Any Minimoog owners that also really like the Little Phatty?

[EricK]

Artpunk,
It is possible to look at particular things and tell how functional they are. You might not get a complete idea, but its enough of a starting point from a buyers perspective.

If you see a lack of pots, switches and jacks, that speaks for itself.

Moog isn't going to make something that sounds like crap. The rest is in the interface.

In the end, aesthetics goes the longest way because most times the equipment also looks cool.

Look at Voyagers, in the end they still ahve to choose cabinetry and lights. Or rival camera makers with the same features, you get the unit you think looks the best.

[Voltor07]

What synth cost thousands more than, but didn't sound as good as the phatty?

Probably the Jupiter 80 or Kronos or some other crappy pile of workstation excrement from Roland or Korg.

Yes, top shelf Rolands, both new and old, some Korgs, though I rather like the sounds in the SV-1, which is only hundreds more than a Phatty.

[muksys]

Yes, top shelf Rolands, both new and old, some Korgs, though I rather like the sounds in the SV-1, which is only hundreds more than a Phatty.

Watch it Voltor, don't be bashin old Roland. Juno's and Jupiter's are fantastic synths.

[artpunk]

Artpunk,
It is possible to look at particular things and tell how functional they are. You might not get a complete idea, but its enough of a starting point from a buyers perspective.

If you see a lack of pots, switches and jacks, that speaks for itself.

Moog isn't going to make something that sounds like crap. The rest is in the interface.

In the end, aesthetics goes the longest way because most times the equipment also looks cool.

Look at Voyagers, in the end they still ahve to choose cabinetry and lights. Or rival camera makers with the same features, you get the unit you think looks the best.

Erik, with all due respect, I beg to differ. Aesthetics certainly are one thing, but we are talking about something predominantly made to produce sound. So I personally don't hold much credence in just looking at something, let alone not having a hands on of the way the knobs and switches actually work; which, from what I have read in reviews and seen on video reviews seeem very versatile and well implemented in the Phatty, belying it's apparent simplicity that looking alone might indicate (I don't pay much attention to the sound I hear on online videos, compressed & attenuated through inadequate speakers as they are, at least on my computer)
Also, and most importantly at least to me, looking at something that is predominantly designed to be a sonic instrument that is meant to be heard you will not get any real kind of idea at all, let alone a complete one. Certainly not enough of an idea to make assumptions that lead you to decry said instrument (but then surprise surprise, change your mind once you actually play it and hear it) which is what I was actually discussing with museslave previously.
I am open to any logical and/or rationale explanation that can illuminate to me how not playing & hearing something will give you an idea of how it will sound & play. I grant that perhaps some experienced experts in analogue circuitry, theory & principles of sound generation, subtractive synthesis etc etc and practically designing & constructing instruments over many years, given access to the full schematics and details of the way the instrument is constructed (including the make & nature of each component involved) might, conceivably have some idea in their mind about how an instrument could sound, but that still won't actually be equivalent to how it does sound in real life!
I know (think?) you were talking about buyers making a choice, but what individual is going to plonk dollars down on a musical instrument without listening to it first, basing their buying choice just on looks? As always, I am happy to be proven wrong, my wife delights in doing just that every now & then.

[EricK]

Well we can just disagree then, but I know that if a synthesizer panel has ANY indication of how it functions written blatantly on it, then it's functions become less of a mystery. Our brains are capable of discerning things without full sensory input, but the ultimate test comes when we combine them all.

what individual is going to plonk dollars down on a musical instrument without listening to it first, basing their buying choice just on looks?

I did! I bought the Taurus III sight unseen. I also bought a Carvin 5 string fretless. I bought a crapload of radio equipment that way also. Sometimes, we don't have any choice, especially with Moog or other synth gear. I have struck gold and I have had a dud or two thrown my way. Thats the nature of internet/catalog shopping.


Are you REALLY telling me that you have to hear something first before you can make the determination that it doesn't have all of the features that you would want from it? If it made one beautiful note, but didn't have a single way to modify it or control it, that you couldn't determine that it was limited in nature?

[Voltor07]

Yes, top shelf Rolands, both new and old, some Korgs, though I rather like the sounds in the SV-1, which is only hundreds more than a Phatty.

Watch it Voltor, don't be bashin old Roland. Juno's and Jupiter's are fantastic synths.

I wasn't talking about the Juno 60/106. Have you heard the new Juno line, the new Jupiter line, or seen that idiotic D-Beam? Ugh, god awful! I cannot STAND the Jupiter 80's synth sounds, but it does pianos and organs well.

[muksys]

Yes, top shelf Rolands, both new and old, some Korgs, though I rather like the sounds in the SV-1, which is only hundreds more than a Phatty.

