Moog Music Forum

jrlaudio wrote:As far as a Taurus goes, while Moog recently got the trademark renewed on the "Taurus" name, I think they would be better off developing a midi pedal board that is intended for use with the Phatty and the current Voyager line. A full blown, self-contained pedal board like a Taurus would be a losing proposition for them since these days it would be simply outside most modern day musical applications. Besides a good midi pedal board and a Phatty would be more than equivalent to an original Taurus and cost about the same as a new self-contained Taurus would.

While I agree on the concept of separate pedal controller and synth module, neither the Voyager or LP would do justice to the original Taurus. I have done A/B comparisions and my Taurus pedals have that low end OOMPH that I have yet to hear from another Moog product. And it's not just a bass EQ boost either. The Taurus has some unique features like the AC coupling between the VCF/VCA and the feedback system on the ladder filter. These are just a couple of reasons why they sound so big and why that "Taurus" sound has been elusive. I have told this to the Moog crew for years (no I do not know of their product plans).

eweise wrote:They should really expand on the little phatty. Maybe add the same functionality as the voyager (3rd osc etc) but keep the LP interface. I think they went the wrong direction trying to make a cheaper voyager by getting rid of the midi and presets. I'm sure they could have come in under $2000 by putting a full blown voyager (maybe without the pad control) into a LP box instead.

Well, I'm afraid they're going to add tons of functions that are only accessible through buried menus 20,000 leagues deep because they can. Oh, I'm sure most of us want these & we'll certainly take whatever we can get. What I don't like about other products is that they'll give you say, 20 functions & 4 buttons to get at them.

"Hold this button down during power-up, press these buttons in this 7-sequence order to toggle something arcanely simple, hold these two buttons down & then press these 2 in rapid succession, wait .25 seconds, then hit these other 2". Where does it end?

A knob per function isn't too bad an alternative is it? Maybe, just maybe design 'em in from the get go.

Id buy a new set of taurus pedals, if it was FAAAAAAT sounding waveshapes. I don't think I would have the need to buy something like that if it took over the synth that I already want to control upstairs with my hands.

Im thinking more of the "Constellation" having a dedicated lead and a dedicated bass pedals with a polyphonic, though im not arguing for polyphany on this thread hehe.

See, Im not a great player with my feet at this time. Id want a pedal with many outputs to control something seperate from th Voyager. I want to have the voyager doing what it does and something else for my feet to do like controlling something totally different or producing a tone that is worthwhile enough for me to justify the fundage to get it.

Thats just my two pisos.

EricK

How about a rack mount edition for the Voyager OS with the patch points on the front panel...

Many synths are AC coupled between the VCF and VCA.
The Minimoog is, for example.
It helps eliminate thumping.
(same for it's input as well.)

The feedback system on the T1 is a bit unique, but only because they needed to make it programmable (or at least, presettable.)
The filter itself isn't even 100% discrete like a Minimoogs.
There's ICs in there. The Mini is all transistor.

My personal take on why the T1 sounds so good is the way the VCOs are mixed and the fact that they're linear tracking versions, not 1v/oct types like so many other synths.
The beat rate up and down the pedalboard is more constant, so the big rolling sound doesn't change "tempo" as you play other notes.

That's my take on why it's unique anyways.

Kevin Lightner wrote:Many synths are AC coupled between the VCF and VCA.
The Minimoog is, for example.
It helps eliminate thumping.

Yeah but the Taurus AC coupling has an inherent 20hz corner boost which contributes to its... oomph (sorry)

The feedback system on the T1 is a bit unique, but only because they needed to make it programmable (or at least, presettable.)
The filter itself isn't even 100% discrete like a Minimoogs.
There's ICs in there. The Mini is all transistor.

True, but the CA3080 OTA recovery amp in the feedback loop has a pretty low density of transistors. 3080s have current inputs (not voltage) and current output driver. You can get away with fewer transistors than a voltage domain OTA so by design the 3080 has fewer transistors on the substrate. It also interfaces better with the current control of the ladder. The 3080 is the only IC in the filter circuit (not counting the CMOS MUX), so it is almost discrete.

