Analog Polysynth?

[EricK]

Ive never been a big fan of the Little Phatty and I don't want a rack full of them in order to get polyphony and have to rely on Midi settings and set each one's voice number and not have any cv inputs for any of the voices and have all the patchpoints in the rear of the rack. That just screams PITA to me.

As many people that are out there thinking about picking up old MemoryMoogs or A6's and looking to DSI and Tom Oberheim to fill that empty void, Moog should step in and do what they do best....dominate the industry.

I can do polyphonic synthesis with the Roland Fantom, but theres something about the Fantom that makes it difficult to cut through the mix when there are Moogs involved. I don't know if that has anything to do with the Fantom or my mixer's settings, but the Moog always cuts through perfectly.

And when Moog does announce a poly, I will probably won't preorder. Ill wait for all the first-issue kinks to be finalized, and then pounce.

[museslave]

Most of the people who want an analog polysynth are people who could just as easily multitrack a monosynth. I don't know about you, but I'd rather go to the extra effort of multitracking and save $4K.
If you're a person who wants it for live performance... well, yeah. The good news is that your audience probably isn't going to be able to discern the difference between a Moog and something else... but the people who are brand spotting will. You're out of luck.

[sunny pedaal]

as long as i can hear the difference, a polyphonic moog will be more then welcome.
something like a voyager ( or two or four ) with only an midi + in/out voice expansion box for the voyager would be great and the cheapest solution maybe.
nice little rack and with 7 of them and my voyager ( xl ) i's be fine

[The Analog Organist]

When I think of Moog synthesizers, I immediately hear and see in my mind the Minimoog and the Polymoog. The latter was as unique and distinctive as the former. The classic "Moog sound" has a little more flexibility than some of us appreciate. The Moog sound includes the Moog polyphonic sound. A Polymoog having its filter opened is as identifiable and unforgettable as its monophonic predecessor. But that's not to say the two instruments sound the same, even when played monophonically.

[EricK]

I don't care about brand spotters. If I wanted a 4 voice poly based in a rack, Id get 3 Voyager RMEs simply because they already have voltage inputs and outputs (breakouts) and a knob-per function interface. I don't prefer the Phatty/Taurus interface. From what I understand, its not that easy to poly chain them together though.

Id really rather not have to deal with anything but having a poly in a self contained unit. No voices to mess with, no special key transpositions or settings to mess with, just a dedicated, extended range poly keyboard (by that I mean at least 61 keys, preferably 73) to plug in and play. It's going to be easier to save patches and no potential midi issues.

If Moog doesn't make one, Ill get a Prophet Module or a So4V, or some of those synthesizer.com voice expansion modules when they become available (but the dotcom would defeat the point of it not being rack based).


Multi-tracking is a great solution, but I spent so many years limited to 4 and 8 tracks that I really feel for people with limited usage. I think its not quite as conducive to the creative process to have to layer every note.....but if done correctly sounds fantastic. I did it with the micromoog once (2 voices and an independant solo).

[sunny pedaal]

more rme's will cost a lot of extra money for nothing. just think of all the controlling stuff, the knobs etc . useless as one voyager interface could control all of them.
so to keep the costs ( and space ) as low as possible a "one box with voice expansioncards" would be the best solution to mho.
regarding the midi , i guess a good midi-splitter could be neccesary to reduce " latency "

[museslave]

Again: multitracking=free

[sunny pedaal]

i play keys/ organ / piano and also preferable synthesizer. so multitracking won't do for me

[Kenneth]

Multi tracking, while very cost efficient (if you've already got a monosynth) offers limited expression and is rather clunky when one just wants to let the creative juices flow. I'll often be playing my Phatty and wishing I had just three more voices so I could get nice harmonies going without having to record everything.
Something along the lined of the DSI Tetra would be perfect for me, as I don't think I could work in something like the Prophet into my budget. However, I know there are those that want polyphony in a stand-alone synth. Perhaps having a few varieties available would be best. There could be the Moog Polysynth 61, and then maybe a less expensive keyboardlesd one, and you could customize it as far as how many voices you wanted and so forth. That way Moog could make their polysynth available to more casual musicians as well as those who want to go all the way.

[MC]

Again: multitracking=free

1968 called, they want Wendy Carlos back

[Vince Ascoli]

Every time this comes up, I make the same suggestion (already raised in this thread): I'd love to see Moog make the Voyager equivalent of DSI's PolyEvolver Rack: four voices, minimal front panel, addressable by the Voyager's panel and/or a computer editor/librarian - period. Based on the actual size of the Voyager's internal components, how big & deep would this product have to be, reasonably? The idea of multiple RMEs or Slim Phattys in order to achieve polyphony, really seems like a brute force solution; too much rackfill and redundant hardware. It's better than no option at all, but obviously not a complete or optimal solution.

[Unfiltered]

If Moog were to make a poly, they might as well make a digital synth so long as it sounds good and retains the "Moog sound". In fact I would prefer if they went digital, because a polyphonic analog synth is not that different from a digital synth. I know, I know, all you purist will disagree, but think about it: It's one thing to play multitimbral voices, which basically means playing separate synths together, for which a slim phatty rack would make sense, and another thing completely to play a polyphonic, same voice with chords synth, for which high quality digital oscillators through an analog filter/envelope/mod is extremely close, even indistinguishable from a completely analog synth.
The thing is, that you have the analog purists, that don't want Moog to go digital or build a poly, then you have the so called purists who want a Moog poly but are completely against going digital because "that's not Moog", but I would argue that the modern Moog company has only built monophonic analog synths, and that's what they know best, and their synths are amazing, which I think we can all agree on. I think the company has sacrificed the so called (and completely useless) "purity" of what Moog is all about to make their customers happy, and that is how the slim phatty came about. A slim phatty chain is what everyone has been asking for even if they didn't know it, a relatively low cost polyphonic solution. But that was not enough, now we want an all in one poly machine that cannot possible be any better than a slim phatty chain soncially, but a new enourmous gaudy keyboard that makes the Voyager look like a DX7. Not going to happen folks, the Voyager is the pinnacle of modern analog synthesis, and I doubt any new synth will be made that rivals it in sound or looks.
The polymoog was a happy mistake. They wanted to make a polyphonic keyboard to gain the edge on the market through technology. They failed miserably, but in doing so created an awesome piece of sht that had mad character. They should remake the polymoog keyboard, a preset divide down organ/synth with minimal tweaking possiblilties on the keyboard itself, but allow for digital editing and preset storage.

[sunny pedaal]

the Voyager is the pinnacle of modern analog synthesis, and I doubt any new synth will be made that rivals it in sound or looks.

i agree fully with most you say,
just imagine playing an 8 voice , affordable, voyager.....
you wouldn't settle for a polyphonic phatty instead ,would you ?

[MC]

They should remake the polymoog keyboard, a preset divide down organ/synth with minimal tweaking possiblilties on the keyboard itself, but allow for digital editing and preset storage.

You've obviously never owned a Polymoog and a reissue would be a colossal disappointment as well as a huge step backwards.

[Jonathan G]

I don't see how it would be much of a stretch for Moog to take the guts of 8 Phattys and squish them into a keyboard or 5U rack. Unless they decided to add more features, the daisy-chained Phatty video makes it apparent to me that most of the R & D is already done, so I can't imagine it'd be too much of a financial risk for the company. And if the price tag is a concern, why not follow in the tradition of the Omega 8 and OBM-x and offer cash-strapped users the option of buying a 2-voice version, with the option of adding voices later? Just some thoughts..