Watch it Voltor, don't be bashin old Roland. Juno's and Jupiter's are fantastic synths.

I wasn't talking about the Juno 60/106. Have you heard the new Juno line, the new Jupiter line, or seen that idiotic D-Beam? Ugh, god awful! I cannot STAND the Jupiter 80's synth sounds, but it does pianos and organs well.

full agreement. If they are going to continue a line, keep it analog! Although, for what it's worth, being digital and all, the SH-201 isn't all that bad.

[museslave]

BTW this relatively minor disagreement you & I are having has nothing to do with the fact that you later changed your mind about the phatty (which some might say reinforces my point about the dangers of decrying anything not experienced) It also isn't about whether I think the Phatty's ok or not for me, (because I DON'T KNOW due to the fact that apart from a few minutes in the shop I haven't experienced it, but I have no doubt it is a very acceptable synth for many users) I was actually initially saying (or trying to say) that any tool is useful in the right hands (ie it's not about the equipment, but who uses it)
Here, I am just responding to let you know that I don't really need you to help me - all the stuff you spouted after offering to 'help me' in my 'misunderstanding' is obvious to anyone who can read and compare spec sheets, (oh, apart from this bit: "a means to deliver Moog to a set of users with less money and less interest in actual synthesis" - really? Less money I can understand, but 'less interest in actual synthesis' is another potentially misguided assumption I would say) Besides which, I don't know how experienced you are, but I have been learning about and playing on synths since the end of the 1970's (yes I am an old bastard, a grumpy old bastard at the moment!) so don't presume to teach me anything please!

Yes, the point of the matter was that I DID make an assumption that turned out to be incorrect... but that assumption wasn't based on a lack of experience, a lack of insight, or a lack of musicianship. It was the result of a general assessment that, despite extensive experience turned out to be wrong. I, as an experienced musician, arrogantly decided that this synth couldn't be good... but I was wrong... and I admitted it. For you to dance in and say "yeah, see? You were wrong..." is a psychological power play. It's like showing up at a fight late and standing over the loser and saying "you LOST! Loser." I had already admitted my failing, and you felt compelled to say "yeahhh, YOU FAILED." It's a pretty standard psychological outcome. The point is: User interface is very important from a creative standpoint... and it's not me saying that.
You're right, you plainly don't need me to help you... but your statement suggested you did, as it was more an attack on what you perceived to be arrogance than it was on my very defendable premise. And that's why I responded in that very assholish way.
As for "interest in actual synthesis," are you suggesting that the Phatty is a synthesist's synthesizer? Or are you merely suggesting that it's possible to engage in full-on synthesis with a Phatty? The point of this thread is comparing it against a Minimoog. Are you asserting that they're equal from a synthesists's standpoint?
If you don't know how experienced I am, perhaps you shouldn't be making assumptions about how experienced I am.
And yes, apparently, we both have been learning about synthesis since the late 70s. Don't just assume that every asshole who makes bold statements here is some inexperienced kid.

Love,
A guy whom Moog has used to demonstrate the functionality of a Phatty.

[artpunk]

Peace! Where did I assume anything about your experience? I said I didn't know how experienced you were, I didn't say you wre less or more experienced than I or anyone else inthis forum. I have aknowledged your honesty, I made no slight against your musicianship, knowledge of the subject at hand or anything to do with your character - i was simply replying to your reponse to let you know I didn't ask or need you to patronise me, which is what I felt you did.

Initially I simply made a statement about how I didn't get how people can judge something without any experience of it, as I see these kind of judgements made all the time and it still astounds me. I was kind of surprised at the response, but believe me my statement wasn't really meant to be a direct atack on you, you just provided the example for my ongoing befuddlement, my apologies if I offended you, which I obviously did. as for my comment on your other assumption about the Phatty being aimed at those who may not be interested in synthesis, well, you can't really know (that people buying a Phatty aren't interested in synthesis) can you? I made no statements about whether the Phatty is a 'synthesists synthesizer' or implied anything about it, I was questioning your assumption! Assumptions make an ASS out of U and Me both, don't you get it?! I didn't think I would really have to explain that...

Erik, yes I suppose some people do buy equipment sight/sound unseeen. I hope you have had more good experiences than duds, me - I can't afford to buy that way.

Now if anyone can actually tell me what is wrong with my line of reasoning about hearing an instrument rather than looking at it or it's specs, instead of taking me to task for raising my points, I will be happy.

As I said before peace to all and sorry to everyone (especially museslave) whom I have unintentionally offended! Also, in case anyone has missed it in the past, read the quote in my signature, Frank says it far better than I ever could!