My personal take on why the T1 sounds so good is the way the VCOs are mixed and the fact that they're linear tracking versions, not 1v/oct types like so many other synths.
The beat rate up and down the pedalboard is more constant, so the big rolling sound doesn't change "tempo" as you play other notes.

I can duplicate the constant beat rate with v/oct VCOs if I set the scaling right. I've heard the v/hz argument but am not convinced that is unique. My PAiA 4700 modular had V/hz VCOs but it don't sound nuttin' like the Taurus. The VCO mixing, gotta think about that one.

No apologies necessary, however if it has boost at 20hz, then it *does* have some bass eq present.

In regards to ICs vs discrete, my issue with them is not transistor count.
All opamps are just a bunch of discrete components when broken down.
My point is that they're all on the same substrate.
I would also consider a transistor array to be an IC because it's in an IC package with one substrate as opposed to several separate packages with no shared substrate.

To me anyways, as transistor arrays and IC's came in, the Moog sound kind of left.
A Minimoog and Moog Modular have the same basic ladder design as later Moog filters, but arguably sound better than a Moog Rogue or Prodigy (just two examples.)

The linear issue I raised was that scaling doesn't need to be adjusted on a T1 to achieve this and one wouldn't expect most users to go inside to tweek their synths anyways.
The T1 linear vcos inherently have this quality, while one has to tweek other vcos to get close.

Paia VCOs are actually very close to Moog 901s.
Compare the schemos and you'll notice how close they really are.

Btw, I made an error above about the 3080 and programmed resonance.
I meant the analog switch IC. At least that's what I was thinking anyways.

I have a lot more against putting a cmos part in the feedback loop than I do a 3080 as the output stage.

nathan wrote:!!yes!!
ribbon and/or X/Y-controller!!

I agree with this also. I would really like to see a new stand-alone touch-pad, like the old big briar one. I think it's the same pad as on the normal voyager (and left off of the RME and OS). They could just slap it into a wooden box with cv in/outs.

They could just slap it into a wooden box with cv in/outs.

Yeah, moog could just slap that puppy in there.
Oh and just slap in a power supply.
And slap in the CPU board that reads it all.
Slap in some new software and some slapped on graphics.
Then slap out a new owners manual after the testers have slapped it around.
When they slap you with a tall price tag, you can slap yourself instead.

(All in jest. No slapping!)

How about they make a version of the Voyager "Old School" except they include the touchpad, a digital memory and then add the option of a few certian types of woods?

Maybe they could even offer a backlit panel in a choise of different colors.

E

After looking at the poll, I noticed that number 1 was a poly synth and number 2 was for a "more affordable" synth.....

And I jokingly thought to myself, LOL, "What? A 'more affordable' synth? Next we'll have the 'Little Phatty OS' "

Unless they did something like that the only other option I see (for #2 in the poll) would be a "Little Phatty RME"... Which I might actually buy!

I really want a Voyager but also like the LP but have limited space now so such a synth would be ideal, for me anyway.

I would love a bank of drum synth foogers and a sequencer...

misterhemi wrote:After looking at the poll, I noticed that number 1 was a poly synth and number 2 was for a "more affordable" synth.....

And I jokingly thought to myself, LOL, "What? A 'more affordable' synth? Next we'll have the 'Little Phatty OS' "

Unless they did something like that the only other option I see (for #2 in the poll) would be a "Little Phatty RME"... Which I might actually buy!

I really want a Voyager but also like the LP but have limited space now so such a synth would be ideal, for me anyway.

The LP just rocks. And didn't the poll go up in like Oct '2005? Before the LP came out?

-bruce

misterhemi wrote:"What? A 'more affordable' synth? Next we'll have the 'Little Phatty OS' "

I'm still 99% sure that an "old school" knob-per-function Little Phatty would cost more than the LP Stage Edition. It would need at least 21 knobs, four or five rotary switches... that stuff adds up. With the Voyager OS it already had the knobbage and you only had to take things out (and design new panel boards, and some other R&D challenges) but with the LP you would have to add so much in, just to strip it down to the Old School level. Kinda funny, in a way. Boy that would be a good sounding lil' synth though.

Maybe a boutique, super-special edition: knob-per-function LP with discrete transistor filter. What the hey, give it a pratt-reed keyboard while we're at it... I'll work on that in my copious free time.