v? such as the string & brass sounds?

thanks in advance

forget phatty, it is to expensive! you can buy filtratron, it has a same warm moog filter, and it is cheap

[HowardJones]

Something that's not mentioned a lot when comparing analog to digital sound is the quality of the high frequencies. We like to think of our hardware as sounding phat, but one of the things that strikes me most often when I do play the occasional digital or software synth is the highs are no-where near as musical or nice sounding.

I can't provide any empirical proof of this per se, except that if you have any engineering background you'd be aware of the Nyquist theorum. There's a limit to what frequencies can be made with a specific number of bits, before 'aliasing' occurs. Aliasing here means exactly what it sounds like: fake, incorrect frequencies.

If you were mostly interested in bass sounds for your synth then this wouldn't be as much of a concern for you, although my ears still tell me no matter what software I've tried analog still sounds fatter, chunkier and more musical. I think we all recognise that these are subjective judgements, and there might be times when those aren't the qualities you're looking for.

[Eddison]

I'm a newbie (at moogs anyway lol!) but i've been reading this thread with interest. Musicians are trying to explain what sound differences there are using words between a computer, which is digital, and analog. The analog signal is vastly superior to digital, but suffers from one fatal flaw- noise.
Analog signals are a bit like water. A vast amount of substances can be dissolved into water. So water can carry allot. It can even carry physical dust etc. The analog signal is far richer because it can carry infinite depth of character, only limited by technology.
Digital signal is like fire. It is very quick but has no depth to it. The digital software is catching up with the analog synth signal, but this is because digital signal is being given far more attention, and funding.

If the analog signal was given the same type of research, as the digital signal, there would be much more to analog. But digital signal will never reach the same depth of character. We as humans use the analog signal all the time- our voice. The vocal chords are the oscillator, and the mouth and throat etc are the subtractive filters, cutting off some of the harmonics.
Regarding computer software V's a real analog synth?
Ok, compare the best voice software with a real human voice- something we are experts at. You will always know the computer- it has no emotion.
The moogs got emotion !!!

ed.

[anoteoftruth]

Not to downplay the last post, because I generally do agree with it...

But you can't compare a digital human voice to a organic human voice.. the human voice is similar in fundamentals but waaaaaay more complex than a synthesizer in the tones it utilizes and generates. So I wouldnt call that a great comparison.

But.. I do agree with most of what else you said.

Probably I find is, even know yes, a Moog or any other true analog synth being played in person is huge and fat sounding... many , maybe even most people, use digital interfaces to record and master them... taking away a lot of the fatness you find in person.. and making it sound closer to those VST's and softsynths that people say so often are "catching up".

If we are just comparing sound, then I would say... yes hardware analogs and software VST's are getting closer to sounding like eachother, though not quite there, I think VST's would suffice for most people using them.

But I am a hardware guy, and though it maye be 100X more expensive to go the hardware route.. when you have a full hardware setup, you know, analog synths, tube compressors, analog EQ's, etc... thats when you start feeling a big difference between the hardware you use, and the software.

My 2 cents.

[Eddison]

But you can't compare a digital human voice to a organic human voice

But that's my point- there is no comparison !
The human voice is vastly superior in characteristics than its digital equivalent. It may or may not be a good comparison, but does illustrate the difference between digital simulation, and the real thing.
The analog signal has in theory- infinite resolution.

I'm a hardware person too mainly because of the creative process. Inspiration is very fickle, and 'playing' with the hardware leads to artistic work. The vast majority of musicians would create music 'on the fly' not on a computer in my humble opinion.

ed.

[JWaltman]

Probably I find is, even know yes, a Moog or any other true analog synth being played in person is huge and fat sounding... many , maybe even most people, use digital interfaces to record and master them... taking away a lot of the fatness you find in person.. and making it sound closer to those VST's and softsynths that people say so often are "catching up".

My 2 cents.

I almost always use a digital interface to listen to the phatty, but even then it's way above VA's, but where it really shines is when I listen to it using the headphone output, that's pure analog bliss

[Agostino]

that's not even a question to ask...
The Little Phatty has got an analog engine (yes, VCOs, VCF, VCA...), but the difference is that with the Arturia you can play 3 oscillators, and with the LP "only" 2...
I have both, and the Arturia does not bear comparison with the Moog...

[pluto009]

I wish Moog would sell a MIDI controller without the expensive analog hardware for people like me.

Creamware did that. A Minimoog box with knobs that turn that runs a computer programme. Not bad. I sold mine to buy a Voyager though.

[FlametopFred]

I was dubious at first - every time I played a Phatty at the store - it sounded horrible. The factory presets are terrible - and off putting.

I am glad I got past that and have a Phatty at home now (thanks to CMDAE). From playing this, I am feeling more and more that the Little Phatty is closer in spirit and (fun) playability to the original Minimoog than anything else. I think the Voyager is something different - more along the lines of a Moog IIIC (especially the Voyager XL).

Some will be quick to jump in "But Fred! The Phatty only has two oscillators and the Minimoog has three!"
True.

BUT

Most of the time most users of the Minimoog use Oscillator #3 as an LFO. True? Of course true.
If that is the case, then the Little Phatty is (for all intents and purposes) the New Minimoog.

Which is why I really love it.

I had a Minimoog for 30 years. Great synth. Hands down probably the most significant synthesizer. Ever.

But to my hands, ears, brain and soul - the Little Phatty gives me that same Minimoog experience. Something about it ... goes beyond mere engineering. Moog was always best at making "approachable, accessible, FUN" synthesizers ... and the Phatty is all that.

The Voyager ... sure, fantastic .. I want one. Real bad. But for now ... the Phatty is pretty awesome. Throw away all the factory preset sounds, roll up your analogue sleeves and have your wicked way with that sexy, pouty synth beauty.

[FlametopFred]

one thing that every Moog user learns to love are the weird idiosyncratic elements .... not sure how to explain. You start playing a Minimoog and your hands fall on the knobs ... the sound and control ... full of idiosyncratic elements. The Phatty has those too ... only this time out you can change those - - tailor those to fall into line with what you're trying to accomplish. I love that.

[FlametopFred]

Biggest difference between digital and analogue.
This applies to vinyl records or synthesizers or whatever.

Digital is always small pixels. No matter what. Little square boxes.
Analogue is always a wave.

I think this is the important distinction - because I think that ultimately our ears can hear that difference.
And while digital is good in so many ways, ultimately analogue trumps that - we much more prefer waves over pixels.

just my rambling thoughts

[Sir Nose]

Biggest difference between digital and analogue.
This applies to vinyl records or synthesizers or whatever.

Digital is always small pixels. No matter what. Little square boxes.
Analogue is always a wave.

I think this is the important distinction - because I think that ultimately our ears can hear that difference.
And while digital is good in so many ways, ultimately analogue trumps that - we much more prefer waves over pixels.

just my rambling thoughts

Analog is also very small "pixels" called electrons. A digital square wave is much purer than an analog square wave. Square boxes make great squares. Though, the imperfections from a true square give an analog square wave more character.
I also prefer to play analog synths to digital most of the time, but there are things I can do with digital that I don't think I could with an analog. The smoothness in changing parameters, envelopes, and filtering is what I find better while playing an analog synth.