[EricK]

deleted for flux sake

[thealien666]

Hey Marc (aka Museslave), as much as I enjoy your video reviews of different synths on YouTube under your automaticgainsay account, here's a perfect example of how you can be needlessly sarcastic and arrogant here sometimes. This is a direct quote from you as a reply to a comment made on one of your videos on YT entitled "The Moog Store":

Kingon991 asked, in his comment to you: "Have you ever used a Little Phatty ?", and you replied to him: "Yes! Distinctive sound. Not a bad synth. A great synth for the money."

Which is exactly what you could have simply said about it here, from your very first reply...

Peace...

[museslave]

Hey Marc (aka Museslave), as much as I enjoy your video reviews of different synths on YouTube under your automaticgainsay account, here's a perfect example of how you can be needlessly sarcastic and arrogant here sometimes. This is a direct quote from you as a reply to a comment made on one of your videos on YT entitled "The Moog Store":

Kingon991 asked, in his comment to you: "Have you ever used a Little Phatty ?", and you replied to him: "Yes! Distinctive sound. Not a bad synth. A great synth for the money."

Which is exactly what you could have simply said about it here, from your very first reply...

Peace...

In reviewing my posts, I don't think my point was ever to suggest otherwise in regard to the Phatty as a synth. I think I've been very clear about the fact that I think it is a decent synth. My point here, and perhaps I was a bit obnoxious about it, is that the notion that every synth is objectively equally valuable is not helpful when people are seeking the synth for their needs. We can all agree that what ultimately defines the perfect synth for someone is not necessarily its price or functionality, but that doesn't mean that all synths are equal... and THAT is my point.
As for sarcastic and arrogant... maybe. But it's hard not to be when everything is perfect and instruments don't matter because it's what the user likes that matters... right on the Forum of one of the most expensive and prestigious synthesizer companies. It seems a little disingenuous. If sound and functionality are equal across the board, why hang out at and laud a synthesizer company which is known for its superlative, high-quality, extensive functionality, great-sound synthesizers? You do know that Moog are considered among the best by most, don't you? That being the case, it's weird that people seem to want to downplay that reputation with statements about how everything is cool, and nothing is better than anything else.

[thealien666]

Far from me the idea to suggest that all synths are equal. They are most certainly NOT!
My view is, however, that not everyone needs to play the absolute best or most expensive ones, in order to achieve their goal of creating and recording great music, or just creating crazy interesting sounds with them.
So that is basically my understanding of the meaning of the expression:"to each his own", which you seem to hate so much...

[Kenneth]

As for sarcastic and arrogant... maybe. But it's hard not to be when everything is perfect and instruments don't matter because it's what the user likes that matters... right on the Forum of one of the most expensive and prestigious synthesizer companies. It seems a little disingenuous. If sound and functionality are equal across the board, why hang out at and laud a synthesizer company which is known for its superlative, high-quality, extensive functionality, great-sound synthesizers?

I'm with you here. A lot of people say "it's not the instrument that makes the music, it's the musician", which I completely disagree with. You can't make beautiful music with a saxophone. I don't care who you are, you just can't do it. Now, the saxophone example is subjective, so let's not go off on a tangent here because I know you get my point. Music is not created solely by an instrument, nor is it a musician. I believe it is the alliance, the partnership that a musician has with his instrument that really creates the art. A musician needs to be inspired by his means of creation, as such it is important for the musician to use an instrument he feels synergetic with. How would Beethoven's Symphony no. 1 in C major sound on an SK-1? Now, I like the SK-1, and think it's a cute little keyboard that's fun to tinker with, but you can't expect to get the same results when trying to play something written on an instrument worth upwards of $10k (probably more after Beethoven was through with it). The instrument matters every bit as much as the musician who plays it.

[thealien666]

If, and that's a big IF, the musician "connects" with his instrument, as Bob Moog liked to say, then beautiful music, or sounds, can be created. Even with a saxophone . BUT, we all know that not everyone knows how to do that with one.

So yes, it's the combination of musicianship and the complete knowledge and masterful control of that instrument that can create art. I've seen too often people who could afford to buy a Yamaha CS80, but didn't have a clue as to how to play it, let alone create sounds with it. But the same people could have probably mastered a Casiotone keyboard, and played nice songs with it, albeit with a cheap sounding electric piano-type sound, and be perfectly happy with that.

Synthesizers are tools. And like any other tool, you need to know how to use it to get the best out of it. And you don't necessarily need to most expensive ones, if your only going to use it to renovate your house occasionally. On the other hand, a professional contractor who does renovations for a living, would need such an expensive tool with all the bells and whistles.

I'm primarily a drummer (for over 30 years now), so I know exactly what you mean by "you can't make beautiful music with a (insert an instrument you don't know how to play here)".